The Official Air Jordan 1 Retro Blk/Red "BANNED" Sept 3 2016

Status
Not open for further replies.
wHipLAshTw03 said:
 
The 2013 Bred 1s as the "standard?" LOL

The 2013 Bred 1s as the most top notch Bred 1 of its time, even better than past Bred 1s including the 2011 Banned? Really bro? Or maybe you're just suffering from hype disease just like thousands of others around the world. Yeah that's probably it.

And oh, before I forget, maybe you should comment on MJO23DAN's video above on youtube and ask him if he thinks the 2013s are overpriced at $600-800 and if they're slightly, just slightly , overrated based on quality and materials used.

After all, if you didn't catch it, he ranked the 2013's in LAST PLACE when compared to the '85s, '94, 2011, and 2001. So much for the '13 being "the standard." 
roll.gif
 
Click to expand...
I said they used to be considered the standard bearer of their time. NOT of now or all time. Before you lecture other people on reading comprehension, learn a little humility and set your elitism aside. Back then they were seen as a significant improvement over previous releases like the DMPs. Thats why MJO23DAN felt '13s were so well done. I didn't compare them to Banned for the simple reason they were such a one off that Jordan brand gave us that its hard to justify using them as the standard bearers. The same reason I wouldn't use the BIN23 Premio collection as standard bearers. Also, I don't need the opinions of a YouTuber to tell me how I should feel. I can formulate my own ideas. That is the real disease of this generation. Looking onto others to know how one should feel. 
 
illmOnk said:
these retailed under $100 in 85. cousin prob rounded up? the 3s didn't even break $100 in 88...
Click to expand...

You're probably right. I think he embellished on the cost to emphasize the ridiculous price tag of 80$(?). I dunno. Maybe I'll ask him at Christmas time when I show up in these!
 
palma said:
 
wHipLAshTw03 said:
 
Tell me holy one...do you think '13 Bred 1s should be priced at $600-800 for a DS pair, based on the materials used and the quality? You ever put a pair of '13s on your feet, walked around in Disneyland for an entire day or laced em up on the court? Rhetorical questions.

And WTflyingF does resell on the '16s have to do with the '13s being overpriced? If resell on the '16s end up being $300-400, those too will be overpriced. Still doesn't change my opinion that $600-800 for DS '13 pairs or $400-500 for used '13 pairs is flat out ridiculous for a pair that isn't even close to the quality of $400 Pinnacle 1s.

Secondly, you obviously missed what I meant when I stated that one's opinion regarding the tumbled leather on the '16s is to each his own, considering that many people on this thread have claimed they don't like the tumbled leather because the '85s didn't have it. Ever heard of the saying, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder?" Or should I define that for you smart guy?

Baroque Brown Pinnacle 1s have better leather quality than both the '11 and '16 Banned 1s as well as some OG pairs from '88-'98, all of which I owned, rocked, and wore til they crumbled to pieces. Are the Pinnacle 1's tumbled? No, they're not. Do I think tumbled leather is the best quality leather out there? No it's not, because I never said that. Your reading comprehension skills need some work.

Don't come at me trying to sound smart when first off, you don't have the slightest clue what I was even saying on the above post.

And if you've never worn a pair of OG Jordans, casually or on court for hoops, and I'm talkin OG's from the 80s or '90-'97, then you should sit yourself down on a stool and quit like Delahoya because I've been around these kicks long enough to have considerable expertise on the Air Jordan line.
Click to expand...
I have walked in a pair of '13s on a hot day. Back then all they did was remind me of how terrible the DMPs had been. After breaking them in they did soften up just like the OGs used to. Have you broken in a pair of '13s? You just seem butthurt that you couldn't get your hands on a pair when the '13s dropped? They weren't always $600-800. They were once almost half that. The '11 BC3 were sitting on shelves at my local FTL and now they go for $400+. People absolutely hate their quality. Retro prices are basic Supply and Demand. Econ 101 really. The value and nostalgia has been well established. Your opinion is your opinion I am not asking you to change it...only to inform it a little better. 

You haven't touched a pair of '16s and we don't know the resell. If '16s end up taking on a much higher resell with a marginally better quality then they end up being most overpriced BRED not the '13s. See why the WTflyingF it matters? Its just a pre-mature opinion to call '13s over-priced as compared to '16s is all I was pointing out. They will likely end up being better in quality than '13s in most ways. But some have pointed out flaws in the quality of '16s as well. 

Sure people have their opinion about the tumbled leather. But, your post seems to imply that '13s are not worth their price based on in part quality? Based on the 4 pairs shown in the video '13s are the cheapest with the cheapest quality leather . So their price seems in line? Part of reading comprehension is ascertaining implied meaning because too often people tend to conceal their ignorance with words. So, then define for me over-priced or any other words like overrated or overhyped that you use so casually without proof? You love to call me a smart guy...but can't help but slip in smart *** comments at every opportunity?
laugh.gif
 

In your entire essay you didn't once address my counter-argument to your original argument about the color of the '13s versus '16s. Just some BS about disneyland and being realer than real since you've been around for a long time? As another member pointed out your album of pictures is grossly flawed when comparing colors based on different lighting conditions etc. I put a video that is easily searchable on YouTube to illustrate my point. How did you miss that OG? You think you are the only one around. I have done enough in Js and tested them in all important conditions. Everything from playing ball to walking on the Great Wall to pounding chicks. 
Click to expand...
No need to "inform [me] better" because it ain't nothin new. BC3s may have sat where you're at but best believe they sold out in minutes where I'm from. And if people are willing to pay $400 for '11 BC3s, they're overpaying in my opinion. Those J's are worth no more than $250 DS, max. In fact, there are sellers in my area right now selling them for $200 or less in "excellent condition" per the definition of excellent by Footage and Sole Supremacy standards.

Have I broken in a pair of '13s? If you've been paying attention to my posts, you'd know that I mentioned earlier today that I used to own the '13s and traded them. In fact, I owned two pairs. Played in them once, wore them to the L.A. County Fair on another occasion, then got rid of them.

And no, my opinion that the '13s are overpriced is not pre-mature because even if the '16's become the most over-priced pair of Bred 1s ever, it will still not hit the astronomical numbers that Yeezys are doing and they will still settle roughly around the same price of the '13s, IF THAT. At the end of the day, whether or not the '16s are marginally better than the '13s in quality when it's all said and done, $600-800 for DS pairs of '13s is still overpriced and not in the same league as $400-500 Pinnacle Ones (choose one: black, white, vachetta, or baroque brown). At the end of the day, there will be varying opinions about the quality of the '13 and '16 and there will most likely never be an overwhelming verdict that tips the favor of one over the other. The question ends up becoming: would YOU or the average joe pay $600-800 for a pair of DS '13s?

First off smart guy, he showed FIVE pairs not four - 1985, 1994, 2001, 2011, and 2013. Now answer me this (and disregard "quality" of each model for the purposes of this question): Why do you think '85s, '11 Banned, '01s, and '94s are priced higher in the aftermarket than 2013s? Hint: the price of the '13s has absolutely nothing to do with their being "in line" with the quality of leather.

You ask why I think '13s are overpriced? Maybe you should ask if I think the '11s or the '94s or the '01s are overpriced as well so you can get where I'm coming from. Hint #2: my definition of "overpriced" or "overhyped" or "overrated" is directly correlated to the scarcity, hence availability, of the particular shoe in the aftermarket and not just the perceived quality of the shoes. There is a reason why the average DS value (per Stockx) of '11s is $2048, '01s is $823, and '94s/OG's are N/A but probably well in the thousands of dollars. So having said this, YES the '13s (at an average DS value of $712) is overpriced because '13s can be found ALL OVER THE PLACE while you will have to be much much much more patient AND lucky in order to find a DS pair of '01s, '94s, or '85s in your size. Get it yet?

Your argument about the color of the '13s vs the '16s? Refresh my memory G, because from what I recall, not once did you ever address anything about the color between the two versions. Read below and please highlight where you wrote either red, color, or anything remotely close to a counter-argument regarding the shades between the two models:

Corrected. Educate yourself before opining like an expert. They are not overrated at all. '13s get bashed all the time. Just look around in this thread...it happens the most. People used to think of them as the standard bearers of their time until remastering began...or here let someone's hard work open your eyes   Overpriced? We don't even know the resell on '16s. WTF is overbright? As for the tumbled leather. What beauty? You think the most prized hides for their beauty are cratered like a pimple faced teenager? Banneds are a good quality leather that happens to be tumbled. The OGs were quality leather too...see any tumbling?

And congrats for pounding chicks with your J's. I'm sure you were naive enough to think that a pair of Concords would help your game and make you more of a playa and that they would boost your performance.
 
wHipLAshTw03 said:
No need to "inform [me] better" because it ain't nothin new. BC3s may have sat where you're at but best believe they sold out in minutes where I'm from. And if people are willing to pay $400 for '11 BC3s, they're overpaying in my opinion. Those J's are worth no more than $250 DS, max. In fact, there are sellers in my area right now selling them for $200 or less in "excellent condition" per the definition of excellent by Footage and Sole Supremacy standards.

Have I broken in a pair of '13s? If you've been paying attention to my posts, you'd know that I mentioned earlier today that I used to own the '13s and traded them. In fact, I owned two pairs. Played in them once, wore them to the L.A. County Fair on another occasion, then got rid of them.

And no, my opinion that the '13s are overpriced is not pre-mature because even if the '16's become the most over-priced pair of Bred 1s ever, it will still not hit the astronomical numbers that Yeezys are doing and they will still settle roughly around the same price of the '13s, IF THAT. At the end of the day, whether or not the '16s are marginally better than the '13s in quality when it's all said and done, $600-800 for DS pairs of '13s is still overpriced and not in the same league as $400-500 Pinnacle Ones (choose one: black, white, vachetta, or baroque brown). At the end of the day, there will be varying opinions about the quality of the '13 and '16 and there will most likely never be an overwhelming verdict that tips the favor of one over the other. The question ends up becoming: would YOU or the average joe pay $600-800 for a pair of DS '13s?

First off smart guy, he showed FIVE pairs not four - 1985, 1994, 2001, 2011, and 2013. Now answer me this (and disregard "quality" of each model for the purposes of this question): Why do you think '85s, '11 Banned, '01s, and '94s are priced higher in the aftermarket than 2013s? Hint: the price of the '13s has absolutely nothing to do with their being "in line" with the quality of leather.

You ask why I think '13s are overpriced? Maybe you should ask if I think the '11s or the '94s or the '01s are overpriced as well so you can get where I'm coming from. Hint #2: my definition of "overpriced" or "overhyped" or "overrated" is directly correlated to the scarcity, hence availability, of the particular shoe in the aftermarket and not just the perceived quality of the shoes. There is a reason why the average DS value (per Stockx) of '11s is $2048, '01s is $823, and '94s/OG's are N/A but probably well in the thousands of dollars. So having said this, YES the '13s (at an average DS value of $712) is overpriced because '13s can be found ALL OVER THE PLACE while you will have to be much much much more patient AND lucky in order to find a DS pair of '01s, '94s, or '85s in your size. Get it yet?

Your argument about the color of the '13s vs the '16s? Refresh my memory G, because from what I recall, not once did you ever address anything about the color between the two versions. Read below and please highlight where you wrote either red, color, or anything remotely close to a counter-argument regarding the shades between the two models:

Corrected. Educate yourself before opining like an expert. They are not overrated at all. '13s get bashed all the time. Just look around in this thread...it happens the most. People used to think of them as the standard bearers of their time until remastering began...or here let someone's hard work open your eyes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsFlt3wCR1U Overpriced? We don't even know the resell on '16s. WTF is overbright? As for the tumbled leather. What beauty? You think the most prized hides for their beauty are cratered like a pimple faced teenager? Banneds are a good quality leather that happens to be tumbled. The OGs were quality leather too...see any tumbling?

And congrats for pounding chicks with your J's. I'm sure you were naive enough to think that a pair of Concords would help your game and make you more of a playa and that they would boost your performance.
Click to expand...

Man rep'D
 
palma said:
 
wHipLAshTw03 said:
 
The 2013 Bred 1s as the "standard?" LOL

The 2013 Bred 1s as the most top notch Bred 1 of its time, even better than past Bred 1s including the 2011 Banned? Really bro? Or maybe you're just suffering from hype disease just like thousands of others around the world. Yeah that's probably it.

And oh, before I forget, maybe you should comment on MJO23DAN's video above on youtube and ask him if he thinks the 2013s are overpriced at $600-800 and if they're slightly, just slightly , overrated based on quality and materials used.

After all, if you didn't catch it, he ranked the 2013's in LAST PLACE when compared to the '85s, '94, 2011, and 2001. So much for the '13 being "the standard." 
roll.gif
 
Click to expand...
I said they used to be considered the standard bearer of their time. NOT of now or all time. Before you lecture other people on reading comprehension, learn a little humility and set your elitism aside. Back then they were seen as a significant improvement over previous releases like the DMPs. Thats why MJO23DAN felt '13s were so well done. I didn't compare them to Banned for the simple reason they were such a one off that Jordan brand gave us that its hard to justify using them as the standard bearers. The same reason I wouldn't use the BIN23 Premio collection as standard bearers. Also, I don't need the opinions of a YouTuber to tell me how I should feel. I can formulate my own ideas. That is the real disease of this generation. Looking onto others to know how one should feel. 
Click to expand...
If you can formulate your own ideas, then tell me what you think about the $712 average price tag for a DS pair of '13s, whether or not you would pay that price right now and why.

Humility? hahaha, maybe you should have come correct in the first place when you first decided to quote and respond to me. Your attempts at being funny (adding "grossly incorrect" in large font) and sarcastic showed me where you wanted to take it.
 
If my HS & JJ hasn't got banned apparel does it mean they aren't getting the shoes. I mean JJ got the Og low ain't no way they ain't getting the hi's.
 
Too many pages flying by while I'm at work, but talked to a shoe palace plug and he's gonna let me know if he's got my pair locked in pretty soon.  If so should be an easy go at 1 pair at least, then hope for online luck for the second.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

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