if you are fortunate enough to own a pair of the og are retro 2's. you will notice a huge difference between what you see in the pic from the og and 94 retro. I was thinking bout selling mine 2's (94) but might have a second opinion. What size are those in the pic. if kids then i might be able to see why the big difference.................................. upset and mad at the 2004 retro >: If Michael Jordan was to sign with ADIADAS back in 1984. Would ADIDAS currently have the sneaker game on lock?? Something I ask myself eve
Those black II's look just like the nu retros. I like the II's. I'm copping for the nostaglia (sp?), not because they look so good. They are overrated imo...nice, but not great. chuuch! [/b] U Know What I'm Throwin' Up
They look good, but nothing like OG or 94 IIs, the 04 retros look EXTREMELY fat, especially the midsole. Am I the only one who sees this ??? Regardless, I'll still probably wind up buying them.
Yes, it says Nike on the back, but it says "Jordan" on the sole... IMO, the "Jordan" on the bottom is acceptible as long as the "Nike" remains on the back...
The black/chrome ones seriously make me want to shoot myself in the face. The white ones are better, but not by much. I'll be buying more '94s.
lol u r really bringing the heat!!!! thanks for sharing the black ones will grow on me, but im in love with the white/red The "K"rew
I dont care what nyone says...they both are hot....thank you for the pix....for real....I'm not a fan of blk shoes....but COT DAMN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!....these have a few things I always look for in a shoe......!. A dark liner on the inside of the ankle, 2. and a dark midsole.......keeps the dirt from being noticable WORK SMARTER, NOT HARDER
The black ones make me wish I was blind. ENOUGH! Blk/chromes need to stop. The only good blk/chromes are the VIII [/b]