*** A Different Thought ***

ogfreshready

ogfreshready

Joined
Sep 14, 2005
Messages
56
Reaction score
10
I didn't want to make this a "what if" thread....or "imagine this"....however, in going along with the thought that someone from BrandJordan monitors this site, I wish to pose this question to you ALL and hopefully, the rep reading......... Question is : Why do you think the shape ofretro Air Jordans have changed? ...........Before you answer..........consider this------ Original to retro shape... What does the word Retro meanto you? Is it a replication by Design..........OR....... a vague in Memory of, being designed and returning to the present... By putting the word Retro onthat box, are 'they' saying that it's only in memory of a great shoe that's no longer wearable to be remembered? If so,then why hide a perfect design that Michael Jordan played in and made famous? For Example : The Air Jordan IV shape has changed..... why? Thefirst IV retro in '99 was almost identical and then later, it changed....... Even with 'them' changing that nice, soft Corinthian leather to thecheaper leather today and changing logos and switching colorways to make more profit............why the shape? Why..... Was the mold too expensive to use? Has that mold been copywritten? What does changing shape have to do with making a profit if Michael is to be remembered in playing the way he has in shoesthat embodied that level?
 
i think that they're thinking of all consumers and just think that some of those designs are very radical in todays fashion so i think they tone down alotof stuff kind of why were just getting jordan i hi's because they notice that high tops are in again.probably why nike brung back the air flight litehigh's too. also cuts osts by trimming fabric remember every little bit cost.
 
I wish the CDP XI could be as good as the 01's but NOOOOOOOO they have to be so rubbish. The leather shape really is appauling
 
Originally Posted by OGFreshReady

I didn't want to make this a "what if" thread....or "imagine this"....however, in going along with the thought that someone from Brand Jordan monitors this site, I wish to pose this question to you ALL and hopefully, the rep reading......... Question is : Why do you think the shape of retro Air Jordans have changed? ...........Before you answer..........consider this------ Original to retro shape... What does the word Retro mean to you? Is it a replication by Design..........OR....... a vague in Memory of, being designed and returning to the present... By putting the word Retro on that box, are 'they' saying that it's only in memory of a great shoe that's no longer wearable to be remembered? If so, then why hide a perfect design that Michael Jordan played in and made famous? For Example : The Air Jordan IV shape has changed..... why? The first IV retro in '99 was almost identical and then later, it changed....... Even with 'them' changing that nice, soft Corinthian leather to the cheaper leather today and changing logos and switching colorways to make more profit............why the shape? Why..... Was the mold too expensive to use? Has that mold been copywritten? What does changing shape have to do with making a profit if Michael is to be remembered in playing the way he has in shoes that embodied that level?
Click to expand...

Great post

A retro to me is just a representation of the past.

As for the shape being different, I dont know why? They make the IV's sleek, but the recent Black/red i high was bulky. Which is supposed to be theopposite. I don't know how hard it is to make a retro in the right shape, but Nike's been doing pretty well with their retros so far...maybe if Nikeand JB get together again, maybe?
 
this is definately a better post that i have seen on JB in a while.

well for me personally, i kinda like the idea of changing the shape because if they kept it all the same then there probably wont be a value change from theOG's, first retros, all the way down to the fourth retros (in some cases haha) whether it be value in price, or just the value of being able to own anolder released shoe when mj was ripping it on the court at the time and made you really want to rush to the store and cop.

hope that makes sense to you guys....only 4 AM in cali and i just woke up bout to get ready for work
 
Thank you all for your thoughts on this.... Yes...maybe that's it.... a Sub-company (Jordan Brand) being born from a Parent company (Nike)......and tryingto survive and make BIG profits to show and prove their worth at the higher corporate level.......makes sense.....The way this ties into Shape beingchanged.................I think now, from your insight above........to survive and come out with a big profit, they needed to make cuts, find cheaper labor,cheaper leather, which in turn, forced them to use different coloring agents (that's why the red on the low-cut 1 is a dark dull color unlike the bright'01 red) and of course......the Shape.....they decided to make their own molds, I guess....cheaper copyright....So all this stems from trying to surviveand make a profit to thrive in today's fashion concious market.....Thank you....I think I'm understanding why now.........However.......there'sjust one thing.........all signature lines are pretty close in shape except the IV (in my opinion)... don't they know about the finer details, that thisnew mold they're using makes the retro look entirely different to what the shoe should've looked like....I mean...the toe box is now longer and theshoe looks curved and flat instead of the sleek design it once was...Can this be fixed? Can they put a little more money into a new mold?
 
I always thought it was to make the shoes more casual which is why they lower the cut and shape, and always extend the toebox with every retro.

And stayfresh25, just curious why would it affect the value if they all looked the same? Wouldn't you rather be able to have your OG black cement ondisplay with an exact replica on your feet? That would be the best way to remember and appreciate those OGs that you just can't wear anymore imo. I guessif you're one of those guys who care about cash value (which you didn't seem to be) then the changes are good. All it does it take from the shoes imo.
 
JB is just saving money. Material from all OGs and maybe 1st retroes were always up to par. Its just business marketing plan save a couple hundred thousands byreducing quality.
 
Originally Posted by OGFreshReady

However.......there's just one thing.........all signature lines are pretty close in shape except the IV (in my opinion)...
Click to expand...
i think the VII's are BY FAR the ones that have had the most significant shape change. the silhouette is practically unrecognizable comparedto the original.
 
Minor changes , I dont think apply to all the cdp's ,,i THINK ITS WHOS MAKING OUR KICKS UNDERPAID,OVERSEAS, thats why some shapes differ from even anotherpair of the same c.d.p.'s

(i.e. i sorted through the 3/20 pks, til i found 3's that looked nearest the retro ......)

so even the cdp differ in shape from one another,despite that there the same shoe...

as it was with retros and og's .. I think its whos overseas stitching our kicks together, that determine the shape ,and now in days ,the material they useis cheaper majority of the time,which im sure plays a part as well........
 
I think it may have to do with different materials and/or a different process to make the shoes
 
Originally Posted by JFMartiMcDandruff

Originally Posted by OGFreshReady

I didn't want to make this a "what if" thread....or "imagine this"....however, in going along with the thought that someone from Brand Jordan monitors this site, I wish to pose this question to you ALL and hopefully, the rep reading......... Question is : Why do you think the shape of retro Air Jordans have changed? ...........Before you answer..........consider this------ Original to retro shape... What does the word Retro mean to you? Is it a replication by Design..........OR....... a vague in Memory of, being designed and returning to the present... By putting the word Retro on that box, are 'they' saying that it's only in memory of a great shoe that's no longer wearable to be remembered? If so, then why hide a perfect design that Michael Jordan played in and made famous? For Example : The Air Jordan IV shape has changed..... why? The first IV retro in '99 was almost identical and then later, it changed....... Even with 'them' changing that nice, soft Corinthian leather to the cheaper leather today and changing logos and switching colorways to make more profit............why the shape? Why..... Was the mold too expensive to use? Has that mold been copywritten? What does changing shape have to do with making a profit if Michael is to be remembered in playing the way he has in shoes that embodied that level?
Click to expand...

Great post

A retro to me is just a representation of the past.

As for the shape being different, I dont know why? They make the IV's sleek, but the recent Black/red i high was bulky. Which is supposed to be the opposite. I don't know how hard it is to make a retro in the right shape, but Nike's been doing pretty well with their retros so far...maybe if Nike and JB get together again, maybe?
Click to expand...

co-sign
and nike and jb really do need to start working together more again but not to make any garbage fusions
 
Nike net worth is 11Billion and they squeezing their wallets cause of great quality.
 
Originally Posted by osubass1

Originally Posted by OGFreshReady

However.......there's just one thing.........all signature lines are pretty close in shape except the IV (in my opinion)...
Click to expand...
i think the VII's are BY FAR the ones that have had the most significant shape change. the silhouette is practically unrecognizable compared to the original.
Click to expand...
WOW who the heck are you kidding. that is such an over exaggerated statement it's pitiful. unrecognizable.... LMFAO!
 
i think everything they do when it comes to doing the retro's, cdp's, etc. comes down to a money position. even if it saves them a buck or two per shoeit adds up over the long run with the amount of shoes they release. you'll still want to buy the shoes because they remind you of a time back in yourchildhood or however old you were of a special moment that you associate with them. so many people couldn't wait to get that last cdp with the 11/12'sand when they got them they saw the lack of material/quality of the 11's. yet people still waited in line for these shoes! i guess what i'm saying isthat there is less old school collectors out there and jordan brand is concentrating on the new collector because they are the new market. they don't knowquality and shape. all they care about is copping these shoes to show off at school, friends, etc.
 
Cost. The deal to make the shoes goes to the lowest bidder, they cut corners to pull a profit and we get shoes that are not great quality. These places areabout quantity not quality. This is why the DMP's are good.
 
at the end of the day jb is a buissness and there going to cut costs were ever they can. if it means the consumer will get a worse prdouct then the originaland have to pay more money so be it no matter how bad people complain there still going to sell cause they still have the jumpman on the shoe
 
A retro to me should represent the past. However, some of the Retroes today have very different shapes compared to the older shoes. I don't understand whythe Jordan Brand can't just make shoes like they once were. But of course it all falls back to the consumer and is greatly affected by the profit. TheXI's in the CDP was terrible, not to dis anyone who got em, and the IV from the CDP was pretty bad in shape. I'll rock other Retro IV but specificallythe Blk/Red/Cement Grey is my favorite shoe, so the shape mattered.

It's dissapointing how JB would alter shoes for casual wear since this isn't why the brand was created in the first place. The brand was created forMichael Jordan and the game. Sad thing that's not what the brand is about anymore.
 
A retro to me should represent the past. However, some of the Retroes today have very different shapes compared to the older shoes. I don't understand whythe Jordan Brand can't just make shoes like they once were. But of course it all falls back to the consumer and is greatly affected by the profit. TheXI's in the CDP was terrible, not to dis anyone who got em, and the IV from the CDP was pretty bad in shape. I'll rock other Retro IV but specificallythe Blk/Red/Cement Grey is my favorite shoe, so the shape mattered.

It's dissapointing how JB would alter shoes for casual wear since this isn't why the brand was created in the first place. The brand was created forMichael Jordan and the game. Sad thing that's not what the brand is about anymore.
 
For me, the retro shoe should mean a replication of something from the past to remember it as it was. For example, on the recent AJ 1 high Strap, How hardwould it be to give us the original shoe? Same shape, same laces, same logos, same material, same feel....

Obviously these differences are minimal, and not really worth complaining about...also im only 19, far from being any og head...but the reason i got into shoeswas because of Micheal Jordan, and for me to wear a classic shoe like the black/red AJ 1, the cheaper leather, red laces in place of black ones, jumpmans inplace of nike air, in just makes the shoe feel less authentic.

I certainly wouldn't know, but for those who rock their og's i would think they would initially experience a different feeling wearing og's asopposed to retros...perhaps this feeling of authenticity and staying true to your passion.

Just my opinion...
 
I don't think JB is having any problem making money. I don't think changing the shape would save any money. but what do I know. lets ask Tinker.I'm guessing either he hates the new shape, or that was the way he wanted it the first time around. or maybe it was Gentry or Mike wanting it to lookdifferent. but I do agree that is looks sucky
 
To me, a retro should be identical or as close the the origional as possible. I started wearing Jordans at age 10 (og xii) and have seen/had all since thistime. The retro XII is a good retro, while the quality might not be as good as the og, the look of it is dead on to me. The first IV that I owned was the coolgreys that came out in 2004. I did not have a 99 IV or an OG IV so the shape of them doesnt really bother me as it does other members on this board. If I hadhad one of these older incarserations, I would too be dissapointed. However, since I do not have any reccollection of them, I really cant say it bothers me toomuch. Now the shoe that disguests me is the CDP XI. I compared them to my 01 black/red retros and the inner half of the shoe looks good in terms of the cut ofthe patent. The outer half is beyond terrible. The patent is at least half a cm to 1 cm shorter, and it really throws the whole shoe off. The dmps werent toofar off from the concords, so those were a descent retro. But these are terrible. Another shoe that I am not very happy with is my CDP III. These just look sooff from my 01 pair (which was beat and I havent had in years). The fire red III is an example of piss poor paint being used. It just looks way to shiney andvery tacky. The cool grey III and even the DTRT III have good quality and look more true to the origionals than the other IIIs. The IX from the cdp is prettyclose to the 02, so I am not complaining. It is really just a few shoes that have really been off that I do not approve of.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest News

View All News

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

Site contents may not be incorporated into AI training data or any other derivative works without prior express written consent.

Links to participating merchants may generate referral or affiliate commissions that help support our community. See our policies for details. 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.

© 1999-2026 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

| Xenforo Add-ons © by ©XenTR | Media embeds via s9e/MediaSites
Back
Top Bottom