bigj505
Staff member
- Jan 23, 2007
- 42,582
- 21,771
I really hope Nike blesses us with the Silver pair again. I slept hard on the Retro and my OG's are no longer wearable.
my OG pair has faded paint for days....
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I really hope Nike blesses us with the Silver pair again. I slept hard on the Retro and my OG's are no longer wearable.
maaaan the eggplants were on sale on NDC + promo codes and they still didn't sell out
golds hit $50 at footlockers too
im not really sure if the blacks hit the sales that hard tho. silvers either to be honest.
Nike blessed us in that the 4 GR colorways they did drop were extremely plentiful. Cursed us with 2 beautiful HoH colors that should have been more produced.
naw bruh.... the 2010 pearls were def on sale. nike super over produced those. even were on cleaeance on nike.com
my OG pair has faded paint for days....
aside from what you outlined above....on the flightposite exposed, there are no vents.....so to make the medial side of the exposed more "streamlined"....they added two ridges towards the front to make the medial and lateral sides of the shoe identical.
When the exposed failed....they put back on the zipper, and cut holes into the existing mold to put back the vents...right over one of the additional ridges.
View media item 824307
View media item 824309
I don't really care much for these
I have never been a fan of the silver FP 1. The silver should have had the same finish as the gold/eggplant CWs. They've always been dull. I got the OG for the low and mine started to fade too. Never happen to my other colors.
Euro on the left, US on the right.The og silvers came in another version that wasn't dull. Euro version had a textured finish
ok I've looked at the pics a couple times but I only count one extra ridge not 2, am I blind in both eyes?
Original
Retro
Yea, i'm curious to see what these look like when they're worn consistently, that was a big flex point.
aside from what you outlined above....on the flightposite exposed, there are no vents.....so to make the medial side of the exposed more "streamlined"....they added two ridges towards the front to make the medial and lateral sides of the shoe identical.
When the exposed failed....they put back on the zipper, and cut holes into the existing mold to put back the vents...right over one of the additional ridges.
in every comparison pic there's a ridge on the toe of the og and nu-retro, I see the one by the vent being the difference but that's the only one, I count from toe to heel 6 ridges on the nu-retro and 5 on the og in all pics ?????One by the vent and one by the toe.
in every comparison pic there's a ridge on the toe of the og and nu-retro, I see the one by the vent being the difference but that's the only one, I count from toe to heel 6 ridges on the nu-retro and 5 on the og in all pics ?????
For those that own the original flightposites, a quick question.
I wear a 10/10.5 depending on the shoes. Would an 11 in the originals be alright, or would my toes be swimming in them? Thanks for any help.
ok that's where I got confused so that's a stitch line not a ridge, hard to tell in the pics and I don't remember from seeing them on shelves back in 2010 I know that i'm def in the minority but I like the non raised front outsole better, the spikes would've been cool but I never liked the side outsole raised up like thatHere are the ridge changes highlighted.
What looks like a ridge on the toe of the OG design is actually a seam/stitching.
IMO the ridges dont really bother me... its the outsole that ruins the shoe.
Thanks man.If your foot is wide, you might be able to do an 11, but otherwise stick with your size.
man such a big difference...thats crazy