I’m going to give éS the benefit of the doubt and say that his foot shape doesn’t complement the shoe. I had the same problem with Busenitz’s shoe - fit like a glove in every usual way but the top of my foot bulged the tongue upwards to an aesthetically unacceptable degree. This effect would obviously be magnified with a tongue as padded as that thing.
Nah, actually, can’t give them the benefit of the doubt, those things are mad.
I think that Kelly Hart’s nostalgia trip for that era is going way off the meter so it’s resulting in stuff that’s not fitting with how stuff has moved on. I think OG accels look bonkers now and can only see the accel slim shape as being the correct thing for my eyes.
I looked at the creagers in real like last week and they look massive. eS have always had bonkers shoes to be honest.
There’s an intermediate model out soon I think? Pretty sure it was designed with the specs from the original in 95 or something? Am I getting that right @Londonskater ?
They’re just making some of the reissues bigger than before, maybe it’s to feed the ‘we want the puff’ crowd. The original Creager was nowhere near as big as this current version.
I didn’t think so either, I remember it to be a great shoe, real slipper feeling once broken in, one of my favourites but there is no way I can see this current one being like that.
Anyone on here a uk11? Got some mint half cabs and pumas, pics to follow
I am. What you got?
Partly true. Partly not.
Creager is on a different sole. I can’t visibly see the difference myself, but that might just mean a new mould was opened.
The size is the same as the original release.
Which leads me onto the Accel OG.
About 5 years ago, I saw a pair for the first time in forever and started laughing. I thought they’d made a blown up piss-take size puffy shoe but was told nope…been like that for years (Bear in mind I’ve always liked to thinnest vulc shoes ever too).
It is weird that it is called the “OG” though because it isn’t.
And then next summer, the “ACCEL” gets rereleased - which internally was called the Accel '95 for a bit - and was called that because it is the OG shape. But its not the OG because the OG is the second shape as they changed it in 2002-2003 to be a big puffier. It has remained the same since then. Confused? It’s confusing! That name “OG” messes so much up.
Simple version:
1995 - Accel
2002-2003 - Accel OG replaces the Accel - a puffier version of the Accel
2015 - Accel Slim introduced alongside the Accel OG.
2025 - Accel back in the line, in it’s original '95 form alongside the OG and the Slim.
There are other versions of the accel like the mid, the aborted accel slip, the accel explorer…but the above are the important ones.
Also, the OG is in the line when the '95 version is back may be strange but there are reasons behind that.
Below is the Accel OG, Accel (Out next summer) and Accel Slim, top to bottom. You can see the size difference clearly - toebox shape and tongue as well as sidewalls on the '95 version are all slimmer than the early 2000s OG.
I like the Skol better than the Accel can you have a word with someone and bring that back please? Beige ones.
The Skol is sick! etnies tho…no éS.
But it has been mentioned here and there in meetings. Nothing on the cards yet, tho.
It’s just the tongue from what I can tell much like those 298/K2 shoes. You can really tell when you put it on and I can’t even imagine how fat they’d be in my actual size. The Emerica MJ reissue had the similar issues.
Oh well, not like they’re going to change them now.
The tongue is the same. Old and new Creager.
My point when I mentioned that I laughed at the OG was that I think we all remember these things as being smaller…but we wore pretty puffy shoes. nothing had changed. Just my memory of it all.
In terms of differences; The MJ (OG-1) and Two Nine 8 are both on different soles to the original as that mould didn’t exist anymore. But the sizes on the MJ are correct as they were originally and when they also got reissued in 2009.
I believe the toe box on the Two Nine 8 is slightly different to the original as it had to fit the new outsole. Beyond that, it is the same.
This is from memory when they were first in the works a couple of years ago.
To be honest, I thought that a lot of these shoes were wildly big when early samples were made a couple of years ago but as pant sizes got bigger…they work. I weirdly feel like an OG1 would now be fine for me. I wear Two Nine 8s here and there…
Simple shoes and early duffs were slimline at the time, look massive now
I had a pair of globe mullens once that were close to spherical
Time to agree to disagree on this one. For what it’s worth the Muska is spot on and as a result a friend of mine has bought three pairs.
Shame really as I liked the runner style toe on the original shoe. The outsole was possibly my favourite thing about the K2s. They had the bump on the outside near the little toe area which made ankle rolls a thing of the past, (for me anyway).
I can’t be the only one here who found this absolutely fascinating.
It seems like you’ve got contacts. Can you have a word and ask if it’s not too much bother to chuck a vulc sole at the Accel Slim so we can have Square Ones again please?
It’s the moulds - you have to open one for every single size you release in, which for a full size break costs about $30k to open.
So, for a single release quickstrike…it is rarely worth bothering.
They made the Accel Vulc, right? I think that existed…
I loved the Square Ones.
In fact - wasn’t the Square Three an Accel Vulc?
There have been a few other recent eS models with soles that were very close to the original K2, so I just don’t understand how they couldn’t have used them.
