Back IV four.
News of an Air Jordan 4 Retro has been rumored around the sneaker watering holes for a bit, but so has junk gossip on an Air Jordan XI “Columbia” for Holiday 2012 (see: Air Jordan 11 Retro “Breds” return for Christmas) among other foot covering items. But we’ve seen the end-of-year product sheets first hand now at CounterKicks and can confirm this release along with full style code details and exact colorway description, which hasn’t been previously reported.
Scheduled for a November 2012 drop, this 1989 original colorway of the Air Jordan IV makes its fourth return to retail after more recent bring backs in 1999 and 2008. Priced at $160 for the consumer, the shoe is being wholesaled into Jordan Brand accounts for $84.80. Here’s the rest of the raw data points you need to know:
Air Jordan 4 Retro
Black/Fire Red-Cement Grey
Style number: 308497-089
Retail price: $160
Holiday 2012
UPDATE: Jordan Brand Never Changed Air Jordan Retro 4 & 11 Retail Prices, Says Jordan Brand
Follow CounterKicks on Twitter for breaking sneaker news and exclusive info
Nice work on ‘outing’ the wholesale price.
The retail price is redonkulous in itself @ $160.
I bet the quality is NOWHERE close to the ’99 version.
That equates to huge profit margins, my friends.
H U G E.
If you haven’t already, grab some NKE as Mark Parker is on track to fulfilling his words from two (?) years ago regarding where Nike will be numbers-wise and the profit (not revenue) targets.
I just looked at my receipt for the 1999 version purchased on May 5th 1999, and the retail price was $99.95 from the now defunct mom & pop San Diego Sport Shoes.
60% increase in retail price over a 13.5 year period.
For an old shoe.
With old technology.
Molds and tooling are already existing (probably recently tweaked to make a more economical/cheaper product).
Sheep: pull out your Credit Cards and prepare to F5 all night or camp out and line up on a chilly November night.
Baaaaaaah! Baaaaaah!
That’s it, I’m done.
let’s hope it’s made better than the “retro”version I bought in 2010, from a reputable shoe store in Darwin, Australia – way too heavy, plastic bit at back too high, digs into achilles, cluncky where the original was agile, and the laceholders breaking after less than 20 wears …
Gotta agree with “That Guy” cause the quality is definitely worse than back in the day… Sad but true.
Soo is it true