Originally Posted by JFMartiMcDandruff
Ok....you must be a FOOL to not realize the decline in quality.
I mean look at shoes with real leather, compare it to JB leather. All shoes crease I know, my jordan retros from the "golden era" crease just as bad as the newer retros and the '06 V's have a tougher "leather" than the '99 V's. A clear example is the CDP Black Cement III leather and 2001 OR 1994 OR Original Black Cement III leather. Just compare the "leather" ....or just grab any older nike shoe and compare leather. It's not like that weird glossy, plastic leather that JB uses.
But when you look at these new retros, look at them. They look cheap. They feel cheap. Peep the paint. I didn't get it as bad as others, but the III's and VIII's are CRACKIN more than Fat Joe....it's as bad as that lame joke.
Don't get me started on the Military IV's or just the new IV's in general.
OP i had a pair of the newer Black/Red I's hi-top (straps to be exact)....I SOLD IT BECAUSE IT SUCKED THAT BAD...it just felt soo cheap and weak..went off found an older 01 pair, paid $300 and did not regret.
Addition, OP, in regards to the VI's....I'm actually looking for a pair of black/varsity VI's. I was going to buy the Infrared pack but when i visited the store days before and looked at the White/Varsity Red's....i just wasn't havin it. The paint was sloppy and that damn plastic leather. Passed on that.
Speaks the truth. Some of you are either too young or too new to the shoe game to have owned a pair of Jordans before the decline of quality circa 2004.
Paint chipping- yes, paint wore off on OG Jordans eventually. However, it did not chip off when the shoe is creased the retros do today. You don't even need to scuff one of these retros for it to wear off it will simply come off if the painted midsole creases, you can literally see crease marks in the paint. (Retro III's, IV's in particular)
Leather- this should be obvious to anyone that has ever owned quality, or decent leather before. What they construct retro Jordans with these days is nowhere near good leather. It is hard(stiff), which doesn't allow it to form to your foot and bends awkwardly. Instead of smelling like leather, many Jordans carry a strong chemical smell these days. One way to tell the quality of leather is to check the thickness, you can see at the cut(or lining) how thick it is. Cheap leather is very thin. (exception to the varsity red VI retro, leather was nearly identical to some of the OGs)
Overall Shape- this might not be obvious to some, but if you own the OG of the shoe it should be much easier to see. Of course, JB hasn't used original molds due to them being long gone or just to keep the original special, however the way many of these Jordans are shaped makes them better fitting on a mantel for display than on an actual foot. They are banana like and do not wrap your foot. If you look carefully, a lot of these new retros are so banana like only about half of the shoe is actual touching the ground. Now just because OG molds aren't used is no excuse(my '94 II's weren't the original mold but they still look like a normal shoe).
After half a decade of poor quality retros it appears that retro Jordans are either meant for display or JB just simply understands that there is a new generation to the game who will scoop up as many as they can just to boast to their friends. I'll side with the latter. When the price keeps getting higher but the quality continues to decline the profit margin expands. Nike Sportswear continues to make quality shoes that are no different from what they were pumping out 25 years ago, I just don't understand why JB can't either, they'll make profit either way but c'mon what they're giving us these days is a completely different brand than even 10 years ago.
