2019 All Star Black Infrared Air Jordan 6

Where do you prefer the lace lock?

  • Total voters
    472
Show All
rainking said:
Agree completely.

I still think this whole theory that they make these little changes to keep people buying the same shoe is utterly nonsensical. I'm not denying they seem to do it that way, but it's wholly unnecessary and stupid. It seems like a corporate culture thing that the idiot Gentry installed years ago--gotta respect the OG collectors, yo!--and which the rest of the people there since haven't been able to break free from.

The majority of people who buy retro Jordans are NOT NT sneaker savants. They aren't buying multiple pairs and keeping the shoes unworn in their closets for a decade. That's not what normal people do. Normal people buy the shoes and actually wear them. With Nike/Jordan usually going 5-7 YEARS between releases of the same OG shoes, I have zero doubt in my mind that they could release the exact same version of the shoes each time and sell just as many each time. Especially if they would once and for all just land on a true, quality version of each. I don't re-buy the same shoe because of dumb little changes, I buy them because my previous pair is old and I want a fresh pair. If anything, the changes sometimes KEEP me from buying a pair.

If someone sits here telling me that the little changes each time keep them buying shoes they otherwise wouldn't, I just can't understand the thought process. Because what you're really saying then is, you'd prefer to keep buying inaccurate versions of a given shoe rather than an accurate but same version every time. But hey, as long as the inaccuracies are DIFFERENT inaccuracies each time, you'll keep buying. But if the shoe was a perfect remake of the OGs, you'd only buy it once and then call it a day? Uh, OK. That makes absolutely no sense.
Click to expand...

Whether you want to believe it or not it’s happening. The proof is in front of you. Gentry said it with his own mouth that they change things purposely. Watch a few YouTube videos and you’ll see all the praises Nike gets just for releasing said colorways, whether it’s accurate or not. For example NightWing review of the Free Throw Lines, he mentioned that he was honored that Nike gave him the opportunity to BUY them, he said they didn’t have to release them but they did. :rolleyes, now why would they release a clear bottom 3 to pay homage to the Dunk Contest win, instead of just releasing the actual shoe in the original form? Because they probably coming out very soon again. NikeTalk would have bought the same shoe over again, but not the rest of the world. That’s what they care about because ultimately that’s the 98%. But I’m done trying to explain what should be common sense.
 
I agree. I don't think the strategy is that well thought out. As a product manager myself, I can definitely see the PM assigned to a particular retro is probably given some parameters within which they need to work: launch timeframe, materials availability, factory setup and training lead time, cost and delays introduced by changing certain details from the available molds, materials, or production method (ex. anodizing the heel), etc. Also PM error. For example, the 2014 in certain ambient light really does look more infrared than pink. In bright rooms or the sun, it's definitely more pink. Also, the PM may not have liked the shade on the last approval, but had no time to change it without delaying the schedule, and just went with it.

More than likely, past retros were not given the objective of getting as close to the OG as possible. With certain shoes (ex. '18 Concord), that was clearly the objective, so the PM(s) really focused on that.

The 3s and 4s would require a massive amount of work to change the entire shape of the shoe to get back to the OG form; if that's the assignment for the PM, they would accomplish it. If not, they simply work with what's on hand to get thru their day and complete the project as quickly as possible.
 
leonard706 said:
Whether you want to believe it or not it’s happening. The proof is in front of you. Gentry said it with his own mouth that they change things purposely. Watch a few YouTube videos and you’ll see all the praises Nike gets just for releasing said colorways, whether it’s accurate or not. For example NightWing review of the Free Throw Lines, he mentioned that he was honored that Nike gave him the opportunity to BUY them, he said they didn’t have to release them but they did. :rolleyes, now why would they release a clear bottom 3 to pay homage to the Dunk Contest win, instead of just releasing the actual shoe in the original form? Because they probably coming out very soon again. NikeTalk would have bought the same shoe over again, but not the rest of the world. That’s what they care about because ultimately that’s the 98%. But I’m done trying to explain what should be common sense.
Click to expand...

:stoneface:

You missed the point of my post. And I never said it wasn't happening. I said it was stupid and a silly, unnecessary strategy.
 
rainking said:
Agree completely.

I still think this whole theory that they make these little changes to keep people buying the same shoe is utterly nonsensical. I'm not denying they seem to do it that way, but it's wholly unnecessary and stupid. It seems like a corporate culture thing that the idiot Gentry installed years ago--gotta respect the OG collectors, yo!--and which the rest of the people there since haven't been able to break free from.

The majority of people who buy retro Jordans are NOT NT sneaker savants. They aren't buying multiple pairs and keeping the shoes unworn in their closets for a decade. That's not what normal people do. Normal people buy the shoes and actually wear them. With Nike/Jordan usually going 5-7 YEARS between releases of the same OG shoes, I have zero doubt in my mind that they could release the exact same version of the shoes each time and sell just as many each time. Especially if they would once and for all just land on a true, quality version of each. I don't re-buy the same shoe because of dumb little changes, I buy them because my previous pair is old and I want a fresh pair. If anything, the changes sometimes KEEP me from buying a pair.

If someone sits here telling me that the little changes each time keep them buying shoes they otherwise wouldn't, I just can't understand the thought process. Because what you're really saying then is, you'd prefer to keep buying inaccurate versions of a given shoe rather than an accurate but same version every time. But hey, as long as the inaccuracies are DIFFERENT inaccuracies each time, you'll keep buying. But if the shoe was a perfect remake of the OGs, you'd only buy it once and then call it a day? Uh, OK. That makes absolutely no sense.
Click to expand...
I hate the strategy Nike has as well. But I will be the first to admit I have fallen into there bs. When 6s came back in 09-10 with Varsity Red, I bought both Black and White versions. At the time I just wanted the 6s back. Then the IR pack drops, Im thinking wth, now I want those because of the red dif. So I got the white version from the pack. Im set right? No, years later they drop the 14 versions and Im all in because I love how the infrared pops, 3m etc. It seems like each reissue gets one step closer to the original. I did the same thing with the Cardinal 7s 06 and 2011. They changed the 23 heel to match the original in 2011. I had to have lol. They know exactly what they are doing and your right, there is no need for it. Certain shoes mean more than others to everyone. So some releases I have been able to resist, some not. But believe me, I def prefer the totally accurate version for sure. Concords give hope. Recent pics of these 6s, do not.
 
JRepp23 said:
I hate the strategy Nike has as well. But I will be the first to admit I have fallen into there bs. When 6s came back in 09-10 with Varsity Red, I bought both Black and White versions. At the time I just wanted the 6s back. Then the IR pack drops, Im thinking wth, now I want those because of the red dif. So I got the white version from the pack. Im set right? No, years later they drop the 14 versions and Im all in because I love how the infrared pops, 3m etc. It seems like each reissue gets one step closer to the original. I did the same thing with the Cardinal 7s 06 and 2011. They changed the 23 heel to match the original in 2011. I had to have lol. They know exactly what they are doing and your right, there is no need for it. Certain shoes mean more than others to everyone. So some releases I have been able to resist, some not. But believe me, I def prefer the totally accurate version for sure. Concords give hope. Recent pics of these 6s, do not.
Click to expand...

I get that the strategy yields sales in that regard. But those Jordan 6 releases you cite were not exactly the norm in terms of a retro cycle. The varsity red release was really more of a retro + drop, not a true OG retro. What I was talking about is more specific to the more traditional retro drop cycles.

Take the new concords, for example. Just to illustrate my point, let's say this concord had the 23 instead of 45. At that point, it's basically a perfect concord retro. Now let's say they vault the concords for another 5-7 years, then drop them again exactly the same as this recent release. They'd sell just as many pairs as they did this time because at that point, the majority of people will have burned through their 2018 pairs. You know I have three pairs of them and I'll still buy them again when they come back around. I'd wager the same would go for the BC 3s. Put out the exact same shoe from last year in another six years and they'll all sell again.

Now, if they really want to be cynical about it all, sure, the strategy can yield more sales in the short term. If they put out a 23 concord retro two years from now, a boatload of people would buy those, too. But a lot of people would also be pretty PO'ed. Because if they did that, they'd really be trolling all of us. Part of the reason the more popular models like the 11 and the 3 sell so well at each release is an unwritten understanding between we the consumers and Nike that we aren't going to see them again for a long time. If that changes at some point--say they started dropping those especially popular shoes every two or three years, tops--that's OK, but it will also trigger a change in how each release is received and people's perception of how urgent their need is to buy another pair. Five or six or seven years between drops, I'll buy the next release for sure. Two or three, I might not need to. For that reason, I seriously doubt they'd go ahead and do something like dropping another version of the concord within the next 2-3 years. If their goal is to double the amount of concord sales within such a time frame, they could have just made 2 million pairs of this release. They clearly would have sold them all.
 
Last edited:
Exactly, plus one thing a lot on here don’t consider is that many actually like the changes made. Some variations have grown into the cult hits even though they’re off. Jordan Brand isn’t just selling to purists. Many people appreciate close to og versions like the 2018 Concord, but love the 2011 too. You can’t expect everyone to fall in line with a certain opinion because a retro may look better or connect better. It’s all relative. Many of us see variations as butchering, others see them as a fresh take on a classic. I believe this is apart of Gentry’s model.
 
rainking said:
I get that the strategy yields sales in that regard. But those Jordan 6 releases you cite were not exactly the norm in terms of a retro cycle. The varsity red release was really more of a retro + drop, not a true OG retro. What I was talking about is more specific to the more traditional retro drop cycles.

Take the new concords, for example. Just to illustrate my point, let's say this concord had the 23 instead of 45. At that point, it's basically a perfect concord retro. Now let's say they vault the concords for another 5-7 years, then drop them again exactly the same as this recent release. They'd sell just as many pairs as they did this time because at that point, the majority of people will have burned through their 2018 pairs. You know I have three pairs of them and I'll still buy them again when they come back around. I'd wager the same would go for the BC 3s. Put out the exact same shoe from last year in another six years and they'll all sell again.

Now, if they really want to be cynical about it all, sure, the strategy can yield more sales in the short term. If they put out a 23 concord retro two years from now, a boatload of people would buy those, too. But a lot of people would also be pretty PO'ed. Because if they did that, they'd really be trolling all of us. Part of the reason the more popular models like the 11 and the 3 sell so well at each release is an unwritten understanding between we the consumers and Nike that we aren't going to see them again for a long time. If that changes at some point--say they started dropping those especially popular shoes every two or three years, tops--that's OK, but it will also trigger a change in how each release is received and people's perception of how urgent their need is to buy another pair. Five or six or seven years between drops, I'll buy the next release for sure. Two or three, I might not need to. For that reason, I seriously doubt they'd go ahead and do something like dropping another version of the concord within the next 2-3 years. If their goal is to double the amount of concord sales within such a time frame, they could have just made 2 million pairs of this release. They clearly would have sold them all.
Click to expand...

Well said. I actually feel like this upcoming release is too soon; much sooner than I expected, which is why I might sit this one out as I'm generally happy with my '14s. I don't know the production number of that release, but recall it wasn't that easy to get, so maybe this release will generate a high sales volume as a larger GR, which will be good for their quarterly results.

If this release is really close to OG, I'll be tempted, but would want to offload my '14s if I do cop. It's just such a pain to sell used shoes, even VNDS. I've got some FR5s on eBay that I literally wore once that I can't offload....SMH.
 
Aquamanjay_ said:
Exactly, plus one thing a lot on here don’t consider is that many actually like the changes made. Some variations have grown into the cult hits even though they’re off. Jordan Brand isn’t just selling to purists. Many people appreciate close to og versions like the 2018 Concord, but love the 2011 too. You can’t expect everyone to fall in line with a certain opinion because a retro may look better or connect better. It’s all relative. Many of us see variations as butchering, others see them as a fresh take on a classic. I believe this is apart of Gentry’s model.
Click to expand...

Personally, I don't expect anyone to fall in line with an opinion. Discussing this topic as a business strategy and discussing which versions any individual prefers are two different things. Take the 2011 concords you mention. To me, those are a great example to further my point: They were a very strange rendition of the shoe, yet they still sold out in a flash because people just wanted concords again because they hadn't been available in more than a decade. Most people don't care about or even know about the little differences NT obsesses about. The fact the 2018 version sold out has nothing to do with the 2011 drop and whether or not people liked it more or less. It has everything to do with the fact concords hadn't released in seven years. I'll say it again: the majority of buyers aren't stockpiling shoes in their closets; they buy them, they wear them, they wear them out, they move on--and then they buy the shoes again when they release years later. If the company is going to stick to those sorts of time cycles, playing games with little changes to the shoes is a waste of time if it's being done because someone there thinks it is necessary to make the shoes sell.
 
Last edited:
pwguy said:
Well said. I actually feel like this upcoming release is too soon; much sooner than I expected, which is why I might sit this one out as I'm generally happy with my '14s. I don't know the production number of that release, but recall it wasn't that easy to get, so maybe this release will generate a high sales volume as a larger GR, which will be good for their quarterly results.

If this release is really close to OG, I'll be tempted, but would want to offload my '14s if I do cop. It's just such a pain to sell used shoes, even VNDS. I've got some FR5s on eBay that I literally wore once that I can't offload....SMH.
Click to expand...
I was shocked too. Four years and some months later we’re getting a retro. Since the Infrared is my favorite shoe, it’s not really a problem, but I see why some folks may be pissed. Ive worn my Bordeaux since 2016, but they’re not beat at all, so hearing that they’re dropping in 2020 would be strange. I just think Jordan Brand knows that the Black Infrared 6 will always sell.
 
Of course; they're a for profit company and will do a little as possible to meet revenue and profit goals without damaging their overall brand value/goodwill. As other's have said, NT is a good sounding board for them, but overall irrelevant in terms of business results as we're of negligible volume.

If they're not going to give us OG, then keep what they have in terms of shape, but update comfort by giving us better midsoles...ex. zoom air or modern foam. I wouldn't care if the only diff I could see is looking thru the visible air window and seeing zoom if the comfort is much improved.
 
leonard706 said:
Nike and JB are just trolls. You won’t get what you paid for, you won’t get that OG shape unless it a shoe that wouldn’t normally sell out, and you won’t get the same exact features as the OG if more than likely they will sell out...it’s a pattern, prove me wrong.
Click to expand...

11s proved that statement wrong this past December. They even had the original insoles. Some shoes they have attention to detail, others do not. Is it right? No; definitely not but some of the recent retro of the originals were pretty good.
 
The Fresh Prince said:
11s proved that statement wrong this past December. They even had the original insoles. Some shoes they have attention to detail, others do not. Is it right? No; definitely not but some of the recent retro of the originals were pretty good.
Click to expand...

They had 45 on the back which leaves room for a 23 re-release. You just confirmed my point.
 
Since y'all are taking about it. What are some recent retros that are the truest to the OGs in your thoughts?
 
MedozK23 said:
Since y'all are taking about it. What are some recent retros that are the truest to the OGs in your thoughts?
Click to expand...
2015 Aqua 8. Give or take some small differences. Bordeaux 7(midsole is a little darker, and the toe bump was a craftsmanship thing). Shadow and Orlando 10. Chicago 2 Low. Maroon 6 minus the milky sole. Concord 11. Navy and chutney 13 Low apparently are close too. Add in the Indiglgo 14 and the blue 14 lows.

These retros come the closest in regard to color, materials, and shape for the most part.
 
MedozK23 said:
Since y'all are taking about it. What are some recent retros that are the truest to the OGs in your thoughts?
Click to expand...
Really good question. But no matter what you answer there will always be a critic of said shoe. Just how it is. Shadow and Orlando's are good. Concord is good. But you'll always have the 45 arguments. I think the black red 12 is on point. Along with this years black toe 13. White cement 4 was good. But shape always comes into conversation. It's hard to answer really. Because it's mostly opinion at this point. Just don't let tonytobacco tonytobacco answer this lol.
 
Aquamanjay_ said:
2015 Aqua 8. Give or take some small differences. Bordeaux 7(midsole is a little darker, and the toe bump was a craftsmanship thing). Shadow and Orlando 10. Chicago 2 Low. Maroon 6 minus the milky sole. Concord 11. Navy and chutney 13 Low apparently are close too. Add in the Indiglgo 14 and the blue 14 lows.

These retros come the closest in regard to color, materials, and shape for the most part.
Click to expand...
Shame on me for leaving the maroon and chutney out of my post. Both of those are great retros to me also.
 
lol

I dont have any problems with the aquas...in fact i might start searching for those since theyre warm...

The bordeaux is good, the profile could be slimmer

The 10s look good, could be better in the back

Concords good, though im suspicious of how hard the midsole is. I dont remember that

thats pretty much it. Nothing will truly get fixed until they finally retool the soles on the classics which evidently hasnt been done since pre-911. We have the technology now to accurately recreate these shoes again and thats what hurts the most lol
 
Maroon 6, 2015 Aqua, 2018 HGG 13, 2018 Last Shots, 2018 BC3, Shadow and Orlando 10, SJ and Concords look great imo. Black/red 12 also.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

therealest1
Nike SB x Jordan IV Navy - February 2025
2
Replies
36
Views
5K
RaiderRed806
RaiderRed806
therealest1
Matthew M Williams x Nike Zoom MMW 6 TRD Run Triple Black
Replies
5
Views
1K
casterofdreams
casterofdreams
therealest1
Nike Air DT Max 96 (Deion Sanders)
2 3
Replies
63
Views
8K
therealest1
therealest1

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