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

[green rhino123]

i've never messed with shoe doctoring
but if some mine get paint falling off like that...
i will have to repaint them
especially cause all of em above are wearable

 

[green rhino123]

i've never messed with shoe doctoring
but if some mine get paint falling off like that...
i will have to repaint them
especially cause all of em above are wearable

 

[essential1]

Originally Posted by dtb00201


To this day my only complaint is when paint chips off after a few wears. Fix that and I would shut my mouth forever about quality.

Fire Red 3's and Aqua 8's

Although I do have my complaints on the changing material because they are sacrificing quality, which they shouldn't do if it costs them $2 extra to make and they charge $30 more.

 

[essential1]

Originally Posted by dtb00201


To this day my only complaint is when paint chips off after a few wears. Fix that and I would shut my mouth forever about quality.

Fire Red 3's and Aqua 8's

Although I do have my complaints on the changing material because they are sacrificing quality, which they shouldn't do if it costs them $2 extra to make and they charge $30 more.

 

[jordanhead21]

Wore my laser IV's for the 3rd time, and what do you know, PAINT CHIPPING. The leather on them is decent but the midsoles are whack

XI's- the 23 on the back of the CDP/Space Jams/ and even the Cool Greys will peel off after a few wears, guarantee it. Not to mention, if you wear 01's/OG's and then wear the newer XI's it feels like you are walking on cardboard. And if you can't tell the difference in the leathers, then you don't deserve to own a pair.

V's- Paint Chipping again

It's sad to say but the team J's have better quality than the retro's everyone hype's up

 

[jordanhead21]

Wore my laser IV's for the 3rd time, and what do you know, PAINT CHIPPING. The leather on them is decent but the midsoles are whack

XI's- the 23 on the back of the CDP/Space Jams/ and even the Cool Greys will peel off after a few wears, guarantee it. Not to mention, if you wear 01's/OG's and then wear the newer XI's it feels like you are walking on cardboard. And if you can't tell the difference in the leathers, then you don't deserve to own a pair.

V's- Paint Chipping again

It's sad to say but the team J's have better quality than the retro's everyone hype's up

 

[eltouha]

^i've worn my 09 spacejams heaps of times and the 23 is still 100%. that may have been a cpd only problem.

 

[eltouha]

^i've worn my 09 spacejams heaps of times and the 23 is still 100%. that may have been a cpd only problem.

 

[mikecabrera]

Why can't JB change the damn rubber quality on icy soles (i.e. of the V, VI, XI's, etc)?  They are seriously made to yellow on purpose so that we are forced to buy a new pair of the same shoe we own every couple years.  

 

[mikecabrera]

Why can't JB change the damn rubber quality on icy soles (i.e. of the V, VI, XI's, etc)?  They are seriously made to yellow on purpose so that we are forced to buy a new pair of the same shoe we own every couple years.  

 

[send one]

Originally Posted by GreatestGoliath

Originally Posted by dtb00201

What I've learned from being on Nt is that 75% of the people who talk about quality have no idea what they are talking about.

Examples:

- Just because a shoe has a different material than it did in the past, it does not mean the quality is any less. None of you are leather experts and none of you have a single clue of how much these materials cost.

- Just because a shoes toebox creases, it doesn't mean it is a bad quality shoe.

- Just because a shoe has slightly less padding does not mean it is bad quality. Go look at some OG Jordan 1s in comparison to newer 1s, or some older 3s in comparison to the cdp's.



To this day my only complaint is when paint chips off after a few wears. Fix that and I would shut my mouth forever about quality.

THIS^ The Complaint really is chipping Paint, and Plastic Feeling Leather

That and the odd shapes we often get. 

My first J's were white/cement III's back in '89 and I literally wore them till there was no sole left...literally.  Fast forward to '07.  Retro III's, IV's etc. have major chipping after a few wears,  casual wears at that.  I hate to think how fast they would have deteriorated if I balled in them.

OP.  there's a difference between quality and craftsmanship.

 

 

[send one]

Originally Posted by GreatestGoliath

Originally Posted by dtb00201

What I've learned from being on Nt is that 75% of the people who talk about quality have no idea what they are talking about.

Examples:

- Just because a shoe has a different material than it did in the past, it does not mean the quality is any less. None of you are leather experts and none of you have a single clue of how much these materials cost.

- Just because a shoes toebox creases, it doesn't mean it is a bad quality shoe.

- Just because a shoe has slightly less padding does not mean it is bad quality. Go look at some OG Jordan 1s in comparison to newer 1s, or some older 3s in comparison to the cdp's.



To this day my only complaint is when paint chips off after a few wears. Fix that and I would shut my mouth forever about quality.

THIS^ The Complaint really is chipping Paint, and Plastic Feeling Leather

That and the odd shapes we often get. 

My first J's were white/cement III's back in '89 and I literally wore them till there was no sole left...literally.  Fast forward to '07.  Retro III's, IV's etc. have major chipping after a few wears,  casual wears at that.  I hate to think how fast they would have deteriorated if I balled in them.

OP.  there's a difference between quality and craftsmanship.

 

 

[davey5737]

like many of you, my only problem with the quality of my jays are the paint chipping issues. my favorite's are the iii's, followed by the iv's, and i just dont like wearing them much because i know the paint is chipping. i have had no problems with the v, vi, vii, viii, xi, xii, xiii, and xvi

here are some pictures
my cements after 1 wear. 1 casual wear, 3 hours at most, going to class.


my vnds fire reds

my vnds cool greys


i dont have all my kicks with me, but i have paint chipping on my cdp iii, cdp iv, military iv, and cool grey iv as well. but on both of my 01 true blue pairs, no chipping at all.

this pair had to be worn around 25 times, with absolutely no chipping or flaws at all minus creasing

 

[davey5737]

like many of you, my only problem with the quality of my jays are the paint chipping issues. my favorite's are the iii's, followed by the iv's, and i just dont like wearing them much because i know the paint is chipping. i have had no problems with the v, vi, vii, viii, xi, xii, xiii, and xvi

here are some pictures
my cements after 1 wear. 1 casual wear, 3 hours at most, going to class.


my vnds fire reds

my vnds cool greys


i dont have all my kicks with me, but i have paint chipping on my cdp iii, cdp iv, military iv, and cool grey iv as well. but on both of my 01 true blue pairs, no chipping at all.

this pair had to be worn around 25 times, with absolutely no chipping or flaws at all minus creasing

 

[instyleshoes]

It seems that, since the original molds were not saved (how/why is a whole different conversation), that JB hired somebody off the streets to re-draw the models in illustrator (or some other much fancier program) and re-drew the shoes to retro or remanufacture them.....that would explain why the shapes are way off in some cases and only slightly off with other models....sure technology has changed, but JB also seems to take short-cuts with the painting and tech put into the models that we get today.




The biggest question, besides short-term profit, is WHY?  WHY would you no longer manufacture "The greatest shoe in the world" each year to be as good as it can be, not as cheap as it can be???....




.....Answer: To sell the "spin-offs" AKA : Alpha models, team shoes, other sig shoes (melo/CP, etc) as real hoops shoes by today's standards......




This is and always will be a tough pill to swallow for the many fans that want the shoes to be brought back as they were and not "cheaply"......

 

[instyleshoes]

It seems that, since the original molds were not saved (how/why is a whole different conversation), that JB hired somebody off the streets to re-draw the models in illustrator (or some other much fancier program) and re-drew the shoes to retro or remanufacture them.....that would explain why the shapes are way off in some cases and only slightly off with other models....sure technology has changed, but JB also seems to take short-cuts with the painting and tech put into the models that we get today.




The biggest question, besides short-term profit, is WHY?  WHY would you no longer manufacture "The greatest shoe in the world" each year to be as good as it can be, not as cheap as it can be???....




.....Answer: To sell the "spin-offs" AKA : Alpha models, team shoes, other sig shoes (melo/CP, etc) as real hoops shoes by today's standards......




This is and always will be a tough pill to swallow for the many fans that want the shoes to be brought back as they were and not "cheaply"......

 

[raptornation]

I have only bought one Jordan sig shoe this year (MS 6's), and will probably only end up buying the OG cw 13's for the rest of the year.
The quality has definitely been reduced from years past and the AJ 12 is the perfect shoe to measure that.

I have the OG blk/red, 2004 Playoffs, the recent taxi's and white/red's.
If any of you have the 2004 retros, feel how much zoom air you feel in the forefoot.
It literally feels like you're walking on springs. Compare that to the newer retros and you'll understand.

Oh, and by the way, I've only been in the game for 2.5 years, and would be considered a "newbie." Food for thought.

 

[raptornation]

I have only bought one Jordan sig shoe this year (MS 6's), and will probably only end up buying the OG cw 13's for the rest of the year.
The quality has definitely been reduced from years past and the AJ 12 is the perfect shoe to measure that.

I have the OG blk/red, 2004 Playoffs, the recent taxi's and white/red's.
If any of you have the 2004 retros, feel how much zoom air you feel in the forefoot.
It literally feels like you're walking on springs. Compare that to the newer retros and you'll understand.

Oh, and by the way, I've only been in the game for 2.5 years, and would be considered a "newbie." Food for thought.

 

[jfmartimcdandruff]

Oh yeah when the playoff XIII's release again next year.....COMPARE the OG to the retro....the leather on the originals are amazing....and i don't even own a pair, but i can just see it off the pictures alone

 

[jfmartimcdandruff]

Oh yeah when the playoff XIII's release again next year.....COMPARE the OG to the retro....the leather on the originals are amazing....and i don't even own a pair, but i can just see it off the pictures alone

 

[airuphere23]

*edit*

 

[airuphere23]

*edit*

 

[airuphere23]

Originally Posted by DeuCes213

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.

Obviously you never saw the 2009 Nike SC High Bo Jackson's then.....and there's a few Nike Sportswear related retro version shoes out there over the last several years that have had trash quality similar to the new standards of JB's retro line....all around the board the quality isn't consistently good enough...

 

[airuphere23]

Originally Posted by DeuCes213

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.

Obviously you never saw the 2009 Nike SC High Bo Jackson's then.....and there's a few Nike Sportswear related retro version shoes out there over the last several years that have had trash quality similar to the new standards of JB's retro line....all around the board the quality isn't consistently good enough...

 

[airuphere23]

Originally Posted by DeuCes213

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.

Obviously you never saw the 2009 Nike SC High Bo Jackson's then.....and there's a few Nike Sportswear related retro version shoes out there over the last several years that have had trash quality similar to the new standards of JB's retro line....all around the board the quality isn't consistently good enough...