Yuku free message boards

jacobmontana wrote:

---

vood99 wrote:

---

DeadStock Js wrote:

---

^^^I hear this a lot with people complaining about Reebok and why they dont bring back the Shaq's, Kemp Kamikaze, and the Emmit Smith Pre-Seasons. There are 2 reasons for this, the first being that they dont have the molds for any more of these original models and in order to make the molds it cost over $100K to do so, and they have to make a crazy amount of the shoes in order to get the order placed, something like 50,000 pairs. If they brought back the Shaq's they dont want to make that many, they want them to be limited. The Second reason is all those guys had contracts where if these shoes ever got made again they would have to be compensated for that, mainly for the fact that it was their signature shoe and for instance Shaq had his logo on the shoe, not quite sure if Kemp and Emmit had logos.

With the case of Nike doing limited shoes its easier because the molds already exist so they do not have to put the initial investment in for the mold, and if they do decide to do it any way they just take a hit on that shoe and make that money up somewhere else.

Thanks for dropping the facts. Nike can get away with retooling and butchering their classics but Reebok can't mess around. Their re-imagining of the Kamikazes, Blasts and Preachers are pretty neat though. Well priced and very comfortable.

  

DJ...if they dont have the molds for these models than why do they still have the molds for all,of their other older models like Bringbacks, Court Victories...etc? It seems ridiculous that they would destroy a mold for Shaq but keep one for Michael Chang.

all of those reasons could be true in the case of reebok, cost, out-dated technology that no longer exists or can be supplied, order numbers, factory capability, internal politics, relationships with prior athletes all factor, though not in every case are they equal or even relevant. i'm sure the cost could be amortized (that is, stretched out over time) at an initial loss, because they would almost certainly be keeping those molds in rotation for the foreseeable future...you also have to figure how many of any of those models would or EVEN could really do a respectable amount of business

as for the wherewithal footwear companies had as to what mold(s) to keep or destroy...it was TOTALLY random, you have to remember that this retro stuff is a relatively new phenomenon. companies (and more importantly the factories they contract) were not thinking that they would need those blueprints, drawings, and in this case, molds, sometimes they were stored (which can take up alot of space for full size runs of all those sneakers!), and in other cases they were "destroyed" (mold are made from metal, (aluminum, brass, copper, maybe even iron or steel)---expensive stuff) which mainly means recycled so they could use that metal to make molds for newer shoes, instead of spending $$$ to get new metal.

i would think that the same is true for both adidas & nike and any other brand that is doing retro product...is likely having to re-create older product by reverse engineering it, because it is rare that the original documents, even people who worked on that original product to still be with the company. the reason most of the stuff that stuck around (think af1s, reebok classic leathers, adidas shell toes), is because they never really stopped making them. really the biggest difference is that each of the brands has a very different approach to product in general, and thus both from a retail & consumer standpoint, it makes easier/harder for the respective brands to bring back/make certain products...