Material differences-suede,nubuck,and durabuck

I think the problem is that they want to call what they like durabuck and what they don't like suede

Nubuck can be made to mimic both.

ROBPZEE612 said:

Durabuck

Nubuck

Click to expand...

Sorry, but r u sure the black/varsity red 6 retro from 2009/2010 was nubuck? I remember the surface was quite hairy, almost like the black/sport royal 18.
speaking of nubuck, the 2006 black/citrus 7 were nubuck.
One downside of nubuck is that it fades compared to suede and durabuck. Suede and nubuck show only minimal creasings however.

So the '12 Bred 4s are Nubuck? And also how can you tell the difference between good and bad quality nubuck?

airmax3 said:

 
so durabuck shows the grey lining.  are the bred iv nubuck? what about the thunder iv?

Click to expand...

it's also a much finer material. nothing like suede whereas nubuck has that slight hint of suede feel to it but still very far from suede ofc.

I'm not too proud to admit I have been out of the "game" for a looong time and the differences are something I've been trying to get a handle on. Since I own a pair of each and can look at them in person, can someone tell me with certainty what the:

-black '89 flights are? and

-the black Melo/B'mo's are?

It seems to me that the Flights are nubuck, and the B'mos are suede (the toebox/lowers, the uppers are clearly manmade material).

I'd appreciate it. 

For what it's worth, for as much as I hear negative things about nubuck, my '89 flights have been beat to DEATH over the last few years and held up EXTREMELY well.

Nubuck holds up the best of the three. Suede stretches and durabuck splits and exposes the white fibre underneath with a lot of wear.

But nubuck simply looks wrong on all models iv-viii. The thicker and fuzzier look really makes a big difference.

I find that Durabuck creases the most.

eltouha said:

Nubuck holds up the best of the three. Suede stretches and durabuck splits and exposes the white fibre underneath with a lot of wear.

But nubuck simply looks wrong on all models iv-viii. The thicker and fuzzier look really makes a big difference.

Click to expand...

Jrue Story said:

I find that Durabuck creases the most.

Click to expand...

I agree with all of these.

I think nubuck looks ok on the IV and V

Durabuck can also get mad dusty and grey looking

2 many issues to correct and comment about. But here's a few just in my opinion. Not sure about the cool grey XII's but the
Bords were not Durabuck, and the Charcoal VII's were a low grade of hide of Durabuck. OG Durabuck is smoother looking butter. If you compare the 1991 Blk Infa
Red VI's to the 2001 Blk Infareds, the leather is different grade of Durabuck. Google OG Nike air Jordans Images and you'll see the difference of hide grade levels to be specific rite next to the pacific. Same thing with the OG metallic V's from 1990 compared to the 99' pair. Just to point out a couple more,OG Bred IV's from 89, 99, and CDP pack R all different grades of Durabuck. Last One I will mention R the OG Charcoal VII's R different compared to the 2000 retro and 2012 retro. Can't remember wit year the first retro was released.

nubuck looks horrible on V's & VI's...thats why i stopped buying em. durabuck is easier to clean and doesn't fade whatsover.

unomaas said:

Cool post of shoes with the different materials.  If you were educating us on the different materiels, I think you should post the actual difference in the materiels.  Here you go though.... wikiapedia is amazing....


Durabuck- is leather that has been blended with polyurethane material. The blending makes it ideal for use in the manufacture of such products as amphibious footwear.

Suede- leather is made from the underside of the skin, primarily lamb , although goat, calf and deer are commonly used. Splits from thick hides of cow and deer are also sueded, but, due to the fibre content, have a shaggy nap. Because suede does not include the tough exterior skin layer, suede is less durable but softer than standard "full-grain" leather. Due to its textured nature and open pores, suede may become dirty and quickly absorb liquids

Nubuck is similar to suede . It differs in that suede is created from the inner side of a hide, whereas nubuck is created from the outer side of a hide, giving it more strength and thickness along with a fine grain. It is generally more expensive than suede, and must be coloured or dyed heavily to cover up the sanding and stamping process.

Click to expand...

So this is why some og jays look like it's made up of leather.

Let me clarify cause you guys have it all confused, my resource is my uncle who is a PR for Nike. Durabuck is anything with that white lining on the seams like 2009 Black Metallic V's or CDP Bred IV's. Nubuck is the material on XII that are not all leather like the Bred XIIand "Nubuck" XII. Suede is on Toro V's, 2011 Black Metallic V's, 2012 Bred IV's, Varsity Red VI, Black Grape V, and Cavs IV. OP's Diagram is Correct, but he is incorrect saying 2012 Bred IV's are Nubuck, THEY ARE NOT. Durabuck is closer to Nubuck. Suede is much thicker. Suede has been consistent on XIV toe boxes, so if you have a pair of those then you can compare that to the above to understand what is what. The Black Friday Black V's this year are also suede. Other than XII's, Playoff VIII's, Raptor VII's I have not seen Nike utilize Nubuck on other shoes recently. As for as Durabuck, I haven't seen it used at all. The 2012 Raptor/True Red VII Retros and the didn't even use Durabuck, I believe those were Nubuck.

durabuck alll the way

shindo03 said:

Let me clarify cause you guys have it all confused, my resource is my uncle who is a PR for Nike. Durabuck is anything with that white lining on the seams like 2009 Black Metallic V's or CDP Bred IV's. Nubuck is the material on XII that are not all leather like the Bred XIIand "Nubuck" XII. Suede is on Toro V's, 2011 Black Metallic V's, 2012 Bred IV's, Varsity Red VI, Black Grape V, and Cavs IV. OP's Diagram is Correct, but he is incorrect saying 2012 Bred IV's are Nubuck, THEY ARE NOT. Durabuck is closer to Nubuck. Suede is much thicker. Suede has been consistent on XIV toe boxes, so if you have a pair of those then you can compare that to the above to understand what is what. The Black Friday Black V's this year are also suede. Other than XII's, Playoff VIII's, Raptor VII's I have not seen Nike utilize Nubuck on other shoes recently. As for as Durabuck, I haven't seen it used at all. The 2012 Raptor/True Red VII Retros and the didn't even use Durabuck, I believe those were Nubuck.

Click to expand...

real talk.

although i underestimated the use of suede, mistaking it often for nubuck (thanks for that correction), i've been alone in saying JB has not used durabuck in years.

2012 Thunder's Were Durabuck
2012 Black Cement's Were Nubuck
2009 Toro's Were Suede

How would you clean durabuck?

visamastercard said:

How would you clean durabuck?

Click to expand...

Everything you need to know is in this thread http://niketalk.com/t/15471/official-sneaker-care-maintenance-post-its-back

So Aqus 8s are durabuck, correct?

Yes

BasedWorld said:

So Aqus 8s are durabuck, correct?

Click to expand...

Correct

Yo , are the black varsity red 6's suede or what ? People say they are , yall saying different ? Mine feel like nubuck . I need some help

What kind of material was used on the Slam Dunk 6s? Durabuck or?

AirSakuragi said:

What kind of material was used on the Slam Dunk 6s? Durabuck or?

Click to expand...

notevenworthabuck

Okay, I am going to risk getting cyber "yelled at" and ridiculed, this is simply an attempt to add to this age old conversation regarding Air Jordan materials.  I will specifically be talking about the material called Durabuck.  I apologize for this being a long post, but it needs to be.  If you don't want to read it, don't.

I would like to preface this by saying that I do not claim to be an expert by any means.  I have been discussing this topic with a couple of my peers (35+ crowd, I'm 41) and decided to try to find as much information on Durabuck as I possibly can because there seems to be a LOT of conflicting and confusing information out there.  The following is simply what I found in my search and is not meant to argue with anyone who has posted differing information.

First of all, when you simply Google "Durabuck" all that comes up are discussions in sneaker forums.  I could not find any actual information on what exactly Durabuck is.  Contrary to what has been posted previously, Wikipedia has absolutely no information about Durabuck.  So, I am not sure where the claim that Durabuck is some sort of nubuck/polyurethane mix came from.  There is no information on the internet that I can find that backs that claim.  If someone can find some proof of that, please share.  I would love to read it.  PS: going and creating a "Durabuck" page on Wikipedia will not count as evidence.

I have, however, found evidence that describes Durabuck as a synthetic leather used by Nike in the early 90's.  Synthetic meaning, artificial.  Not real leather in any way.  Durabuck is described as a synthetic leather in this article on the history of the 1992 Nike Air Maestro 1 from Nike.com.  

Quote from the article: "An exoskeleton design with form-fitting inner bootie, Nike Air cushioning, an ankle strap and a galactic-inspired traction pattern were refined in the design review. But there was still something missing. Teague decided to defy convention and shed weight with a synthetic leather called Durabuck. This was a pivotal change — marking one of the brand's first synthetic leather basketball shoes at a time when full-grain leather was the norm. The new Durabuck material and sock-like inner bootie provided a breathable and comfortable alternative."

Here is a link to the article on Nike.com:

http://news.nike.com/news/inside-access-1992-s-nike-air-maestro-i​

Another thing that stuck in my mind over the years was that I remember "Durabuck" have a TM or a 'trademark' symbol next to it when I saw it on an official Nike product description.  I couldn't remember where, so I checked the tech booklet/mini catalogue that came with my OG 6's, but the word/name Durabuck was not there.  I still have my black/red OG 4's, but lost the box years ago, so I couldn't check there.  Then I remembered where I saw it.  It was on a pic of a 1991 Nike product catalogue that lists the upcoming model of Jordans (Jordan 6), the colorways that will release and the main materials used on each.  Note, next to the black/infrared, Durabuck is listed as the main material and it has the "TM" or trademark symbol:

So, that picture lead me on a hunt to find out who owned the trademark.  This part of my search was actually discussed in a post on NT about 4 years ago, but it is important to note.  

It turns out, a company called, The United States Shoe Corporation, patented the synthetic leather and registered the trademark "Durabuck" in 1991. Nike bought the material from them for production of their shoes. The United States Shoe Corporation's trademark was subsequently cancelled in 1998 and they did not seek to renew it because the company actually stopped manufacturing Durabuck.

Here is a link to the trademark info:

http://trademarks.breanlaw.com/74176812-durabuck.html

Nike clearly still uses the name "Durabuck" to describe materials used on certain releases, however, the company that produced Durabuck stopped manufacturing it and stopped supplying Nike with it in 1998. This may explain why we have not seen any material that is identical to the OG's on any retro that originally incorporated "Durabuck" (as manufactured by The United States Shoe Corporation) post 1998. Even the 1999 retro 4's have a different material than the OG's (I own both and have compared). That's just my speculation, but it's food for thought.

So, these are the facts that remain:

"Durabuck" was the registered trademark name of a synthetic leather.  This is further evidenced by the fact that Nike, to this day, capitalizes the word "Durabuck" when it lists it as a material used on a shoe.  Example from the "Barcelona Days" retro 7 description originally on Nike.com: "Perforated leather and Durabuck upper for durability and a snug fit..."  The word "Durabuck" is again capitalized, meaning it is a proper name.  If it were simply a type of leather or leather hybrid of some sort, it would not be capitalized and a company could not trademark a type of leather.

On that note, I will briefly discuss nubuck.  Technically speaking, nubuck is cowhide leather that has been rubbed on the outer side of the hide to give it a feel like that of suede. Therefore, nubuck is ta type of leather and is not capitalized, unlike Durabuck.

Finally, this synthetic leather was created and the name "Durabuck" was trademarked by a company called, the United States Shoe Corporation and that company ceased production of this material in 1998.  Due to the fact that no one owns the name "Durabuck" anymore, Nike is free to use the term to label material used on their shoes, when the reality is, what they are using is simply their version of a material that is no longer produced.

I don't know how there has been so much misinformation regarding Durabuck, but in the world of social media, one person's speculation often snowballs into becoming a "fact" that is spread through the community.

Once again, I do not claim to be an expert and I could be wrong, but I think I have provided some facts regarding the history of Durabuck and I hope this adds to the conversation. 

scollard23 said:

So, that picture lead me on a hunt to find out who owned the trademark.  This part of my search was actually discussed in a post on NT about 4 years ago, but it is important to note.  

It turns out, a company called, The United States Shoe Corporation, patented the synthetic leather and registered the trademark "Durabuck" in 1991. Nike bought the material from them for production of their shoes. The United States Shoe Corporation's trademark was subsequently cancelled in 1998 and they did not seek to renew it because the company actually stopped manufacturing Durabuck.

Here is a link to the trademark info:

http://trademarks.breanlaw.com/74176812-durabuck.html

Nike clearly still uses the name "Durabuck" to describe materials used on certain releases, however, the company that produced Durabuck stopped manufacturing it and stopped supplying Nike with it in 1998. This may explain why we have not seen any material that is identical to the OG's on any retro that originally incorporated "Durabuck" (as manufactured by The United States Shoe Corporation) post 1998. Even the 1999 retro 4's have a different material than the OG's (I own both and have compared). That's just my speculation, but it's food for thought.

Click to expand...

So has Nike been lying about the use of Durabuck or have they found another manufacturer to create the material for them? If the latter is true, are they using the same process to produce the same material the USSC was supplying to Nike or have they created a similar, yet different material but still labeling it as "Durabuck" despite being a different material?