Nike Air Jordan 4 Retro "White/Cement" - The Aftermath - NO BUYING/SELLING/TRADING

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^​
​
 ​
The 2016's shape is straight PUTRID in comparison @airdhazzal.​
 ​
mean.gif
 ​
 
Last edited:
jaylaw15 said:
I almost laughed out loud at the shape with more material drives up cost comment. Not calling people stupid but you know Nike sells unpopular Nike shoes with much more leather than these for like $100.

Nike is a business and longevity is important. Get the netting right this time but not the shape, you create something for people to look forward to the next time they release. then just release the shoe some years down the line with the proper shape. It's a hustle on us, yet we call it the sneaker game lol.
Click to expand...

Lol When did I say the "better material" on these is justified to drive up the cost? My comment was directly towards people that think that shape has anything to do with Nike cost cutting. Like I said, material has more direct influence on the cost not the shape. Needless to say all these $190-220 has nothing to do with material but marketing & profit.

Edit: if you count real inflation of dollar, the $100 in 1999 to today, these should be no more than $150. But with every "sneaker head" keep complaining about the "no NA" they are instead charging you for $220.
 
Last edited:
FrankW said:
Zephyr1983 said:
There's nothing sleek or skinny about the banana toe. It's the defining feature of why the retros look like boots
JB certainly could fix the problem, but the reason they don't definitely has nothing to do with some perceived respect for the younger collectors or for the sanctity of the OG pairs

It's simple penny-pinching and laziness
Click to expand...

Shape has nothing to do with cost. I really don't know why people think that way. The only thing that has to do with cost are the materials. And they are bringing back the better materials.
Click to expand...


Yes. I completely agree.
My comment might have been poorly worded, because the "penny-pinching" I was speaking of was not the often repeated rumor that its cheaper to make the banana-toe.
I was referring to the potential cost of JB actually getting off its butt and making new molds with the correct designs.
Its cheaper for JB to simply be lazy, is what I was trying to get at
 
They make and design new shoes all the time. Those shoes' toe boxes aren't banana shaped so why are these? Just remake and redesign them as if they were a new model. They'd get there faster than their current method.

There is no reason they can't get that shape right. It isn't money issues (lol) nor is it that the 'old molds are gone' or that the 'current generation prefers this new shape'. All of that is nonsense. They don't do it because they don't know there is a problem to begin with. Jordan has no eye for detail and neither do his homeboys he hires. Gentry seems to have had one but instead of using it to our advantages he chose to **ck us and alter the shape so that what he had in his own collection stayed valuable. Right now, Jordan Brand is unraveling the puzzle of changes made to all of the classics. I believe they'd fix the shape if they noticed what was wrong. That's why some things are fixed and somethings aren't. And it isn't because they want to sell more pairs down the road, they'd sell out anyway. We don't need a reason to buy them again. 

So, basically the reason the shape sucks is because of Gentry. 

Also, we really haven't even seen a legit pair yet as far as we know. These things might not even be out of the production line yet.
 
Last edited:
Zephyr1983 said:
Yes. I completely agree.
My comment might have been poorly worded, because the "penny-pinching" I was speaking of was not the often repeated rumor that its cheaper to make the banana-toe.
I was referring to the potential cost of JB actually getting off its butt and making new molds with the correct designs.
Its cheaper for JB to simply be lazy, is what I was trying to get at
Click to expand...

Got it, very true.

I do question if JB want to make the toe shape back to the original they probably have to take out the layer that is added to form the shape of the toebox. If people don't know what I'm referring to just take a look at your retro XIs where you can see them under the patent leather.
 
FrankW said:
Shape has nothing to do with cost. I really don't know why people think that way. The only thing that has to do with cost are the materials. And they are bringing back the better materials.
Click to expand...

Thats not completely true. I know for a fact that companies tend to use the molds from one shoe to create other retro shoes for cost cutting purposes. Its why a lot of these shoes share a lot of the same ugly characteristics.
 
trethousandgt said:
Thats not completely true. I know for a fact that companies tend to use the molds from one shoe to create other retro shoes for cost cutting purposes. Its why a lot of these shoes share a lot of the same ugly characteristics.
Click to expand...

If what you said is true that Nike used the same last for different retro models then all the upper should be interchangeable with the mid soles. You may be right, but every model has a different shape imo. If only there is a definitive answer as to why they started shaping all the toebox round.
 
Last edited:
Zephyr1983 said:
FrankW said:
Zephyr1983 said:
There's nothing sleek or skinny about the banana toe. It's the defining feature of why the retros look like boots
JB certainly could fix the problem, but the reason they don't definitely has nothing to do with some perceived respect for the younger collectors or for the sanctity of the OG pairs

It's simple penny-pinching and laziness
Click to expand...

Shape has nothing to do with cost. I really don't know why people think that way. The only thing that has to do with cost are the materials. And they are bringing back the better materials.
Click to expand...


Yes. I completely agree.
My comment might have been poorly worded, because the "penny-pinching" I was speaking of was not the often repeated rumor that its cheaper to make the banana-toe.
I was referring to the potential cost of JB actually getting off its butt and making new molds with the correct designs.
Its cheaper for JB to simply be lazy, is what I was trying to get at
Click to expand...


I don't think it's necessarily cheaper to produce a shoe with a smaller toebox like older releases. But it is certainly more cost effective to use the same last for a multitude of models.

Seems like almost every retro now is effected by the boxy/bubbly toe syndrome. The worst offender, and one that held out the longest, is the AM87. New 87s look so awkward to me. The boxy toe has stopped me from buying them all together anymore.

The weirdest thing to me though is Filght 89s still look pretty good all things considered and they share many components with the AJIV. 89's are a bit more rounded in the toe than they used to be but compared to the AJIV, they look so much better.
 
Last edited:
I was gonna post that last night, nikelab just cranked out like 7 colors of the flight 89 and the shape on the toe box is aight. It's acceptable like head on a Sunday
 
FrankW said:
Lol When did I say the "better material" on these is justified to drive up the cost? My comment was directly towards people that think that shape has anything to do with Nike cost cutting. Like I said, material has more direct influence on the cost not the shape. Needless to say all these $190-220 has nothing to do with material but marketing & profit.

Edit: if you count real inflation of dollar, the $100 in 1999 to today, these should be no more than $150. But with every "sneaker head" keep complaining about the "no NA" they are instead charging you for $220.
Click to expand...
Actually word on the street is the inflation from $100 back in the day to now is about $226 USD.
 
MarzThaRealist said:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^​

The 2016's shape is straight PUTRID in comparison @airdhazzal
.​

:smh:  ​
Click to expand...

what are you talking about? aside from a slightly raised toebox on the 1999s, they damn near look identical.

no Nike retro shoe currently being released has a shape EXACTLY like their counterparts. I wish Big Macs were made like they were 40 years ago but it is what it is.
 
Last edited:
Even the 1999 white and cement 4s were a modified version compared to the originals. Some, however, actually prefer the 1999s due to the lightening of the "cement grey", and the updated tongue and toe box. They also feel that the overall shape of the shoe is more appealing. I can understand this, although I am still partial to the originals to be honest. Which ones do you guys like better, personally? Thanks.
 
I'm actually liking those '16s quite a bit. Sadly, the 1999s will just turn into mashed potatoes if you attempt to wear them nowadays.
frown.gif
 
Doozy122 said:
 
Even the 1999 white and cement 4s were a modified version compared to the originals. Some, however, actually prefer the 1999s due to the lightening of the "cement grey", and the updated tongue and toe box. They also feel that the overall shape of the shoe is more appealing. I can understand this, although I am still partial to the originals to be honest. Which ones do you guys like better, personally? Thanks.
Click to expand...
pick any page in this whole circle jerk thread and you'll get your answer lmao
 
Doozy122 said:
Even the 1999 white and cement 4s were a modified version compared to the originals. Some, however, actually prefer the 1999s due to the lightening of the "cement grey", and the updated tongue and toe box. They also feel that the overall shape of the shoe is more appealing. I can understand this, although I am still partial to the originals to be honest. Which ones do you guys like better, personally? Thanks.
Click to expand...

I like the 99s tongue with the 89s shape overall. The 89s tongue looks short, flimsy, and unpadded. The 2016 version looks really good. Its about as close as you can get in this day and age. And the 2016 has alot more speckles than the 1999 version. They really skimped on it for that release.
 
sthebest said:
I like the 99s tongue with the 89s shape overall. The 89s tongue looks short, flimsy, and unpadded. The 2016 version looks really good. Its about as close as you can get in this day and age. And the 2016 has alot more speckles than the 1999 version. They really skimped on it for that release.
Click to expand...
All of this!
 
The OG tongue really was sloppy.  If we saw that nowadays we'd think it was a fake.  I think the current ones are a little high, and even wrap around a little too much, but overall the shape has much better workmanship.  That's probably improvements in general manufacturing techniques.  These '16s are looking really good to me; hope I can get a pair.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

barrebaby
So will we ever see JB drop the retro 4+ blue speckle that was supposed to be after 25 years of waiting?
Replies
11
Views
3K
airdhazzal
airdhazzal

Thread Gallery

View Full Gallery

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

NikeTalk was created as a way of giving back to both the sneaker enthusiast community and to the greater global community of which we are all a part.

NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom