This is an opinion-based article guest-written by Dennis Mazur (@SneakerDenn)
“SOMETIMES IT’S MORE ABOUT WHAT WE DON’T HAVE, THAN ABOUT WHAT WE DO.”
This paper is not about gatekeeping or deciding who ‘deserves’ what. This is about asking ourselves what happens to cultural grails when they re-release? Yes, they become accessible, but what do they now represent to the culture?
Virgil Abloh: “Goal number one is to make something that people cherish. We shouldn’t be making more shoes if they’re not different. They should have a reason for existing.” (via Hypebeast)
PREMISES
PREMISES- The argument primarily concerns ultra-rare grails that were never mass-commercialized in the first place, not GR / OG colorways.
- I am not projecting any grails on anyone, these are objective cultural grails (Wu Tang Dunks, Pigeon SBs, UNDFTD 4s, PlayStation AF1s etc).
- Preservation and growth of the culture is more sacred than accessibility to yet another product, if that accessibility undermines the very culture that shapes our experience within the space.
- Virgil Abloh’s principle of the Purist (insider with knowledge, history, culture) and the Tourist (newcoming outsider with curiosity) being equally valuable to the space. The goal is to find the balance that will foster the culture in a way that benefits everyone.
ARGUMENT
1) DOES MASS-ACCESSIBILITY DILUTE GRAILS?
Context defines perception. As Virgil Abloh said, ‘If I put this candle in an all-white gallery space, it looks like a piece of art. If I put it in a garage, it looks like a piece of trash.’ The same applies to sneakers. When grail retros flood the market, they change the context in which we perceive them. What was once a rare artifact of culture becomes just another release. If we ignore context, we strip sneakers of what made them special in the first place.
Inaccessibility is at the essence of OG grails’ mystique. Mystique will be lost when a quasi-identical version becomes just another shoe you can see or buy easily, simply because our subjective appreciation of a shoe depends on its context and collective perception. Denying that exclusivity and the thrill of the hunt are at the core of these cultural grails is impossible. As collective appreciation drops, so does the grail’s collective status.
2) DOES DILUTING GRAILS DILUTE THE CULTURE?
Purist (knowledgeable insider, cares deeply) and Tourist (casual enthusiast or newcomer) are equally important to the culture. Both lose with a retro: the Purist sees history diluted, is alienated by the loss in personal & collective appreciation of cherished grails, whether he owns them or not. The Tourist isn’t introduced to the significance of the grails in a meaningful way, doesn’t experience their true essence. Understanding and appreciation of the culture is lost in the process.
SOLUTION: ALTERNATE ‘2.0’ VERSIONS OF GRAILS
Instead of just re-releasing OG Tiffany Lows or Red Lobsters, both Diamond and Concepts have built on their history to create new narratives for their legacies to live on and for the culture to grow.
- IF YOU OWN THE OG: you’re inclined to participate to add the new missing piece to your collection.
- IF YOU DON’T OWN THE OG BUT HAVE ALWAYS WANTED IT: you’re inclined to participate because the new release taps into nostalgia of the OG grail without replacing it.
- IF YOU DIDN’T OWN OR KNOW THE OGs: you are introduced to a historic legacy, learn about it and are given the opportunity to participate in it.
Give us a new Undefeated 4s, new PlayStation AF1s, new NYC Pigeons. Nike / collaborators can come up with something that captures reminiscent nostalgic energy, while also pushing new creativity and narratives forward! Let’s set higher standards!
However unpopular this opinion may be, I firmly believe the reason for that is that most sneakerheads focus more on their ability to consume yet another desired product, than on what their consumption means in the bigger picture. Forgetting in the process that the reason those products became iconic and desired in the first place was in big part due to their ultra-exclusivity.
We cannot expect them to be mass-commercialized yet preserve their mystique and meaning within the collective space. If you believe it won’t change anything for you – be it. If you believe it won’t change anything in the culture – you are wrong. They become just another consumer product, shifting from being ‘collectible cultural artefacts’ (value of meaning) to ‘another cool shoe you can buy and wear’ (value of consuming). Which is why I believe that if something jeopardizes important aspects of the culture, the consumer’s ability to consume yet another product is secondary and not necessary.
Those grails were appreciated and preserved grail status for 20 years without ever being accessible by masses. Why suddenly the need to consume them to appreciate them? We cannot stay unaware that this change in context inevitably will change perception and meaning…
WHAT IMPORTANT VOICES OF OUR CULTURE THINK:
“Certain shoes are art pieces and it’s important for this sneaker culture that many of us have invested so many years collecting and contributing to, to have an archive and history for next generation. Certain retros are like retroing a Mona Lisa ! It just shouldn’t happen.”
“Dropping retros is okay as long as they have some different features. If we ever did a rerelease of the Low I would change some things to make it very similar but a new upgraded version. Doing the exact same shoe will hurt the value and I feel that people collecting sneakers based on rarity and value helps keeps the culture alive. If they weren’t there when they dropped then that’s just too bad or if they can’t afford to buy them now then that’s too bad too.”
“You cannot recreate an iconic, legendary moments, vibes, feels. These grails that people have hunted their whole life for, when you finally get them, that’s something we want to be rewarded for. They can find these original releases! Hunt for them! And if not, get something else! If anything, recreate and tap into the legendary moment and bring a PlayStation 5 sneaker. I don’t have the Pigeons, I still don’t want them to be rereleased. The sacred sneakers should not be touched, that’s what museum and vaults are for. Go look at them there.”
“It’s a shame when amazing pairs of the past re-released and in turn lose their once elusive aura and sit on shelves. However, I think worse than anything is that the brands are not creating enough future grails, and that’s what they should be focusing more on. Though that would require some original ideas.”
“When re-releases become too frequent or occur on models that should be protected, the mystique of rare, original sneakers is irrevocably lost. Even without owning the originals, the allure lies in the hunt and the story behind obtaining them—elements that transform these pieces into cherished icons. Excessive retros not only commodify what should remain sacred but also contribute to a pervasive retro fatigue, eroding the unique cultural narrative that gives these sneakers their true value and diluting brand allure for short-term profits. These icons form the backbone of sneaker lore and culture; without them, the ripple effects diminish the legacy of the entire community.”
Offset (via Complex):
“We don’t gotta recycle, we can always rebirth, something new! Back in the day you couldn’t get none of these shoes. That’s why they’re valued at such a high price, and they didn’t make a lot of them, so they just not in the market. The younger crew, this was not their time, they might not understand.”
“Some of these classic sneakers shouldn’t be retro’d for sure. In the history of sneakers these limited and special releases are what helped shape the culture. I think if they just continue to release shoes that were these “one off” drops and limited releases you are taking away from their history. I do think there is a side of people who want to have access to a shoe that they never thought they would (because it’s way too expensive) but I think to that, Nike should focus on releasing new collabs, limited drops and focusing on building stories around new shoes not just reprinting classic because it can be a quick money grab.”
“As a perceived “old head” in the space, the value part is something I could care less about but the stories about the hunt for the grails added to its folklore…rereleasing them kills all of that for us, and the majority of us old guys will get them on principle but it will never be the same. It’s a different generation now, I don’t think most connect to those coveted pairs like we do…I look at the Wu Tangs and South Beach LeBron re-releases as perfect examples of that.”
“I love the idea that an iconic sneaker can remain iconic, and a new generation can enjoy the same “hunt” that we did. But then again, I have kids and I’d rather them have a chance to own some of these icons. Tough one. I’d love to see my AIRMAX retroed one day, just like the original.”
Let’s connect the past with the present by prolonging legacies, rather than lazily rehashing them, and give everyone a chance to enjoy these sneaker legacies in a meaningful way without taking away from the meaning of the originals!
There is a very specific set of counter-arguments that always come around from people disagreeing with my position, which I respond to below:
“SHOES ARE MEANT TO BE WORN!”
Not all shoes were meant to be worn by the mainstream (150 pairs of PS AF1s, 150 Pigeon SBs, 72 UNDFTD 4s). The rarity and inaccessibility are at the core of what these grails represent to the culture. For collectors, the thrill was always in hunting and earning the grails. For those who never owned them, they were never celebrated because everyone had them but rather enjoyed platonically as the ‘Endgame’ sneakers. The ‘wow’ factor associated to these pairs will be gone with a retro. SNEAKER CULTURE HAS NEVE BEEN ABOUT EVERYONE HAVING EVERYTHING.
“LET THE NEW GENERATION REDISCOVER AND ENJOY THEM”
If the goal is to educate and get the new generation involved, dumping a grail retro into an overly-saturated market won’t achieve that. That ex-grail will be understood in its new context – a shoe you can see at any resell shop. Not as an important grail that was part of the culture’s folklore prior to the retro. Introducing the Tourist in a way that doesn’t foster further knowledge, growth, or passion, disserves the space.
“THEY’RE JUST SHOES, IT’S NOT THAT SERIOUS”
These grails will become ‘just shoes’ if they’re treated that way. Some shoes have more cultural meaning than others. Saying ‘they’re just shoes’ undermines the very culture you participate in so much. Why have 20-50-100 pairs of shoes if they’re just shoes without meaning in the broader world? Why have sneaker Instagram pages to post our on-feet pics etc.? If you are not interested in ‘cultural meaning’ or ‘hype’, there are more than enough GR accessible shoes to enjoy to not have to mess with shoes which do hold meaning in the culture.
“I DON’T CARE HOW MANY PEOPLE HAVE THEM OR DON’T. I WEAR SHOES FOR ME, NOT FOR OTHERS”
Sure, your personal relationship with a sneaker is yours alone. But sneakers don’t exist in a vacuum. The way we experience a sneaker is correlated to its context. A mass-available retro will inevitably shift the cultural perception of the grail. Sociologist Thorstein Veblen argued that people buy goods not just for their functional use but for the social status they confer. When a product is exclusive or expensive, it signals status, making it more desirable. When a product becomes widely available, it loses that exclusivity and, therefore, its perceived value—leading to decreased demand (Veblen Effect & Conspicuous Consumption).
Kanye wanted Yeezys for everyone. When they eventually were, nobody wanted them anymore (pre-Ye antics). Dunks? Nike matched the demand with huge supply. No one wants Dunks anymore.
SCARCITY FUELS DESIRE. DON’T WATER DOWN OUR GRAILS.
“RICH COLLECTORS HAVE SELFISHLY HOARDED THESE LONG ENOUGH. THEIR ONLY CONCERN IS THEIR POCKETS.”
Collectors, much like in the art world, invest in and preserve the cultural value of these sneakers. They give credibility to the work they invest in. For years, some collectors have dedicated their time, energy and funds into their passion. Their appreciation of the cultural and historical value of these sneakers plays an important role in the space. Devaluing their collections – sentimentally, culturally, and monetarily – kills the collectors’ trust in the brand and the culture they champion for years. If this is how Nike treats their most dedicated enthusiasts, why should they continue to care and stay involved?
Who really is selfish here? The one who pays thousands because he believes in the cultural value of a collectible piece? Or the one who demands its mass-production for the sake of his own short-term enjoyment at the cost of a culture that he claims he loves?
“IF YOU HAVE THE ORIGINAL, WHY WOULD IT BOTHER YOU THAT WE GET A RETRO?”
Some will say “the OG will always be the OG”. And I won’t argue with them – that’s very personal. The OG will always outweigh any retro no matter what, but a retro will bother a significant number of collectors, which is enough for it to be problematic.
Owning a grail isn’t just about having the OG version of the shoe – it’s about what that grail represents. If a nearly identical replica to your original is easily accessible to anyone, the ‘WOW’ factor of the original is gone.
Whether you have the OG in your grail case as a collector, store owner, or enjoyed wearing them – you are simply not 1 of 150 people in the world with that shoe anymore.
“RE-RELEASES DON’T AFFECT THE VALUE OF THE OGS, LOOK AT 1985 JORDAN 1S”
’85 AJ1s are the exception to the rule. They represent something much bigger: the birth of an era, Michael Jordan’s rookie year, the foundation of modern sneaker culture, the first ever Air Jordan etc. Its historical significance is like no other.
Data shows that any ‘grail’ shoe that was retroed lost significance with the retro:
Wu Tang Dunks, Terror Squad AF1s, Galaxy Foamposites, Lightning 4s, South Beach LeBrons, Yeezy Turtle Doves, Thunder 4s, Satin Bred 1s, Beijing Fragment Dunks, ‘What The’ CO.JP Dunks, Air Max 1 Patta Chlorophyll, ‘Watch The Throne’ LeBron 9.
After these re-releases, the retro became very affordable, while the OG dropped in value. What does that mean? That these pairs mean less to us collectively AFTER they retro, than before. The price reflects collective demand and appreciation. Low resale prices on special releases signifies there wasn’t much impact. If a once-iconic grail returns and barely moves the needle, it shows that the culture is losing sight of the grail’s original significance.
Since 2021 retro of 2006 Lightning 4s, the OG’s price has dropped from ≈ $2,000 to ≈$500.
“YOU THINK A SNEAKER IS SIGNIFICANT ONLY IF IT’S EXPENSIVE?
It’s the other way around. A sneaker is expensive BECAUSE we think it’s significant. NYC Pigeon SBs or PlayStation AF1s aren’t iconic because they’re expensive. They’re expensive BECAUSE they’re iconic. And the reason they’re iconic is because of the stories, the hunt, their rarity and their pop cultural significance. Pricing is just the universal way humans communicate how much something is desired. Sneaker culture is not immune to basic concepts of supply & demand. If prices go down, all that means is that perceived sentimental and cultural value has dropped.
“THIS IS JUST RESELLERS TRYING TO SAFEGUARD THEIR PROFITS. F*CK RESELLERS.”
Resellers only exist in relation to buyers. If anything, resellers balance the market, ensuring that pairs reach the people who value them the most. Especially when it comes to OG grails. (Bots and backdooring are not relevant here). Reselling and the ‘hustle’ are also rooted in sneaker culture – almost every collector is ‘guilty’ of having resold pairs in order to fund their next grail or to make a little cash from their knowledge and network. It’s just part of the space. As much as resellers are seen as the villains, they are simply responding to market demand created by buyers. If buyers were truly against the practice, they could drive change by refusing to participate, but their desire for cultural capital and exclusivity keeps reselling alive.
“LET US BUY WHAT WE WANT”
If you want something that is by nature exclusive, there is a price that comes with it. If the exclusive suddenly becomes easily accessible, we end up spoiled and take things for granted. This pattern of overconsumption followed by disinterest is exactly what diminishes sneaker culture. As soon as we get what we thought we ‘needed’ we move onto the next ‘need’. Thinking we need every shoe we want is typical fast-fashion, fast-food consumerism. Do we want to cultivate a culture of meaning or a culture of pure consumption? And if ‘exclusivity’ or ‘rarity’ is not of interest, why do you want the exclusive and the rare so bad? There are plenty of non-exclusive sneakers available out there.
THE CULTURE IS DEAD ANYWAY – NIKE DOESN’T CARE ABOUT CULTURE
It’s too easy to take away our own responsibility as a culture. Culture isn’t just about buying what’s given to us—it’s about consuming consciously, setting a standard, recognizing history, and pushing it forward. Without that, sneakers become just another product, stripped of meaning. There are enough pairs to buy and creative ways to tell the stories of OG grails to not have to jeopardize legacies of important cultural symbols and of the culture itself.
When we demand re-releases of grails, we’re trading long-term cultural value for short-term personal satisfaction. We’re sending Nike a message that we’re okay with lazy. Let’s celebrate our grails creatively, thoughtfully, with understanding of the culture.
“Consume Responsibly! Get off the brandwagon!” – Ari Forman
SOME SHOES ARE BETTER LEFT IN THE VAULT.
