- 3,284
- 12
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2009
Are these official?? Tag pic is included.
Legit Check on Concord 11
- Thread in 'Archive: Jordan Brand Price/Fake Checks' Thread starter Started by donttalkitlivit,
- Start date
- 3,284
- 12
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2009
Are these official?? Tag pic is included.
- 514
- 12
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2007
Those are very Fake.
Font on tag is the wrong font.
Production date on tag should be touching the barcode, there is a space inbetween.
No space inbetween 2 and 3 on back.
Jumpman is not aligned inbetween 2 and 3.
Jordan tag on tongue is not aligned with the 3rd lace hole.
Shape of Jumpman on side is wrong.
Overall shape is wrong.'
These are very obvious fakes, if you even had to post to ask, you need to do some research...
Font on tag is the wrong font.
Production date on tag should be touching the barcode, there is a space inbetween.
No space inbetween 2 and 3 on back.
Jumpman is not aligned inbetween 2 and 3.
Jordan tag on tongue is not aligned with the 3rd lace hole.
Shape of Jumpman on side is wrong.
Overall shape is wrong.'
These are very obvious fakes, if you even had to post to ask, you need to do some research...
- 514
- 12
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2007
Those are very Fake.
Font on tag is the wrong font.
Production date on tag should be touching the barcode, there is a space inbetween.
No space inbetween 2 and 3 on back.
Jumpman is not aligned inbetween 2 and 3.
Jordan tag on tongue is not aligned with the 3rd lace hole.
Shape of Jumpman on side is wrong.
Overall shape is wrong.'
These are very obvious fakes, if you even had to post to ask, you need to do some research...
Font on tag is the wrong font.
Production date on tag should be touching the barcode, there is a space inbetween.
No space inbetween 2 and 3 on back.
Jumpman is not aligned inbetween 2 and 3.
Jordan tag on tongue is not aligned with the 3rd lace hole.
Shape of Jumpman on side is wrong.
Overall shape is wrong.'
These are very obvious fakes, if you even had to post to ask, you need to do some research...
- 3,284
- 12
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2009
appreciate the help.
- 3,284
- 12
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2009
appreciate the help.
- 353
- 10
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2010
Everything 206Jordan23 said is true.
These are definitely FAKE!
Very poor quality.
These are definitely FAKE!
Very poor quality.
- 353
- 10
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2010
Everything 206Jordan23 said is true.
These are definitely FAKE!
Very poor quality.
These are definitely FAKE!
Very poor quality.
- 644
- 10
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2005
Fake and proven in so many places... 206 will find them from a mile away
- 644
- 10
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2005
Fake and proven in so many places... 206 will find them from a mile away
- 1,556
- 11
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2009
LOL man i didnt know they re dropped the concords in 08!
lol i mustve slept on them!
jk jk
but look at the date concords came out in 01 the production date is an automatic tell
along with everything stated above
lol i mustve slept on them!
jk jk
but look at the date concords came out in 01 the production date is an automatic tell
along with everything stated above
- 1,556
- 11
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2009
LOL man i didnt know they re dropped the concords in 08!
lol i mustve slept on them!
jk jk
but look at the date concords came out in 01 the production date is an automatic tell
along with everything stated above
lol i mustve slept on them!
jk jk
but look at the date concords came out in 01 the production date is an automatic tell
along with everything stated above
- 715
- 10
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2010
Fake, the tag is easy give away. Unless they were an international release in 08. The spacing between the 2 and 3 is off as well.
- 715
- 10
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2010
Fake, the tag is easy give away. Unless they were an international release in 08. The spacing between the 2 and 3 is off as well.
