- 15,635
- 11,922
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2006
Remember my cuz had these back in the day, always wanted em, never owned a pair of 6's
Jordan vi chrome low ... Summer 2015
- Thread in 'Jordan Brand' Thread starter Started by iriesupreme,
- Start date
- 34
- 14
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2012
I did that too but it fogged up again.. I wanted to wear them again but im afraid it might crumble.. Is it a sign that the midsole will crumble soon? Im definitely copping 2x with the 2015 release.. Correct me if im wrong but the first release of the black lows was 2002.. IMO best low top jordans..
- 7,472
- 2,744
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2010
Hopefully that is not a release pair.
- 1,829
- 1,178
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2006
Yes, they came out in 2002. I am not sure if that means it is close to crumbling.I hope not but not too worried since I haven't worn them in a few years. Mine got plenty of wear the first 5-7 years.
- 40,141
- 11,080
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2011
LL needs to be in the correct place... these look weird
- 11,959
- 6,203
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2012
In for these...
- 6,998
- 2,790
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2008
Could be just the lighting and how the photo is zoomed in, but that doesn't look like durabuck.
- 34
- 14
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2012
The tongue is different from the 2002 release.. I might be wrong but the way i see with this picture, the upper is like the jordan 6 infrared pack from 2010.. Or maybe from the lighting
- 40,141
- 11,080
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2011
higher for no reason right?
- 34
- 14
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2012
True.. No reason at all.. They could've stayed with the same tongue height.. And also the lace locks looked more like plastic comapred the the chrome in 2002.. And one thing i hate with the recent jordan 6 release is the toebox looks like it has steel toe
- 7,694
- 7,729
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2004
Still going strong!! I'll have to see the "remastered' version in person before I commit to buying them.
- 40,141
- 11,080
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2011
wish
- 7,694
- 7,729
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2004
Why not?
- 40,141
- 11,080
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2011
wish they looked like your pair.. but they clearly wont
- 38,375
- 75,693
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2008
The new pic had me let down but i always wanted this CW definitely will wait and see with this one
- 18,027
- 8,474
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2013
material looks to be nubuck rather than durabuck and the lace lock doesn't have that metallic finish. so far they are ok imo could be better tho
- 7,694
- 7,729
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2004
Ohhh, my fault. I misunderstood you. I thought you saying that it's a wish that they would be on shelves on release day for me to look at..
- 34
- 14
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2012
View media item 1469388
View media item 1469389
My 2002 pair.. This is how quality should be made.. Not the "remastered"
View media item 1469389
My 2002 pair.. This is how quality should be made.. Not the "remastered"
Last edited:
- 3,250
- 2,839
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2009
you guys will complain about anything.
- 88,396
- 47,493
- Joined
- Feb 29, 2000
- 1,451
- 239
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2011
This looks great for a 13-year-old pair. Why can they not just make the new release the same?? I guess Nike can't "remaster" at the same time as they seek any and every opportunity to cut costs. That's capitalism I guess..
- 44,067
- 16,444
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2014
First keeper double up.
- 8,091
- 1,125
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2004
i SOLD my pair 
so ima PASS
so ima PASS
- 8,091
- 1,125
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2004
my pair CRACKED thats i DISPATCHED it while the value is still high,,i still have the White/Carolina Blue though,,check the B/S Forum
Last edited:
- 7,472
- 2,744
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2010
Right. The 2015 looks like a totally different shoe than what released in 2002. From shape, materials, tongue, height, soles. Might as well call it a VI 2.0.
