Love it!
Nike MAG replicas (V2 and V3 only)
- Thread starter lukebrynycz
- Start date
-
- Tags
- back to the future
Love it!
Anyone with eyes and basic knowledge of the shoe can spot differences. You don't need to patronize people.
Yes making it cater to the RD is where the money is at. But why would they decide to make the soles clear and not blue? Not because they were unable to or because you can mistakenly take the ones on the RD as normal clear, but they wanted to some degree be true to the movie. This is true and you know it.
As people have already said, the RD soles are not as distinctly blue in person. So with RDs on hand, they're MORE likely to make them clear than if they just went off pictures.
-Nick
-Nick
NickyMabbs
Well-Known Member
Actually, no it's not true & don't know it.
I just asked David if they were based completely on the RD & nothing to do with the movie shoe, which he confirmed as correct. Settled.
cavx
Master Member
Sorry in advance for the rant.
Hang on. The 1989 movie (NIKE apparently only got 1 shoe back from the 6 pairs they made for the film) shoe was used to make the 2011 shoes. So how can it be 75% accurate? It is the MAG grail and the definitive reference for all MAGs regardless of who made them.
During the making of the 2011 shoe, there were some parts that NIKE took "creative licensing" for. Two of these things were the addition of blue pigment to the soles (which is done on all their modern shoes now to extend the life of the soles without yellowing) and shortening of the tongue (for what ever reason). The jury is still out on the ankle buckle. The screen shoe appears more rounded with a larger bulge in the middle. The 2011 and V3 seems to be more flatter here. Again, why would NIKE change this? Only they can answer that.
As Brad and yourself have said, David is simply replicating the 2011 shoe, yet at some point, must have decided some things look better on screen used shoe - namely the longer tongue. Having said that, would you really want to see future batches with a short tongue? I know I don't.
The only thing NIKE really changed was the construction around the laces where the movie shoe is basically folded and glued over the foam around the elastic. The 2011 shoe is sewn here and has a proper liner because they were intended to last longer than 6 weeks of filming.
When you look at the V3, (apart from a toe cap which is 2011 inspired), these shoes look closer to the film shoe than the 2011.
From the top -
More rounded cuff - movie shoe seems puffier here than the 2011
Longer tongue - V3 tongue is at least 10% longer on the top section.
Whitish clear soles - Apparently the MAG was the first shoe to actually have clear soles. As I said, the addition of blue is to extend their life. For those than don't know why, blue acts as a filter.
As for the EL not being bright in the V3, I do think part of that is due the sides not being 100% "water clear" and more fogged which diffuses the light. There was a clear (no pun intended) between my Gen1 and Gen2 clear soles and the EL on modded V2s looked much brighter with the Gen2 soles.
The ONLY pair of 2011 shoes I know that even exist in this country are in Perth, WA. I am in Brisbane. That is like the difference between LA and NY.
Just because they aren't distinctly blue in person wouldn't make your eye mistake them for straight up normal clear. And with making any product, there are tests. If they wanted the exact blue from the RDs they would compare their soles with the real pair they had and put in some blue dye to make it match.
NickyMabbs
Well-Known Member
No need to apologise, a discussion about things we're passionate about is great.
However, I've just had a conversation with David & he said that no design characteristics on his replica are taken from the movie shoe, they are supposed to be an exact replica of the authentic 2011 Mag as most of us had suspected, meaning that any swing in similarities you think there may be towards the movie shoe are incidental.
Also, what I meant by 75% accurate to the prop version, is that if you put the replica side by side with the movie shoes, there's probably only a 75% similarity between them. However, if you put the replica next to the RD Mag, there's about a 95%+ similarity between them, thus making the replica closer to the RD than the movie prop.
I'm sure Nike had valid reasons for altering dimensions of parts, aesthetics, comfort & to contain technology that didn't have to be contained in the prop shoe, however, as they own the complete rights, they're free to do as they please.
NickyMabbs
Well-Known Member
It's not quite as simple as that. The material is not exact, the EL is not exact, the LED bubble frostiness is not exact, shape of the midsole is not exact, the size of the lettering on the ankle bubble is not exact, the puffiness of the collar is not exact, I could go on.
It doesn't mean they based any of it on the movie shoe, as David has confirmed they haven't, they get as close as they can within acceptable tolerances & decide if that's good enough. Hence why there are always revisions of the same replicas, the technology gets better & the materials get closer. If it was as simple as 'putting in some blue dye', I'm sure they would've managed to line up the swooshes accurately & minimise any flaws. It's not though.
Go for it! If the community is anything like it usually is, someone will eventually offer replacement parts to fix ANY problems you have with it. haha
On a different note, has anyone sprayed these things down with a product like NeverWet yet to keep them from staining? I'd be interested in seeing the results since I'm considering whether to do it myself but want to make sure there aren't any issues with the fabric reacting to the process.
-Nick
SpecillK
Member
I sprayed a pair with that Crep protect, but I am def not guinea pigging them with anything lol
And it didn't spot or stain when you sprayed Crep Protect on it?
I might have to do that then.
-Nick
SpecillK
Member
Not at all, looks exactly the same as before.
WizardBTTF
Sr Member
Man these shoes are like freaking fused together. I have been trying to get the soles off slowly...but its very painstakingly slow. Heat hardly seems to help with these. It is seriously like there is no glue seam. These are definitely a different ball game then the V2. The painted sole area has a lot lower melting point then the clear rubber, so heating anything will melt through that section before it breaks anything loose. Using an x-acto with a rounded scalpel style blade is the only way I am making progress and part of the foam material is coming off with it...because basically its cutting not breaking a seam. Good luck to anyone else who tries this. :wacko Brb throwing the shoes in the oven
jk
jk
You're a brave sole! (get it?! :lol)
Got any pics of your progress yet? I can't wait to see your progress. Someone had to be the pioneer here. I'm sure we can all learn a lot from you.
-Nick
Egos13
Well-Known Member
Question about this. So on the bottom of my V3s where the sole attaches to the side where the Els are located. was there a pretty good open gap like enough where you could stick your finger nail into?
WizardBTTF
Sr Member
For sure, I will get pics once I have made good progress. Right now I have only done maybe 1/2" around the left shoes bottoms sole, not much to show now. Trying to find better ways to remove it.
Nope. These things are sealed up tight.
On a side note...I just received another pair today, here is a comparison picture of a pair I got 10 days ago (which has stayed in the box) and the pair I received today.
Is the bottom shoe from the new pair?
