Comments: (5)

Tinker Hatfield Started Air Jordan 2011 Late

The late stage birth of Air Jordan 2011.

If you paid attention to Tinker Hatfield’s sketches in our Air Jordan 2011 interview with Tom Luedecke, you’d notice all of Tinker’s ideation stage drawings are tagged with a November 2009 date. In other words, the shoe started relatively late.

Hatfield has stated in the past that high level projects like the annual Air Jordan shoe typically run on a 16 month schedule from conception to completion. A November 2009 start date would essentially have given the Air Jordan 2011 project little less than a 12 month time frame to wrap up. Theoretically, it would also give less time for counterfeit manufacturers to knock the shoe off. And it probably helped contribute to an extremely late leak of the shoe on the Internet, not hitting the web until December 13, 2010 when the Air Jordan model has managed to find its way online by end of summer in previous years.

What other security steps were involved in this year’s Air Jordan 2011 project to keep the shoe under wraps? Tough to say and Jordan Brand would probably like to keep it that way considering how close to the vest they were able to maintain it until the very end. But now you know the timeline.


Follow CounterKicks on Twitter for breaking sneaker news and exclusive info

Related Posts with Thumbnails

Category : Air Jordan, Jordan Brand

Comments (5)

They clearly didn’t start in November 2010. lol.

VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Yes sir. Meant 2009, of course.

Typo.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)

No wonder these shoes suck.

VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: -1 (from 3 votes)

Nov ’10 start date woulda been a hell of a feat, ha.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)

and it shows

VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: -1 (from 3 votes)

Post a comment