Air Jordan 3 “Fire Red” 2007 & 2013 Comparison

7613 34
[caption id="attachment_319594" align="alignnone" width="620"] Air Jordan 3 "Fire Red" Comparison
Prev1 of 4Next
Use your ← → (arrow) keys to browse

One of the four original colorways of the Air Jordan 3, the “Fire Reds” are back for the third time. Michael Jordan laced up the “Fire Red” Jordan 3 during the 1988-89 season, where he won his only Defensive Player of the Year award, and his first NBA MVP. One of the tools that helped Jordan raise his game in ’88, MJ’s third signature shoe was the first to incorporate Nike Air technology. Its performance capabilities, combined with its sleek style that features the famous elephant print on the toe and heel, make this Air Jordan one of the best sneakers ever created. The “Fire Red” colorway perfectly compliment a Chicago Bulls jerseys, and the grey accents contrast the black and red to complete its appearance.

The Air Jordan 3 “Fire Red” received its first retro release in 2007, and now is back in its classic color scheme for 2013. The difference from the retro six years ago and the new release are very minimal, but it’s all in the details. Scroll through to see a comparison between the 2007 release and the 2013 Air Jordan 3 “Fire Red.”

Air Jordan 3 "Fire Red" 2007 Right Shoe

Air Jordan 3 “Fire Red” 2007 Right Shoe

Air Jordan 3 "Fire Red" 2013 Right Shoe

Air Jordan 3 “Fire Red” 2013 Right Shoe

Air Jordan 3 "Fire Red" 2007 Left Shoe

Air Jordan 3 “Fire Red” 2007 Left Shoe

Air Jordan 3 "Fire Red" 2013 Left Shoe

Air Jordan 3 “Fire Red” 2013 Left Shoe

Air Jordan 3 "Fire Red" 2006 Insole

Air Jordan 3 “Fire Red” 2007 Insole

Air Jordan 3 "Fire Red" 2013 Insole

Air Jordan 3 “Fire Red” 2013 Insole

Prev1 of 4Next
Use your ← → (arrow) keys to browse

About The Author

Jordan Howenstine is a full-time Staff Writer for Nice Kicks who is originally from Lansing, MI. He is a basketball addict and sneaker enthusiast currently residing in Austin, TX.

34 Comments on "Air Jordan 3 “Fire Red” 2007 & 2013 Comparison"

  1. Laced_Heat

    wow the completley changed the elephant print on the whole shoe.  It overall look a lot cheaper.  Guess ill be sticking with my 07 till a proper retro comes out

  2. Laced_Heat

    @VladSneakerhead then ill just stop buying jordans. Its not a big deal there are plenty of other companys that make quality kicks. If people just stop buyin the retros because of the shit quality then maybr JB will rethink about using inferior materials. its the stupid people that complain but will buy the shoes anyways. They r the reason JB does whatever it wants.

  3. Voltron Burgundy

    Do any of you know how long shoes nowadays remain wearable? Do the materials used have the same lifespan, or do they last longer? And im not talking about regular wear and tear, I mean how soon does age and time make them unwearable.

  4. Igbyrhodes

    Very true @VladSneakerhead, although I did purchase these retro 3’s they do look of the poorest quality out of all of the retro 3’s to come out recently. I only hope that the price hike doesn’t bring about a sneaker of poorer quality.

  5. Copped a pair today. They look fine. Next cop are the steel 10’s. damn, Jordan’s are gonna $170 next year! Does anybody if the steel 10’s are still going to be $160 or $170?

  6. wrhamil55

    I must be crazy…because the 2013 pics show a much higher quality shoe than the 2007. All threes have been well done with the exception on the black cements ( fake black cements can easily pass for the real thing).

  7. Ben Levron

    Well i ended up buying a pair. Just walked passed a finish line and they were on display, guy asked me if i wanted to try a size, they had my size so i copped. The quality on the paint seems good on these so hopefully they wont crack.

  8. NYCNATIVE917

    @VladSneakerhead  @wrhamil55 it’s 2013 KID. You don’t think fake sneaker manufactures can knock off a $160 sneaker? lmfao, be real…Jordans are not a $600+ sneaker, quality has gone done dramatically.

  9. NYCNATIVE917

    @PMJC07 why would $10 matter? You shouldn’t have to trip about $10 if you wanna buy some sneakers. If you are, worry about bigger things in life like RENT and BILLS. Broke ass chump

  10. Neezy

    The 2013’s are wack. Can’t even tell there’s even elephant print on them. As well as OBVIOUS differences in color and the midsole being slightly modified. People always say “on the foot you can’t tell the difference, so what?” But if that’s the theory, then you might as well wear “Grade A fakes”, right? Since “on the foot you can’t tell”, right? I still have my ’07 pair and in GREAT condition. Was wearing them MONTHS before the drop and mad folks were gawking at them thinking & asking were they this year’s pair. Nah fam #BeenHadThose

  11. Neezy

    @NYCNATIVE917  I don’t think being “broke” is actually the reason, or the point which you clearly are missing. He wasn’t even posing the statement as a complaint either. But looking at the BIGGER PICTURE, Jordan’s being almost a $200 sneaker is ri-G0ddamn-diculous! Especially for a line of sneakers that sat on many shelves during the late 90s into the 2000s. As well as being a sneaker you could buy for $150 max. Jordan Is were UNDER $100 and I reiterate MANY (numbered Jordans) sat on shelves and were even sold as cheap as $35-$50 because they couldn’t sell. Now it’s approaching $200, [because dummies buy anything that has a Jumpman logo on it], in due time. I’m not complaining because I can buy whatever I want, if it’s what I want… but if you don’t think it’s kinda crazy, then you’re just a “DUMBASS CHUMP”. Remember, “Hype Kills”.

  12. Cam_Major

    alot of yall are reaching to sound like “cool sneakerheads”. yea the elephant print is LITTLE different but not that big. i have both pair and the quality is still up to par on each pair. so its all preference smh.

  13. Quay_901

    I think the quality is better on the 2013 i had the 2007 ones also and the print start cracking after like 2 or 3 wears gave away to my lil cousin

  14. Neezy

    @Quay_901 I love when people say outlandish shit like this. Unless you’re 300-500+ pounds, no way should your “print start cracking after like 2 or 3 wears”. Not even your midsoles, for that matter. What the fcuk are you people doing your sneakers, other than walking? THAT is the real question.

  15. Quay_901

    @Neezy the real answer boy only weigh 165 pounds thats the bad thing dont know if i got a bad pair because i got off clearance at the shoe store i use to work at but only last a few wears so past on to my lil cousin. Pretty sure you are young and dumb so keep the dumb comments to yourself boy.

  16. Neezy

    @Quay_901  Well, I’m pretty sure YOU are incorrect on my being “young and dumb”. At 33 years of age, I probably have YOU by some years, so maybe you should try that one again. I’m also nobody’s “boy” either. So correct your verbiage. To the point at hand… I used to work in a retail store as a manager when the first pair dropped and I wore my pair about 2-3x a week. Not only considering all the on foot work I did in them, they were a half a size SMALLER (10.5 and I wore 11s at the time) and I weighed probably 205 lbs. during that time. My pair TODAY, STILL has minimal peeling/cracking on the midsoles and the uppers are an 8 out of 10 with no creasing. That pair you had was no different than the pair I had. They don’t make one pair “better than” or “less than” the other in quality. They also don’t put a “lesser” in quality pair on the racks, just because it says “CLEARANCE” or “SALE”.
     
    And you said I was the dumb one. LMAO

  17. Quay_901

    @Neezy ok im 28 my experience with the fire red 3s of 2007 was not a good one thats why i didnt copd the 2013 because i buy shoes for what i like and a lot of my retros i buy for the memories of having while younger or shoes i wanted when younger but not able to get so my memories of the 2007 ones wasnt good and the quality on 2013 look better to me the key word “ME” you acting like nike/jordan never made a bad shoe before sometimes i guess it can be a bad shoe in the bunch glad your 2007 pair work out for you SIR is that better.

Leave a Reply