When you say how horrible the quality of the Jordan Brand Retros......Explain to me how really bad..

[bobyelenak]

The quality is terrible for the recent XIV's that dropped in the pack with the IXs. I've played ball in them 3 times, the stiching as started to comeloose at the top, the jump man logo on the side was covered cheaply by a piece of plastic that ripped and has peeled/fallen off after 10-15 games ofbasketball... poor! Not built like the XIVs used to be.

 

[charmcitykid]

Here's yoour correct answer:

JB dont care about the qualilty of the shoes,its business as usual,its all about the $$$

 

[el bro]

Originally Posted by fenixconnexion

I believe tumbled leather was used on the french blue VIIs in 2002

the quality comes in extremities, the quality is either HORRIBLE or very good

examples of horrible quality: military IV, mars IV, fire red V

examples of good quality: black V from 07, fire red III, CG III

so your argument only applies to certain retros

Sorry my friend but the 07 black V and Fire Red III were horrible in comparison to the III and V back before 2004. I had both and after seeing such adifference, got rid of them.

Ill tell you whats wrong with everything from jordan now in regards to retros.

The 07 Black V was not comfortable, in regards to cushioning. Whatever air units they use now are not comfortable at all. They are hard. I cut my achilleson the back part, because the cushioning was so poorly made. The nubuck felt cheap, and yellowing already on the clear soles in certain areas right out of thebox.

I compared these to my 2000 Black V. In the 2000, I can feel the air being responsive to my heel, and is very cushiony, the nubuck felt very stable, and Iwear low cut socks with them and have never had any issues with my achilles. Not to mention, the shoe does not look like a banana.

Now granted, the 2007 shape was not as bad as the 06 IV, but it still had that banana shape.

 

[blee23]

Shoe Shape, quality of materials, stitching, glue stains Etc. has been on a steady decline since '01: FACT

 

[carminejordan]

 

[jumpman623]

I think some retros are better than their OG counterpart. example, my retro 7 blk/red. my og bordeaux and og blk/red
creased ridiculously compared to my retro. My ogs also had many defects in stitching and glue and all had smashed toeboxes
from the get go . OG 12s are built like tanks and mine are still wearable but my retros(although alot flimsier) still look nds with
almost no signs of creasing. I cant complain too much on the recent retros i have purchased. my fire red 3s from '07 still look good
with lots of wears while my '03 cements creased alot more with alot less wears.

 

[aircj]

Best Retro as far as Quality wise
are the Bred XI,XII,and XIII

Millitary IV were a joke and that is why Iam glad I pass on these
I will take my chance on a DS 99 IV then these 06 crap.

 

[swingshot]

Originally Posted by J Capo

I may be the only one, but my FR IIIs have held up pretty well. My Aquas on the other hand, which have been worn less then 10 times......not so much (mind you this pictures makes them look significantly less cracked then they really are)

Bad quality or not, back in the day i wore my OG Aquas 3 or 4 times a week for a good four months, and that did not happen.

 

[Bonafide]

If im not mistaking these are called the gloves

 

[bigmiz]

The black cat and pure retros are some of the best ever. They are thin in terms of leather and the tongues are way too big but they hold up better than any j ihave ever had, until the 23. It is a soldier. Everyday I look at my space jam xi's like what was the piont the sole was clear for a week. Then i look at myog xi l.e. and say the same thing.

 

[mustbetheshoe58]

quality has gone downhill..like a lot

 

[jupeezy]

quality is definitely horrible nowadays compared to what they used to put out...i would say most stuff after 02 was lacking in the quality department....thatsjust my opinion

 

[poofyo101]

quality of ogs and older retros for the most part are better
i think that they are doing a better job not doing clear soles because it seems like my soles are yellowing as fast as my older retros did
it is just nice to be able to wear the newer retros regarless of quality because the older ones will crack and so on. i cant say i wouldnt mind if jb did usebetter materials on some retros

 

[x016x]

Hopefully I can settle this debate, most likely not. Here's some food for thought gentlemen: I had a pair of original Fire Red #23 Vs size 9.5 just beforethe 2006 retro came out. I didn't have the original shoe box but I DID have the original lace locks. Now the original shoe box I couldn't care lessabout, the same goes for the original lace locks but I did notice a few differences between the two. In one of the stupidest decisions I ever made in thesneaker game, I sold my original Fire Red #23 Vs on eBay for $105.00 shipped to some guy in Japan. My mindset at the time was. since the same sneaker was goingto be retroed in 2006, I figured why be stuck with an old, used pair when I can have a brand new, fresh pair of Fire Red #23 Vs. Boy was I wrong and not a daygoes by that I think about the OG Fire Red #23 Vs that I lost. The Vs are easily my favorite Jordan sneaker. Here's a picture of me wearing the originalpair.






This picture was posted once in the "What Did You Wear Today?" forum here 2 years back. Now the differences are obvious between the original Fire Red#23 Vs and the 2006 Retro. The 23 is noticeably smaller on the 2006 retro and, of course, there's a lack of Nike Air on the back of the 2006 retro. Onething that I found awesome about the original that is non-existent in the 2006 retro is that the netting on the original pair wasn't yellowing at all.It's probably not that noticeable in that picture but in person, it really did look like a fresh pair of Vs aside from a few scratches on the leather onthe toe box. Now I know that this picture only shows the right sneaker but still, it is not lost on me the exact quality of the sneaker. The original Fire Red#23 pair by far OWNS the retro 2006 pair. After a few wears of the 2006 retro, I was floored at how bad the quality was. Creasing after 3 wears? I wasn'teven doing anything extreme for any creasing to happen. The original pair had no creasing on the heel at all. I thought that was amazing considering how oldthe pair was. To my surprise, BOTH the heels of the original Fire Red #23 Vs had virtually NO creasing. The only thing that gave away its age was the scratcheson the leather toe box. That was about it. Seriously, not a day goes by that I regret letting those babies go. I feel like somebody should stamp"%%$" on my forehead lol because the 2006 retro is gay compared to the original not just because of the jumpman on the back but the yellowingnetting, the easily creased toe box, the easily creased heel, and how the fire red was kinda dull compared to the original pair. The original pairs Fire Redwas d3f brighter. Anyways hope this settles the argument. If the original Vs are better than the retro Vs, I don't doubt that the same thing holds true forthe rest of the Jordans. Hell I wouldn't be surprised if they cheaped us out on the Jordan 21 retro. I don't personally own a pair of Jordan 21s butstill, nothing beats the quality of the original.

And don't be too quick to stamp %%$ on my forehead, I still got my 1999 pair Vs.



And my 1994 pair 1s



My summation, OGs > Retros but then again, EVERYONE knew this. We're just going around in circles. =] And guys lets be friendly. Always trying to owneach other. Truth is, there's no right or wrong answer. Everyones expectations and standards differ from each other. I may love the 1994 retro 1s whilesome other guy here may hate the 94 retros guts. I may hate the existence of the 15s while some other guy might love them to death.

 

[typecast3]

yeah retros are actually BETTER quality trust me. i'm old enough to have had the OG pairs and they fell apart and busted air bubbles but none of theseidiots will admit that.
they think HEAVY shoes = better quality.

you know the IQ of these guys in here lol

 

[fit perfect]

Hmm, this is an interesting thread. I was thinking about purchasing some Air Jordan Retro 5' for playing indoor basketball regularly. But if they are justgoing to fall apart on me I guess I'll have to look for something else

.

 

[sickickz23]

Originally Posted by jacksonvilleNC

People who didn't own a Jordan retro shoe before 02 should not post in this topic, b/c it obvious you dont no about quality.

this thread should've been locked after this post.

 

[jvhoop22]

Originally Posted by CarmineJordan

People complain how bad the quality it is on a Air Jordan retro,but to be honest with you I actually think they are great quality and since of course retro jordans
are mainly for casual wear,why complain about the quality of the shoes......

Of course I know the materials are not the same as the Original mold//template,but shoes are shoes......

Example
Leather//Tumbled leather//Pleather,
Whatever...was used last on the French Blue 7's back in 2002 right?

or tell me
what was the last quality Air Jordan retro?



Edit: It looks like nobody red (read) my post clearly,I DO NOT want to know which shoes sucks,I DO NOT care how many OG collectors are going to get at me,I DO NOT care that Jordan brand put cheap quality on newer retros now,It's not hard getting OG's.
If I want to play basketball then I bring out the newer signatures.....

Your argument makes no sense on so many levels.
Firstly, the usage of a sneaker, shoe or garment does notnecessarily determine the quality of the materials used to create it. Usage will dictate the construction and the type of materials, but not the quality. Tosay there is no need to use good materials on a casual product (which Jordans are NOT. They are basketball performance sneakers though they may be worncasually) is ludicrous. Often casual products are of the best quality; otherwise, there would be no luxury fashion brands. Do people wear $300 dollar dressshoes to play basketball in? NO, but that doesn't mean quality leather isn't used in their production.

Secondly, let me define what I consider quality for an Air Jordan:

Using the same materials and construction used on the OGs. This means:

1. LEATHER instead of pleather. There are also various thicknesses of leather that can be used. The softer and thicker the leather, the better. Softer DOES NOTmean flimsy. Compare the '00 V's to the newer V's. While the '00 model has soft and sturdy leather, the newer model feels like cardboard.

2. SOLID PADDING. For example this example I'll continue with the V. The '00 V has solid ankle padding. When you lace them up they feel substantial onyour feet (almost as if you could play basketball in them. What a surprise considering they are basketball sneakers?). The more recent retros are extremelyflimsy. So much so that my ankles often hurt a little from wearing them. I can also press in the extra padding on the outer ankle padding so that it makes a"popping" sound, which proves THERE IS NO PADDING INSIDE!

3. No material flaws on the sneaker. Another way of describing this would be as good detailing. This means no glue stains, no chipped paint, no loose threads.This standard does not only apply to Air Jordans or sneakers. If I buy a button down shirt and there are loose threads it shows the shirt is not of very goodquality. The same goes if one of the buttons pops off after a few wears. This shows time and effort was not put into securing the button. It's a mark (orlack thereof) quality.

Thirdly, to answer your only truly intelligible question, the last Air Jordan Retro that I consider to be of good quality is the 2003 white/black/red VIIIs.Starting in 2004 the quality of retros started to dip. I remember buying the II's specifically and being disappointed in the quality of the leather.I've heard the Retro XII's were made well, but I don't own a pair so I can comment.

Finally, if you think Retro Jordans are of "great quality" as you say, then why do you justify your opinion by saying that they " are mainly forcasual wear?" If you honestly believed the sneakers were made well I doubt you would have to justify your statement.

 

[daddyrabbit251]

2 me its lik this alotta people wrk hard 2 save up 4 these retros that drop....with me i dont want 2 spend $145+ and now $300+ with these packs 2 get a shoethat wen i wear it immediately falls apart... it sux 2 spend a grip on a shoe but have cheap quality that looks bad after a few wears

The 07 Black V was not comfortable, in regards to cushioning. Whatever air units they use now are not comfortable at all. They are hard. I cut my achilles on the back part, because the cushioning was so poorly made. The nubuck felt cheap, and yellowing already on the clear soles in certain areas right out of the box.



Cosign...and it sux that after i spent $ on the shoe i couldnt even wear it as much as i wanted 2 b/c of how bad the shoe felt

And not onli that now a days if ur in the store u gotta check ur shoe b4 u check out with all of these glue stains, scuffs, and shoes already creased in thebox... so yes the quality is horrible with alot of these shoes now a days and will probably get worse

 

[vick619]

Originally Posted by x016x

In one of the stupidest decisions I ever made in the sneaker game, I sold my original Fire Red #23 Vs on eBay for $105.00 shipped to some guy in Japan.

you dont even know how hard it is for me not to bash you for this....but this is how i fel tafter reading your post

 

[x016x]

Originally Posted by vick619

Originally Posted by x016x

In one of the stupidest decisions I ever made in the sneaker game, I sold my original Fire Red #23 Vs on eBay for $105.00 shipped to some guy in Japan.

you dont even know how hard it is for me not to bash you for this....but this is how i fel tafter reading your post

Well I won't disagree with you, I admit I made a huge fopah when I sold them. At least I still have the 1999 Vs and my 1994 1s. That's reallyall I need. Karma will come back around and I'll have me a pair again. But yeah, 2006 retro #23 Vs are gay compared to the OG. No comparison.