- May 14, 2008
- 7,634
- 7,261
Ultramarines are for sure one of the very few sneakers I’m actually going to cop next year.
-Drew
-Drew
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.
the uppers are stitch for stitch it seems , but the outsole is not entirely og specs ,I believe. and why I was a bit sad about it , but it is much closer ,real close minus the og translucent flaps ,they just went for the optical correctness again not for complete technical correctness. fine by me , I do understand ,at least it looks like how it should .The guy said they went into the archives and scanned an original and mapped out how it was constructed and then matched it stitch by stitch. This shape shown seems pretty straight on doesn’t it?
Yes, I see what you mean. However, you are comparing the inner side of the '24 with the outer sides of the OG's. Let's hope it's a bit better shaped on the outside, but it's a great comparison nonethelessI made quick comparison pics with the OGs.
To me it looks like they focused solely on the bubble size and not on the overall shape, which has been total garbage on the retros so far, and still seems to be.
to be fair : you are using the inner part of the retro and comparing it to the outside of the og . use a pic of the inside of an og ,that would be more fair to compare.I made quick comparison pics with the OGs.
To me it looks like they focused solely on the bubble size and not on the overall shape, which has been total garbage on the retros so far, and still seems to be.
I think they could be. A friend of mine has an original pair of UM's from '91, asked him for a picture of the medial side just now, I'll post it when it comes inThen again, I don't think the overall shape & silhouette are that different on each side.
big diffThen again, I don't think the overall shape & silhouette are that different on each side
I must agree, from this side it looks better, best I could make of the ****ty IG image.
Although the midsole looks too thick, especially from front to wedge.
Looked at all my OG pics and every single pair has a relatively thin front midsole.
that is why we need them in hand . they are not identical for sure ,they are not. but not bad at all ,and It could have been a lot worse.
Agreed on the midsole indeed!I must agree, from this side it looks better, best I could make of the ****ty IG image.
Although the midsole looks too thick, especially from front to wedge.
Looked at all my OG pics and every single pair has a relatively thin front midsole.
Maybe the one pair in their archives hadn't been worn and the midsole didn't get the chance to get slimAgreed on the midsole indeed!
the size is also important , because of the scaling from small to big.Here are the photos from my friend, he didn't dare to touch the UM #crumblingmidsole
Haha, I already thought something like that but now you confirm it I believe the size from my friend's OG's is about a size 7? That bubble looks humongous!the size is also important , because of the scaling from small to big.
I have many sizes of all og cw's .the smallest og's use the same airbag as the biggest og's ,so none are the same because the shoe is bigger or smaller but the airbag not, can you believe it? I will show you in the next pic.
these days they do it differently.
I believe that is what went wrong with the big bubbles , the scaling. the bigger the size ,the more off they were, just too big looking . I went a size down and they look great now . that shrunk the sole and shape down to the well known 86 og air max 1 shape and thickness ,if you catch my drift.
Mapping the original upper stitch by stitch won’t produce the same result since they’ll be building it on a differently shaped last. That’s why the 90 recraft was such a process.The guy said they went into the archives and scanned an original and mapped out how it was constructed and then matched it stitch by stitch. This shape shown seems pretty straight on doesn’t it?