- 33,427
- 39,199
Nike Air Jordan Retro 3 OG “Fire Red” 2022
- Thread in 'Jordan Brand' Thread starter Started by Jordanbball,
- Start date
- 4,319
- 7,453
These aren't bad at all
- 11,176
- 17,256
- 9,864
- 34,336
All of this!!!!
Been asking this question for 20+ years.
Thick EP (and height of course) completely ruin III's .
- 1,104
- 1,478
This is exactly why Im going back and restoring 2001s and 2003s…All of this!!!!
Been asking this question for 20+ years.
Thick EP (and height of course) completely ruin III's .
- 33,427
- 39,199
They can fix it, they just don’t want to give us what we really want. It’s ridiculous.
- 7,634
- 9,686
rainking
Supporter
- 8,297
- 18,080
That’s not entirely accurate re: the XIs. I still have my OG black/reds and they aren’t a taller or bulkier shoe than the 2019 retro. It’s just that all of the proportions, angles and cuts are slightly different, which in totality adds up to the retros—as good as they look—still not looking exactly the same or entirely right when you know what you’re looking at. Now, previous XI retros were absolutely scaled down versions, and it’s been done on other retros as well.
- 10,745
- 18,246
- 4,319
- 7,453
I THINK he's talking about the black cement 4s with the bulkier and taller comment.
The retros 4s just kept getting smaller and smaller everywhere. It's a little better now but it had got bad a few years back.
rainking
Supporter
- 8,297
- 18,080
I was specifically speaking on this quote:
“Example: the OG 11s are 4/4 cut in height while the retros are 3/4. That's why people say the patent is too high, well the shoe is too short.”
IVs are a different story, as I acknowledged when I said the point about shrinking-down some retros is true. It was true with XIs for years but is not true about the current generation of XIs. The XIs look different than the OGs because of the overall geometry and shape, not because of the overall size of the shoe. My OGs are in storage, otherwise I’d take a pic and show you. It’s no longer about the overall size of the shoe. All the retro proportions are just a bit off.
- 914
- 1,723
You probably onto something and correct. Yes in general I was talking about most retros being shorter and less bulky. And yes I was talking about 11s too. When I had the bred 11s 2012 I noticed from videos they were shorter but on comparisons of like concord and the newer generation 11s I'm sure they corrected it but might still be a little shorter. I would love to see comparisons if anybody has ogs and a current 11.
And yeah most definitely proportions and Angles off on all retros.
But yeah they need to fix the height, proportions and angles of the retros in general.
And yeah most definitely proportions and Angles off on all retros.
But yeah they need to fix the height, proportions and angles of the retros in general.
- 2,177
- 7,027
Let's be real, they're just doing it so that they can wait until 2028 for the 40th anniversary of the Air Jordan 3 to give them the High '85 treatment. I can see it now:
"Even after 40 years since their debut on Mikes feet when he was an up and coming rookie taking the NBA and the world by storm, the Air Jordan 3 continues to captivate the eyes of many. In honor and celebration of their 40th anniversary, we are releasing them true to form, with all the original cuts, dimensions and specs so they look exactly like the pair Mike laced up and wore as he took to the air from the free-throw line. We here at Jordan Brand are proud to bring you the Air Jordan 3 OG '88."
They'll do all this grand gesturing just to still have the Nike Air misaligned or the EP height perfect but with the thick lines we see today.
- 3,085
- 5,876
Or maybe they won’t do it at all anyway because we will buy every release regardless.
- 3,874
- 8,055
We all suckers. The reebok classic is a perfect reproduction of its original mold. Meanwhile Jordan brand only cares about their bottom line. I work for a corp I get it. Money over everything they don’t give a **** about details or the vision they sought out to capture. Jordan just cares about payroll
- 827
- 1,209
I HAVE to get this pair at retail man. That’s it. I’ve been wanting this since retros really became a thing and the Jumpman on the heel joints don’t count to me. Hope my Dad (RIP) looks down and gives me that little extra oop of luck.
- 1,513
- 2,357
Hard to put into words how much better these are than my 2013s. These are a double up 100000%
- 35,465
- 77,988
Sorry for the bad quality but I woke up to Little Monsters and peeped some OG
- 1,104
- 1,478
Which is why Ive passed on so many OG retro releases lately. ..
- 3,085
- 5,876
The “we” who actually care about it being a 1:1 accurate retro is in the minority. I said before, those 85 Natural Grey 1s and Georgetowns would have sat if it was a general release. And considering resale prices, I still stand by that.
Last edited:
- 835
- 1,687
All it takes is the right design team to get the retros more accurate. It worked for the Air Max 90’s and Huaraches. Someone is paying attention because of tweaks we have seen on the 2s and 3s.
rainking
Supporter
- 8,297
- 18,080
That’s pretty much true but it still doesn’t explain how or why they ever screwed up so many retro models in the first place.
They’re making a shoe, so why not just make them look the way they were while they’re at it? The main things people complain about are shape, color shades and proportions. It’s difficult for me to understand how those things would cost any more, which if they did would make sense as an incentive to have made the changes.
It’s lot easier for me to understand why they use crap leather on a lot of them, because I assume it increases the profit margin. But shape and colors and overall proportions? What does that cost?
The one thing I have wondered—and I have no idea of how the shoe manufacturing process really works—is if, on the IIIs and IVs, for example: Maybe they use (or were using) a shoe last that’s not actually specific to those models and is more of a generic last used for multiple shoes. Obviously having specific lasts for each shoe wound logically cost more. So MAYBE something like that explains at least some of it? Total guess on my part.
- 4,319
- 7,453
I don't think the money really matters when it comes to putting more material into a shoe, like making it higher for example.
I used to think that them making the Jordan 4s a lower cut was saving them money on every pair because of that extra inch of leather, but it probably doesn't because so many shoes are so much higher than the 4. If this were the case they would be chopping down all retro shoes and not just Jordans.
I've compared my 4s with all sorts of shoes and they are just lower when they shouldn't be. Here are some random shots I took, the shoes compared with the 4s don't matter, they're just examples.
I used to think that them making the Jordan 4s a lower cut was saving them money on every pair because of that extra inch of leather, but it probably doesn't because so many shoes are so much higher than the 4. If this were the case they would be chopping down all retro shoes and not just Jordans.
I've compared my 4s with all sorts of shoes and they are just lower when they shouldn't be. Here are some random shots I took, the shoes compared with the 4s don't matter, they're just examples.
- 4,319
- 7,453
The 4s are intentionally more off from the OGs than any other Jordan and I don't think it's just to save money.
