- 1,300
- 10
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2008
Sorry if posted already... just give us the royal blues already.
Would be decent with out that Bape like camo.
Would be decent with out that Bape like camo.
Women's VIVID BLUE RETRO 1 (Available on PYS)
- Thread in 'Jordan Brand' Thread starter Started by nimo007,
- Start date
mjshoefanatic
Banned
- 9,355
- 361
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2004
These should have came in Men's minus the fugazi print inside the ankle area.
beelzebub23
Banned
- 696
- 10
- Joined
- May 26, 2008
Even without the camo print inside the ankle, I'm not feelin' these. They look too much like fake Black/ Royal Blue 1's I seen in '06.
- 264
- 10
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2008
its alright
- 241
- 10
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2008
Thanks for the info but i have my 01 retros better in every which way. JB messing everything up
Mactastic4167
formerly mac4167
- 5,909
- 1,022
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2008
Originally Posted by mjshoefanatic
These should have came in Men's minus the fugazi print inside the ankle area.
KanyIZZY
formerly j o 19
- 18,329
- 47,660
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2004
Originally Posted by Mac4167
Originally Posted by mjshoefanatic
These should have came in Men's minus the fugazi print inside the ankle area.
SO TRUE....
- 40,543
- 45,996
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2008
that camo *%#$ doesnt even matter bc youll barely see it when worn. especially with jeanss..
I hope we get royal blues HIGHs next year...
I hope we get royal blues HIGHs next year...
- 2,264
- 10
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2007
dont like the inside of them
w3stchicago
Banned
- 606
- 10
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2008
ya that inside kills them
- 386
- 10
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2007
+1. I also didn't realize these were a womens release.Originally Posted by mjshoefanatic
These should have came in Men's minus the fugazi print inside the ankle area.
- 7,626
- 442
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2008
Originally Posted by mjshoefanatic
These should have came in Men's minus the fugazi print inside the ankle area.
I like them completely just want mens sizes
- 495
- 10
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2008
They aren't "womens" they are Kids.
sneakaprince
Supporter
- 16,156
- 19,331
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2007
Im kinda mad even tho these are kinda fugazi i woulda copped an djus considered these my poor-mans royal blues
- 18,412
- 5,848
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2003
this is a nice colorway too bad it did not come out in a mens colorway
- 8,779
- 495
- Joined
- May 9, 2008
saw these at local shiekh/sittra.
- 753
- 10
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2003
Ones are dead, JB killed them
- 4,012
- 173
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2007
Why can't they just retro the real royals in mens sizes.
Come on JB, I got my money.
Come on JB, I got my money.
ricekrispies420
formerly l2icel3oi9i6
- 3,843
- 42
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2008
despite the inside of the shoe, i would still cop and cover it up with my jeans lol. but ill try to cop for my girl.
- 886
- 12
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2008
my girl would not wear those
- 240
- 10
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2005
nice for girls
- 2,938
- 10
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2006
the one colorway that doesn't suck and JB makes it a GS release
- 395
- 10
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2008
anyone know the exact release date for these? & if they'll be releasing in sizes smaller than a 3.5
- 1,004
- 13
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2007
picked these up, not to bad like everyone was thinking
just wear pants that should solve the problem about the camo part
just wear pants that should solve the problem about the camo part
- 149
- 10
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2008
Originally Posted by mjshoefanatic
These should have came in Men's minus the fugazi print inside the ankle area.
so true
Similar threads
