- 43,548
- 27,845
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2002
June 30th last I've seen
THE OFFICIAL NIKE KOBE FOOTWEAR THREAD: RIP LEGEND 1978-2020. MAMBA FOREVER | 3 Releases 4/13
- Thread in 'Nike' Thread starter Started by thapointguy,
- Start date
June 30th last I've seen
- 1,030
- 772
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2016
Yup. I copped the first pair and the Laker colorway, but for these next two it's discount (if at all). The white pair and the grey IMO are underwhelming.
Last edited:
- 397
- 419
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2016
How are you liking them? Fit and cushioning, specifically? They seem like such cool kicks but after holding them in my hand they seem pretty flimsy. I know it's a minimalist design but sheesh. It's like the polar opposite of the Protros!
- 1,030
- 772
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2016
I've been wearing them casually. I agree they feel flimsy in the toe-box area, but I think it's deceiving. I've used nylon fishing line that can withstand quite a bit of weight/pull, and thats a single ultra-slim strand. That said, perception counts a lot. If people think it feels cheap... I think where this model is going to suffer (for a flyknit sneaker) is in the weave. You can see on the next release that they can't really pull off a multicolor weave because the front panel is so sparsely woven. They have to restrict the multi-weave to the back of the shoe where it's a thicker weave. If I still played ball, I'm confident these would be performance beasts...it's just that aesthetics are going to suffer. And as someone who now pretty much wears Kobes casually, looks matter. Especially at $200.
And that's another thing. As someone who has been a lurker on here for a decade, and has posted for a few years... People like sneakers that the player wore in game. Those have been the Kobes most wanted, and some of those PEs are some people's grails. It's the same with Js...people want OG colorways that MJ wore on court. Now that Kobe is retired, I think it's asking a bit to charge $200. Flip-side, I think Nike could get away with a $225-$240 price-point for retros of PEs, HTMs, etc.
Last edited:
rainking
Supporter
- 8,085
- 17,458
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2016
I'm going to regret this, but how old are you? It's most definitely NOT about inflation, it's about marketing. It's about testing the waters for both tech and positioning, because that's how the Kobe line is being treated. If you think inflation is the issue, no it is not. At best, Nike might--MIGHT--be laying the cost of new manufacturing onto this shoe upfront because it is the test vehicle. But inflation is a thing that gets thrown around on NT from time to time, and it's nonsense.
- 396
- 147
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2015
That’s spot on
- 1,030
- 772
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2016
I don't know about inflation in relation to sneakers, but I can say this. Many moons ago I worked in a sneaker store. There were times where a sneaker wouldn't move. It would be reduced by 10%, and in a matter of a day or so all popular sizes would be sold out. So a small discount of $6 off on a sneaker that's $150 could make a world of difference. From hardly being able to sell a single pair to selling out of all popular sizes in no time.
So you can imagine what a potential difference there could be between a sneaker that retails for $170 as opposed to $200. I mean, I don't think $6 is a lot to many of us. That's like a coffee now to some people. So I think a lot of it is perception as opposed to inflation or something.
Last edited:
- 43,548
- 27,845
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2002
Better on feet except not the socks lol
- 13,375
- 6,892
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2014
I cant wait for more pics of the white/MC with the green sole.
- 36,573
- 48,787
- Joined
- May 12, 2008
- 43,548
- 27,845
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2002
Size 10 Mamby Day on Eastbay.com Not sure if it'll go through after submitting payment or it'll say out of stock
- 43,548
- 27,845
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2002
I'm just not a fan of bright colored or graphic socks especially trying to match the kicks. I like that they are thin. Aren't they training/football socks?
- 2,599
- 801
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2013
Is that the underlying weave or is the "gauze" knit so thin that you can see the orange socks right through it?
- 3,784
- 3,575
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2014
orange socks
- 36,573
- 48,787
- Joined
- May 12, 2008
Football socks. racked up a few after seeing the light in Nike dri fit socks
- 1,030
- 772
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2016
It's thin. That's why I think they may used different color insoles to change the design of some colorways. The color of the insole shows through.
rainking
Supporter
- 8,085
- 17,458
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2016
The IVs were my first Jordan's, in 1989. MSRP was $110. That is $219.81 in today's dollars. The Pippen 1 was $160 in 1997. (A staggering amount at the time. I clearly remember holding them in a Footlocker during college and wanting them bad, but I just couldn’t bring myself to throw down that much money on one pair of shoes I wanted to ball in.) That is $251.43 today. The Foamposite cost an even more staggering $180 in 1997, or $282.86 in today's dollars. Meanwhile, today's Air Jordan 32 retails for $185, not $219.81. If inflation drove Nike's pricing, it would have the 32 priced about $35 more than it is. And there is no Nike basketball shoe (not counting limited editions, special makeups, premium/lux versions, etc.) priced at $251 let alone $282, as the Pippen and Foams would be today according to inflation.
So no, that is not why the Kobe 360s are $200. In fact, you could look at the situation and actually think we’re fortunate that sneaker pricing hasn’t increased all that much, dollar for dollar, in the past 20 years or so. I’d bet there are MORE shoes today priced at a higher ($130 and up) point than there were back then, but the actual maximum prices haven’t kept up with inflation whatsoever.
- 41,024
- 61,970
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2014
I remember during Nike basketball's boom period, people were paying $50+ resale for some damn graphic elite socks lol.
- 2,438
- 1,488
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2015
$50 bux for socks is high enough, how much was the final price?
- 36,573
- 48,787
- Joined
- May 12, 2008
I would think marketing and research and development is the reason for the up tick in MSRP price.
Good see you guys paid attention to economic class in high school or college .
I remember also when them Nike elite socks were hitting the resell market last, kinda surprised me people are willing to make a quick buck off of socks. Lol.
Good see you guys paid attention to economic class in high school or college .
I remember also when them Nike elite socks were hitting the resell market last, kinda surprised me people are willing to make a quick buck off of socks. Lol.
rainking
Supporter
- 8,085
- 17,458
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2016
- 41,024
- 61,970
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2014
Unless you desparately need a new pair of ball kicks and these are your #1 option or the pair will sell out, I just think paying $200 isn't the smartest thing to do. Not trying to knock anyone paying full price. Plus Kobe isn't even in the league anymore so they're an even harder selling point at $200 regardless of the tech. There's a reason Jordans 1-14 are the most popular and the best sellers.
There was a signature shoe (can't remember which player) and Nike promoted all the fancy new tech on their website and they were on the upwards of $180+. Then about a month later, someone posted a picture on NT of every single pair of that shoe discounted at a Foot Locker at $30-$40 less. Bottom line is their full prices are BS. Eventually when these get marked down they'll be what the "real" price should be.
There was a signature shoe (can't remember which player) and Nike promoted all the fancy new tech on their website and they were on the upwards of $180+. Then about a month later, someone posted a picture on NT of every single pair of that shoe discounted at a Foot Locker at $30-$40 less. Bottom line is their full prices are BS. Eventually when these get marked down they'll be what the "real" price should be.
- 1,030
- 772
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2016
The first sneaker came out in late Nov of 2014 ($225). The second one came out a little over a month later ($275) Same model Kobe. Same tech. Same materials. BUT...the second one was $50 more. Fifty dollars (50).
How is that possible? IMO, it's simply because the second one was that year's 'What The'; it was assumed there would be a lot more hype regarding that release, and they thought they could get away with $50 increase. It sat in stores near me. I call BS on a lot of the 'the new tech costs more $.' Just my opinion.
How is that possible? IMO, it's simply because the second one was that year's 'What The'; it was assumed there would be a lot more hype regarding that release, and they thought they could get away with $50 increase. It sat in stores near me. I call BS on a lot of the 'the new tech costs more $.' Just my opinion.
Attachments
- 2,537
- 1,457
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2010
I appreciate the numbers you pulled/calculated, gives a lot of perspective.
However, is it fair to say inflation doesn't effect shoes as much as other commodities? Shoes have arguably gotten cheaper to produce and more automated. I'm not sure how expensive raw materials (leather) are, but I'm guessing textiles and knits are cheaper? IDK, this is pure speculation on my part.
Another thing I was thinking is they're also making shoes at a margin they are comfortable with. For example, if those Pippen 1s were $160 MSRP, but maybe cost $40 to make, then they made $120 profit. Common sense to me says Nike has only tried to grow that margin over time, not reduce it, so I gotta believe they're making at least $120 per 360 sold. Let's say, for convenience, they increased that $120 margin by $40 to $160, meaning it cost them $40 to produce the 360. Long story short, while average Nike BBall shoe prices haven't increased to $250+, Nike has advanced their production methods to make shoes or chosen materials that allow them to make the same profit per pair, presumably more, which allows them to keep their shoe prices roughly the same as the mid 90s.
Although I'm glad shoes don't regularly cost $250+, I don't feel "fortunate" either as if Nike is doing us a favor.
