Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Dear New Balance Numeric,
I love the logic behind the names of your shoes. Higher number = more tech and if it goes beyond 400 = cupsole.
What's the deal with 288 in that case?
I can't sleep at night because of this
Yours sincerely
I.
Franky's shoe is the 417 and a vulc
Yup but the lowest NB# cup is the 425 if I'm not mistaken so all good 👍
it was the 288s, but now it should be the 420 technically
I meant currently. 420 are not always "in there".
Speaking of the 420, those should be hitting shops soon, if not today. Anyone know what the colorway is?
And before the 288s, the original 288 took that spot before they finalized the vulc/cup number break line.
Interestingly enough, some of the earlier models had real names before NM# took off with the naming convention. Quite a few were vulc and probably in the 200-300 range unofficially. Some early examples i can recall:
Brighton (#? Probably 200s)
Quincy (254 and later 255)
Logan (606 ?)
Stratton (533 - PJ'S shoe)
I remember those names, they were horrible. Thank god they didn't pursue that road.
Btw if the higher the number the more tech and stuff what about 22? Following that convention they should be a sock with laces pretty much 😅
And now isn't there a 574 vulc? Doesn't quite seem to fit the <400 = vulc theory.
Thankfully Jamie let go of it early on when it was under Black Box ownership. That way, actual NB staff and whoever they hired to revamp the skate division around 2015 or 2016ish could actually use the numbers. I know some people don't like the numbers and think it's confusing, but its the opposite once you learn: lower number = less tech and probably vulc & higher number = more tech and probably cup sole.
About the 574 vulc, a shoe like this is an exception in my mind since they made an existing NB shoe into a vulc for the skate line. Nearly every other shoe from NM# is a new creation and generally follows the cup/vulc trend of <>400 rule that we've seen. I don't think there's a hard number break, and I'm sure
@rothdigga can confirm or deny that they follow a general trend, save for a few exceptions.
The 22, funny enough feels like it's slightly more substantial of a shoe than the 212, even haha