- 3,864
- 2,277
OG's look slimmer while retros look bulky as hell.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I've always hated OG 5s shape. SUPER BULKY and sloppy looking. Retros are a step up IMO.
I've always preferred the sharper cut of the retro 5s. I think the 5s from 2000 were the best.
I've always preferred the sharper cut of the retro 5s. I think the 5s from 2000 were the best.
I'm not focusing on the toe box, Im speaking of the shoe in general. The whole upper of the OGs is taller and wider. In MY OPINION that looks sloppy to me. But as I mentioned, 5s from 2000 have the best shape to me.Are we looking at the same shoes?
The retros, especially since 2010, have the super bulky boot-style toe-box
It's the OG's that have the angled, smooth look to them
So does the "pre grape" 5s not having a Nike Air on the back mean there is no hope for the remastered 3-6 retros??
Notice how much smaller the mesh window is on the retros vs the OG.
I've always hated OG 5s shape. SUPER BULKY and sloppy looking. Retros are a step up IMO.
And personally, I would rather JB fix the decade old shape problems instead of slapping NA on some boot-toe looking banana shoes
So does the "pre grape" 5s not having a Nike Air on the back mean there is no hope for the remastered 3-6 retros??
I believe thin got real thin in 2006. I'm used to Jays from 2000-2006. I still feel the OGs are very large shoes. Im not talking about padding, Im talking about the overall cuts. Many of the 3-7 retros now range from mid-cut to a 5/8 high cut. Almost all the OGs were very high. I still prefer the sharpness and short cut of retros. You can have a good quality shoe that isn't bulky or very large.Bulky = Quality build and REAL genuine materials. I'm sure you're used to these thin, cheaply constructed retros they keep pumping out.
I really hope that is the case. That means that the aquas may have the NA on the insole. I'm really hoping they bring back some of the 3-6 soon. I have a feeling we may not see many till the 30th ann of 3s in 2018If it wasnt released for retail originally i dont think they would put nike air on it.
Like the 45 X didnt have nike air insole because only the non 45 version of that colorway was released for retail
I believe thin got real thin in 2006. I'm used to Jays from 2000-2006. I still feel the OGs are very large shoes. Im not talking about padding, Im talking about the overall cuts. Many of the 3-7 retros now range from mid-cut to a 5/8 high cut. Almost all the OGs were very high. I still prefer the sharpness and short cut of retros. You can have a good quality shoe that isn't bulky or very large.
And weren't you all saying all the retros are bulky compared to the OGs? I guess they are higher quality if we are using your logic.
The 5s and 6s OGs are still WAYY bulkier than the 2000 retros. I vote for the 2000. Just MY opinion thoughReading is fundamental my dude - you're equating bulky with the garbage 'banana boat' shape and 'steel toe box' that they've running on damn near everything made post 2006-2007.
The bulkiness that those of us who do or have owned OGs, refers to real, full grain leather and thick padding - something that has been sorely lacking on everything made post 2007.
My white metallic 5s definitely feel better than my black tonguesHow are the remastered sneakers in terms of comfort? Have they improved? Because many of the past releases that I have copped over the years were pretty uncomfortable to me.
yea as far as comfort goes its an improvement in certain models so far. the 4s, 5, 10ss are pretty comfortableHow are the remastered sneakers in terms of comfort? Have they improved? Because many of the past releases that I have copped over the years were pretty uncomfortable to me.
Just went to the mall today and my footlocker still had french blue vii's, liberty x's, laser xx's, laser iv's, white metallic v's, and midnight navy v's