Is there a release date for the Medicine Balls yet?

43
17
Joined Jan 5, 2006
About the only shoes I am eager to cop this year and I was wondering any news of a date yet?
 
56
10
Joined Aug 25, 2000
I can't wait, but honestly im not buying them if the quality is sub-par which it will most likely be.
Same thing with the Orange and blue BOs...Im tired of nike whoring out theseshoes and have us buy em on the strength of childhood memories.(Sorry to Rant)
 
44,021
37,574
Joined May 15, 2003
The color is most likely going to be off, but I'll still get them and the SC's
 
43
17
Joined Jan 5, 2006
Originally Posted by Trieze K

mikeatris your avi is the best thing i have ever seen on this website...EVER...
Post #3 and ur post I would just like to say thanks. She looks like she is one well built machine there
 
13,219
4,297
Joined Sep 28, 2004
short answer from what Ive heard is that it's simply FALL 2009 thus far.. which has like a 3 month range im guessing from july to september.

Sample photo:


Catalog scan:


Now if youre familiar with any of the other 2009 atIII releases you will notice the perf. leather on the siding and toebox appear to be identical. Now I'veheard some bad comments about the quality of those other shoes. so I have almost zero hope these will be even worth $50 bucks. Midsole paint chipping isoccuring on the other 09 models....

Now begins a tagent of info some may not want to read.. be warned here first

Nothing is simple with nike retros. Nike likes it that way.

First we begin with some original 1988 OG models:

-Nice white plastic upper and forefoot elements.
-deep tan leather

As we all know a shoe ages in different ways. Here the med. balls plastic and foam pieces turned a bit darker/



I swear Nike looks at old shoes and USE those EXACT colors to be put on new models without any foresight to think that the colors mightve aged. As we all sawin the 2000 and 2003 limited med ball releases:



-White plastic elements are now a darkened tan, giving it almost a preyellowed look.
-Tan color is a bit brighter, almost creating a whole NEW colorway of this shoe
-Perf. leather holes are perfectly spaced... Overall Decent release


Now comes the confusing part... one of the first sample scans we get of the 2008s is of this pair right here:


-Hopes and dreams are raised to the highest level when this photo is released...
Nice perf. leather.
White plastic elements for the first time since the originals 21 years back...

Then all that comes crushing down when other sample scans and sample photos are shown, as seen in the first part of this post:

-TAN is now DARKER, more in tune with the originals. Im loving that
but theres some stuff is leaves one guessing
-Plastic elements are now a darker color, even darker than the 2000 retros.
-Perf. Leather is now in tune with the other 2009 retros with larger holes and the spacing almost twice as large as the originals and retros.

Overall, its a satisfactory look
 
3,997
156
Joined Jun 14, 2007
I don't see what's the big deal, everyone knows that Nike never stays true to the original when it comes to retro's.
There's always going to be some slight differences.
 
13,219
4,297
Joined Sep 28, 2004
its more about as consumers we have the right to state our opinion on certain things.. this one being A. they could be true to the OGs but its a cost issue.and B. Nike is cheap and feels consumers will buy regardless so they go the "good enough" route 95% of the time.

As the buying population we should be pushing them or atleast complain constantly about antics that are less than ideal.
 
44,021
37,574
Joined May 15, 2003
Wallyhop always brings it and I appreciate his post


Actually looking at a pair of my white/greys from 01, I'm not sure I want them to do a white plastic piece, because of how quickly they yellowed. I'dlike them to be lighter like in the 03 release.
And yeah, the paint chipped on the midsole on mine from 01

One thing I've learned from dealing with Trainers, you can't make them an every day shoe. Heck, not even once a week. I wear them once every fewmonths.
 
1,128
36
Joined Sep 13, 2001
Originally Posted by WallyHopp

its more about as consumers we have the right to state our opinion on certain things.. this one being A. they could be true to the OGs but its a cost issue. and B. Nike is cheap and feels consumers will buy regardless so they go the "good enough" route 95% of the time.
It's the way of the future. How much longer are the older shoeheads or those that are more particular of the accuracy of the retro going to bearound? You can't please everyone sadly, Wally & it seems for the majority of the buyers they don't know or care... I'm not saying I'mhappy with "good enough" but I then again I don't need Nike saying, "well, we did what you said so we are raising the price x amount ofdollars to justify the reverse engineering - R&D to get this done right"

My main beef is the painting of the midsole. Nike's got to stop. Everyone by know knows the one layer of correction fluid Nike uses to paint their midsoleson AMs sucks. At least use 2 coats
 
1,128
36
Joined Sep 13, 2001
Originally Posted by Trieze K

mikeatris your avi is the best thing i have ever seen on this website...EVER...
by the way OP if that is "Carmen" in your avy she is a blessing to all men who surf the internet
 
5,303
2,883
Joined Dec 12, 2005
good post wallyhopp....I agree that it seems like nike colors rubber to almost look like it has been pre-aged.

I think this will be like any other recent release where those who know of the original will find themselves saying "yeah, but.." and folding. Its anice shoe, but the differences are evident as always
 
13,219
4,297
Joined Sep 28, 2004
Good points Jbv1 about Nike doing the "we did what you said but its now a "premium model" and won't have a realistic price point."

This could get pretty in depth if you think too much into it so I won't go that far. but think about this for a moment.. NIKE Signature models were set ata price of ~$110 USD in 1990. In simple inflation terms to 2008, those same shoes would cost $180 bucks.. Now of course technlogy advancements and shoe makingprocedures may have knocked the price down considerably over the years to where $110 today still matches $110 20 years ago. But thats really up for debate anddemands a truly in depth analysis.

But this just gives you something to think about... A $110 dollar shoe today devalued back to 1990 would cost $67.. The price point of 2nd or 3rd tier nikes..Now I don't think we are getting those now in retro form, but some could argue we are close. Just take the air 180 retro and OG comparison where the pairswere sawed in half. One would think if technology was cheaper for todays shoes, they could match the 1990s model but as we all saw, the retro was missingforefoot air.

others could argue that in todays terms we are getting a better value on a pair of nikes.. The quality may not match up with the originals but in comparinginflation figures, the OG and the retro do not or are not $70 dollars DIFFERENT than one another.. ie these should cost $180 but thanks to technologyadvancements they are at a bargain $110 and comparing them together, combined the differences don't add up to $70 to even come close to $180, so its trulya bargain
 
1,709
10
Joined Jan 27, 2006
^


that avy is crazy.


and whatever happened to "the customer is always right" mentality?


nike cuts corners wherever they can.
 
5,206
358
Joined Jan 1, 2009
Originally Posted by mikeatris

Originally Posted by Trieze K

mikeatris your avi is the best thing i have ever seen on this website...EVER...
Post #3 and ur post I would just like to say thanks. She looks like she is one well built machine there
 
Top Bottom
  AdBlock Detected

Sure, ad-blocking software does a great job at blocking ads, but it also blocks some useful and important features of our website. For the best possible site experience please take a moment to disable your AdBlocker or head over to our upgrade page to donate for an ad-free experience Upgrade now