Bio not provided
@LouieColon Haven't bought a pair in over a decade, so I'm not a "hardcore collector who hads to buy 99% of retros." I grew up, too, that's largely why the $40 ain't killing me. And I'd gladly pay even more for better quality, too. Sucks you kept buying garbage for $160, I guess.
1 year, 1 month ago on Air Jordan III Retro ’88 Retail Price
If you don't think the jumpman looks out of place, awkward, even cheap on the back of all the early J's, then you just don't know the difference. Not your fault, it's a generational thing. To 30-somethings who actually remember what the early J's looked like with the Nike Air logo on the back, we'll pay $200 for the shoe to look right. And it's not just a "branding" thing, although the quality of these shoes did go to crap with the emergence of JB, the jumpman just looks out of place back there. There's too much empty space with the jumpman on the back, and that looks cheap to me. Just wait until you see more and more of the Nike Air logo on these shoes and I guarantee you will know what I'm talking about.
@NickBartzis You think it's the "same damn shoe" because you've been buying that retarded jumpman crap for so long. I stopped over a decade ago, because I'm not retarded. Sorry bro, in my mind you got cheap knock-offs.
@inTheNameofQuen you can bet I went to school way too long to let that one happen, it's all good. Bring on the 4's!!!
@inTheNameofQuen Why do you insist on taking some kind of moral high ground regarding the quality of these shoes, especially when I'm the one who actually knows what the quality is supposed to be like? I agree, the quality sucks, the step in the right direction is the fact that they have the ORIGINAL Nike Air logo on the back. I grew up watching Jordan, but dude GTFOHN, the jumpman is out of place back there.
@inTheNameofQuen Why would I care if MJ cares about my shoes, and wtf does that even have to do with the back logo? Focus. Apparently you just don't like the 3's. That's cool. I do, and I happen to think they look ten thousand times better with the Nike Air logo on the back. We can all agree the quality is horribly lacking, but they don't need to be "performance" shoes. This is a step in the right direction, regardless of price.
@inTheNameofQuen @MTHASHP "top shelf prestigious basketball shoes"
Have you never seen a pair of real OG's? LOL do a side-by-side of one of those to your "top shelf" prestigious Jordan Brand shoes, not even close. Only thing close I've seen is *some* of the LBJ's.
@inTheNameofQuen @MTHASHP Yeah, the jumpman logo on the back looks cheap. The Nike Air logo is more balanced/centered on the back, aesthetically pleasing, easy on the eye. I remember wearing J's out to the bone, dissecting 'em, pulling the tubes out, etc., and that fatty Nike Air logo on the back was always one of the coolest looking parts of all those early J's, especially moving around the court, to me at least. The jumpman logo doesn't even fit properly back there, most of you are just butthurt because you got the 2011's, now this is out. Now if we just could get the quality back, too . . .
Why is everyone complaining about the price so much? Either you want it or you don't, opportunity cost, etc. I'm 32, had a bunch of J's when I was a kid and a few retros in the 90's, and now I'm finally going to get another pair . . . you know why? Because it has the correct logo on the back. That jumpman on the back has killed it for me for years, looks cheap. This is awesome, keep bringing it!