- 1,316
- 12
- Joined
- May 2, 2007
Let's get these next! The webtec won't even be an issue...
FINALLY, A RETRO OF THE NIKE TRAINER SC II 3/4 DONE RIGHT!! THANK YOU NIKE!
- Thread in 'Nike Retro' Thread starter Started by trethousandgt,
- Start date
- 9,386
- 32,704
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2003
nike should of wnet all out and used an og box with these. i mean if any shoe is
special enough to bring back an og box, its these. for gods sake a frickin
jordan 3 got em, and this shoe is wayyyyy more special!!
ekhunter1
Banned
- 848
- 13
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2010
i'm actually thinking about copping the black grey white (og) colorway now, just so i can have a set of all the OG's colorways. hopefully they will be outlet bound in the nxt month or so!!!
ekhunter1
Banned
- 848
- 13
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2010
oh and another thing i think is funny, is the insoles on these only say NIKE, no nike air. I thought that was a little weird!
- 575
- 10
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2007
Just got my pairs from SneakerBistro.. Ordered on Thursday, got to Orange County CA earlier this afternoon
- 575
- 10
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2007
Me too.. My bro had that colorway back in the day(bro on the left, CG81 on the right)Flamesuit on!
- 13,920
- 5,882
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2004
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Long time coming here.. First pair has arrived. Feels surreal.
Real quick first impressions. I may bore yall to death with the details:
- The obsidian navy color looks more Navy that really any photo you may come across on the net. So it was a bit shocking at first to think for all these years that it was more of a black. I never owned the OGs back then and never really found them in the aftermarket for collection purposes. So it was all a bit shocking (in a good way) to see them up close and personal.
- Infrared doesn't seem as bright and "infrared" as the OG bo sc III highs. Then again, this one may be more like a firecracker red.. Definitely a few shades brighter than a varsity red type color. A brighter varsity red would be a good way to put it
- Leather quality takes these back in time to probably around 2004/2005 or earlier.. The white leather feels a bit shiny and may have an appearance of being like the fake crap of recent years. But it has that wrinkling type effect on the toebox, just as the grey leather does. That finger touch test can tell you a lot. I'd rate the grey leather just a little higher than the white toebox. But the other white parts are near that of the grey. So we may have three levels of quality (all of which are better than recent years by far)
- I dont know about you all, but these seem to fit true to size.. One finger width of space in the toebox. The width of the entire shoe though can definitely draw you to going up a 1/2 size.
- Tongue height seems just fine for me. Were the OGs really that much higher?
- Overall quality from defects, paint issues, or precreasing is pretty good. There is a slight scar of sorts on the white toe box. Barely noticeable. The wrinkling/precreasing that some have complained or talked about on the white leather is there, and I love that look. It's not in the same spot as others. so every pair may be unique.
- Considering what I have seen, bought, owned, and felt since 2005, these are a steal at $110.
- 2000 era retro on the air trainer IIIs seemed to have a thinner type of leather. The type to buckle right away. I believe the OGs did as well. Almost like there was no support structure under it. Just straight up premium type leather. So don't get it twisted. Definitely not OG quality, but a true step above everything else since almost the sc highs stopped retroing in this quality around 2001.
- The 2009 med. balls weren't terrible but felt cheap. The brown leather there is almost half as thin as the grey leather seen here on the SC II QS. I knew looking at the edges in photos I was in for a treat.
- With that said above about the 2009s, these to the average consumer could come across as cheap just from a quick look. But they are different. They are better. Just give it a little poke
- Definitely a middle of the road type if you compare OG/early 2000 retros, to that of the recent past. These fit right in the middle as the middle man. And considering there's no price increase, one should definitely take advantage of what's presented here for purchase.
Lastly. With a feel test at Nike Outlets yielding almost nothing to what I see and feel above, this could be considered an upper tier PREMIUM product. That may not mean a lot coming from Nike, as premium today may still be below past decades. But you take what you can get. I took the garbage in the auburn SC's, and these fly right past those.
- 9,386
- 32,704
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2003
^^^^^Wow, long time coming. And avy change too. Glad you like them.
- 48,330
- 28,379
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2006
good read
- 48,330
- 28,379
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2006
From reading the last few pages, i agree that these would be nice too.
An added bonus.
An added bonus.
- 1,579
- 601
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2007
I'd murder somebody for all three of those above.
- 6,847
- 27,941
- Joined
- May 28, 2008
Anywhere in ATL?
- 13,920
- 5,882
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2004
The best detail on those is the gradient lines on the tongue of only the orange pair. Starting from the top, it has thick lines, and graudally gets thinner and thinner. Almost like some sort of mirage or sun type effect.
From a normal consumer perspective, it would make more sense to start things off slowly, release the lows first with a lower MSRP and w/o funky ankle padding (like I mentioned before). Maybe they are going in reverse. "If no one wanted these at $110, maybe they'll pay $85-90 on a low cut."
In regards to the QS....
It's all real simple to me in a common sense perspective
2009 med. balls are decent but not AWESOME. MSRP $110 I believe
2009 auburns and subsequent retros . $105 MSRP and from the onset, terrible quality. People paid for that crap. Even going through to 2011, we saw a few obscure GR retros of these. Nearly the same quality, although craftsmanship improve a tad.
2009 also saw the tr1 in a nike performance category. $90 msrp, crap quality.
2009 saw the tr1 legacy pack, which placed both an at1 chloro. and a tr1 at $180 MSRP. Both barely worth the $90 tag IMO.
2009 saw an at1 chlorophyll in rare form @ $90. Still barely worth $90 at that point. Ebay will tell you otherwise.
2010 saw the sc 2010. Other than the pujoles/bo pack, im not sure anything was worth it's weight price worse, as MSRP hovered $100.
2010 also saw the tr1.2. Mediocre synthetic materials barely made this worth $90. I wouldnt pay over $60.
We also had the zoom huarache tr. I felt the white/blue.volt LOW at a local outlet. Beyond mediocre quality. Even the black.volt GR is barely worth the $115 msrp
2011 saw the tr1.3 performance trainer. Another shoe barely worth $90.
Let's not forget the 2011 GR of this very shoe. I havent seen or owned them but many rate them far below their $110 MSRP.
Throw in all of the fuses, frees, and low or high varieties over the years, and many had the chance to buy a bunch of crap at nearly $100 MSRP.
Yet finally here we are today. A legitimate shoe worth it's price.. I honestly wouldn't pay over $170 shipped for these. But that's just me. They are great for their price, but I wouldn't go hunting and over pay for them, like I do for many other older trainers.
Nike finally bucked a trent where quality was getting worse and worse. So although they aren't true old school quality, these outdo almost any trainer or even regular Nike GR that features "leather" in the past 4-5 years..
A little BO JAX photo shoot is on the horizon. The ever elusive SC IIs have been obtained to finish off my Bo Jackson set. (citrons in the mail as we speak) .
What a proud moment as a trainer fan. Thanks fellow NTer (you know who you are)
It;s kind of a tough situation release wise with the pine foams, miami nights, lebron 8 ps's all releasing around the same time. But these, when seen by outsiders, should be a shoe that's scooped up without a second thought.
Rain or shine, 3 weeks straight with my infrareds.. Starts tonight. I'm sleeping in mine.
MULLET GROWTH ACTIVATED.
From a normal consumer perspective, it would make more sense to start things off slowly, release the lows first with a lower MSRP and w/o funky ankle padding (like I mentioned before). Maybe they are going in reverse. "If no one wanted these at $110, maybe they'll pay $85-90 on a low cut."
In regards to the QS....
It's all real simple to me in a common sense perspective
2009 med. balls are decent but not AWESOME. MSRP $110 I believe
2009 auburns and subsequent retros . $105 MSRP and from the onset, terrible quality. People paid for that crap. Even going through to 2011, we saw a few obscure GR retros of these. Nearly the same quality, although craftsmanship improve a tad.
2009 also saw the tr1 in a nike performance category. $90 msrp, crap quality.
2009 saw the tr1 legacy pack, which placed both an at1 chloro. and a tr1 at $180 MSRP. Both barely worth the $90 tag IMO.
2009 saw an at1 chlorophyll in rare form @ $90. Still barely worth $90 at that point. Ebay will tell you otherwise.
2010 saw the sc 2010. Other than the pujoles/bo pack, im not sure anything was worth it's weight price worse, as MSRP hovered $100.
2010 also saw the tr1.2. Mediocre synthetic materials barely made this worth $90. I wouldnt pay over $60.
We also had the zoom huarache tr. I felt the white/blue.volt LOW at a local outlet. Beyond mediocre quality. Even the black.volt GR is barely worth the $115 msrp
2011 saw the tr1.3 performance trainer. Another shoe barely worth $90.
Let's not forget the 2011 GR of this very shoe. I havent seen or owned them but many rate them far below their $110 MSRP.
Throw in all of the fuses, frees, and low or high varieties over the years, and many had the chance to buy a bunch of crap at nearly $100 MSRP.
Yet finally here we are today. A legitimate shoe worth it's price.. I honestly wouldn't pay over $170 shipped for these. But that's just me. They are great for their price, but I wouldn't go hunting and over pay for them, like I do for many other older trainers.
Nike finally bucked a trent where quality was getting worse and worse. So although they aren't true old school quality, these outdo almost any trainer or even regular Nike GR that features "leather" in the past 4-5 years..
A little BO JAX photo shoot is on the horizon. The ever elusive SC IIs have been obtained to finish off my Bo Jackson set. (citrons in the mail as we speak) .
What a proud moment as a trainer fan. Thanks fellow NTer (you know who you are)
It;s kind of a tough situation release wise with the pine foams, miami nights, lebron 8 ps's all releasing around the same time. But these, when seen by outsiders, should be a shoe that's scooped up without a second thought.
Rain or shine, 3 weeks straight with my infrareds.. Starts tonight. I'm sleeping in mine.
MULLET GROWTH ACTIVATED.
- 1,635
- 10
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2007
didnt realize those Infras were blue n not blacc.... *on the list*
- 3,222
- 84
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2009
Are these part of the QS pack?
ekhunter1
Banned
- 848
- 13
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2010
no, the only QS's are the Citrons and infrareds!
- 781
- 10
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2006
Those Orange/Gray pair looks nice.
- 763
- 10
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2011
Great write ups Wally! Really enlightening to read. So glad you are happy with these.
Anxiously awaiting mine
Anxiously awaiting mine
superblytrife
Supporter
- 20,801
- 21,900
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2002
So there's been no official word from Nike that these will be releasing online this Friday. Today, Nikestore's twitter gave reminders about the 3 other pairs of kicks releasing this Friday/Saturday, but no mention of the SC II's.
So who the hell started this rumor? lol
So who the hell started this rumor? lol
- 3,018
- 1,251
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2005
Phase 1 complete. Now to figure out the tongue.Originally Posted by bknowbles
- 13,920
- 5,882
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2004
Nerd Alert
A more severe leather toe box creasing demonstration. More in line with what you'd see after numerous wears. This is the path they'd take in creasing
Grey edges will find a spot near the pinky toe, which may cause some people discomfort. For now, I have walked around a bit, but not much.. Your white leather will also settle in to crease in a few spots.
Other examples
-2009 vs. 2000 me. ball.. Here it's not even a question. The 2009s find it to be very hard to find a natural looking crease spot to settle in one... 2000s have been broken in for years now. Crease spots that tend to just pop right back up.. Very flexible and soft material
---------------------------
-2009 auburn vs. 1999 pimento.. Here the Auburn just has way too much creasing going on. It' seems to be just as soft, but it's not.. 1999 pimentos, you can see the subtle creasing in a few spots
-------------------------------
-A shot of a 2000 at1 vs. a 2002 at1 chlorophyll. With no feet in the shoe and no flex point, you can see the more rigid deeper creasing on the 2002s.. 200s just sorta crease all over the place.
-------------------
-A used pair of 2004 air trainer 1 FTs.. Look close. Subtle creasing all over the place in various spots. This shoe features very soft leather
-------------------------
-2008 zoom tennis trainer "pleather" vs. 2004 zoom trainer 1, with a soft garment like leather. the 2004s almost felt like a soft non leather material, with a small leather outer coating.. 2008s proved to show almost no crease points. Material felt like plastic.
What all this means for the 2011 QS.. All points lead to this SC II QS being some of the finest materials this decade... With an initial crease point in the front of the toebox, and various other tiny creases, It's not just hearsay or people talking. It can be proven right here, this is a top notch material (comparatively speaking in regards to other Nike SW and performance shoes.. ie Everything else is so bad, that this one being above par, is somewhat of a celebration). This acts like a normal leather, even though appearances can be a bit cloudy to believe it's the same as prior retros. They've built a mindset out of people to expect the worst. Here it may look the same, but it's far different.
I hope all this wasn't a stretch and others can agree
EDIT: EL bro, wear the hell out of those. They dont look that bad with a tongue that length, from that angle
A more severe leather toe box creasing demonstration. More in line with what you'd see after numerous wears. This is the path they'd take in creasing
Grey edges will find a spot near the pinky toe, which may cause some people discomfort. For now, I have walked around a bit, but not much.. Your white leather will also settle in to crease in a few spots.
Other examples
-2009 vs. 2000 me. ball.. Here it's not even a question. The 2009s find it to be very hard to find a natural looking crease spot to settle in one... 2000s have been broken in for years now. Crease spots that tend to just pop right back up.. Very flexible and soft material
---------------------------
-2009 auburn vs. 1999 pimento.. Here the Auburn just has way too much creasing going on. It' seems to be just as soft, but it's not.. 1999 pimentos, you can see the subtle creasing in a few spots
-------------------------------
-A shot of a 2000 at1 vs. a 2002 at1 chlorophyll. With no feet in the shoe and no flex point, you can see the more rigid deeper creasing on the 2002s.. 200s just sorta crease all over the place.
-------------------
-A used pair of 2004 air trainer 1 FTs.. Look close. Subtle creasing all over the place in various spots. This shoe features very soft leather
-------------------------
-2008 zoom tennis trainer "pleather" vs. 2004 zoom trainer 1, with a soft garment like leather. the 2004s almost felt like a soft non leather material, with a small leather outer coating.. 2008s proved to show almost no crease points. Material felt like plastic.
What all this means for the 2011 QS.. All points lead to this SC II QS being some of the finest materials this decade... With an initial crease point in the front of the toebox, and various other tiny creases, It's not just hearsay or people talking. It can be proven right here, this is a top notch material (comparatively speaking in regards to other Nike SW and performance shoes.. ie Everything else is so bad, that this one being above par, is somewhat of a celebration). This acts like a normal leather, even though appearances can be a bit cloudy to believe it's the same as prior retros. They've built a mindset out of people to expect the worst. Here it may look the same, but it's far different.
I hope all this wasn't a stretch and others can agree
EDIT: EL bro, wear the hell out of those. They dont look that bad with a tongue that length, from that angle
- 4,173
- 2,754
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2003
El bro, sick jobOriginally Posted by El Bro
Phase 1 complete. Now to figure out the tongue.Originally Posted by bknowbles
- 56,354
- 27,666
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2006
Good stuff Wally. Really glad you finally got yours. As long as they don't crease like my 2000 Chloros, I'm fine.
El Bro... not bad, not bad at all. The tongue-length looks reasonable too...
El Bro... not bad, not bad at all. The tongue-length looks reasonable too...
- 3,018
- 1,251
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2005
Thanks guys. Im gonna figure out how to cut and sew the tongue. My girl sews pretty good, so Im gonna see if she can figure it out. No sense in paying 20-40 bucks on a shoe that is worth maybe 35 now. These are a 9.5 btw. I imagine the tongue would be longer on bigger sizes. Also, there in no padding in the heal, so they might slip a little in the back.
As for the QS, I love em. Im more partial to the citron/teal CW. Thats the pair Im currently trying to double up on. Only one store that I know in Houston is getting the Infrareds, but not the Citrons.
As for the QS, I love em. Im more partial to the citron/teal CW. Thats the pair Im currently trying to double up on. Only one store that I know in Houston is getting the Infrareds, but not the Citrons.
- 6,468
- 2,018
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2010
Would love to get my hands on both pair of these.
Anyone know of any spots here in Dallas with them?
Anyone know of any spots here in Dallas with them?
