OFFICIAL: Nike Zoom FLYKNIT Collection - Racers + Trainers ONLY - (SIZE POLL ON FIRST PAGE. CHECK TH

Size preference

  • True to size

    Votes: 101 48.3%

  • True to size runs snug, but feels fine

    Votes: 40 19.1%

  • Runs small, need to go .5 size up

    Votes: 50 23.9%

  • Runs big, need to go .5 size down

    Votes: 28 13.4%
  • Total voters
    209
Show All
dragicon said:
I hooked probably 10 people up from NT on the silver bullets 97, skeptas, and numerous people in this thread for racers/trainer including the knit by knights shortly after release... all for retail.

This multis were on ndc for 6+ months. And we on sale for months, and for a couple days at $52... I'm picking those up for myself if there's that much time.
Click to expand...
You always hook up NTers man! That's why I always appreciate you!
 
fargin said:
Please don't call them that.

They were my first racers, when I tried them on in the store, my feet felt alive again.
Click to expand...


I love racers, but honestly im not a big fan of these.

I have maybe 5 more colorways to go so I can be totally satisfied.
 
IMG_20180712_231248.jpg


Haven't checked this thread in a while and just happened to stumble into HoH today :evil::evil:
 
masshi said:
the moral thing to do would be to hook up others with the price you yourself paid (plus shipping/fees) - you know, like sharing the savings

you know, like a nice person

or do some people here really think that reselling shoes for profit isn't scummy?





... where did i say it's tons of work, or even imply it

not knowing your own shoe size and reading comprehension issues?

bruh, you on one
Click to expand...
Selling sneakers at a premium isn't a moral dilemma. Everything you buy, see and touch has been resold to you by a middle man at 5-100x + what it cost to produce.

Besides, sneakers in excess is a choice and a privilege, not a necessity.

When speaking of morals, a "moral dilemma" would be selling sneakers to a village in a 3rd world country (especially if their your own people) and making a huge profit off of them. Or, making a profit off of something that the same poor village couldn't live without...like clean water. See the difference? Sneakers in excess vs. Clean water?

Picking up 3 pairs of sneakers and selling 2 for double the price in America isn't a moral issue.
 
NipseyRustle said:
Selling sneakers at a premium isn't a moral dilemma. Everything you buy, see and touch has been resold to you by a middle man at 5-100x + what it cost to produce.

Besides, sneakers in excess is a choice and a privilege, not a necessity.

When speaking of morals, a "moral dilemma" would be selling sneakers to a village in a 3rd world country (especially if their your own people) and making a huge profit off of them. Or, making a profit off of something that the same poor village couldn't live without...like clean water. See the difference? Sneakers in excess vs. Clean water?

Picking up 3 pairs of sneakers and selling 2 for double the price in America isn't a moral issue.
Click to expand...


bruh, the difference between a business selling sneakers and a dude reselling sneakers is that the former is legitimate

their mark-up is necessitated by the costs of running a business, and obviously not all revenue is direct profit

on the other hand, a dude reselling a shoe for two or more times what he paid for it just cause he was able to click on a screen faster or whatever is not legitimate, and everything he pockets from the transaction (minus the very minor shipping/miscellaneous fees) is direct profit grossly disproportionate to the work put in


as for your second point, what are you even trying to say? that the world can only exist in extremes or something?

scummily reselling sneakers for profit and depraving a "poor village" of "clean water" or whatever can both be "moral dilemmas", just on different scales
 
Last edited:
masshi said:
bruh, the difference between a business selling sneakers and a dude reselling sneakers is that the former is legitimate

their mark-up is necessitated by the costs of running a business, and obviously not all revenue is direct profit

on the other hand, a dude reselling a shoe for two or more times what he paid for it just cause he was able to click on a screen faster or whatever is not legitimate
Click to expand...
tenor.gif
 
masshi said:
on the other hand, a dude reselling a shoe for two or more times what he paid for it just cause he was able to click on a screen faster or whatever is not legitimate, and everything he pockets from the transaction (minus the very minor shipping/miscellaneous fees) is direct profit grossly disproportionate to the work put in
Click to expand...

I'd agree if we were talking Supreme/OW/etc. and new items were being bought solely for their obscene resale values, but buying 3 shoes that were readily available online/in most retail stores for over a year and putting 2 of them up for sale for retail/below (regardless of how much they were purchased for) is not a scummy move.

He didn't force anyone to buy them and they were still decently priced compared to retail (which I happily paid for my 2015 MC 2.0s at the time).

The only moral dilemma is why any of us even responded to such a intellectually dense comment in the first place...
 
masshi said:
bruh, the difference between a business selling sneakers and a dude reselling sneakers is that the former is legitimate

their mark-up is necessitated by the costs of running a business, and obviously not all revenue is direct profit

on the other hand, a dude reselling a shoe for two or more times what he paid for it just cause he was able to click on a screen faster or whatever is not legitimate, and everything he pockets from the transaction (minus the very minor shipping/miscellaneous fees) is direct profit grossly disproportionate to the work put in


as for your second point, what are you even trying to say? that the world can only exist in extremes or something?

scummily reselling sneakers for profit and depraving a "poor village" of "clean water" or whatever can both be "moral dilemmas", just on different scales
Click to expand...

the dude still sold it for under retail so stop trying to compare what he did to actual resellers selling a shoe for double or triple retail because that's the actual problem with resellers.
 
Gonna hold out til prices under 80 tbh..only need the white gums and may just cop the reds somewhere, havent seen them anywhere online yet.
 
agoatnamedsally said:
I'd agree if we were talking Supreme/OW/etc. and new items were being bought solely for their obscene resale values, but buying 3 shoes that were readily available online/in most retail stores for over a year and putting 2 of them up for sale for retail/below (regardless of how much they were purchased for) is not a scummy move.

He didn't force anyone to buy them and they were still decently priced compared to retail (which I happily paid for my 2015 MC 2.0s at the time).

The only moral dilemma is why any of us even responded to such a intellectually dense comment in the first place...
Click to expand...


did they still sit when they were reduced to ~$50? or was it only prior?

regardless, it's still the same s***

dude consciously bought shoes for the sole purpose of reselling them for profit (and don't give me any of that "didn't force anyone to buy them" nonsense, either)

could've just as easily only bought the one pair he needed and left it at that, but why do that when you can make an easy buck for "3 minutes of work" (in his own words)?

way more charitable than just leaving them alone for other people to grab at that great price, right?



jamieb15 said:
the dude still sold it for under retail so stop trying to compare what he did to actual resellers selling a shoe for double or triple retail because that's the actual problem with resellers.
Click to expand...


under retail, but still twice what he himself paid for it (that's a 100% return on an investment for only "3 minutes of work" fyi, caveat being that you have to compromise your integrity)

and yes, it's still an "actual problem" cause he unnecessarily bought up stock that could've went to others at the price he bought them at
 
Last edited:
masshi said:
did they still sit when they were reduced to ~$50? or was it only prior?

regardless, it's still the same s***

dude consciously bought shoes for the sole purpose of reselling them for profit (and don't give me any of that "didn't force anyone to buy them" nonsense, either)

could've just as easily only bought the one pair he needed and left it at that, but why do that when you can make an easy buck for "3 minutes of work" (in his own words)?

way more charitable than just leaving them alone for other people to grab at that great price, right?






under retail, but still twice what he himself paid for it (that's a 100% return on an investment for only "3 minutes of work" fyi, caveat being that you have to compromise your integrity)

and yes, it's still an "actual problem" cause he unnecessarily bought up stock that could've went to others at the price he bought them at
Click to expand...
You're ridiculous man... They sat for hours on that major discount.... Why you such a baby about this? And it was on sale for under $100 in multiple sites. Stop feeding this troll yo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

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