Nike Air Flight Lite II retro looks to be coming

BennyIll22 said:
Yeah there's no way I'm going to even bother with the Olympic pair. May grab the Pippen but I'm hesitant after how disappointing the White/Black pair was. Definitely hoping for the Black/White eventually.
Click to expand...
big1236 said:
yeah man... did Nike think we'll just look over the non silver panels on the olympic pair because they colored in the flight symbol on the side?!

C'mon son!!!
Click to expand...

Olympics went from 3 pair minimum, to just slightly above a "maybe" if they release like that.

My white/black pair had that warp on the right shoe. I stuffed the paper further down in the toe overnight before I wore them, and have been wearing them with no issues. Seems to have fixed it.
 
rainking said:
Exactly. I mean, they even jacked up the outsole and midsole proportions SMFH. I should've bought 10 pairs of the previous retros from back in like 2003. I still have a pair of those original retros just because I can't bring myself to toss them. COMPLETELY different shoe.

I remember several people at the time who played in the 2015 retros also reporting they ripped and fell apart easily.
I had the OGs as my summer league shoe in 1992. Honestly don't even remember what they felt like in terms of cushioning LOL
Click to expand...

Completely agree with you on the 2003s. Have the white/silver/blue pair and those were the better of the two Flight Huarache retros. I even wore my pair when the last retro came out to Footlocker and for a few looks. Still have them but most likely unwearable now, but I. Great shape still.
 
Nike Air Flight Lite II "Stacey Augmon"
20211214_082953.jpg
 
Purposely changing details on a retro of a shoe is just fascinating to me. It serves literally no purpose, and no the "we want to respect collectors" is not gonna fly because that is a lie.

They know exactly what the shoe is, they re create it, and then they leave out 2-3 key things for no reason and the buyers see it and good chance many pass. Who wins?

The olympic version just stinks.
 
Last edited:
It's all nonsense. That whole collector argument came mainly from the one interview Gentry gave to Sole Collector more than 10 years ago. Doubt that's what's going on here with most retros and certainly these ones. It looks more like they down-scaled the entire shoe to save a few nickels per shoe. Making the overall proportions smaller necessitates modifying some of a shoe's geometries. Same thing they did to the Flight Huarache retros. It's pathetic.
 
rainking said:
It's all nonsense. That whole collector argument came mainly from the one interview Gentry gave to Sole Collector more than 10 years ago. Doubt that's what's going on here with most retros and certainly these ones. It looks more like they down-scaled the entire shoe to save a few nickels per shoe. Making the overall proportions smaller necessitates modifying some of a shoe's geometries. Same thing they did to the Flight Huarache retros. It's pathetic.
Click to expand...

And here I was thinking we'll get an 8 or 13 stitched on the side of the Olympics, yeah maybe in another lifetime...
 
bigbadbennyism said:
And here I was thinking we'll get an 8 or 13 stitched on the side of the Olympics, yeah maybe in another lifetime...
Click to expand...
That’s the real B of it. I roll my eyes at the changes as much as or more than anyone, and I pass on a lot of stuff over the years. But I’ve literally waited TWO lifetimes of the age I was when Pip was rocking these and I wanted them so bad but they never released. I wish these retros were super quality but in this rare case, I don’t care—well, I do, but it has no effect. I must have them 🤣
Now, you might say me admitting that just encourages Nike (if they happen to follow this thread) to keep doing shoddy retros. See, they say, these guys buy them regardless. But there’s about six of us still buying this ish who care that much about these and just HAVE to have ‘em. So it’s a moronic attitude and approach Nike has to this stuff. But if it made them out of quality materials and to OG spec, it might very well catch the eye of some younger buyers who weren’t born for years until after the Flight Lites originally released. It’s like you’ve almost gotta have a 30-year infatuation with this shoe to overlook the shoddiness.
 
Has anyone found out how much it costs Nike to manufacture a pair of shoes, on average? I saw something online that said around $20 for an Air Jordan 1.

If it's really that cheap they should just charge retailers an extra $5 dollars a pair and let retailers charge consumers an extra $10 dollars a pair.

Increasing cost from $20 to $25 is a huge increase, that would have to cover the cost of using way better materials and using OG molds. :lol:
 
The retail supply chain is basically a 100% markup at every step, so that $5 would add up quickly :lol:
 
RyGuy45 said:
Purposely changing details on a retro of a shoe is just fascinating to me. It serves literally no purpose, and no the "we want to respect collectors" is not gonna fly because that is a lie.

They know exactly what the shoe is, they re create it, and then they leave out 2-3 key things for no reason and the buyers see it and good chance many pass. Who wins?

The olympic version just stinks.
Click to expand...
I think a perfect example of this is the giant swoosh on the new Gore-Tex ones.

People have been dying for this swoosh on an Aj 1 or Dunk for 30 years and they won't do it. But they put it on some BS release.


1 (2).jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Thread Gallery

View Full Gallery

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

NikeTalk was created as a way of giving back to both the sneaker enthusiast community and to the greater global community of which we are all a part.

NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom