[lorre]

I've just seen these on Ebay and the images look ok, i asked the seller what the production date was ? and this the answer.

it says 02/08
and it is directly from the factory.
thank you~!

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?V...00585&rd=1

I maybe abit confused here but as far as i know the dates indicate month/year , and when i woke up this morning i'm sure it was 2007.

[mr.pure]

Parts of 'em look allright but the writing in the shoe looks fucked.

[lorre]

i've checked them aginst my original and the overall writing isn't that bad, ok i'd say, but look at the writing on the shells it's identical on both shoes, now i don't think that's possible, what do you think? ( I was under the impression each trainer was pretty unique and that identical text placement on both shoes was a dead giveaway)

[woody]

They look dodgy to me

[seasidewolf]

Call me suspicious, he seems to be based in Canada, but has a Taiwan email adress! Hmmmmmm! strokes chin

[lorre]

Yeah does seem a bit strange, i haven't heard back from the seller after i pointed out his trainers had a date on them that's about a year from now.

[sin`pl]

tag on the tongue looks very old, but they were made in 2006.. i wouldn't risk and won't buy these. and they are not really beauty

[mr.pure]

They're a lovely pair of soups if real but these probably ain't.

[lorre]

tag on the tongue looks very old, but they were made in 2006.. i wouldn't risk and won't buy these. and they are not really beauty

Not too sure about the day but as far as i know they were only ever made in 2002 Woody's have the same date and i believe he has all 3 pairs.
The seller has now got back to me with:

"so shouldnt it be aug 2002?"

Now as far as i know the dates should read MONTH/YEAR and he first response was.

"it says 02/08
and it is directly from the factory.
thank you~!"

The only other fake seller of Clrs that i've seen is Hewsonator but these actually very good if they are fake, but the main thing that concerns me is the lettering on the shells is identical on both shoes that shouldn't be possible.

[sin`pl]

Not too sure about the day but as far as i know they were only ever made in 2002 Woody's have the same date and i believe he has all 3 pairs.

you understood me wrongly (ahh why english is not my primary language:C) i mean, from the tag, it looks like it was made in 2006, but the tag should looks like newer.. nevermind.

just look at the tag again! they are fake. in adidas, there is no '43' at all. there is only 43 1/3! right?

[Sooper]

Im with the others on here theres something not right about these, why is the tag in the tongue so old and grotty looking if it has come direct from the factory?
Somethings not right me thinks?!

[lorre]

Im with the others on here theres something not right about these, why is the tag in the tongue so old and grotty looking if it has come direct from the factory?
Somethings not right me thinks?!

Yeah i think theres something weird aswell there is no way these came out in feb 2006, i'm also asumming the ART NO. Is the model number (CAN SOMEONE CONFIRM THIS)?

My originals are ARTNO: 147030 for the blue model

[lorre]

Not too sure about the day but as far as i know they were only ever made in 2002 Woody's have the same date and i believe he has all 3 pairs.

you understood me wrongly (ahh why english is not my primary language:C) i mean, from the tag, it looks like it was made in 2006, but the tag should looks like newer.. nevermind.

just look at the tag again! they are fake. in adidas, there is no '43' at all. there is only 43 1/3! right?

Hey

Sorry not too sure about the sizes mine are uk 8.5

[sin`pl]

damn my english
adidas doesn't making FR "43" sizes, but "43 1/3", 42, 42 2/3, 44, 44 2/3, 45 1/3, 46, 46 2/3, 47 1/3 etc...

[lorre]

damn my english
adidas doesn't making FR "43" sizes, but "43 1/3", 42, 42 2/3, 44, 44 2/3, 45 1/3, 46, 46 2/3, 47 1/3 etc...

Well spotted my pair are FR 42 2/3