- 16,351
- 20,206
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2007
if nike re-released exact replicas (same shape, materials and colors) of the af1's that dropped in the 80's and 90's - oh man, i'd pay theextra money and go broke too.
Would u pay extra for better retros?????
- Thread in 'Nike Retro' Thread starter Started by spoiledfeet,
- Start date
- 18,904
- 1,184
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2004
Hell No.
- 3,828
- 100
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2007
Nope. Nike should keep it's standards up and maintain quality in their products.
- 1,075
- 207
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2002
Imagine if nike used the same elephant print on the original III's!
People would flip on Niketalk.
We've become accustomed to the lighter and much more pronounced elephant print.
Nike can say what they want about quality, we all know the "quality leather" comes from the lowest bidder.
People would flip on Niketalk.
We've become accustomed to the lighter and much more pronounced elephant print.
Nike can say what they want about quality, we all know the "quality leather" comes from the lowest bidder.
- 342
- 44
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2008
no because they (especially jordans) are already expensive as I'll pay. $175 for an athletic shoe (XI's) is about where I cap out at.
- 1,551
- 12
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2006
No, but hell who am I kidding if I see a shoe I really like I'll pay the extra amount. But what I never understood is why nike basketball comes out with somany different shoes? I'm sure that has to waste resources/time/money which could be put to better use.
- 3,180
- 13
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2002
There's a 'double dip' thing going on here too. By cutting back on the Retros, some new models seem more comfortable.
Weight wise... i haven't been able to compare enough Retros and OGs to make a definitive statement, but the OG Air Max2 CB is SUBSTANTIALLY lighter
than the 2009 version.
- 177
- 10
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2006
As many I'd say no, I even say that we should pay less than original retail prices since retroes don't comes with new (expansive in terms of research& development, design and human ressources dedicated to it) technologies and design.
But we already started to pay more for sol called "better quality" retroes, look at the price tag of the space jams, or the normal/premium/supremeline up of the AF1s ...
But we already started to pay more for sol called "better quality" retroes, look at the price tag of the space jams, or the normal/premium/supremeline up of the AF1s ...
- 186
- 14
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2007
It's too easy to say No...
I think everyone in NT would pay a little more for a really decent retro.
The problem is that only each one of us knows how much more $ for how much more quality.
A real SC II retro is worth 200 $, but the 2009 Space Jams aren't 100 $ worth. What I can't understand is why people still buy crap qualityshoes... they even camp for a ***** quality shoe just because they come with a shirt or a metallic box...!!!
BTW, I don't think "supreme" quality is the solution. Nike should just drop real quality shoes and put the price they want.
I think everyone in NT would pay a little more for a really decent retro.
The problem is that only each one of us knows how much more $ for how much more quality.
A real SC II retro is worth 200 $, but the 2009 Space Jams aren't 100 $ worth. What I can't understand is why people still buy crap qualityshoes... they even camp for a ***** quality shoe just because they come with a shirt or a metallic box...!!!
BTW, I don't think "supreme" quality is the solution. Nike should just drop real quality shoes and put the price they want.
- 5,238
- 4,833
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2005
We shouldn't have to pay more.
- 13,917
- 5,869
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2004
this is likely a wrong assumption but it almost seems like they dont want their older models to "out perform" new era new generation type stuff. Badbusiness move there.
then again, it could be that they are just testing the market to see how much they can get away with before people stop buying. And on that front, they areproducing so many retros now that they can have an overwhelming majority go the outlets and still come out on top.
Integrity is at an all time low.
luckily a few of my favorite models were decently retroed and my complaining can be held to a minimum.
back in 2004, i could buy retros that retailed for $80-90, that NOW currently have better suede and leather and even midsole paint that doesnt chip compared toa $105 dollar retro... What's wrong with that picture? When you start comparing retro to retro, it becomes quite clear whats going on
then again, it could be that they are just testing the market to see how much they can get away with before people stop buying. And on that front, they areproducing so many retros now that they can have an overwhelming majority go the outlets and still come out on top.
Integrity is at an all time low.
luckily a few of my favorite models were decently retroed and my complaining can be held to a minimum.
back in 2004, i could buy retros that retailed for $80-90, that NOW currently have better suede and leather and even midsole paint that doesnt chip compared toa $105 dollar retro... What's wrong with that picture? When you start comparing retro to retro, it becomes quite clear whats going on
- 54,775
- 61,389
- Joined
- May 15, 2003
No,Nike tried that with premium Uptown's/Air Ones. They sat, and if you notice now instead of $200 they cost $150.
All New Balance really does is release retros and all of them are quality.
Adidas, Rebook, Puma, virtually the same no problems.
That's why I find it hard to excuse Nike and Jordan Brand for their flaws. More money for less quality.
All New Balance really does is release retros and all of them are quality.
Adidas, Rebook, Puma, virtually the same no problems.
That's why I find it hard to excuse Nike and Jordan Brand for their flaws. More money for less quality.
- 1,077
- 159
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2006
^^^ good post. Honestly this what we get for complaining constantly about quality. When the XI cool grey and concords drop this year best believe they'llbe $175 or more from here on out. Am I ok with that? No but do we have a choice? We all want it. You guys gotta admit Nike's got us by the short andcurly's.
- 1,316
- 12
- Joined
- May 2, 2007
Actually, I've saved a bunch of money not buying any Nike's recently. Quality materials make it or break it for me. If Nike actually still used qualitymaterials with quality workmanship I'd probably pay a little more even though I know I shouldn't.
Nowadays, everytime I pick up a pair of Nike's I'm like "nope".
Nowadays, everytime I pick up a pair of Nike's I'm like "nope".
- 95
- 10
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2005
nike should keep the quality like it was before.
there's noway costs could be "more" than it was back then. nike's good at keeping it cheap...but they need to find a middle ground to make itcheap and great quality.
I cringed when i paid for those spacejams, knowing they wouldn't fit the same as they did back in the day.
there's noway costs could be "more" than it was back then. nike's good at keeping it cheap...but they need to find a middle ground to make itcheap and great quality.
I cringed when i paid for those spacejams, knowing they wouldn't fit the same as they did back in the day.
- 70,049
- 24,221
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2004
reebok got no choice though.....its reebok we talking about. they already at a disadvantage from ppl coppin nikes and jordans over them, they notgonna shoot themselves in da foot
and come out with 1/2 assed releases as well.
and to answer da question, of course.
- 70,049
- 24,221
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2004
premiums = 120-150
supreme = 200-225
- 70,049
- 24,221
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2004
and for da record ALL of ya is fronting....
da minute nike/JB puts something this close to OG specs out for da MSRP of 200+ something and stuffs it in a nifty box ya gonna be fighting eachother tobecome
da first person who will glady pay for his "better made" retro with a piece of your arm or leg.
da minute nike/JB puts something this close to OG specs out for da MSRP of 200+ something and stuffs it in a nifty box ya gonna be fighting eachother tobecome
da first person who will glady pay for his "better made" retro with a piece of your arm or leg.
- 177
- 10
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2006
True, and that's called being addicted ... And I guess that a lot of us are addicted to shoes ... And you can be sure that Nike won't stoplowering quality and raising prices at the same time, with the space jams success proving so clearly that they are so good in what they do ...Originally Posted by ninjahood
da minute nike/JB puts something this close to OG specs out for da MSRP of 200+ something and stuffs it in a nifty box ya gonna be fighting eachother to become
da first person who will glady pay for his "better made" retro with a piece of your arm or leg.
And BTW, I just got the pump twilight and I ain't impressed at all about quality, leather is cheap and I even heard that someone received a pair with oneshoe not actually "pumping" any air. I don't know how they were when they first dropped out, if someone could enlighten me ...
- 3,532
- 47
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2007
veering just slightly off topic, I think you're on to something here. I've thought for a while now that there was a shift on how Nikedecided to utilize the outlets. more than ever, it seems that you can buy releases at the outlet that are still available for retail in most chain stores. the outlets aren't mainly for b-grade and RTV stuff like they used to be, they get a lot more brand new a-grade stuff and their prices tend to be a lotcloser to retail than they used to be. Nike figured it out. we won't pay retail, but we'll still pay $90 for a shoe they slap a $120 price tag on. so they make a shoe that's worth about $75, sell it in the chains for $120, and then clean up at $90 a pop with no middle man at their "outlet"stores.
as far as retro quality, I'm happy just hunting/buying old retros that I specifically want off ebay or whatever. I end up paying close to what retail forcurrent models is and still get at least decent quality. it's all about being selective for me. plus, I know it is absolutely not likely that even with"better materials" they would actually be able to get the construction and molding of the older models correct. they've destroyed the shape ofseveral classics at this point and I just don't see them going back. an air force one with the nicest leather in the world and a combat boot looking boxytoe is still a fail in my eyes.
- 393
- 21
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2006
nope, paying more for better crappy quality= paying more for what you were supposed to get in the first place
- 18
- 10
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2010
Well to me, it depends on the retro . Like the retro SJ's going over 300 is just whack .. I'd just cop me a OG pair .
- 2,677
- 3,145
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2009
agreed 1000%
- 555
- 11
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2009
As high as the prices Nike has been charging for the shoes, we all should expect quality from them.
- 3,180
- 13
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2002
I just can't see how what they're doing in terms of 'innovation' these days pushes the envelope like they used to.
Flywire is nothing but a low cost alternative to pleather, which is more than likely a low cost alternative to real leather.
In 2006 they introduced the 360 unit... one of the main selling points was no phylon, so it doesn't break down in the same way as previous shoes....
except the bubble has to produced in the US and shipped to Asia.
Now the Lebron VII uses something called 'cushlon' a phylon derivative. Think the bubble for the Lebron VII has to be produced in the US?
I doubt it.
They absolutely are. They know darn well that, for example, Uptempos won't shift that well for $160. All it's about is squeezing extra revenue on thewholesale price.
IIRC, somebody, think it was RockDeep, said Nike are after $25bn in revenue a year within 2 or 3 years. Coincidence?
Severely doubt it.