Some stuff saved over the years, that arent specifically mine:
DT MAX 96 og vs RETRO:
Quick breakdown: everything SO SO right with the original. Nice gold accents all around. Speckled midsole as well.. Retro is just
.. Barely worth $29.99 clearance price in my eyes
Grade: C+ some features and facts are just too hard to pass up. Missing key elements make this one a potential bust.. Only the shape of the shoe and similarresemblance to the original saves this model.
Nike AIR MAX 2 Uptempo :OG vs. Retro
First up are the Originals from the mid 90s
RETROS from 06:
Quick breakdown
Now it's not hard to see where the differences come about.. Here its mainly, and with the majority of nike retros, color issues that come to play here.. Anice vibrant royal blue is accented with a volt like neon greenish yellow in the originals. The retros on the other hand provide a muted darker blue and a truevarsity MAIZE look.. There is no pop to the shoe.
Grade: C+ The upper just doesnt seem to pop like it should. The shape and construction is quite solid so the grade remains a modest C+. With the right color,its in the B+ range
Nike Air Trainer High (1) 1990 OG retro vs. current day Retros (2000-2002-200
:
Below from left to right:
- 1990 air trainer high remake from the 1987 release. Everything is identical to the 1987 original here. features a nice soft suede and leather upper.
- 2000 air trainer 1 chlorophyll.. here is where the chlorophyll name that is so common with this shoe found its origins. Grey tints on the suede upper are a bit lighter and the green color used on the accents is a kermit the frog like bright green compared to the 1990. This is the only retro that features quality suede and quality leather, true to the original specifications.
- 2002 air trainer 1 checkerboard tongue tag overseas release (this one features the same chlorophyll green, but has a synthetic suede and synthetic leather upper as well as a difference in the perf. leather toebox and the tongue which is now mesh.
- 2008 air trainer 1 checkerboard tongue tag overseas release (this one is very similiar to the 2002 if not identical to the untrained eye. The NIKE on the velcro strap is a darker shade It also features synthetic materials on the upper. A true downgrade from the 2000s are the 2002 and 2008 models.
Photo below shows a 2000 air trainer 1 chlorophyll, the original 1990 air trainer high, a 2008 zoom tennis trainer, and a 2004 zoom trainer 1 mid insoles...Color differences are truly apparent here.
Quick breakdown:
As noted, only the 2000s feature a real material upper consistent with the 1990, thus that remains up there as the retro to get.
Grades:
1990: A+ / true to form retro of the 1987 original. no differences at all
2000: A- / In 2000 when these released I would grade these as a Solid B+ but since that time and with the releases of the 2002 and 2008, these are boosted upwith its supreme quality upper
2002: B / Nice changes with the tongue tag and perf. leather. downside to this model is the material usage. At the same time though, the synthetic materialshave a hardier more prone to bad weather and making it out alive feel to them, so they are not all bad
2008: B- / Same as the 2002 but the darker NIKE lettering on the strap is a no no.
That last photo lends into a 2004 zoom trainer 1 mid vs. 2008 zoom tennis trainer comparison.. Although not ideally set to be a true retro of the 2004, the2008 model is close in many aspects
2004 on top. 2008 on bottom
Quick breakdown: Different shades of grey as well as green and even the material choices on the upper. One was supposedly made for indoor gym use, the 2004,and the other made for tennis with hardier materials.. Without going into too much details, thats the basics of that comparison. MSRP was also $110 vs. $80with the cheaper model being the latter 2008 release.
Grade: Push ... The 08 "retro" was made specifically for a different use than the originals so it's too tough to grade
Nike AIR TRAINER MAX ('91) 1991 OG vs. 2004 Retro:
-Retro is on top. Original is on Bottom
Original on left.... Retro on RIGHT
Retro on the left.. OG on the right.
Quick breakdown:
-Originals feature a plush felt like upper meanwhile the retro has taken on the synthetic more durable look.. The OG is so soft that anything else is justwrong.
-Colorwise, its not even close. Both the grey and yellow are 4-5 shades off giving it a truly distinct look.
-Construction wise, the upper is very complicated. Nike did a very good job here. The banana boat shape is a given with retros.. Not bad... Nice detail work onthe tongue, heel area, and overall features in the upper.
Grade: B-.. comparing strictly against one against the color differences and material differences make this one a noble effort but just not good enough for asolid B.. On the merit of the retro being solely viewed by itself, this ones definetly a solid B.
Another Bo jackson shoe in the AIR TRAINER SC HIGH III
1990 OG vs 1999 RETRO:
Retro on top. OG on bottom
OG left. RETRO right
OG left. Retro on Right
Quick breakdown:
-The "red" color is obviously brighter and vivid on the originals.. the originals were listed as INFRARED meanwhile the retros as PIMENTO so the truecolor dinstinction may lie in that fact, but it may be like the chlorophyll trainer retro in that Nike is just lazy..
-Some obvious differences include a tongue that is not colored instead just the text NIKE. The heel features NIKE outlined in "red" on the retrosmeanwhile the OGs a darker grey. The midsole accent piece is infrared in the ogs and grey in the retros. Most notably is the grey mudguard showing a muchdarker shade of grey on the shoe, including the sockliner... This overall color difference is much like the trainer max retro vs. OG. The originals have abright infrared contrasting the light grey meanwhile two darker tones of grey and red are working against each other in the retro.
Grade: A (The '99 retros feature great materials including the suede and leather upper. The minor color differences diminish this great retro just a bit.Since nothing greater has come out since then, this one holds the A grade)
More later.. believe, its sad what nike throws out there for us
