Give/Show examples of the decline of quality in Jordan retros...

[bigj505]

Originally Posted by 23M45J9

Originally Posted by bigj505

Originally Posted by Ak1ck54l1f3R

Times change and you shouldn't expect highest quality from mass produced shoes, if you notice the really low volume shoes like the premio line has UNBELIEVABLE materials. Buy companies like Lanvin, Common Projects, Louis Vuitton, Gucci, maybe even Christian Louboutin if you really want to. But all you should expect from high volume shoes is colorways and a general adherence to the old in terms of looks and materials. Not quality.

   Ak1ck54l1f3R is right... if all you guys do is complain about the quality of JB shoes, don't BUYT the shoes.

 

[theshoeking23]

Comcast.com had a topic about inflation, and they wrote that if you factor in the average inflation rate on anything, Nike is cheaper than expected. So they are prob actually using material that cost the same as 15-20 years ago, the quality of that material has decresed to keep the price from going up...



From the inflation calculator

What cost $125 in 1991 would cost $194.43 in 2009.
Also, if you were to buy exactly the same products in 2009 and 1991,
they would cost you $125 and $76.82 respectively.


How could they use better material with numbers like that and still keep the price point they need to be at? They cant

 

[theshoeking23]

Comcast.com had a topic about inflation, and they wrote that if you factor in the average inflation rate on anything, Nike is cheaper than expected. So they are prob actually using material that cost the same as 15-20 years ago, the quality of that material has decresed to keep the price from going up...



From the inflation calculator

What cost $125 in 1991 would cost $194.43 in 2009.
Also, if you were to buy exactly the same products in 2009 and 1991,
they would cost you $125 and $76.82 respectively.


How could they use better material with numbers like that and still keep the price point they need to be at? They cant

 

[young christin]

there are no excuses for crappy quality period

 

[young christin]

there are no excuses for crappy quality period

 

[young christin]

no excuses for crappy and expensive retros

 

[young christin]

no excuses for crappy and expensive retros

 

[lildawgryan]

You couldn't of said it better yourself....

Young Christin wrote:


there are no excuses for crappy quality period

Well actually you could...

Young Christin wrote:

no excuses for crappy and expensive retros

 

[lildawgryan]

You couldn't of said it better yourself....

Young Christin wrote:


there are no excuses for crappy quality period

Well actually you could...

Young Christin wrote:

no excuses for crappy and expensive retros

 

[ninjahood]

Originally Posted by notoriusWES

Originally Posted by zapatohead408

Originally Posted by notoriusWES

Originally Posted by zapatohead408

back in the day jordans were to ball in, it seems as if now they starting to make them for casual wear

Why would you ball in 1991 tech shoes anyway?

I'm not saying to ball in "1991 tech shoes" I'm just stating that in the years when Mike was playing they were made for the purpose of basketball.
I'm saying all these retros are being made to wear casually

Thats because they shouldnt be used to hoop in now...unless its a newer model

Originally Posted by notoriusWES

Originally Posted by zapatohead408

back in the day jordans were to ball in, it seems as if now they starting to make them for casual wear

Why would you ball in 1991 tech shoes anyway?

because that was your only choice back in 91

I meant in the year of 2010 why would you wanna hoop in a shoe with tech from soooo many years ago

so what..they should last just da way they did...i mean if reebok can make identical copies of they OGs i expect nike to do da same.

 

[ninjahood]

Originally Posted by notoriusWES

Originally Posted by zapatohead408

Originally Posted by notoriusWES

Originally Posted by zapatohead408

back in the day jordans were to ball in, it seems as if now they starting to make them for casual wear

Why would you ball in 1991 tech shoes anyway?

I'm not saying to ball in "1991 tech shoes" I'm just stating that in the years when Mike was playing they were made for the purpose of basketball.
I'm saying all these retros are being made to wear casually

Thats because they shouldnt be used to hoop in now...unless its a newer model

Originally Posted by notoriusWES

Originally Posted by zapatohead408

back in the day jordans were to ball in, it seems as if now they starting to make them for casual wear

Why would you ball in 1991 tech shoes anyway?

because that was your only choice back in 91

I meant in the year of 2010 why would you wanna hoop in a shoe with tech from soooo many years ago

so what..they should last just da way they did...i mean if reebok can make identical copies of they OGs i expect nike to do da same.

 

[anomaly]

Originally Posted by TheShoeKing23

Comcast.com had a topic about inflation, and they wrote that if you factor in the average inflation rate on anything, Nike is cheaper than expected. So they are prob actually using material that cost the same as 15-20 years ago, the quality of that material has decresed to keep the price from going up...

From the inflation calculator

What cost $125 in 1991 would cost $194.43 in 2009.
Also, if you were to buy exactly the same products in 2009 and 1991,
they would cost you $125 and $76.82 respectively.

How could they use better material with numbers like that and still keep the price point they need to be at? They cant

Because you're not paying for the material when you buy ANY product (not just shoes) so much as the cost that went into coming up with/creating the product.  I addressed this in the "Why the sneaker game will never be the same" thread...

Originally Posted by Anomaly

I've also mentioned several times why the "inflation" argument doesn't work when applied to retro Air Jordans.  You have to remember that the price for the originals included paying designers to come up with the design, the cost of producing initial batches/samples for research and development (trying a variety of materials, testing durability and comfort over and over again, reworking the molds for each improvement, etc), THEN comes the final costs of producing the molds, purchasing the materials, etc for the final version of the product.  With retros, this last part is the only thing to factor into the cost of producing the shoes.  Designing, researching and developing, testing, etc were all done a decade or 2 ago, and should no longer be taken into consideration for final cost of product.  All they have to worry about now is reproducing the molds, getting the materials, and paying someone $.80/day to put them together.  Factor in that they're cutting even more corners by using lower quality materials, and shaving off some of the more expensive trim, and you've damn near matched the cost of materials from a decade ago.  In other words, they could maintain the original $125 price tag of the shoes today, and make even MORE than they did when they were new due to the development costs being nearly non-existent for retros, and the cutting of corners on materials and trim.

Notice when they first started retroing shoes, the price tags were pretty close to the originals, if not exactly the same, even though a decade or more had gone by in many instances (so there was already inflation over what the USD was worth when the originals came out).  This is especially true for the Is, IIs, etc.  Despite being at original MSRP, they still didn't sell well.  On the other hand, those shoes that DID sell well, or had people foaming at the mouth for their release, carried a higher price tag than the originals that slowly crept up with each release/rerelease of that shoe.  What does this suggest?  The higher price tags are there on the more popular shoes ONLY because they know they can get away with it, not because of inflation.  JB learned very quickly how much they could charge for each shoe.  YOU guys determine the prices, not inflation.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Originally Posted by bigj505

Originally Posted by 23M45J9

Originally Posted by bigj505

Originally Posted by Ak1ck54l1f3R

Times change and you shouldn't expect highest quality from mass produced shoes, if you notice the really low volume shoes like the premio line has UNBELIEVABLE materials. Buy companies like Lanvin, Common Projects, Louis Vuitton, Gucci, maybe even Christian Louboutin if you really want to. But all you should expect from high volume shoes is colorways and a general adherence to the old in terms of looks and materials. Not quality.

   Ak1ck54l1f3R is right... if all you guys do is complain about the quality of JB shoes, don't BUYT the shoes.

As I said directly above AK1's comment.....

Originally Posted by Anomaly

We have become a throw awaysociety, and the major companies are laughing all the way to the bankoff of it.  Ignorance of today's youth to history is exactly why this is possible.  You're sittinghere, defending companies who are OPENLY f*cking you over instead ofbeing outraged and protesting.  People really need to get over theautomatic assumption that "newer is better", and wake up to what's happening in this country.

 

[anomaly]

Originally Posted by TheShoeKing23

Comcast.com had a topic about inflation, and they wrote that if you factor in the average inflation rate on anything, Nike is cheaper than expected. So they are prob actually using material that cost the same as 15-20 years ago, the quality of that material has decresed to keep the price from going up...

From the inflation calculator

What cost $125 in 1991 would cost $194.43 in 2009.
Also, if you were to buy exactly the same products in 2009 and 1991,
they would cost you $125 and $76.82 respectively.

How could they use better material with numbers like that and still keep the price point they need to be at? They cant

Because you're not paying for the material when you buy ANY product (not just shoes) so much as the cost that went into coming up with/creating the product.  I addressed this in the "Why the sneaker game will never be the same" thread...

Originally Posted by Anomaly

I've also mentioned several times why the "inflation" argument doesn't work when applied to retro Air Jordans.  You have to remember that the price for the originals included paying designers to come up with the design, the cost of producing initial batches/samples for research and development (trying a variety of materials, testing durability and comfort over and over again, reworking the molds for each improvement, etc), THEN comes the final costs of producing the molds, purchasing the materials, etc for the final version of the product.  With retros, this last part is the only thing to factor into the cost of producing the shoes.  Designing, researching and developing, testing, etc were all done a decade or 2 ago, and should no longer be taken into consideration for final cost of product.  All they have to worry about now is reproducing the molds, getting the materials, and paying someone $.80/day to put them together.  Factor in that they're cutting even more corners by using lower quality materials, and shaving off some of the more expensive trim, and you've damn near matched the cost of materials from a decade ago.  In other words, they could maintain the original $125 price tag of the shoes today, and make even MORE than they did when they were new due to the development costs being nearly non-existent for retros, and the cutting of corners on materials and trim.

Notice when they first started retroing shoes, the price tags were pretty close to the originals, if not exactly the same, even though a decade or more had gone by in many instances (so there was already inflation over what the USD was worth when the originals came out).  This is especially true for the Is, IIs, etc.  Despite being at original MSRP, they still didn't sell well.  On the other hand, those shoes that DID sell well, or had people foaming at the mouth for their release, carried a higher price tag than the originals that slowly crept up with each release/rerelease of that shoe.  What does this suggest?  The higher price tags are there on the more popular shoes ONLY because they know they can get away with it, not because of inflation.  JB learned very quickly how much they could charge for each shoe.  YOU guys determine the prices, not inflation.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Originally Posted by bigj505

Originally Posted by 23M45J9

Originally Posted by bigj505

Originally Posted by Ak1ck54l1f3R

Times change and you shouldn't expect highest quality from mass produced shoes, if you notice the really low volume shoes like the premio line has UNBELIEVABLE materials. Buy companies like Lanvin, Common Projects, Louis Vuitton, Gucci, maybe even Christian Louboutin if you really want to. But all you should expect from high volume shoes is colorways and a general adherence to the old in terms of looks and materials. Not quality.

   Ak1ck54l1f3R is right... if all you guys do is complain about the quality of JB shoes, don't BUYT the shoes.

As I said directly above AK1's comment.....

Originally Posted by Anomaly

We have become a throw awaysociety, and the major companies are laughing all the way to the bankoff of it.  Ignorance of today's youth to history is exactly why this is possible.  You're sittinghere, defending companies who are OPENLY f*cking you over instead ofbeing outraged and protesting.  People really need to get over theautomatic assumption that "newer is better", and wake up to what's happening in this country.

 

[bigballinbruce]

Originally Posted by Cement Greyman

I never thought for a second that those playoff XIIs weren't in good hands my brother...glad you like them.

Beast23, maybe I have just been fortunate with the XI, but my spacejams were awful. I had to snip the bumps off with nail clippers. If I hadn't got a discount on them they would have been returned ASAP. Minor blimishes is on thing, I would consider them B grade status.

same thing with my pair. I thought they were b-grades as well...The eyelets were off, and the patent leather was cut lower one one shoe than the other. and the bumps were HORRIBLE

Here are some pics. First of the patent leather being different on both shoes:





Thats not that noticable, BUT, look at the acne they came with................................smh



the quality of the 09 SJs was bad, and the cdp xi's were worse. I'm gonna post aaaaaa cdp 2001 xi comparison after this..

but look at how bad the 09 SJssssss have yellowed by the blue area........they look like 2001s



keep in mind these have only been worn about 6-7 times.

 

[bigballinbruce]

Originally Posted by Cement Greyman

I never thought for a second that those playoff XIIs weren't in good hands my brother...glad you like them.

Beast23, maybe I have just been fortunate with the XI, but my spacejams were awful. I had to snip the bumps off with nail clippers. If I hadn't got a discount on them they would have been returned ASAP. Minor blimishes is on thing, I would consider them B grade status.

same thing with my pair. I thought they were b-grades as well...The eyelets were off, and the patent leather was cut lower one one shoe than the other. and the bumps were HORRIBLE

Here are some pics. First of the patent leather being different on both shoes:





Thats not that noticable, BUT, look at the acne they came with................................smh



the quality of the 09 SJs was bad, and the cdp xi's were worse. I'm gonna post aaaaaa cdp 2001 xi comparison after this..

but look at how bad the 09 SJssssss have yellowed by the blue area........they look like 2001s



keep in mind these have only been worn about 6-7 times.

 

[bigballinbruce]

2001 on left, cdp on right




shape comparison 2001 on right cdp on left



NO BUMPS ON 2001 retro


padding inside of shoe is better on 2001......more cushioning



skimpy patent leather on the CDP(RIGHT)



any one who said CDP QUALITY is good is an idiot.

 

[bigballinbruce]

2001 on left, cdp on right




shape comparison 2001 on right cdp on left



NO BUMPS ON 2001 retro


padding inside of shoe is better on 2001......more cushioning



skimpy patent leather on the CDP(RIGHT)



any one who said CDP QUALITY is good is an idiot.

 

[thebeast23]

i agree with alotta yall on alotta thngs but like i said b4 as for the bumps it matters wat pair u got....chck out mine

















this is the only major bump on the shoe...the rest are very minor

 

[thebeast23]

i agree with alotta yall on alotta thngs but like i said b4 as for the bumps it matters wat pair u got....chck out mine

















this is the only major bump on the shoe...the rest are very minor

 

[thebeast23]

@ BigBallinBruce....ur shoe dnt look yellow. it looks dirty witch alotta ppl get confused wit. notice how itw Yellow in only the spots where ur foot comes in contact

but the cheated us wit the leather material....i liked the old leather better

n the 01 molds were alot better.

and the padding was cheated as well

i do think the patent cut is very minor...may jusb tryna accomodate the new mold

 

[thebeast23]

@ BigBallinBruce....ur shoe dnt look yellow. it looks dirty witch alotta ppl get confused wit. notice how itw Yellow in only the spots where ur foot comes in contact

but the cheated us wit the leather material....i liked the old leather better

n the 01 molds were alot better.

and the padding was cheated as well

i do think the patent cut is very minor...may jusb tryna accomodate the new mold

 

[thebeast23]

@ BigBallinBruce....ur shoe dnt look yellow. it looks dirty witch alotta ppl get confused wit. notice how itw Yellow in only the spots where ur foot comes in contact

but the cheated us wit the leather material....i liked the old leather better

n the 01 molds were alot better.

and the padding was cheated as well

i do think the patent cut is very minor...may jusb tryna accomodate the new mold

 

[thebeast23]

@ BigBallinBruce....ur shoe dnt look yellow. it looks dirty witch alotta ppl get confused wit. notice how itw Yellow in only the spots where ur foot comes in contact

but the cheated us wit the leather material....i liked the old leather better

n the 01 molds were alot better.

and the padding was cheated as well

i do think the patent cut is very minor...may jusb tryna accomodate the new mold

 

[bittersweet]

The quality of my Space Jams is perfect.

If you think that JB is failing you quality wise ... why continue to buy? Why even care?

 

[bittersweet]

The quality of my Space Jams is perfect.

If you think that JB is failing you quality wise ... why continue to buy? Why even care?