Nike Air Jordan 1 Retro "Black Toe" - The Aftermath - NO BUYING/SELLING/TRADING

This the black toes thread, isn't that the subject!? No confirmation yet, hopefully soon since November is coming by in another 2 1/2 weeks
 
JT Doom said:
Only JB release for the rest of the year that I'm actually going to try hard for.
Click to expand...

Same

Think I'm done til royals after these

Night grab true blues but I'm kinda straight in spending $250 total on a shoe
 
Zyzz said:
So Much Sole 23 said:
AirSakuragi said:
That's the key word. That is the reason behind the tumbled leather on the previous retro. Every other 1 will be like the other remastered 1s.
Click to expand...


v8erman said:
You better be right production manager.
Click to expand...

It's Been Shown Numerous Times Before That Ol' Boy Literally Has No Clue What He's Talking About :rolleyes





Generalized Assumptions At Best









Take It For What It Is
Click to expand...


Amen

Just regurgitating what others say and because he has red font it makes his post stick out and look important when really, he has no idea.

Sorry, no hate towards the kid it just needs to be said with the way he posts
Click to expand...
at least one of yall could have enlightened as to why the banned 1s have tumbled leather when others 1s haven't had it, since its not because the OG banneds had it. When correcting people you should provide the correct answer.
 
SquatchNT said:
at least one of yall could have enlightened as to why the banned 1s have tumbled leather when others 1s haven't had it, since its not because the OG banneds had it. When correcting people you should provide the correct answer.
Click to expand...
I can give an explanation bro since these:

got so much critical acclaim for their quality they decided to use the same type of quality on these:

they made these to try to satisfy the people who wanted the 2011 version (or quality like the 2011 version; even though the 2016 version obviously doesn't have that type of quality) and 2013 version but could not get them.  In order to appease both parties they removed the X off the heel (to appease the people who wanted the 2013 version) and stamped it inside of the shoe with the correct date this time along with high quality leather (to appease the people who wanted the 2011 version).  So then pawned them off with the same nickname as the 2011 version.  Basically this is a retro of the 2011 version that was released in outlets. In conclusion, the other original colorway 1s will not have this tumbled leather quality because of the reason listed above.
 
Last edited:
AirSakuragi said:
[thread="651411"]Quote:[/thread]
SquatchNT said:
at least one of yall could have enlightened as to why the banned 1s have tumbled leather when others 1s haven't had it, since its not because the OG banneds had it. When correcting people you should provide the correct answer.
Click to expand...
I can give an explanation bro since these:

View media item 2190983

got so much critical acclaim for their quality they decided to use the same type of quality on these:

View media item 2190984

they made these to try to satisfy the people who wanted the 2011 version (or quality like the 2011 version; even though the 2016 version obviously doesn't have that type of quality) and 2013 version but could not get them.  In order to appease both parties they removed the X off the heel (to appease the people who wanted the 2013 version) and stamped it inside of the shoe with the correct date this time along with high quality leather (to appease the people who wanted the 2011 version).  So then pawned them off with the same nickname as the 2011 version.  Basically this is a retro of the 2011 version that was released in outlets. In conclusion, the other original colorway 1s will not have this tumbled leather quality because of the reason listed above.
Click to expand...
Thanks but I was referring to the other people. I don't know if you're right, but if corrected you I would explain why you were wrong.
 
AirSakuragi said:
[thread="651411"]Quote:[/thread]
SquatchNT said:
at least one of yall could have enlightened as to why the banned 1s have tumbled leather when others 1s haven't had it, since its not because the OG banneds had it. When correcting people you should provide the correct answer.
Click to expand...
I can give an explanation bro since these:

View media item 2190983

got so much critical acclaim for their quality they decided to use the same type of quality on these:

View media item 2190984

they made these to try to satisfy the people who wanted the 2011 version (or quality like the 2011 version; even though the 2016 version obviously doesn't have that type of quality) and 2013 version but could not get them.  In order to appease both parties they removed the X off the heel (to appease the people who wanted the 2013 version) and stamped it inside of the shoe with the correct date this time along with high quality leather (to appease the people who wanted the 2011 version).  So then pawned them off with the same nickname as the 2011 version.  Basically this is a retro of the 2011 version that was released in outlets. In conclusion, the other original colorway 1s will not have this tumbled leather quality because of the reason listed above.
Click to expand...
Do you have any sort of sources or are these simply your opinions?
 
SquatchNT said:
Thanks but I was referring to the other people. I don't know if you're right, but if corrected you I would explain why you were wrong.
Click to expand...
Sorry bro and I know you would.
laugh.gif
 
DownyBoy said:
Do you have any sort of sources or are these simply your opinions?
Click to expand...
It's actually common sense, you can tell where Jordan Brand got the inspiration from to use that type of quality, everyone knows the date on the original 2011 version was wrong, and it's all in the marketing and nickname they used for the shoe. 
 
AirSakuragi said:
DownyBoy said:
Do you have any sort of sources or are these simply your opinions?
Click to expand...

It's actually common sense, you can tell where Jordan Brand got the inspiration from to use that type of quality, everyone knows the date on the original 2011 version was wrong, and it's all in the marketing and nickname they used for the shoe. 
Click to expand...
Ok, so it's your opinion. Just wanted to be clear.

Passing opinions off as fact just because of "common sense" really doesn't help anyone.
 
So, if the 2016 B/Red is specifically a retro of the 2011 B/Red... what is the 2011 a retro of? lol Smh

:rolleyes

BTs will be had x2 :smokin
 
Last edited:
manposite said:
So, if the 2016 B/Red is specifically a retro of the 2011 B/Red... what is the 2011 a retro of? lol Smh

:rolleyes

BTs will be had x2 :smokin
Click to expand...
Commerate the whole banned campaign they did for MJ's first sig shoe but they messed up the dates which is why it went to outlets in 2011. That's pretty much it. The 2016 retro is for the 30th anni of the Is too as well as the 31 having a black/red come. Don't know if this answers your question or not lol
 
AirSakuragi said:
I can give an explanation bro since these:

View media item 2190983

got so much critical acclaim for their quality they decided to use the same type of quality on these:

View media item 2190984

they made these to try to satisfy the people who wanted the 2011 version (or quality like the 2011 version; even though the 2016 version obviously doesn't have that type of quality) and 2013 version but could not get them.  In order to appease both parties they removed the X off the heel (to appease the people who wanted the 2013 version) and stamped it inside of the shoe with the correct date this time along with high quality leather (to appease the people who wanted the 2011 version).  So then pawned them off with the same nickname as the 2011 version.  Basically this is a retro of the 2011 version that was released in outlets. In conclusion, the other original colorway 1s will not have this tumbled leather quality because of the reason listed above.
Click to expand...
You need to learn how to stop making assumptions.
 
It's pretty obvious the '16 banneds are a retro of '11 banneds. The fact that nike marketed them as such is proof enough but the date, tumbled leather, etc.. so anyone worried about tumbled leather on royals or other og 1s shouldn't. I like the look tho so it probably wouldn't be a deal breaker if they did
 
AirSakuragi said:
It's actually common sense, you can tell where Jordan Brand got the inspiration from to use that type of quality, everyone knows the date on the original 2011 version was wrong, and it's all in the marketing and nickname they used for the shoe. 
Click to expand...
I Think It's Common Sense That Jb A) Need something to distinguish the'16 pair from the '13, 94, and '01 pair, and they wanted to do so with a guaranteed sell out so they B) Bit off banned2011 hype by marketing then as such and C) bit off of SBB tumbled craze.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

NikeTalk was created as a way of giving back to both the sneaker enthusiast community and to the greater global community of which we are all a part.

NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom