Unc 2015 Legit check

[halamadrid13]

 

[StudentDriver]

I am pretty sure these are fake, I wouldn't buy them.
The color of the power blue leather looks too dark, especially at the exposed edges. The wings logo is a bit too low in the first photo, and the white leather underneath looks like it was cut too sloppy. The back of the shoe looks off. The white leather by the ankle looks too tumbled, it is supposed to be smooth. Toe box looks a bit box shaped. The tongue tag logo doesn't look right, compared to my pair.

 

[halamadrid13]

I am pretty sure these are fake, I wouldn't buy them.
The color of the power blue leather looks too dark, especially at the exposed edges. The wings logo is a bit too low in the first photo, and the white leather underneath looks like it was cut too sloppy. The back of the shoe looks off. The white leather by the ankle looks too tumbled, it is supposed to be smooth. Toe box looks a bit box shaped. The tongue tag logo doesn't look right, compared to my pair.

what do you think about that? These two Legit check apps say it’s legit

 

[StudentDriver]

They are both wrong, these shoes are 100% fake.

That email that you got just seems to be a boilerplate response. The things they wrote should have been checked, but they must have not or they don't know what to look for. In my opinion, they don't know what to look for, not many people do.

1. Their first point looks at the tongue tag text. I will agree that it is something that replica/fake factories overlook, but they have gotten better at it, however, they still make flaws that I can catch. Other then that, everything else they wrote is wrong, they clearly overlooked the tongue tag as well. From the picture you provided, I can see that the weave pattern is wrong on the letters, I provided a photo of my tag for you to compare. The shape of the letters are not the right either, I think the most obvious one is the letter "K". This isn't a flaw from Nike, Nike is very consistent at making these tags, which is why I the tags when I authenticate sneakers. To prove to you the consistency, I added the tongue tags of another sneakers from this time, to show you that Nike uses a specific weave pattern and font, which are missing in your.
UNC

Chicago

DSM

Fragment

SBB

2. Replica factories have been getting much better at the shape of the shoe. Some good replica factories have gotten the shape nearly identical to Nike's, and when you consider Nike's inconsistencies, its hard to differentiate in the "correct" shape nowadays. The point they bring up is slimness of the toe box, I don't think this is a real issue any more in many good replica's anymore, this also varies a bit on pairs made by Nike. What you want to look at in the toe box is how straight it looks, but also remember that sneakers from Nike can be vary in shape as well. Your pair is more boxed shaped, meaning the leather goes straight up before it, curves. Look at the UNC photos on Goat, StockX, etc. the toe box curves more on those apirs because it has a bigger radius, my pair is like that as well. Here is a link to another LC done recently https://niketalk.com/threads/legit-check-jordan-1-unc-2015.690583/ , there are photos of two authentic pairs that you can compare to and you can see the toe box shape. They are size 13, so the tongue tag will be different then your pair, but the weave pattern is the same as the examples I showed you.

3. The embossing of the wings logo on your pair does not look deeply embossed on the photos you uploaded. Maybe it is but I can't tell from those photos, you can check that yourself. I also wouldn't fully agree that all replica's don't get this detail correctly. I attached a photo of my pair to show you my embossed logo.

4. This point is all wrong, they don't seem to know what the leather on a UNC pair should look like. The ankle leather on your pair is tumbled and it is not due to wear. It should be smooth like my pair, the link I posted above also shows the white leather of other authentic pairs. The powder blue leather is also wrong. It is too dark and the exposed edges are even darker. It is suppose to be a powder blue, but the edges on your pair look darker like a royal blue. I attached a photo of my pair, the edges are a slightly a bit darker on my pair but they still look like a powder blue color.

5. The swoosh shape isn't a big problem anymore in good replica's, it use to a flaw that I could spot more often before, but now the swoosh shapes are identical to those from Nike.

6. The size tag font hasn't been an issue in most replica Jordan 1's in years. Most decent batches get the font well enough for me not notice any flaws. One thing to look at on the size tag is the production code, If you know them, which is a bit hard to do and confirm. From what I am seeing, the production code for a UNC pair made on 5/13/15 should be 105913996, I can't confirm this but I am almost positive. Yours ends in 963.

 

[halamadrid13]

They are both wrong, these shoes are 100% fake.

That email that you got just seems to be a boilerplate response. The things they wrote should have been checked, but they must have not or they don't know what to look for. In my opinion, they don't know what to look for, not many people do.

1. Their first point looks at the tongue tag text. I will agree that it is something that replica/fake factories overlook, but they have gotten better at it, however, they still make flaws that I can catch. Other then that, everything else they wrote is wrong, they clearly overlooked the tongue tag as well. From the picture you provided, I can see that the weave pattern is wrong on the letters, I provided a photo of my tag for you to compare. The shape of the letters are not the right either, I think the most obvious one is the letter "K". This isn't a flaw from Nike, Nike is very consistent at making these tags, which is why I the tags when I authenticate sneakers. To prove to you the consistency, I added the tongue tags of another sneakers from this time, to show you that Nike uses a specific weave pattern and font, which are missing in your.
UNC

Chicago

DSM

Fragment

SBB

2. Replica factories have been getting much better at the shape of the shoe. Some good replica factories have gotten the shape nearly identical to Nike's, and when you consider Nike's inconsistencies, its hard to differentiate in the "correct" shape nowadays. The point they bring up is slimness of the toe box, I don't think this is a real issue any more in many good replica's anymore, this also varies a bit on pairs made by Nike. What you want to look at in the toe box is how straight it looks, but also remember that sneakers from Nike can be vary in shape as well. Your pair is more boxed shaped, meaning the leather goes straight up before it, curves. Look at the UNC photos on Goat, StockX, etc. the toe box curves more on those apirs because it has a bigger radius, my pair is like that as well. Here is a link to another LC done recently https://niketalk.com/threads/legit-check-jordan-1-unc-2015.690583/ , there are photos of two authentic pairs that you can compare to and you can see the toe box shape. They are size 13, so the tongue tag will be different then your pair, but the weave pattern is the same as the examples I showed you.

3. The embossing of the wings logo on your pair does not look deeply embossed on the photos you uploaded. Maybe it is but I can't tell from those photos, you can check that yourself. I also wouldn't fully agree that all replica's don't get this detail correctly. I attached a photo of my pair to show you my embossed logo.

4. This point is all wrong, they don't seem to know what the leather on a UNC pair should look like. The ankle leather on your pair is tumbled and it is not due to wear. It should be smooth like my pair, the link I posted above also shows the white leather of other authentic pairs. The powder blue leather is also wrong. It is too dark and the exposed edges are even darker. It is suppose to be a powder blue, but the edges on your pair look darker like a royal blue. I attached a photo of my pair, the edges are a slightly a bit darker on my pair but they still look like a powder blue color.

5. The swoosh shape isn't a big problem anymore in good replica's, it use to a flaw that I could spot more often before, but now the swoosh shapes are identical to those from Nike.

6. The size tag font hasn't been an issue in most replica Jordan 1's in years. Most decent batches get the font well enough for me not notice any flaws. One thing to look at on the size tag is the production code, If you know them, which is a bit hard to do and confirm. From what I am seeing, the production code for a UNC pair made on 5/13/15 should be 105913996, I can't confirm this but I am almost positive. Yours ends in 963.

Thanks mate, really appreciate it your explanations in detail!

 

[DHarris]

Thought I'd work off this thread as opposed to starting a new one as the examples above are great. I'm trying to get better pictures but what's the thinking on this pair?
Thanks!

 

[StudentDriver]

Thought I'd work off this thread as opposed to starting a new one as the examples above are great. I'm trying to get better pictures but what's the thinking on this pair?
Thanks!

These are fake.

This pair has an "over-inflated" toe box and its shape is just bad. The color of the power blue leather looks too dark and its edges are even darker, just like the shoes posted by OP. Lace bag looks off, looks to big

 

[DHarris]

Thank you!

 

[JumpmanATL7]

They are both wrong, these shoes are 100% fake.

That email that you got just seems to be a boilerplate response. The things they wrote should have been checked, but they must have not or they don't know what to look for. In my opinion, they don't know what to look for, not many people do.

1. Their first point looks at the tongue tag text. I will agree that it is something that replica/fake factories overlook, but they have gotten better at it, however, they still make flaws that I can catch. Other then that, everything else they wrote is wrong, they clearly overlooked the tongue tag as well. From the picture you provided, I can see that the weave pattern is wrong on the letters, I provided a photo of my tag for you to compare. The shape of the letters are not the right either, I think the most obvious one is the letter "K". This isn't a flaw from Nike, Nike is very consistent at making these tags, which is why I the tags when I authenticate sneakers. To prove to you the consistency, I added the tongue tags of another sneakers from this time, to show you that Nike uses a specific weave pattern and font, which are missing in your.
UNC

Chicago

DSM

Fragment

SBB

2. Replica factories have been getting much better at the shape of the shoe. Some good replica factories have gotten the shape nearly identical to Nike's, and when you consider Nike's inconsistencies, its hard to differentiate in the "correct" shape nowadays. The point they bring up is slimness of the toe box, I don't think this is a real issue any more in many good replica's anymore, this also varies a bit on pairs made by Nike. What you want to look at in the toe box is how straight it looks, but also remember that sneakers from Nike can be vary in shape as well. Your pair is more boxed shaped, meaning the leather goes straight up before it, curves. Look at the UNC photos on Goat, StockX, etc. the toe box curves more on those apirs because it has a bigger radius, my pair is like that as well. Here is a link to another LC done recently https://niketalk.com/threads/legit-check-jordan-1-unc-2015.690583/ , there are photos of two authentic pairs that you can compare to and you can see the toe box shape. They are size 13, so the tongue tag will be different then your pair, but the weave pattern is the same as the examples I showed you.

3. The embossing of the wings logo on your pair does not look deeply embossed on the photos you uploaded. Maybe it is but I can't tell from those photos, you can check that yourself. I also wouldn't fully agree that all replica's don't get this detail correctly. I attached a photo of my pair to show you my embossed logo.

4. This point is all wrong, they don't seem to know what the leather on a UNC pair should look like. The ankle leather on your pair is tumbled and it is not due to wear. It should be smooth like my pair, the link I posted above also shows the white leather of other authentic pairs. The powder blue leather is also wrong. It is too dark and the exposed edges are even darker. It is suppose to be a powder blue, but the edges on your pair look darker like a royal blue. I attached a photo of my pair, the edges are a slightly a bit darker on my pair but they still look like a powder blue color.

5. The swoosh shape isn't a big problem anymore in good replica's, it use to a flaw that I could spot more often before, but now the swoosh shapes are identical to those from Nike.

6. The size tag font hasn't been an issue in most replica Jordan 1's in years. Most decent batches get the font well enough for me not notice any flaws. One thing to look at on the size tag is the production code, If you know them, which is a bit hard to do and confirm. From what I am seeing, the production code for a UNC pair made on 5/13/15 should be 105913996, I can't confirm this but I am almost positive. Yours ends in 963.

StudentDriver for President! Holy ****!

Man we would definitely appreciate you adding to the new Real vs Fake thread stickied with some good examples. I applaud you either way. I don’t buy 1s but I always hear they’re the hardest to LC now.

 

[beat]

These are fake.

This pair has an "over-inflated" toe box and its shape is just bad. The color of the power blue leather looks too dark and its edges are even darker, just like the shoes posted by OP. Lace bag looks off, looks to big

Hello, can you please take a look at my pair?

Thanks

 

[beat]

Hello, can you please take a look at my pair?

Thanks

A few more pics.