If you complained heavily about the AJ3 for years and believe your complaints made a difference, then you should understand where an IE purist is coming from, even if you don't agree.
From the high-def photos we've seen, it's plain to me that they used the same plastic-looking, shiny leather...
Man, I know NT is heavily populated with Jordan fanatics and brand loyalists, but some of these dudes be acting like they're on the Nike payroll.
If you're offended by my saying these are "decent, but could have been better", don't go in the IG comments right now. They're giving 'em hell over...
Here are some photos of my '96 pair. Apart from the pre-yellowed sole of the new retro, the main differences appear to be in the materials and shape. The original had very thick, soft leather (and nubuck panels) which gave the contours and stitched areas depth/dimensionality and made the design...
I'm almost certain that the original soles were a transparent gray/silver, not piss yellow.
It's too bad they waited 25 years to re-release these, at the height of a Gen Z obsession with pre-aged materials.
I'm glad they finally removed the elephant print and black sole; but outside of...
Yes, let's see the originals. It's nearly impossible to find any pictures of them on the internet these days.
I'm with you 100% on the outsole-around-the-front-of-the-toe thing. I think they originally changed it to stitching ( in '98 ) to prevent the separation issues that occurred with the...
The '17s were an abomination. I wouldn't use those as my baseline for comparison.
And, at any rate, the "shape" is just one aspect of the bastardization. Besides the banana toe: the gray is too dark, the collar around the ankle and achilles is too low, the suede and 3M overlay cuts are...