Nike Air Jordan Retro Metallic V - 7/23/16

X-Alt said:
nuclear90 said:
A retro can't be better than the original. That's like heresy.
Click to expand...
The 1994 III's make the 1988's look like garbage. 4's are barely worse because somebody failed in the netting department. The WC4's from 1999 have a better shade of gray and doesn't have OD speckling that looks like somebody got blasted with a shotgun (2016 especially). 5's are a quite a bit better because of better NA placement, Durabuck, and toebox. 2000 6's win because of better Durabuck and because the Midnight Navy 6 is partially responsible for global warming. 2000 11's are basically the same, inb4 the OG's go crazy because "2000 leather quality is garbage lalalalalalalala".
Click to expand...



All of this is just your opinion NOT fact. IMO OG's are and will always be better then any retro. Unless one day JB decides to make retros exactly the same as OG's, but I don't see them ever doing it.
 
stevesteve72 said:
All of this is just your opinion NOT fact. IMO OG's are and will always be better then any retro. Unless one day JB decides to make retros exactly the same as OG's, but I don't see them ever doing it.
Click to expand...
Design changes in most retros were for a reason, especially the 3, no different from the changes that saved the 10. My view on the 5 can be a bit controversial, but the paper thin leather and slim toebox were rectified in the Retro, and that's a plus in my eyes. However, I do admit there are cases like the 2's where even the first retros fall flat on their face.

The issue pops up after 2003, with blatant shortcuts that took years to be adressed. As long as I don't pay an insane price, I'm ok with reduced quality, they were always just $20 shoes with a great designer.

I simply don't agree that the first set of retroes are somehow magically inferior to their originals.

OG/=/Best
 
Last edited:
There isn't one OG out there that doesn't look better than the retro that came after it. That 80's toe box is part of the design. The lines don't flow as well when they alter it. 
 
Last edited:
MarzThaRealist said:
 
 ​
 ​
 ​
 ​
 ​
 ​
​
 ​
 ​
 ​
​
 ​
 ​
​
 ​
 ​
 ​
 ​
Click to expand...
Look how smooth the lines play off of each other in the 1990 pair. It's sleekness plays into the fighter plane theme. Also, look at how much better the netting is. The transparency and the holes make the design so much better. They used to look like feathery wings and now it just looks like a side panel with holes cut out.
 
bballermarkie said:
The 2001 were better than the original 11s
Click to expand...

I completely disagree. The patent leather cut was changed for the worse imo. The 2000 retro also lacked ankle padding.

In general I think the 94 and 99-00 retros were at least on par with the ogs. They tended to try to fix issues with the originals rather than change things to reduce the quality or make them cheaper to manufacture.
They nailed the 3s in 94, those were the best version overall. They also fixed the collar area on the 1s that always rots on the ogs.
They fixed the tongue on the 4s in 99 and also used the better durabuck on the 5/6 (although they took out the 3M on the 6 which always bothered me).
I can see the argument for keeping things super og and would prefer that to what we normally get these days. Regardless, I think whoever was in charge of the retro campaign back in those days had the absolute right idea.
 
tonytobacco said:
Look how smooth the lines play off of each other in the 1990 pair. It's sleekness plays into the fighter plane theme. Also, look at how much better the netting is. The transparency and the holes make the design so much better. They used to look like feathery wings and now it just looks like a side panel with holes cut out.
Click to expand...
tonytobacco said:
There isn't one OG out there that doesn't look better than the retro that came after it. That 80's toe box is part of the design. The lines don't flow as well when they alter it. 
Click to expand...
The issue I have with the OG, mind the superior netting is the toebox and old durabuck. It's looks awful in person, can't speak for back then. The 2000 Nikebuck has a certain hint of fuzz that helps it stay looking dry. I also prefer the 2000 because the angle on the toebox isn't so harsh, unlike the 2011 and 1990 which are exact opposites. The 2011 steel toed boots of course takes the cake with the small netting and velvety nubuck.

If they were WW2 era planes, I'd see the the 1990 as a P-63, the 2000 as a P-51D, and the 2011 as a P-47. It's all about the smooth angles to me.
 
Last edited:
Is it just me or do these not look quite as steel toe bootish as the other remastered 5s we've been getting? Maybe I just need more pics. But if these are it, well done!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

therealest1
Jordan V Metallic Gold (Women) - Summer 2025
Replies
2
Views
424
therealest1
therealest1
therealest1
Jordan V Earth (Women) - Spring 2025
Replies
2
Views
761
PremioBinSoleFlyUnion
P
therealest1
Jordan XII Phantom (Women) - December 2024
Replies
3
Views
2K
therealest1
therealest1
therealest1
Jordan IV NET (Women) - Holiday 2024
Replies
7
Views
2K
Neocortex
N
therealest1
Nike SB x Jordan IV Navy - February 2025
2
Replies
37
Views
6K
DripNick
DripNick

Thread Gallery

View Full Gallery

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