The Official Air Jordan 1 Retro Blk/Red "BANNED" Sept 3 2016

Status
Not open for further replies.
Low key I'm getting sick of all these supposed "sneaker head" youtubers. "These are coming out september sometime" "not sure what these numbers mean on the inside" "I thought these would have the banned X on the back." I'm not saying they have to know every detail about them but damn, if you're not even informing your viewers then what's the point of having a sneaker channel... just to open the box and say you got em? I want to see picks, on feet, discussing more then just leather but quality control, color, stiching. When I see reviews for other **** I'm interested in, people go into mad detail. These dudes just cut open the box and say I got em, then post a click bait *** title. 
mean.gif


Maybe I'm just salty I don't have them yet 
laugh.gif
 
wHipLAshTw03 said:
 
No need to "inform [me] better" because it ain't nothin new. BC3s may have sat where you're at but best believe they sold out in minutes where I'm from. And if people are willing to pay $400 for '11 BC3s, they're overpaying in my opinion. Those J's are worth no more than $250 DS, max. In fact, there are sellers in my area right now selling them for $200 or less in "excellent condition" per the definition of excellent by Footage and Sole Supremacy standards.

Have I broken in a pair of '13s? If you've been paying attention to my posts, you'd know that I mentioned earlier today that I used to own the '13s and traded them. In fact, I owned two pairs. Played in them once, wore them to the L.A. County Fair on another occasion, then got rid of them.

And no, my opinion that the '13s are overpriced is not pre-mature because even if the '16's become the most over-priced pair of Bred 1s ever, it will still not hit the astronomical numbers that Yeezys are doing and they will still settle roughly around the same price of the '13s, IF THAT. At the end of the day, whether or not the '16s are marginally better than the '13s in quality when it's all said and done, $600-800 for DS pairs of '13s is still overpriced and not in the same league as $400-500 Pinnacle Ones (choose one: black, white, vachetta, or baroque brown). At the end of the day, there will be varying opinions about the quality of the '13 and '16 and there will most likely never be an overwhelming verdict that tips the favor of one over the other. The question ends up becoming: would YOU or the average joe pay $600-800 for a pair of DS '13s?

First off smart guy, he showed FIVE pairs not four - 1985, 1994, 2001, 2011, and 2013. Now answer me this (and disregard "quality" of each model for the purposes of this question): Why do you think '85s, '11 Banned, '01s, and '94s are priced higher in the aftermarket than 2013s? Hint: the price of the '13s has absolutely nothing to do with their being "in line" with the quality of leather.

You ask why I think '13s are overpriced? Maybe you should ask if I think the '11s or the '94s or the '01s are overpriced as well so you can get where I'm coming from. Hint #2: my definition of "overpriced" or "overhyped" or "overrated" is directly correlated to the scarcity, hence availability, of the particular shoe in the aftermarket and not just the perceived quality of the shoes. There is a reason why the average DS value (per Stockx) of '11s is $2048, '01s is $823, and '94s/OG's are N/A but probably well in the thousands of dollars. So having said this, YES the '13s (at an average DS value of $712) is overpriced because '13s can be found ALL OVER THE PLACE while you will have to be much much much more patient AND lucky in order to find a DS pair of '01s, '94s, or '85s in your size. Get it yet?

Your argument about the color of the '13s vs the '16s? Refresh my memory G, because from what I recall, not once did you ever address anything about the color between the two versions. Read below and please highlight where you wrote either red, color, or anything remotely close to a counter-argument regarding the shades between the two models:

Corrected. Educate yourself before opining like an expert. They are not overrated at all. '13s get bashed all the time. Just look around in this thread...it happens the most. People used to think of them as the standard bearers of their time until remastering began...or here let someone's hard work open your eyes   Overpriced? We don't even know the resell on '16s. WTF is overbright? As for the tumbled leather. What beauty? You think the most prized hides for their beauty are cratered like a pimple faced teenager? Banneds are a good quality leather that happens to be tumbled. The OGs were quality leather too...see any tumbling?

And congrats for pounding chicks with your J's. I'm sure you were naive enough to think that a pair of Concords would help your game and make you more of a playa and that they would boost your performance.
Click to expand...
Worth $250 max? That means nothing to nobody but you. Most buyers and sellers would laugh you off. But don't feel hurt that is just how the world works. You don't go to the grocery store and say I don't think this bag of cheetos is worth the price. No you buy it and crack a smile. Free market.

You are complaining I didn't read your older posts. I just became aware of your existence. So, you wore your BREDs twice? That tells you enough about their quality? You hardly gave them a chance bruh. 

What Yeezys (1, 2 or adidas) are you talking about? Yeezy Gum sole have come down to near $1k which is about 3x their base price. Bred '16s could conceivably reach that. We don't know. But, you realize how many more pairs of BREDs there will be compared to Grey GUM Yeezys? So, what astronomical? Yeezys are momentary hype, but Js are that and a lot more to people. Poor comparison IMO.

Yet, again you've said nothing about the video which clearly shows '13s are not that off the OGs in terms of color. The best you could do is point out that the video had 5 pairs instead of 4. Because that was focus of our discussion? That is just desperate bro. Alright you can have that win. 

You understand that prices are relative not just absolute. For example, if I didn't have '13 BREDs and didn't want to shell out $600 I could sell my BC3 (easy cop in my area even on resale when they dropped) for $400 and then use the proceeds to pay for the BREDs. Thats how I or the average Joe can pay for expensive kicks. These are really not new concepts. Only people new to kicks immediately get sticker shock. If you got a collection you know damn well your pairs have gone up too. Of all the factors I would say accuracy to OGs, quality, availability all determine price. What is the big deal? Still haven't explained what you mean by over-priced/overhyped or overrated? Based on those factors I don't see a problem with what '13s cost?

I am not asking you anymore questions because its impossible to get an answer thats on topic.

I thought it was obvious I addressed your argument of '16s being closer to OGs than the '13s in terms of color was straight clowning. It still is. The video was much better proof than the picture scrapbook you put together. Can you admit that?

DAYYYUUUUMMM!!!! Your last paragraph made me laugh because I actually did mash the girl with concords on. Her creepy brother was known to make people's things disappear so I didn't take mine off when I was over at her place. Oh that brings back memories.  
roll.gif

wHipLAshTw03 said:
 
If you can formulate your own ideas, then tell me what you think about the $712 average price tag for a DS pair of '13s, whether or not you would pay that price right now and why.

Humility? hahaha, maybe you should have come correct in the first place when you first decided to quote and respond to me. Your attempts at being funny (adding "grossly incorrect" in large font) and sarcastic showed me where you wanted to take it.
Click to expand...
I don't have to I got a pair for retail and another for $300 when they dropped. Struck out everywhere else. I wouldn't pay $2k for Banneds either. They aren't overpriced or underpriced. Just what the market puts them at. I just would rather spend my money on other priorities in life thats the main reason. Stop whining I pointed out your ridiculous argument. Its a discussion forum fam it happens. People correct each other all the time. It doesn't always end up in the other dudes panties knotting up.

You know what I am done with you. Rhetorical questions that go nowhere and references/details that have nothing to do with what you are trying to say. Brevity is the soul of wit my man. I shouldn't have to read through dissertations just to find the argument or trace of evidence. Good luck getting them!
NickFolarin said:
Dudes writing dissertations on a pair of kicks 
laugh.gif
Click to expand...
My bad 
roll.gif
 
 
Last edited:
Can anyone who has their pair confirm what length shoe laces these have? Ordering some laces in a bit (not for these, initially, but just in case I pick up a pair :tongue: ) Thanks.
 
palma said:
 
wHipLAshTw03 said:
 
No need to "inform [me] better" because it ain't nothin new. BC3s may have sat where you're at but best believe they sold out in minutes where I'm from. And if people are willing to pay $400 for '11 BC3s, they're overpaying in my opinion. Those J's are worth no more than $250 DS, max. In fact, there are sellers in my area right now selling them for $200 or less in "excellent condition" per the definition of excellent by Footage and Sole Supremacy standards.

Have I broken in a pair of '13s? If you've been paying attention to my posts, you'd know that I mentioned earlier today that I used to own the '13s and traded them. In fact, I owned two pairs. Played in them once, wore them to the L.A. County Fair on another occasion, then got rid of them.

And no, my opinion that the '13s are overpriced is not pre-mature because even if the '16's become the most over-priced pair of Bred 1s ever, it will still not hit the astronomical numbers that Yeezys are doing and they will still settle roughly around the same price of the '13s, IF THAT. At the end of the day, whether or not the '16s are marginally better than the '13s in quality when it's all said and done, $600-800 for DS pairs of '13s is still overpriced and not in the same league as $400-500 Pinnacle Ones (choose one: black, white, vachetta, or baroque brown). At the end of the day, there will be varying opinions about the quality of the '13 and '16 and there will most likely never be an overwhelming verdict that tips the favor of one over the other. The question ends up becoming: would YOU or the average joe pay $600-800 for a pair of DS '13s?

First off smart guy, he showed FIVE pairs not four - 1985, 1994, 2001, 2011, and 2013. Now answer me this (and disregard "quality" of each model for the purposes of this question): Why do you think '85s, '11 Banned, '01s, and '94s are priced higher in the aftermarket than 2013s? Hint: the price of the '13s has absolutely nothing to do with their being "in line" with the quality of leather.

You ask why I think '13s are overpriced? Maybe you should ask if I think the '11s or the '94s or the '01s are overpriced as well so you can get where I'm coming from. Hint #2: my definition of "overpriced" or "overhyped" or "overrated" is directly correlated to the scarcity, hence availability, of the particular shoe in the aftermarket and not just the perceived quality of the shoes. There is a reason why the average DS value (per Stockx) of '11s is $2048, '01s is $823, and '94s/OG's are N/A but probably well in the thousands of dollars. So having said this, YES the '13s (at an average DS value of $712) is overpriced because '13s can be found ALL OVER THE PLACE while you will have to be much much much more patient AND lucky in order to find a DS pair of '01s, '94s, or '85s in your size. Get it yet?

Your argument about the color of the '13s vs the '16s? Refresh my memory G, because from what I recall, not once did you ever address anything about the color between the two versions. Read below and please highlight where you wrote either red, color, or anything remotely close to a counter-argument regarding the shades between the two models:

Corrected. Educate yourself before opining like an expert. They are not overrated at all. '13s get bashed all the time. Just look around in this thread...it happens the most. People used to think of them as the standard bearers of their time until remastering began...or here let someone's hard work open your eyes   Overpriced? We don't even know the resell on '16s. WTF is overbright? As for the tumbled leather. What beauty? You think the most prized hides for their beauty are cratered like a pimple faced teenager? Banneds are a good quality leather that happens to be tumbled. The OGs were quality leather too...see any tumbling?

And congrats for pounding chicks with your J's. I'm sure you were naive enough to think that a pair of Concords would help your game and make you more of a playa and that they would boost your performance.
Click to expand...
Worth $250 max? That means nothing to nobody but you. Most buyers and sellers would laugh you off. But don't feel hurt that is just how the world works. You don't go to the grocery store and say I don't think this bag of cheetos is worth the price. No you buy it and crack a smile. Free market.

You are complaining I didn't read your older posts. I just became aware of your existence. So, you wore your BREDs twice? That tells you enough about their quality? You hardly gave them a chance bruh. 

What Yeezys (1, 2 or adidas) are you talking about? Yeezy Gum sole have come down to near $1k which is about 3x their base price. Bred '16s could conceivably reach that. We don't know. But, you realize how many more pairs of BREDs there will be compared to Grey GUM Yeezys? So, what astronomical? Yeezys are momentary hype, but Js are that and a lot more to people. Poor comparison IMO.

Yet, again you've said nothing about the video which clearly shows '13s are not that off the OGs in terms of color. The best you could do is point out that the video had 5 pairs instead of 4. Because that was focus of our discussion? That is just desperate bro. Alright you can have that win. 

You understand that prices are relative not just absolute. For example, if I didn't have '13 BREDs and didn't want to shell out $600 I could sell my BC3 (easy cop in my area even on resale when they dropped) for $400 and then use the proceeds to pay for the BREDs. Thats how I or the average Joe can pay for expensive kicks. These are really not new concepts. Only people new to kicks immediately get sticker shock. If you got a collection you know damn well your pairs have gone up too. Of all the factors I would say accuracy to OGs, quality, availability all determine price. What is the big deal? Still haven't explained what you mean by over-priced/overhyped or overrated? Based on those factors I don't see a problem with what '13s cost?

I am not asking you anymore questions because its impossible to get an answer thats on topic.

I thought it was obvious I addressed your argument of '16s being closer to OGs than the '13s in terms of color was straight clowning. It still is. The video was much better proof than the picture scrapbook you put together. Can you admit that?

DAYYYUUUUMMM!!!! Your last paragraph made me laugh because I actually did mash the girl with concords on. Her creepy brother was known to make people's things disappear so I didn't take mine off when I was over at her place. Oh that brings back memories.  
roll.gif
Click to expand...

It's clear that you still don't get it. I can go into a whole separate discussion about the price-value-cost relationship but I'll pass this time. But I'll leave it at this: I will in fact go to the store and PASS on a $3.49 bag of Cheetos because I know I can cop a bag of Chester's for $2 because not only is Chester's puffier and cheesier but you get more bang for your buck. You understand that VALUE is just as relative as price, right? Carry on...

So no, I don't buy the cheetos and crack a smile like you assume I would do... just like I absolutely would never buy a pair of DS '13s for $600 or, relatively speaking, trade a pair of $250 BC 3s plus one or two other pairs just to cop a pair of '13 Bred 1s.

Nice try on your Econ 101 as well as your Shakespearean proverb. A wise man once said, "A donkey carrying a load of holy books is still a donkey."

Lastly, your lecture on your highly detailed carnal exploits with teenage girls was nevertheless entertaining. Hopefully your new pair of Bred 1s will help you get into bed with a real woman who has her own spot and doesn't live with her brother.
laugh.gif


Deuces.
 
wHipLAshTw03 said:
It's clear that you still don't get it. I can go into a whole separate discussion about the price-value-cost relationship but I'll pass this time. But I'll leave it at this: I will in fact go to the store and PASS on a $3.49 bag of Cheetos because I know I can cop a bag of Chester's for $2 because not only is Chester's puffier and cheesier but you get more bang for your buck. You understand that VALUE is just as relative as price, right? Carry on...

So no, I don't buy the cheetos and crack a smile like you assume I would do... just like I absolutely would never buy a pair of DS '13s for $600 or, relatively speaking, trade a pair of $250 BC 3s plus one or two other pairs just to cop a pair of '13 Bred 1s.

Nice try on your Econ 101 as well as your Shakespearean proverb. A wise man once said, "A donkey carrying a load of holy books is still a donkey."

Lastly, your lecture on your highly detailed carnal exploits with teenage girls was nevertheless entertaining. Hopefully your new pair of Bred 1s will help you get into bed with a real woman who has her own spot and doesn't live with her brother. :lol:

Deuces.
Click to expand...

Take this to the PM. No one wants to come in here and read a entire dissertation. Just warning you before Method Man comes in here and bans you. I swear dudes get so emotional over the internet you cant help but laugh.

More talk about the shoes please.
 
I am done with this. Best laugh I have had in a long time. MJO23DAN or someone will do a comparison video. All good. As far as pre-orders concerned. Seeing sub-350 pre-orders on ebay. Still too much I think for now. But safer to do than other pre-prders from sites since you can leave feedback etc?
 
TheTurboFD said:
Got them early thanks to a friend. My first pair of breds ever and I'm in love!

View media item 2143929
Click to expand...

im out. that tumbled leather is just too ugly on this model

like a few guys stated on here these are probably based on the banned version with the x on the back and not the ogs

ill wait 4 years til they retro the remastered version of the og black red 1

good luck to you all

except for grizz. i hope his pair come with mold :smokin
 
NobleKane said:
im out. that tumbled leather is just too ugly on this model

like a few guys stated on here these are probably based on the banned version with the x on the back and not the ogs

ill wait 4 years til they retro the remastered version of the og black red 1

good luck to you all

except for grizz. i hope his pair come with mold
smokin.gif
Click to expand...
Keep as trade bait for Royals. That's my plan. 
 
if it's so bad quit lurking in this thread and complaining...... not trying to single you out but anyone and everyone who has complained. JB or anyone here isn't forcing you to buy these. if you don't like them, pass and your pair will be bought by someone who will enjoy them.
 
I don't see a problem with complaining. Only problem I see is ppl trying to call others' opinions wrong. Some people don't mind the tumbled, some do but not enough to not cop, and some people are out because of it. Live and let live.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

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