Grey market discussion thread (Let's keep the discussion mature) Rules on pg 1 please read before yo

[frenchbreadbuilds]

Ok, go back to my Quai 54's example.  Are pairs unauthorized by Nike in a limited 54 pair run authentic in your opinion?  There should be only 54 pairs out there in the world but you are getting #'s 55, 56, 57 and so on that should not exist.  You still think you are getting an authentic product?

like I said, authentic yes, authorized no. There are 54 pairs released to the public, and by public I mean the 54 that they were intended to go to. But I'll ask you this, even though there were 54 released, you have to assume there were extra to account for quality and other cosmetic issues. Thats just simple manufacturing. So would you consider the run off or extra "just in case" pairs to be fake?

 

[frenchbreadbuilds]

Authenticity speaks only to the the tangible product and its orgin, NOT to the circumstances leading to its origin, by definition. If you want to argue that the processes that lead to these shoes production then you would have a point. But once these shoes go into production in the same factories, with the same materials, by the same people, the production of an authentic item begins. If I waited till the 54th pair of of quai 54 v's were made and I held a gun to the factory worker's head who made it (pretending that one factory worker represents an entire assembly line) and told him/her to make me one more pair or I'd shoot them, that pair would be just as authentic as the 54 that came before. Albeit unauthorized and unaccounted for by Nike, they're still authentic because it is the same product.

 

[freshsteez]

like I said, authentic yes, authorized no. There are 54 pairs released to the public, and by public I mean the 54 that they were intended to go to. But I'll ask you this, even though there were 54 released, you have to assume there were extra to account for quality and other cosmetic issues. Thats just simple manufacturing. So would you consider the run off or extra "just in case" pairs to be fake?

I would label them as samples and emphasize that they are not intended for sale.  How somebody views them is up to them as long as they are aware that they are not part of the 54 shoe run and were never released to be sold that way.  

The problem as I said before is that people reselling these shoes are unlikely to mention where they attained them from and aren't telling people they are unauthorized pairs.  They are selling them as authentic.  That just doesn't sit right with me.  This is a problem for all of us who buy and resell shoes when the market is flooded with this stuff on it.  

 

[frenchbreadbuilds]

I would label them as samples and emphasize that they are not intended for sale.  How somebody views them is up to them as long as they are aware that they are not part of the 54 shoe run and were never released to be sold that way.  


The problem as I said before is that people reselling these shoes are unlikely to mention where they attained them from and aren't telling people they are unauthorized pairs.  They are selling them as authentic.  That just doesn't sit right with me.  This is a problem for all of us who buy and resell shoes when the market is flooded with this stuff on it.  

And I agree, they're not from the original run so they shouldn't be labeled as such. And to go as far calling them samples would also be lying. Call them what they are. Unauthorized shoes. Not fake, not non authentic but unauthorized grey market shoes. Plain and simple. All this dispute comes from people trying to give them labels that says everything but what they actually are.

There is a clear definition for what fake and counterfeit shoes are. Cheap knockoff material, horrible construction, and limited durability. That's what defines a fake (replica) shoe. That's not what we're dealing with so why are we labeling them as such? It's just as misleading as a seller saying the unauthorized grey market shoes he's selling ate release day store bought retails pairs.

 

[freshsteez]

Authenticity speaks only to the the tangible product and its orgin, NOT to the circumstances leading to its origin, by definition. If you want to argue that the processes that lead to these shoes production then you would have a point. But once these shoes go into production in the same factories, with the same materials, by the same people, the production of an authentic item begins. If I waited till the 54th pair of of quai 54 v's were made and I held a gun to the factory worker's head who made it (pretending that one factory worker represents an entire assembly line) and told him/her to make me one more pair or I'd shoot them, that pair would be just as authentic as the 54 that came before. Albeit unauthorized and unaccounted for by Nike, they're still authentic because it is the same product.

You would have an identical shoe that's not authentic.

Let say for example you have an artist that creates a painting 1 of 1 that is worth over 10 million dollars.  You put a gun to his head and tell him to create an identical painting.  Would you have an authentic original piece?  Of course not, because that painting was never intended to be created.  If you tried to sell the painting as the original, it would be deemed fake.

 

[bigj505]

Authenticity speaks only to the the tangible product and its orgin, NOT to the circumstances leading to its origin, by definition. If you want to argue that the processes that lead to these shoes production then you would have a point. But once these shoes go into production in the same factories, with the same materials, by the same people, the production of an authentic item begins. If I waited till the 54th pair of of quai 54 v's were made and I held a gun to the factory worker's head who made it (pretending that one factory worker represents an entire assembly line) and told him/her to make me one more pair or I'd shoot them, that pair would be just as authentic as the 54 that came before. Albeit unauthorized and unaccounted for by Nike, they're still authentic because it is the same product.

You would have an identical shoe that's not authentic.

Let say for example you have an artist that creates a painting 1 of 1 that is worth over 10 million dollars.  You put a gun to his head and tell him to create an identical painting.  Would you have an authentic original piece?  Of course not, because that painting was never intended to be created.  If you tried to sell the painting as the original, it would be deemed fake.

that was a terrible example.

I have one that you may be able to relate to. Im sure people will not agree.

If you work for McDonalds and sell a Quarter Pounder with cheese to an customer, the item is an authentic, sanctioned good.
If you work for McDonalds and go to the back, put together a Quarter Pounder, then GIVE a Quarter Pounder to someone you know, it is not a sanctioned good.

Both are made with the same materials and from the same source.

Would this be considered a Fake Quarter Pounder?

 

[frenchbreadbuilds]

You would have an identical shoe that's not authentic.

Let say for example you have an artist that creates a painting 1 of 1 that is worth over 10 million dollars.  You put a gun to his head and tell him to create an identical painting.  Would you have an authentic original piece?  Of course not, because that painting was never intended to be created.  If you tried to sell the painting as the original, it would be deemed fake.

Are we really using art as an example? If i held a gun tom Picasso's head and made him paint an exact copy of one his previous works you know what i would have? Another authentic Pablo Picasso painting that would be worth just as much as any other of his famous paintings. Because HE painted it. Like I said, circumstance behind the origin is irrelevant when it comes to authenticity. But if it was made by Picasso's it's still a Picasso.

Bad example my friend.

 

[quise2024]

You would have an identical shoe that's not authentic.

Let say for example you have an artist that creates a painting 1 of 1 that is worth over 10 million dollars.  You put a gun to his head and tell him to create an identical painting.  Would you have an authentic original piece?  Of course not, because that painting was never intended to be created.  If you tried to sell the painting as the original, it would be deemed fake.

Yeah thats not a good analogy .. i get what youre saying but the correlation was a lil off to me.

My thing is what makes them less real than whats in the store? Only because they didnt end up at a retailer?

If you bought a cd at walmart its aunthentic. If you bought the exact same cd off dude on the corner is it gm/not authentic?

 

[freshsteez]

And I agree, they're not from the original run so they shouldn't be labeled as such. And to go as far calling them samples would also be lying. Call them what they are. Unauthorized shoes. Not fake, not non authentic but unauthorized grey market shoes. Plain and simple. All this dispute comes from people trying to give them labels that says everything but what they actually are.

There is a clear definition for what fake and counterfeit shoes are. Cheap knockoff material, horrible construction, and limited durability. That's what defines a fake (replica) shoe. That's not what we're dealing with so why are we labeling them as such? It's just as misleading as a seller saying the unauthorized grey market shoes he's selling ate release day store bought retails pairs.

The point is the value of a shoe is nowhere near the same for an authentic pair vs an unauthorized pair.  If they were worth the same, people would just label them that way instead of calling them authentic leading people to believe that Nike approved of the production of the shoe.

I am perfectly fine just calling them unauthorized pairs.  I've never called them fake.  I do believe we should keep the label of authentic pairs strictly to pairs that Nike intended to release.  Anything else should not be considered authentic.  If we don't do that, what are we going to call incredibly high quality replicas in the future that are better made than the actual pair?  The technology is certainly out there for that to happen.

 

[bigj505]

And I agree, they're not from the original run so they shouldn't be labeled as such. And to go as far calling them samples would also be lying. Call them what they are. Unauthorized shoes. Not fake, not non authentic but unauthorized grey market shoes. Plain and simple. All this dispute comes from people trying to give them labels that says everything but what they actually are.


There is a clear definition for what fake and counterfeit shoes are. Cheap knockoff material, horrible construction, and limited durability. That's what defines a fake (replica) shoe. That's not what we're dealing with so why are we labeling them as such? It's just as misleading as a seller saying the unauthorized grey market shoes he's selling ate release day store bought retails pairs.

The point is the value of a shoe is nowhere near the same for an authentic pair vs an unauthorized pair.  If they were worth the same, people would just label them that way instead of calling them authentic leading people to believe that Nike approved of the production of the shoe.

I am perfectly fine just calling them unauthorized pairs.  I've never called them fake.  I do believe we should keep the label of authentic pairs strictly to pairs that Nike intended to release.  Anything else should not be considered authentic.  If we don't do that, what are we going to call incredibly high quality replicas in the future that are better made than the actual pair?  The technology is certainly out there for that to happen.

its just terminology at this point.... this "GM" or "Unauthorized" shoes have been in existence for years. People called them "early release" shoes because that's how they were originally manifested. The bootleggers have just decided to take it to another level and go back and reproduce items after the release date.

 

[freshsteez]

that was a terrible example.

I have one that you may be able to relate to. Im sure people will not agree.

If you work for McDonalds and sell a Quarter Pounder with cheese to an customer, the item is an authentic, sanctioned good.
If you work for McDonalds and go to the back, put together a Quarter Pounder, then GIVE a Quarter Pounder to someone you know, it is not a sanctioned good.

Both are made with the same materials and from the same source.

Would this be considered a Fake Quarter Pounder?

This would be a stolen good without the manager's approval, not fake.

My art example is that the artist intended there to be 1 piece made of his drawing.  Nike intends for there to be X amount of shoes produced.  Any additional pieces or shoes should not be considered authentic, because the artist and Nike did not intend for them to be sold.  

 

[frenchbreadbuilds]

Remove the world authentic from the label completely. They should simply be called retal pairs and unauthrized pairs. The word authentic was used with sneakers to begin with to differentiate between the inferior replicas. As far authenticity to goes grey market pairs and retails pairs are one in the same (some exceptions of course) as far as the physical tangeable shoe goes.

 

[bigj505]

that was a terrible example.


I have one that you may be able to relate to. Im sure people will not agree.


If you work for McDonalds and sell a Quarter Pounder with cheese to an customer, the item is an authentic, sanctioned good.

If you work for McDonalds and go to the back, put together a Quarter Pounder, then GIVE a Quarter Pounder to someone you know, it is not a sanctioned good.


Both are made with the same materials and from the same source.


Would this be considered a Fake Quarter Pounder?

This would be a stolen good without the manager's approval, not fake.

My art example is that the artist intended there to be 1 piece made of his drawing.  Nike intends for there to be X amount of shoes produced.  Any additional pieces or shoes should not be considered authentic, because the artist and Nike did not intend for them to be sold.  

you pretty much agreed that GM shoes are " a stolen good without the manager's approval, not fake."

 

[freshsteez]

Are we really using art as an example? If i held a gun tom Picasso's head and made him paint an exact copy of one his previous works you know what i would have? Another authentic Pablo Picasso painting that would be worth just as much as any other of his famous paintings. Because HE painted it. Like I said, circumstance behind the origin is irrelevant when it comes to authenticity. But if it was made by Picasso's it's still a Picasso.

Bad example my friend.

I am saying you can't sell your painting as the original just like you shouldn't say an unauthorized pair is authentic.  This is what my example was trying to illustrate.

 

[frenchbreadbuilds]

This would be a stolen good without the manager's approval, not fake.

My art example is that the artist intended there to be 1 piece made of his drawing.  Nike intends for there to be X amount of shoes produced.  Any additional pieces or shoes should not be considered authentic, because the artist and Nike did not intend for them to be sold.  

Regardless of intent. If he paints 2 paintings you have 2 paintings by the artist. I'm gonna put this in caps to drive the point home. CIRCUMSTANCES LEADING TO ORIGIN HAVE NO BEARING ON PRODUCTS AUTHENTICITY. AUTHENTICITYIS BASED ON THE ACTUAL PHYSICAL PRODUCT.

 

[freshsteez]

Remove the world authentic from the label completely. They should simply be called retal pairs and unauthrized pairs. The word authentic was used with sneakers to begin with to differentiate between the inferior replicas. As far authenticity to goes grey market pairs and retails pairs are one in the same (some exceptions of course) as far as the physical tangeable shoe goes.

Fair enough, the point is there needs to be something that separates a pair that Nike has authorized for production vs an unauthorized pair.  I'm not cool with calling them the same thing. 

 

[frenchbreadbuilds]

Stop comparing things that are truly one of a kind and original to mass produced products.

 

[freshsteez]

Regardless of intent. If he paints 2 paintings you have 2 paintings by the artist. I'm gonna put this in caps to drive the point home. CIRCUMSTANCES LEADING TO ORIGIN HAVE NO BEARING ON PRODUCTS AUTHENTICITY. AUTHENTICITYIS BASED ON THE ACTUAL PHYSICAL PRODUCT.

You have 2 paintings by the same artist, but they are not worth the same.  

As I said before, I can download FLAC's and 320 kbps that are superior in quality to iTunes.  The iTunes product is authentic, because they have permission from the artist to sell their music.  The pirated music is actually closer to the original copy than the iTunes product.  So, if the pirated music is closer to the original copy, then why is it not considered authentic?  It comes down to permission to sell the product just as it does with Nike.

 

[rcjbbp1313]

if they come from a sanctioned nike (outsourced) factory but are made after hours/after the production run but are made with OG quality and OG looking molds i would cop the GM shoes anyday over this crap that JB is making, watch us find out later down the road that JB is making this and laughing their butts off watching us discuss real or fake when they all are real anyways lmao, im down with OG looking GM shoes anyday of the week no doubt.

 

[freshsteez]

you pretty much agreed that GM shoes are " a stolen good without the manager's approval, not fake."

Thing is I have never called them fake in the first place.  What I have been saying is that authentic pairs authorized by Nike should not be labeled the same way that an unauthorized pair is.  The sites selling these don't tell you that they are unauthorized.  They claim to be 100% authentic.  By 100% authentic, I think most people believe that Nike would have approved the production.

 

[frenchbreadbuilds]

Thing is I have never called them fake in the first place.  What I have been saying is that authentic pairs authorized by Nike should not be labeled the same way that an unauthorized pair is.  The sites selling these don't tell you that they are unauthorized.  They claim to be 100% authentic.  By 100% authentic, I think most people believe that Nike would have approved the production.

The only thing that I assume when I see 100% authentic is that I'm not buying replicas.

 

[rcjbbp1313]

ok so you missed out on a release and are forced to go to ebay/reseller for the shoes, would you rather:
A. Buy the real deal with a receipt with subpar quality or
B. Pay the same as A but get better quality and a better looking shoe but not "sanctioned" by nike/JB?

i choose B.

 

[freshsteez]

ok so you missed out on a release and are forced to go to ebay/reseller for the shoes, would you rather:
A. Buy the real deal with a receipt with subpar quality or
B. Pay the same as A but get better quality and a better looking shoe but not "sanctioned" by nike/JB?

i choose B.

This is your personal choice, which is perfectly fine.

The point I am making is that people should be aware if they are being sold an unauthorized pair.  If we just call them all authentic, how do we tell them apart?  Then we end up with a resell market full of them, which is beginning to be the case.  You might be ok with buying an unauthorized pair, but lots of people buying them assume they were authorized to be produced by Nike and would not be happy to find out they weren't.  Not everybody is aware that unauthorized pairs are even out there.

If you go FL and the only shoe left in your size is the display shoe.  The store isn't just going to sell you the shoe without letting you know it was the display shoe.  Same thing should apply for unauthorized pairs.  

 

[bigj505]

ok so you missed out on a release and are forced to go to ebay/reseller for the shoes, would you rather:
A. Buy the real deal with a receipt with subpar quality or
B. Pay the same as A but get better quality and a better looking shoe but not "sanctioned" by nike/JB?

i choose B.

you may be a little optimistic with the assumption the GM pair will be better.

these pairs have no quality control on them and are highly likely to have some imperfections you cant deal with. someone sold me some early release concord XIs and the patent leather looked like it was folded before being installed on the shoe.
its a roll of the dice to be honest.

the other thing is, can you honestly live with the concept of telling a buyer that the shoes are not sanctioned by nike and are unauthorized if you decide to sell them down the road? it all comes down to morality.

 

[freshsteez]

Yeah thats not a good analogy .. i get what youre saying but the correlation was a lil off to me.

My thing is what makes them less real than whats in the store? Only because they didnt end up at a retailer?

If you bought a cd at walmart its aunthentic. If you bought the exact same cd off dude on the corner is it gm/not authentic?

I do think the lines can be blurry, which is why I say to just call Nike authorized products authentic and everything else not.  That keeps things simple so that people buying know if they are getting a Nike approved product or not.  If you start calling unauthorized shoes authentic because they are made identical, that just complicates things and leads to a slippery slope.  Like I said, are we going to start calling super high quality replicas authentic in the future as well if they start surpassing the quality on Nike authorized shoes?

As long as the CD was intended to be produced and sold, it is authentic.  If it fell off a truck, then it's labeled as a stolen good and should be confiscated if we go by the law.