- 8,513
- 3,513
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2009
Well here's an unexpected twist in events
From AR's facebook
From AR's facebook
Early Jordan Release INFO. Its time everyone knows.
- Thread in 'Jordan Brand' Thread starter Started by 1man2lives,
- Start date
- Status
- 48,247
- 28,271
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2006
honestly, when i used to see the caliber of fakes & variants circulating the internet 10 years ago,
i thought "these are so obvious & bad...why can't they get the fakes to look better, how hard can it be?"
well, that day has come
don't act surprised
i thought "these are so obvious & bad...why can't they get the fakes to look better, how hard can it be?"
well, that day has come
don't act surprised
- 2,278
- 6,373
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2010
I think that people are misinterpreting the difference between B-grade and fake. I believe that Air Randy and other early release sites do sell legit shoes and at the same time they are mostly B-grade. But don't get me wrong, I seen C-grades, D-grades and even F-grades from these early release sites. I brought from early release sites three times. I brought the 2009 True Blue 3's from VMV (well I brought it around release date), they were decent but they could have been better and did not have the original tissue paper. I brought the Space Jam 11's from Promoshoes in early November of 2009 and also brought the release day version as well and there were no differences between the two except the ones that I brought from Promoshoes did not have the original tissue paper. I also brought Cool Grey 11's from an ebay seller at the end of November of last year. Unfortunately, the toecap was translucent rather than opaque, other than that, there were NO other flaws. I believe that the Cool Grey 11's might be B-grade. I also seen FAKE Cool Grey 11's on ebay and they do not look nearly the ones that I have or the release pairs, the patent leather was a different grey, materials looked different and the jumpman looked small.
People like to say crooked 23 on the back of the Air Jordan 11's, JUMPMAN JOQDAN, jumpman does not exactly line up with the 23 and uneven patent leather cuts are a sign of fakes. Anyone who thinks that is 100% INCORRECT. That was an issue with the 2000/2001 pairs and I know that because I have ALL OF THEM and at least doubles of all of them except the Cool Greys. I can almost guarantee that the OG's had the same issues. The only OG 11 that I own is the Air Jordan 11 Black/Red, so I can't tell you much about about any flaws.
People like to say crooked 23 on the back of the Air Jordan 11's, JUMPMAN JOQDAN, jumpman does not exactly line up with the 23 and uneven patent leather cuts are a sign of fakes. Anyone who thinks that is 100% INCORRECT. That was an issue with the 2000/2001 pairs and I know that because I have ALL OF THEM and at least doubles of all of them except the Cool Greys. I can almost guarantee that the OG's had the same issues. The only OG 11 that I own is the Air Jordan 11 Black/Red, so I can't tell you much about about any flaws.
- 2,126
- 64
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2011
Ok but what about when they run out of materials and decide to use leftover materials from other shoes i.e. Space Jam Re-Stock that was made with Cool Grey parts and CF & I think some of the questionable Ray 13's were made with leftover TB3 & WC3 leather.
- 352
- 11
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2011
Making money off your trash...can't put it past ANY BUSINESS let alone NIKE...just stick with "buyer beware"...me personally I wait for release date...CAN'T SPEND DAT MUCH MONEY...I'M BROKE!!!!LOL
- 296
- 19
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2008
I don't see why it's the same because B-grades in the outlets are the actual B-grades that were sent by Nike to an outlet store because those products have failed to meet a certain standard (or for other reasons aka banned 1).
and the example the person you quoted is about dirty backdoor business practice, and it's illegal. It's not grey area. It's flat out illegal. Are they made with same materials? Yes. But are they authentic? If you wanna call illegally made products authentic Nike/Jordan products, then go ahead.
Here's an example. Let's say you buy a macbook. But all the chips and parts used are actually from #s of broke down macbooks (and older models) and are assembled by a tech geek, nicely packed in a box, do you call that macbook an authentic one? If your answer is yes, then go ahead and call those clear toe '11s authentic (and other whatever that's on there).
Your definition of "official" is simply regarding quality, I assume. Because B-grades at the outlet stores are authentic and official. It's just B-grade.
- 1,518
- 10
- Joined
- May 6, 2010
was this a mistake? cause its actually supposed to be a tumbled leather finish
- 2,126
- 64
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2011
It all starts here: http://niketalk.yuku.com/...me?page=149#.TtcL7tWGiuI
The readers digest version is the Ray's that came from sneakerape and some VMV pairs (and a bunch of other sites that arent worth naming) were different than the ones sold at retails spots and this was confirmed by someone who had a pair from Boston and one from overseas, specifically under the insoles and the green suede.
As for the |Beats, my lil bro copped me a pair of Beats by Dre Studio Pros and I found out they were fake after doing some research........just solidifies the idea that ANYTHING can be reproduced to look EXACTLY like the original item save for a few very very minute details that you probably wouldnt notice unless you had a real version vs a counterfeit
- 2,426
- 799
- Joined
- May 4, 2007
I'm not even gonna TRY to claim that I have any secret or advanced knowledge of the situation with early releases being fakes and/or B-Grades, etc etc. But I DO have 2 degrees in business administration and marketing, and so looking at this purely from a business perspective, there are some things that GLARINGLY stand out to me as suspect with the OP's theory (for lack of a better term).
Full ownership of a product is something that is VERY important to most companies. It's the reason that Coca-Cola would rather not patent their soda and keep their recipe and have to provide the recipe. It's the reason that you can't buy Apple computers at just any electronics/computer store and why Apple plays such a large role in iPhone sales and marketing.
It doesn't make any BUSINESS sense for a company the size and stature of Nike to relinquish ownership of their products to questionable, overseas, online retailers. It doesn't make any BUSINESS sense for a company the size and stature of Nike to give up marketing, pricing, and distribution control to questionable, overseasn, online retailers. It'd be one thing if 1) AR and sites like those were legally obligated to NOT sell to US markets, OR 2) if AR had the same pricing and release date restrictions as the US retailers (FootLocker, EastBay, etc). It just doesn't add up.
Also, for those people saying that Nike is looking to make extra money off of rejects, over productions, etc. Someone already addressed this matter in an earlier response but let me just repeat it. When Nike places an order, for say 100,000 pairs of sneaker x. That's what they order, 100,000 pairs. So if the factory (which isn't owned by Nike) makes 100,010 pair, the extra 10 don't belong to, nor are they shipped to Nike for distribution. Likely, it is the responsibility of the factory to properly dispose of the "rejects" or "over-production" pairs. They are not allowed to legally sell the shoes. Consider this...
If you go to a restaurant, and you order a burger, but while they're cooking it, they drop it on the floor...the waiter is not gonna come to you and say "Yo dude, my bad, but the chef dropped your burger on the ground...He made you another one that didn't fall, but here's the one that fell just in case you still want that".
OR
If you go to Macy's and buy some cornyass skinny jeans, right. But when you try to put them on, you realize that they're suppose to be 34" long, but they're only 25" long so they stop mid shin. You take em back to Macys...They not gonna say, "oh damn, yea that's our bad. We'll give you a pair that's cut correctly, but you can keep those joints for the summer".
Same rules apply. I'm not comin at anybody for coppin early releases and I'm certainly not making a call on them bein fake or not, but I'm saying from a business standpoint, none of what was said in the OP makes much sense...
Full ownership of a product is something that is VERY important to most companies. It's the reason that Coca-Cola would rather not patent their soda and keep their recipe and have to provide the recipe. It's the reason that you can't buy Apple computers at just any electronics/computer store and why Apple plays such a large role in iPhone sales and marketing.
It doesn't make any BUSINESS sense for a company the size and stature of Nike to relinquish ownership of their products to questionable, overseas, online retailers. It doesn't make any BUSINESS sense for a company the size and stature of Nike to give up marketing, pricing, and distribution control to questionable, overseasn, online retailers. It'd be one thing if 1) AR and sites like those were legally obligated to NOT sell to US markets, OR 2) if AR had the same pricing and release date restrictions as the US retailers (FootLocker, EastBay, etc). It just doesn't add up.
Also, for those people saying that Nike is looking to make extra money off of rejects, over productions, etc. Someone already addressed this matter in an earlier response but let me just repeat it. When Nike places an order, for say 100,000 pairs of sneaker x. That's what they order, 100,000 pairs. So if the factory (which isn't owned by Nike) makes 100,010 pair, the extra 10 don't belong to, nor are they shipped to Nike for distribution. Likely, it is the responsibility of the factory to properly dispose of the "rejects" or "over-production" pairs. They are not allowed to legally sell the shoes. Consider this...
If you go to a restaurant, and you order a burger, but while they're cooking it, they drop it on the floor...the waiter is not gonna come to you and say "Yo dude, my bad, but the chef dropped your burger on the ground...He made you another one that didn't fall, but here's the one that fell just in case you still want that".
OR
If you go to Macy's and buy some cornyass skinny jeans, right. But when you try to put them on, you realize that they're suppose to be 34" long, but they're only 25" long so they stop mid shin. You take em back to Macys...They not gonna say, "oh damn, yea that's our bad. We'll give you a pair that's cut correctly, but you can keep those joints for the summer".
Same rules apply. I'm not comin at anybody for coppin early releases and I'm certainly not making a call on them bein fake or not, but I'm saying from a business standpoint, none of what was said in the OP makes much sense...
- 10,932
- 4,859
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2005
VERY NICE TAKE ON THIS SIR.
PROPS.
verysteri otypical
Banned
- 1,060
- 193
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2010
im sorry but i dont think either of your analogies really works. and not to take anything away from your two pieces of paper that say you learned a lot about business but i believe there is a world of difference between learning something and living it. from my experience if you are the leader of any corporation the name of the game is maximize profits and minimize costs. now one of the big questions in my mind is IF nike actually makes money(directly) off these early production runs or if they are simply turning a blind eye because the exposure/marketing to loss trade off is so substantial that they are just better served to let them be for now (and i wouldnt doubt that they have an eye on everything that is going on).
- 2,426
- 799
- Joined
- May 4, 2007
Not sure what you mean by "learning something and living it"...And I live by working...in business...You sound like some irrelevent rapper that says things like "i learned from the school or hard knocks"...whatever that means
BUT, to your point, yes, maximizing profits and minimizing costs is certainly important, but there are corporate governances that outline what is acceptable behavior to attain said goal. And likely, creating competition for yourself, with YOUR OWN products, is NOT an acceptable method.
The analogies are obviously not perfect, but I tried to make them as basic as possible, and there are certainly parallels, whether you want to believe it or not.
But I do happen to have run across an article that was posted on Twitter by CorgiShoe (if you don't konw who Corgi is, just sit back, read, and learn something). This pretty much says exactly what I said...unauthorized manufacturing of Nike (and other brands) by these Chinese factories.
Read up, fellas!
http://www.nytimes.com/20...fake-t.html?pagewanted=1
BUT, to your point, yes, maximizing profits and minimizing costs is certainly important, but there are corporate governances that outline what is acceptable behavior to attain said goal. And likely, creating competition for yourself, with YOUR OWN products, is NOT an acceptable method.
The analogies are obviously not perfect, but I tried to make them as basic as possible, and there are certainly parallels, whether you want to believe it or not.
But I do happen to have run across an article that was posted on Twitter by CorgiShoe (if you don't konw who Corgi is, just sit back, read, and learn something). This pretty much says exactly what I said...unauthorized manufacturing of Nike (and other brands) by these Chinese factories.
Read up, fellas!
http://www.nytimes.com/20...fake-t.html?pagewanted=1
- 1,574
- 34
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2008
just finished reading that article and though an ok read it didn't say much more than what i assumed most already knew about factories making counterfeit shoes.
the argument here was mostly between whether or not sites like AR's are selling fakes, b-grades, etc., and if so, does nike have a hand in it.
i took your first post as a statement regarding the business aspect of it all and how it wouldn't be sensible or beneficial in any way to nike to play a role or allow such acts. the article, however, seemed to be more on the informative side to make people aware that factories in china do in fact make counterfeit shoes.
did i miss the part in the article referring to the idea of full ownership and the stance that companies have on that? i didn't get any sense of that from the first quick read.
the argument here was mostly between whether or not sites like AR's are selling fakes, b-grades, etc., and if so, does nike have a hand in it.
i took your first post as a statement regarding the business aspect of it all and how it wouldn't be sensible or beneficial in any way to nike to play a role or allow such acts. the article, however, seemed to be more on the informative side to make people aware that factories in china do in fact make counterfeit shoes.
did i miss the part in the article referring to the idea of full ownership and the stance that companies have on that? i didn't get any sense of that from the first quick read.
verysteri otypical
Banned
- 1,060
- 193
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2010
here would be my analogy and for comparison reasons we will just leaving pricing out of this, say you have a friend who works at a louis vuitton "factory" and on the line that friend is working on there is a "mess up"(i.e. the stitching was off by an 1/8th of an inch and the stamp is slightly off center) bag that according to LV's standards cannot be sold in a boutique. so this friend decides that instead of scrapping it like they should, they will instead give it to you. then you being the entrepreneur you are decide to sell said bag to help feed your family. NOW this brings us back to the topic at hand and leaving out all other variables the question is: is the bag FAKE? or is it an LV product?
- 1,574
- 34
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2008
imo, that bag would not be fake. it would be unlicensed but not actually fake. that would be an item that falls into what is referred to as a grey market item.
now using your analogy, what if my friend who works at this same factory decided to sneak in a roll of leather? he figures the factory won't keep track of its zippers and stamps so he builds a few bags with his own leather after hours using some lv factories materials in the process.
is this bag fake?
verysteri otypical
Banned
- 1,060
- 193
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2010
again this is why i said leaving out other variables but to answer your question i would call that a frankenstein. but i think that the assumption that a worker is going to bring in their own materials when they have a factory full of them is a little naive. and while china may not honor patent and copyright laws like we do i have to believe that they would not just let employees make FSR's after hours on their own time for the employees own personal profit.
- 3,018
- 1,251
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2005
I definitely would agree that they are fake if he stole material from the Factory and used it to replicate the same purse.
This is what happened with all the Black/Cement "Promo" IV's floating around. You can clearly tell they are not a shoe made in the same factory where Authentics are made, but you can also tell that some of the materials used on them are pretty identical to that of an authentic AJ IV. They are fakes, plain and simple.
- 2,390
- 413
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2010
I Jus Peeped This...
- 10,932
- 4,859
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2005
MIND BLOWN BY THAT NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE. GOOD READ.
QUOTES FROM THE ARTICLE:
"40% SEIZED IS COUNTERFEIT SNEAKERS"
"...That was all part of the subterfuge, Lin said, adding that there are “different levels of counterfeit. Some are low quality and don’t look anything like the originals. But some are high quality and look just like the real ones. The only way to tell the difference between the real ones and ours is by the smell of the glue.
QUOTES FROM THE ARTICLE:
"40% SEIZED IS COUNTERFEIT SNEAKERS"
"...That was all part of the subterfuge, Lin said, adding that there are “different levels of counterfeit. Some are low quality and don’t look anything like the originals. But some are high quality and look just like the real ones. The only way to tell the difference between the real ones and ours is by the smell of the glue.
- 9,589
- 6,290
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2006
survey says...
RANDY SELLS FAKES
RANDY SELLS FAKES
- 1,574
- 34
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2008
- 511
- 10
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2011
this isn't complete true. I work at Starbucks and if a customer dislike their drinks or anything. we have to remake a new one for them and allow them to keep their old drinks. Also we have to give them a coupon for a free drink next time they come in.
- 24,036
- 1,926
- Joined
- May 18, 2005
maybe they should just be considered, made from a "different" factory
some older Jordans were made in more than 1 factory and had subtle differences, I guess this is the same thing, except shrouded with lies to cover it up.
I'm just waiting until the point they surpass cheap
hell, some of us would pay more than retail
- 11
- 10
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2011
this isn't complete true. I work at Starbucks and if a customer dislike their drinks or anything. we have to remake a new one for them and allow them to keep their old drinks. Also we have to give them a coupon for a free drink next time they come in.
You're talking from a different view point. That is basic level of services and compensations for mistake/unhappy customer.
Corporate level decisions are different and I agree with pretty much everything that apthekid says. I'm also a business administration major with concentrations in international business.
As a company, your core competencies are everything. Its what differentiates you. I can tell you one thing, the supply chain for Nike is quite expensive and for so many sites like AirRandy to be able to do such things is not an easy task with the amount of security that gets put in at every level of the supply chain. Internal controls as well as external controls are put in. You're talking about a billion dollar industry, there's some good good levels of controls invested from that money. As ap said, from a business standpoint there's no way these early releases make sense at all.
- 2,126
- 108
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2006
Originally Posted by rayray3thousand
survey says...
RANDY SELLS FAKES
This plus SDS sells fakes, have a nice day.
- Status