- Apr 25, 2005
- 33,492
- 39,453
That was a fantastic read. Thank you very much for that. Repped.
I knew something was up because no new retro has had that same Durabuck material like the old OG's. It just isnt the same.
Last edited:
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Great questions. I'm inclined to believe the latter is the most likely explanation. Since USSC no longer owns the trademark, and also no longer manufactures the material that they created, I tend to believe that Nike has probably created their own version of the material and uses the name "Durabuck". As I mentioned above, if you look at instances where Nike has used the name "Durabuck" in recent years, they still capitalize "D" making it a name, but there is no longer a "TM" attached to it. I'm guessing they just use the name because of the history with it. Again, just an educated guess.
So has Nike been lying about the use of Durabuck or have they found another manufacturer to create the material for them? If the latter is true, are they using the same process to produce the same material the USSC was supplying to Nike or have they created a similar, yet different material but still labeling it as "Durabuck" despite being a different material?
Thanks man. I actually had fun researching all that stuff. It was like trying to solve a mystery lol@scollard23
That was a fantastic read. Thank you very much for that. Repped.
I knew something was up because no new retro has had that same Durabuck material like the old OG's. It just isnt the same.
Your last two posts are sound educated guesses and would explain a ton if true.
Thanks guys. Glad I could add to conversation.Repped, great read and great researching on your part, always fascinated with sneaker history like this
[emoji]128518[/emoji][emoji]128514[/emoji] Good one.notevenworthabuck