Also in the small world of sneakers, there are things on which it’s better to avoid making jokes, and remakes are among them. By definition, a remake is a reproduction of an already existing model, that for some reason gets re-launched on the market: so one discovers that some sneakers that were not successful in the past were simply too modern for their time, and today they can meet the expectations of a more modern public; or that the customers aren’t much ready to change, it depends on the point of view one chooses. In any case, the remakes are first and foremost the favorite dish of the enthusiast and the nostalgic, of the person who remembers a moment in his life in which he was wearing these shoes, or a man who wanted to have them and now can afford it. The new generations come second – the important thing, when you produce a remake, is that you must not disappoint those who knew and loved the original models in the past.
Admittedly, there is plenty of nostalgic people in the editorial staff of Sneakers Magazine. Also because the quality of sneakers nowadays cannot be compared, frankly, to the quality of the past, uh… Anyway, our sensitivity when it comes to remakes is pretty high. And fortunately, over the last few years the great brands of the sneaker world seem to have taken the thing seriously; indeed we saw a number of really well done remakes: New Balance and Reebok, for example, gave us much satisfaction. On the other hand, there are those who really don’t seem to be following the right track.
Nike is a case in point – since the year 2000 they exploited more than any other brand the ruling retro-mania, churning out, however, several remakes that we can only define unwatchable. The list is long, but we chose some examples that made us suffer a lot.
–
The Vandal
The story starts in 2002 with the historic model Nike Vandal. Upon learning that a remake of these beloved shoes was about to come out, many collectors pricked up their ears. Can you imagine the disappointment, when the shelves were flooded by pairs of shoes built from low quality nylon instead of the special nylon (extremely bright) used in the original kick to mimic the gleam of the space suits used by the Nasa astronauts. Disillusion at first sight, we could say; that became even bitter when many realized that the sole was reminiscent of the sole of the Dunk, more than that of the Vandal OG.
–
The Air Jordan II
In 2004 was the turn of the Air JordanII. True, since 2000 we saw many horrible Jordan remakes, but we chose to comment the Air Jordan II because the original, produced in Italy (!) in the late Eighties, was an example of constructive and materials quality (as for its design, the debate is still open). The remakes had a totally misconceived shape and a composition of the midsole that drop any use of polyurethane; some will say that in this way the shoes are more capable of standing wear and tear, but the truth is that the resulting shoe is totally different from the original. One can even accept it, but then the model should more properly be dubbed New Air Jordan II, or something like that.
–
The 2005 was a annus horribilis for the fans of running, with the comeback of two models symbolizing two decades: the 1989 Air Stab and the 1997 Spiridon. In the former case, for example, the Swoosh had seduced us with the idea of relaunching the model through a collaboration with the English guys from FootPatrol, a choice that purported to grant great manufacturing care. But instead of this we got a pair of running sneakers whose silhouette was anything but tapering – rather than looking fast, it looked immovable, rooted in the ground. Then, with the 2005 Spiridon Nike has released an unprecedented example of squat-runner. Better skip any comment on this, and continue our tour around this horror gallery. The idea to rerelease one of the most ancient models in the history of Nike dates back to 2006. It was the Oregon Waffle, and everything (more or less) had started with it. Had Bill Bowerman, the creator of the original Waffle Sole, been alive, he would have thrown the 2006 remake directly in the garbage, for it was made by aggregating a jumble of really poor-quality materials (nylon and suede) with a shape just embarrassing.
–
But the most embarrassing crime is by all means a most recent remake. It hinged on the Nike Air Tech Challenge II, that made its comeback on the shelves in 2014, 24 years after the first time Andre Agassi used it in the Hot Lava colorway on the tennis court. What’s wrong with this remake? Let us confine ourselves to the most visible facts: dull colors instead of the brightness of the original, poor-quality materials (the leather covering the toebox got scratched within the first few minutes of use), no mix of Eva and polyurethane for the midsole.
It remains a question: why on earth should a company show such a little respect for its own history? There can be only one reason, saving money: the reproduction of past models is a tiring and difficult job, because over the last thirty years the production processes, places, and facilities changed a lot for the company from Beaverton. Perhaps, then, better getting away with it, and cheat the less attentive eyes. But on closer scrutiny the difference is clear. And the truth is, that the American company has circulated too many shoes that are almost like fake copies of its own products.