- 19,057
- 9,030
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2013
exactly. Makes no sense tb3s were 220 and the 15s are 190
FOAMPOSITE DISCUSSION Nike Air Foamposite One SWOOSH ALL OVER DEC192019
- Thread in 'Nike Retro' Thread starter Started by gamerg,
- Start date
- 3,084
- 5,863
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2014
Yep not only those, True Flights were 140, AJ7s are 190. Same shoe pretty much
View media item 2311330
View media item 2311331
5
56250
Guest
To see the whole picture of inflation/ price increase you also need to consider material cost/ labor cost/ unit cost/ shipping cost and also the markup which Nike allows Footlocker and the other chains. Maybe in 1997 it was 2.5 and now it is only 1.8, I do not think the customers, so we will find out about that, but since the customer is king, I am sure that Nike and the retailers have swallowed a lot of the cost increase, thus making sure that the price increase is not getting out of control. If all cost increases would have been transferred to the customer, then who knows what a Foam One would cost now. Maybe over 300 by now.
After 2008 for example there was a big drop in shipping costs up until 2013/ 2014, then it rose steadliy.
Wages are increasing annually in China, even up to 20% according to governmental law.
And now there is the new president and that 30% floating around....it is going to be interesting!
After 2008 for example there was a big drop in shipping costs up until 2013/ 2014, then it rose steadliy.
Wages are increasing annually in China, even up to 20% according to governmental law.
And now there is the new president and that 30% floating around....it is going to be interesting!
- 9,606
- 13,357
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2009
Lol man.
Look at the bigger picture and not the tiny one.
Do you think that athletes signed to Nike got paid the same in 1997 as they do in 2017?
Do you think marketing costs the same in 1997 as it does in 2017?
Do you think employment for ALL of their US based employees and overseas employees cost the same in 1997 as in 2017?
Do you think the materials to make the shoes and other products costs the same as in 1997 compared to 2017?
Inflation - is "across the board".
That is THE bigger and ONLY picture when comparing this.
The "mark up prices is ridiculous" comment is worn out and generally used by people not looking at the entire picture.
Lebron signed a BILLION dollar life contract.....
Last edited:
- 3,084
- 5,863
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2014
Nike doesn't use leather like they did 20 years ago, and when it they do it's at a Premium, $150 AF1 Lows. But $220 for AJ11s and $190 for 12s in hype considering when 12 came out a year after 11a they were actually $25 more. And Nike only pay those big contracts because they know people will pay top dollar for the sponsored product. Still little to do with inflation.
Inflation doesn't work like that.
If a pair of Nikes cost $10 to make in 1997, they might cost $15 to make in 2016.
However this doesn't make you feel good so keep thinking that inflation should be applied to the retail price and not the actual cost of making the product.
If a pair of Nikes cost $10 to make in 1997, they might cost $15 to make in 2016.
However this doesn't make you feel good so keep thinking that inflation should be applied to the retail price and not the actual cost of making the product.
bigj505
Staff member
- 42,582
- 21,771
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2007
Can't wait til the thread returns to normal. Prices have been this way for foams for years now. It's nothing new.
- 5,039
- 1,215
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2014
Agree on this. The price didn't suddenly jump to $230 for this retro. It was already there.
Now the real question is, why didn't Nike do more for this release? No special box or apparel. Missed opportunity.
bigj505
Staff member
- 42,582
- 21,771
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2007
I think Nike hasn't been going hard on apparel for non Jordan stuff for a min now.
Like they dropped the Griffey 1 retros in OG colors for his hall of fame year and didn't have the gear to go with it either.
And I do kick myself for not going in on the copper penny gear back in the day. I was so confident that I would catch it at the outlets
- 259
- 233
- Joined
- May 18, 2012
Yeah, Air Go LWP. I thought with the "????" you were asking why they were in the pic, if they were worn by that other Hardaway guy lol
- 970
- 167
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2013
First impulse buy of the year and copped a 10.5 from KicksUSA. Hopefully I don't get any cancellation BS.
- 799
- 846
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2013
Copped another pair from Undefeated.
"Please allow up to 5 business days for order processing and verification, and an additional 7-10 business days for delivery."
"Please allow up to 5 business days for order processing and verification, and an additional 7-10 business days for delivery."
- 3,569
- 2,468
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2016
No, I put the question marks because I was a little surprised to see you had those.....I'm jelly lol
Also, Nike is a company that sells a product to the public. Believe it or not, they can charge however much they want for that product, it's their right. No one said you had to buy it. If you don't like the price, or product you get for it, don't purchase it. Honestly, I think that is steep for a pair of shoes, that's why I don't spend it often. I swear I feel like some people forget they have the power.......
Last edited:
- 21,631
- 10,249
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2007
I need to take pictures but does anyone else's 2017 pair have stains on the upper?
I plan to return my size 11
I plan to return my size 11
- 47
- 49
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2013
Im in a dilemma and need yall help. If you only had enough money to get one pair of shoes, which one would you get between these 2? View media item 2311404Or
View media item 2311405
View media item 2311405
EddieWinslow1983
formerly piczon1983
- 2,067
- 390
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2007
Royals............EASY
- 799
- 846
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2013
Yep, Royals no question at all.
bigj505
Staff member
- 42,582
- 21,771
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2007
hoodmusikent
can't go wrong with either.
- 47
- 49
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2013
Royals no doubt is a beautiful shoe. Them green goblins is rare though and beautiful as well. Probably will never release like that again. The royals I might can get later. Idk... decisions decisions.
Last edited:
- 1,495
- 412
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2008
For whatever reason, I keep analyzing these xx's. Shape looks almost the same as varsity reds which is fine to me. The more I look at them, I don't think the color is an issue, it's the finish. 07 royals look rich, these not as much... The reds have a nicer finish too, the shine is awesome imo. Its like comparing a semi gloss finish to an eggshell. Only other foams I have are cough drops and they have the richer finish too. They still look hard on foot but after waiting all this time for a pair I'm a little disappointed.
View media item 2311427
View media item 2311427
Last edited:
- 7,857
- 4,104
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2004
finally my item is on the truck
- 582
- 1,453
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2016
Same here. It.s been quite some time since I.ve had to wait for an order from SNKRS or NDC this long. Considering the release date got bumped up, I suppose I.m still getting them sooner than I would have. It.s just an odd situation on the part of UPS as to why all these orders got delayed on moving. Wonder if it was just isolated to this release/shoe only?
- 5,039
- 1,215
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2014
Wore them yesterday and wearing again today.
I swear they felt better yesterday. Right heel area specifically. The zoom is definitely compressing more.
I swear they felt better yesterday. Right heel area specifically. The zoom is definitely compressing more.
5
56250
Guest
The Met Reds must be more glossy, the royal is a uni color, so not that shiny.
So automatically the Met Reds have a nicer finish!
- 13,538
- 10,481
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2012
Royals
