Nike Air Trainer 3 retro's over the years

Officially this version isn’t the Og colorway. So there’s really no relation. It’s just slightly close.

You’d have to go back to 2000 for that one
679066-142
White/indigo blue -varsity red officially.

1592579374459.jpeg

I had a pair. Definitely a dark blue, if not really really close to the Nike air trainer ii sc infrared. That one used indigo navy, not black. That one always came across as more black/infrared, but it’s not.
1592579707576.jpeg

Long story short, Nike needs to use indigo blue navy for a true og retro, not this midnight navy garbage.

Even with a flash, it comes across much darker than this lighter midnight navy
1592580024903.jpeg

This midnight navy retro is definitely too light of a blue To pass as a real og. But it’s close.
 
Last edited:
Great point. The key is indigo navy vs. midnight navy....so true! I have the 2001s, and even those look more blue at a glance than I recall the OGs. The trainer ii you show definitely looks right on from what I remember.

Any theories as to why they can't give us OG perforations? My theory is the materials of these later version are such that perforations that close would not look right, in that it would not be clean cuts and basically just damage the materials. I can't think of any other logical reason. The original leather, even going back to the 2001 models would perforate correctly. It's a theory anyway....
 
For reference, The original was white/indigo Navy
1592581347004.jpeg


I think everything looked darker in the scans. On foot; the original looked identical to the recent qs trainer ii infrareds.

pwguy pwguy
Perforations changed in 2007 with the transformer c/w. I want to say it's more a factory issue along with materials being much LESS flexible. They've yet to correct it. Or they're lazy. It's a bit beyond words since they've been able to do different materials on the upper like this
1592582173876.jpeg


Then again, the 2012 chlorophyll at1s had great small perforations, so my biggest lean is on Nike being lazy and lacking that attention to detail.

If you recall, the catalog scans showed this larger at3 like perf. Holes
1592582289442.jpeg


And this is what we got
1592582331790.jpeg



Verdict: lazy.
 
Agreed...lazy! Never knew there was a women's SC. They're like some crazy trainer ii, TW, men's SC hybrid....interesting!

In the pic above of the 3 OGs, it's amazing how crisp and white the Navy's plastic is compared to the yellowed MB and even the Grey's.
 
They look exactly like the pics. What elements of them are you not liking now that you have them in hand?
I wasn't feeling the on foot look. The color wasn't the problem. Never had a pair and was curious to see how they would look on foot before i tried to track down a medicine ball pair for resell.
 
Here's my pair and a comparison pic with the 2001s. Plastic is definitely a shade of grey more than white when seen in person. That's the greatest disappointment (aside from the swoosh), however, I still like them a lot, particular given the absence of a proper OG rendition. (So I guess Nike got me spending money on a shoe that I initially said I wouldn't mess w/ b/c they screwed us on the OGs!) Upside is that they're less likely to yellow I suppose. Also, just noticed that even the 2001s have red pods on the outsole, which is not correct; OGs were blue. So Nike never got these right.

They fit TTS for me, but mind you, I've never had the pinky toe issue that many people on here complain about. I'm a pretty avg build, so shoes, shirts, suit jackets, all fit me in standard sizes off the rack, which is lucky I guess.

Glad I jumped on these as my size 10.5 was the first to sell out after the 12.5s, and with 15% off, it's one of the least expensive shoes I have in a land of Jordans....heh.

Included a pic below of my collection; need to add these on the next update.

20200619_120822.jpg
20200619_120604 (2020-06-19T19_22_21.476).jpg
20200619_120729.jpg
20200619_120822.jpg
20200619_120830.jpg
Sneakers.png
 
Thx pwguy pwguy for the 1:1 comparison! It is such a pitty how bad the 2020's quality is compared to the 2001's. No microperforations and the leather is pleather... I just don't get it!
 
Thx pwguy pwguy for the 1:1 comparison! It is such a pitty how bad the 2020's quality is compared to the 2001's. No microperforations and the leather is pleather... I just don't get it!

Yeah, I hear you. It's amazing how simple perforations make the shoe look so much more premium and change the design so dramatically. Interestingly, I'd say that the overall quality of the materials is notably better than the retro OG Jordan colorways I have though. The AT3 Black Attack Pack pair I have has the most premium leather of all (trainers & jordans); too bad the midsole paint chips unlike these later retro trainers (from the '14 MBs and later I'd say).
 
i caved in and got a pair of navys...even though not true to OG i prefer the red swoosh. i dont like the pleather on the navy portion and the lack of micro perf but im really feeling the easy cop with 20% disco and 8% rakuten cash back.
 
Last edited:
So the swoosh outline on the navy joints is indeed 3M. Interesting.

I’m generally a 3M *****, but I could take it or leave it on these. I would’ve preferred a solid swoosh, but I’m not too mad at the 3M.
 
Because it's awesome! For me the only other shoe that competes as my Goat is the Jordan 4. If I had to keep only 2 shoes it would be properly done OG Navys and the WC4.
 
^^Hey pwguy, what's your take on the Medicine Balls from last yr? Had them but sold them, thought they would be better quality but still regret selling them.
 
Back
Top Bottom