1999 bred 4's need a L/C. The tag seems off to me because there is no date on it.

[jpdc55]

 

[shoegamenutz]

They didn't have dates back then they had code like yours says 990103 that means it's either January 3,1999 or March 1, 1999. They look legit to me.

 

[jpdc55]

Are the letters and stitching off in the back?

 

[shoegamenutz]

They look good to me just worn and beat

 

[time2ballup]

I think JB added the production dates some time later.

 

[rapcoz2134]

They didn't have dates back then they had code like yours says 990103 that means it's either January 3,1999 or March 1, 1999. They look legit to me.

lol

yy/mm/dd

 

[shoegamenutz]

I knew it was something like that lol. I just couldn't remember the order. So there you have it OP is was 01/03/99

 

[robpzee612]

The date is on there. 990103

 

[jpdc55]

So 100% legit right?

 

[firepower]

The pair pictured are legit

They had two different layouts for the tags back then, some had the date above the size chart (like the pair posted) ...some had the date under the barcode:

 

[rapcoz2134]

The pair pictured are legit

They had two different layouts for the tags back then, some had the date above the size chart (like the pair posted) ...some had the date under the barcode:

View media item 595965

The date is in the same place as the pair in question...?

990204

 

[firepower]

Yeah my bad, I should have clarified the date under the barcode is the label print date.

So used to looking for that one when doing LCs ...above the size chart is the manufacture date of the actual shoe, but it is unnecessary to look for when doing LCs.

 

[jpdc55]

Does the tongue kinda look too high?

 

[timmybrixxx]

Does the tongue kinda look too high?

Na man these look good.. I wouldnt wear them though.. they could start to have issues or something if they havent been worn in some time..