- 2,710
- 9,003
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2014
Last edited:
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
I almost laughed out loud at the shape with more material drives up cost comment. Not calling people stupid but you know Nike sells unpopular Nike shoes with much more leather than these for like $100.
Nike is a business and longevity is important. Get the netting right this time but not the shape, you create something for people to look forward to the next time they release. then just release the shoe some years down the line with the proper shape. It's a hustle on us, yet we call it the sneaker game lol.
There's nothing sleek or skinny about the banana toe. It's the defining feature of why the retros look like boots
JB certainly could fix the problem, but the reason they don't definitely has nothing to do with some perceived respect for the younger collectors or for the sanctity of the OG pairs
It's simple penny-pinching and laziness
Shape has nothing to do with cost. I really don't know why people think that way. The only thing that has to do with cost are the materials. And they are bringing back the better materials.
All we have is GM photos and you guys are legit jerking it over the shape of a shoe, wait until the official photos release....
Yes. I completely agree.
My comment might have been poorly worded, because the "penny-pinching" I was speaking of was not the often repeated rumor that its cheaper to make the banana-toe.
I was referring to the potential cost of JB actually getting off its butt and making new molds with the correct designs.
Its cheaper for JB to simply be lazy, is what I was trying to get at
Shape has nothing to do with cost. I really don't know why people think that way. The only thing that has to do with cost are the materials. And they are bringing back the better materials.
Thats not completely true. I know for a fact that companies tend to use the molds from one shoe to create other retro shoes for cost cutting purposes. Its why a lot of these shoes share a lot of the same ugly characteristics.
I think your giving JB too much credit. Do you really believe they'll come out lookin like the 99's come picture day. Pleeeeeeeeeeeease.
View media item 1795011
There's nothing sleek or skinny about the banana toe. It's the defining feature of why the retros look like boots
JB certainly could fix the problem, but the reason they don't definitely has nothing to do with some perceived respect for the younger collectors or for the sanctity of the OG pairs
It's simple penny-pinching and laziness
Shape has nothing to do with cost. I really don't know why people think that way. The only thing that has to do with cost are the materials. And they are bringing back the better materials.
Yes. I completely agree.
My comment might have been poorly worded, because the "penny-pinching" I was speaking of was not the often repeated rumor that its cheaper to make the banana-toe.
I was referring to the potential cost of JB actually getting off its butt and making new molds with the correct designs.
Its cheaper for JB to simply be lazy, is what I was trying to get at
Actually word on the street is the inflation from $100 back in the day to now is about $226 USD.Lol When did I say the "better material" on these is justified to drive up the cost? My comment was directly towards people that think that shape has anything to do with Nike cost cutting. Like I said, material has more direct influence on the cost not the shape. Needless to say all these $190-220 has nothing to do with material but marketing & profit.
Edit: if you count real inflation of dollar, the $100 in 1999 to today, these should be no more than $150. But with every "sneaker head" keep complaining about the "no NA" they are instead charging you for $220.
pick any page in this whole circle jerk thread and you'll get your answer lmao
Even the 1999 white and cement 4s were a modified version compared to the originals. Some, however, actually prefer the 1999s due to the lightening of the "cement grey", and the updated tongue and toe box. They also feel that the overall shape of the shoe is more appealing. I can understand this, although I am still partial to the originals to be honest. Which ones do you guys like better, personally? Thanks.
Even the 1999 white and cement 4s were a modified version compared to the originals. Some, however, actually prefer the 1999s due to the lightening of the "cement grey", and the updated tongue and toe box. They also feel that the overall shape of the shoe is more appealing. I can understand this, although I am still partial to the originals to be honest. Which ones do you guys like better, personally? Thanks.
All of this!I like the 99s tongue with the 89s shape overall. The 89s tongue looks short, flimsy, and unpadded. The 2016 version looks really good. Its about as close as you can get in this day and age. And the 2016 has alot more speckles than the 1999 version. They really skimped on it for that release.
lmao
pick any page in this whole circle jerk thread and you'll get your answer lmao