- 4,983
- 814
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
I agree. I wish they would release in exact same look as og. that goes for all retro and re release
Space Jam 11's in December 2016? VOL - RUMOR RUMOR RUMOR NOT CONFIRMED!
- Thread in 'Jordan Brand' Thread starter Started by kintan,
- Start date
- Status
- 3
- 10
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2015
What do you guys think about the value of the 09 space jams after this release do you think a ds pair will be worth more or less after the new release
- 33,406
- 39,140
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2005
The 09 Space Jam's are trash. I wouldn't buy them for retail.
- 3,136
- 883
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2013
Imho Nike has been headed in the right direction with retros. I would guess they would be worth less.
The Fresh Prince
formerly airsakuragi
- 13,470
- 9,401
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2014
Most releases are GRs though
- 5,391
- 7,209
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2013
The discussion regarding prices was about 11's though, not all retros. Everyone who has bought the annual Christmas release can attest to the price increases.
And that chart is not a combination of the signature and retro lines. It's only signature. No retros from 97-99 were $150, and they damn sure weren't $200 in 2002 when the XVII's dropped.
And that chart is not a combination of the signature and retro lines. It's only signature. No retros from 97-99 were $150, and they damn sure weren't $200 in 2002 when the XVII's dropped.
Last edited:
The Fresh Prince
formerly airsakuragi
- 13,470
- 9,401
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2014
You looked at the adjusted inflation line, the lower blue line is the original prices of the shoes.
- 5,391
- 7,209
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2013
No, you're looking at the wrong line.
You can't even read the chart you presented correctly. I'm done.
You can't even read the chart you presented correctly. I'm done.
Last edited:
The Fresh Prince
formerly airsakuragi
- 13,470
- 9,401
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2014
Look at the lower blue line, Air Jordan 1 in 1985 cost 64.99 and as you can see the bottom line shows that.
- 5,391
- 7,209
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2013
Do you understand the words coming out of my mouth?
If this chart included signature and retro releases...then this original blue line would not have $150 Jordans in the late 90s or $200 Jordans in 2002. No retros were priced as such in that time period. There would be deviation.
Were you alive for it?
If this chart included signature and retro releases...then this original blue line would not have $150 Jordans in the late 90s or $200 Jordans in 2002. No retros were priced as such in that time period. There would be deviation.
Were you alive for it?
Last edited:
The Fresh Prince
formerly airsakuragi
- 13,470
- 9,401
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2014
From 2003 to 2012 is the retro portion, why do you think it lowered. That $200 Jordan in 2002 was the Jordan 17.
- 522
- 56
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2015
Let's just end this debate guys. Retros are now overpriced anyways.
- 14,455
- 19,531
- Joined
- May 14, 2013
It's still wrong though. Retros weren't $160-175 like the chart suggests
- 5,391
- 7,209
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2013
Retros started in 94...
1999 and 2000 saw 4's and 5's. Still no deviation in price. They didn't retail at the same price of the signatures. Only $100 and $120 I believe.
Why cherry pick and start with retros in only 2003? Even that isn't correct. 2003-2007 or 2008 retro releases were not over $150. There were significantly more retros than signature shoes released at that time to alter that depiction.
And the price lowered after the 17 because people didn't like paying $200 for them with a CD and briefcase. The 18s retailed for $175. It has nothing to do with retros.
1999 and 2000 saw 4's and 5's. Still no deviation in price. They didn't retail at the same price of the signatures. Only $100 and $120 I believe.
Why cherry pick and start with retros in only 2003? Even that isn't correct. 2003-2007 or 2008 retro releases were not over $150. There were significantly more retros than signature shoes released at that time to alter that depiction.
And the price lowered after the 17 because people didn't like paying $200 for them with a CD and briefcase. The 18s retailed for $175. It has nothing to do with retros.
Last edited:
The Fresh Prince
formerly airsakuragi
- 13,470
- 9,401
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2014
True, it probably averaged the price of that years signature model with the price of the retros.
Yes true, retros did started in '94 but signature shoes were also being produced as well. The chart as said before is a combination of the signature models and retros that year.
- 5,391
- 7,209
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2013
Let's break this down then...
AJ 17 - $200
AJ 18 - $175
AJ 19 - $165
AJ 20 - $175
AJ 21 - $175
AJ 22 - $175
The chart depicts these prices exactly. EXACT. But what you're saying is it's an average with retros, even though retros weren't anywhere near that price during that time?
The Fresh Prince
formerly airsakuragi
- 13,470
- 9,401
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2014
You're right it does match. Though the prices still average out with the retros.
- 8,886
- 13,632
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2012
lolwut. Take the L bruh. If the price indicated on the chart is EXACTLY (not about or around) the price of the flagship model of the year, how would this be possible while factoring in LOWER priced retros?
Chill Bill
formerly ihaveaquestion
- 3,717
- 2,248
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2014
If I ever find this poster again
I'm throwing it in the sneaker room
edit: Just noticed the laces are OD long in the pair MJ wearing
I'm throwing it in the sneaker room
edit: Just noticed the laces are OD long in the pair MJ wearing
Last edited:
- 5,391
- 7,209
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2013
Well then I'll end this by saying the chart is wrong, and the person who created it doesn't know how to calculate averages.
If the signature was $175, and a retro was $135 (which was about the norm of that period), the average is $155. No retros at that time were priced over the signature. It is not mathematically possible for that chart to be correct.
If you're still in school, you need to stay there.
If the signature was $175, and a retro was $135 (which was about the norm of that period), the average is $155. No retros at that time were priced over the signature. It is not mathematically possible for that chart to be correct.
If you're still in school, you need to stay there.
Last edited:
The Fresh Prince
formerly airsakuragi
- 13,470
- 9,401
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2014
Well my original point was that the price doesn't increase every year so it still valid.
- 5,391
- 7,209
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2013
Sure, but this whole topic came about because of your belief that a 2016 Space Jam could be priced lower than the 72-10. That is just not going to happen. It has been proven that the 11 doesn't follow the same structure of other retros. Especially one as beloved as the Space Jam relative to a retro+ colorway that still sold out at release.
If you want to argue that point, I don't know what else to say to you.
- 8,886
- 13,632
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2012
True, XIs haven't increased in price EVERY year, but they sure as hell haven't gone down lol.
The only time I believe the price went down was when the 25th Anniversary XIs came out. It went from $175 for the '09 Space Jam to $150 for the anniversary sneaker. Then again the anniversary was not a holiday release.
The point was brought up that the 72-10s had tumbled leather rather than the typical ballistic mesh, and that is a valid point but I highly doubt Jordan Brand is gonna bring the price down. The shoes WILL sell out at $220 even if people like you and I choose to pass.
The Fresh Prince
formerly airsakuragi
- 13,470
- 9,401
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2014
Remember how you posted that the Jordan 19 was $165 while the Jordan 17 and 18 were $200 and $175 respectively. Never count a change out my friend and it was a good debate by the way, the main point was proven true that the price doesn't increase every year; that's all that matters. Also the 72-10 11s considered a special commemoration, it wouldn't make since for the to charge $220 for a standard Jordan 11 (I believe $200 to $210 maybe) but not $220 +
sole blessed
Banned
- 2,333
- 732
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2015
- Status