brandon Posted February 28, 2013 Report Share Posted February 28, 2013 Yeah regardless of opinion it does suck to be dissapointed. I dont hate 1.0s but I definitely prefer 2.0s. Best of luck! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MPF24 Posted February 28, 2013 Report Share Posted February 28, 2013 Everyone is entitled to their opinion. You're not the only person that prefers 1.0s to 2.0s (though I'm not one of those people). You may be the only person that prefers Indo to Edge 2.0, but hey to each their own. Hopefully you can recoup some of your money by selling it. I do know how much it sucks being that excited about something and it not working out. I think you're misunderstanding if you think I like the Indo better than the 2.0. The Indo was absolutely bad, but at $130, I don't feel the 2.0 is a big enough upgrade over it to justify spending $170 more. The price of my jersey with customization ($375) could have almost gotten me two Indos, with customization ($260 for two, plus customization costs) and I would have known I was getting a mediocre quality ahead of time so my hopes wouldn't have been so high. I just thought the 2.0 would compare more favorably to the 1.0. I feel it's a pretty big downgrade in materials. It might make sense in practical terms, for the players, but for me, I liked the heavier, stretch material on the 1.0 a lot better. As far as the cut, I really dislike the fact that the sleeves are shorter (though it's a minute detail and I wouldn't even notice/care if everything else was the same) and I hate the way the armpit/shoulder area is so roomy in the 2.0. It makes sense in terms of practicality again, if you're wearing shoulder pads, but... I'm not. I do play ice hockey and I can easily see how I would prefer the 2.0 for playing hockey, but as far as wearing a jersey in the stands, the cut doesn't translate well, IMO, and the materials seem cheap by comparison. It's a combination of all of the issues for me. The first is the price. I just think the 1.0 felt like a higher quality, more premium product that could make me feel like my $300+ was justified. The second is the cut; if the cut on my new jersey fit me like my old jerseys, I'd be a lot happier with it, but not only does the material seem cheaper and just a lot less nice to me, but it doesn't fit me great. It's the right size, but it's just not as good a fit. Put it together and it's an awkward fitting, lower quality version of the jerseys I own and love, at a huge price tag. With the old materials, I felt like the jersey looked like a million bucks and stood out as an authentic, and I felt very proud wearing them to the Garden, which helped mitigate the remorse when spending so much money. With the 2.0 I feel like the only way you know it's authentic is if you can see the strap sewn through the back of the jersey or have a really keen eye for the stitching in the shoulder. It looks like a replica, similar to the way the Indos look like replicas. In fact, if i had known ahead of time, I'd have just saved money and gotten a premier (or the sale Indo) but I've always been against replicas and wanted to buy authentics. I really wish I could swap this for an identical 1.0. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lhg39 Posted February 28, 2013 Report Share Posted February 28, 2013 I don't hate the 2.0, but I too prefer the 1.0. I definitely agree with your comment about the shoulders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DropkickMurphy8 Posted February 28, 2013 Report Share Posted February 28, 2013 Just an update on this for people asking about Rangers 2.0's - As of last night, MSG still had Indo's in the team store behind section 114 (or is it 110? I think it's 114) - No sign of 2.0's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gr8erade Posted February 28, 2013 Report Share Posted February 28, 2013 Good thing you are remembering that you're buying a hockey jersey, not a fitted fashion top. They do make those though, so you're not out of luck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MPF24 Posted February 28, 2013 Report Share Posted February 28, 2013 I will say, Ice Jerseys did a great job with the customization, as always, and got the jersey here three weeks ahead of the estimated date they gave when I placed the order. My disappointment is entirely in my finally experiencing the new Edge jersey and not in the work done by IJ. I really dislike the 2.0 (for the price point) though and I am feeling really down about the whole thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MPF24 Posted February 28, 2013 Report Share Posted February 28, 2013 Good thing you are remembering that you're buying a hockey jersey, not a fitted fashion top. They do make those though, so you're not out of luck. This seems like a pretty immature and unnecessary response to me. Was I buying a "fitted fashion top" when I shelled out $300+ for several 1.0s that I loved? I'm not entitled to an opinion, or there is something implied about what kind of fan I am or something, because I am disappointed in the changes from the 1.0 to the 2.0, and the amount of money I just spent? I'm going to go ahead and say the opinion you're expressing is a lot less needed here than the one I am. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
00xtremeninja Posted February 28, 2013 Report Share Posted February 28, 2013 i can see where you are coming from. each person has their preference of jerseys they like. to me, authentic ultrafil is like the primo jersey material. so heavy and durable. love it. the ccm airknit is also next on my list of top favorites. it sucks though when you are expecting something so awesome, especially with how much hype the jersey itself gets around here and it is a let down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gr8erade Posted February 28, 2013 Report Share Posted February 28, 2013 This seems like a pretty immature and unnecessary response to me. Was I buying a "fitted fashion top" when I shelled out $300+ for several 1.0s that I loved? I'm not entitled to an opinion, or there is something implied about what kind of fan I am or something because I am disappointed in the changes from the 1.0 to the 2.0? I'm going to go ahead and say the opinion you're expressing is a lot less needed here than the one I am. The changes you point out were made because the players who wear the jerseys liked the changes. You don't like them because you don't like the way they fit and feel on you while you're sitting in the stands. You're entitled to your opinion, but your disappointment is pointed at the functional changes made to make this a better hockey jersey, not to make you look better in row whatever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brandon Posted February 28, 2013 Report Share Posted February 28, 2013 Yeah if you're smaller I can definitely see liking the 1.0 more. I always get a 46 in them for my girlfriend but Ill never be able to get any 2.0 small enough for her. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MPF24 Posted February 28, 2013 Report Share Posted February 28, 2013 The changes you point out were made because the players who wear the jerseys liked the changes. You don't like them because you don't like the way they fit and feel on you while you're sitting in the stands. You're entitled to your opinion, but your disappointment is pointed at the functional changes made to make this a better hockey jersey, not to make you look better in row whatever. Ok, so how many people who buy the 2.0s for $300 of their own money are in the NHL? I outright acknowledged the practicality behind the changes in my posts. It doesn't change the fact that the 2.0 is a retail product that they charge a ton of money for. The material change I could live with if the fit made sense, but considering nobody who buys a 2.0 is going to go through their hockey bag and break out their shoulder pads to put under their jersey on the way to the game, I'm entitled to say I don't care for the fit. I also don't really care for his justifying my opinions to somebody who just wants to be condescending, so I'll refrain from engaging you in this any further. My apologies for not having the same shaped body or opinion as you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gr8erade Posted February 28, 2013 Report Share Posted February 28, 2013 Ok, so how many people who buy the 2.0s for $300 of their own money are in the NHL? I outright acknowledged the practicality behind the changes in my posts. It doesn't change the fact that the 2.0 is a retail product that they charge a ton of money for. The material change I could live with if the fit made sense, but considering nobody who buys a 2.0 is going to go through their hockey bag and break out their shoulder pads to put under their jersey on the way to the game, I'm entitled to say I don't care for the fit. I also don't really care for his justifying my opinions to somebody who just wants to be condescending, so I'll refrain from engaging you in this any further. Well, I don't know, it seemed like Reebok decided to offer the 2.0s at retail because many people wanted to be able to buy the same jersey the players wear on the ice. Reebok hadn't done that since that brief period when players wore 1.0s on the ice and the longer period that the 1.0 was sold as the authentic. I guess some people just seem to forget that the hockey jerseys are not built to be form fitting. And when they were more form fitting (as in the 1.0) the players hated them. The 2.0 fit makes total sense because it is made to fit HOCKEY PLAYERS! You can say you don't like the fit, but you're ponying up the big bucks to buy the authentic on-ice jersey, I'd expect that the on-ice jersey was going to actually fit like a hockey jersey. Which, by the way, is meant to be worn with shoulder pads. Seems like you're saying that you hate your authentic on-ice hockey jersey because it fits like -gasp- a hockey jersey. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob77ta Posted February 28, 2013 Report Share Posted February 28, 2013 Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz....Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lhg39 Posted February 28, 2013 Report Share Posted February 28, 2013 Well, I don't know, it seemed like Reebok decided to offer the 2.0s at retail because many people wanted to be able to buy the same jersey the players wear on the ice. Reebok hadn't done that since that brief period when players wore 1.0s on the ice and the longer period that the 1.0 was sold as the authentic. I guess some people just seem to forget that the hockey jerseys are not built to be form fitting. And when they were more form fitting (as in the 1.0) the players hated them. The 2.0 fit makes total sense because it is made to fit HOCKEY PLAYERS! You can say you don't like the fit, but you're ponying up the big bucks to buy the authentic on-ice jersey, I'd expect that the on-ice jersey was going to actually fit like a hockey jersey. Which, by the way, is meant to be worn with shoulder pads. Seems like you're saying that you hate your authentic on-ice hockey jersey because it fits like -gasp- a hockey jersey. I have to agree with MPF24 that your criticism is misplaced. He is saying that he does not like the 2.0 as a retail product. Is he not allowed to have his opinion? He spent close to $400 and what he got was not what he expected. He is not criticizing the use of the 2.0 by players, and prior to the 2.0, most authentic hockey jerseys did fit better as a retail product. No need to get all over him for expressing his opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MPF24 Posted February 28, 2013 Report Share Posted February 28, 2013 So the 1.0 and the jerseys Reebok made before the Edge weren't worn with shoulder pads? A looser jersey is fine. The 2.0 is still tight around the midsection, but in order to accommodate for shoulder pads the armpit/shoulder region has a lot of extra material, which, when you're not wearing shoulder pads, becomes kind of like wings. I don't know how else to describe it other than to say you kind of have a bag of jersey under your arms. Again, you're being extremely condescending and not telling me anything that I don't know; just being a smart alec. I understand everyone wanted the jerseys that are worn on the ice, but knowing that the retail 2.0s were going to be worn by fans and not NHL players, Reebok could have made everything identical to the on ice jersey in terms of materials and construction but made the single alteration of acknowledging that we wouldn't be wearing shoulder pads with it. Just for example. And again, the 1.0 was worn with shoulder pads. I loved the 1.0. Apparently I'm just not allowed to have an opinion without being told it's wrong by you. Is this because I'm a Rangers fan and you're, seemingly, a B's fan? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NYIJM29 Posted February 28, 2013 Report Share Posted February 28, 2013 *Loud noises* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebiggoalie Posted February 28, 2013 Report Share Posted February 28, 2013 Can we have another 2.0 thread? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gr8erade Posted February 28, 2013 Report Share Posted February 28, 2013 I have to agree with MPF24 that your criticism is misplaced. He is saying that he does not like the 2.0 as a retail product. Is he not allowed to have his opinion? He spent close to $400 and what he got was not what he expected. He is not criticizing the use of the 2.0 by players, and prior to the 2.0, most authentic hockey jerseys did fit better as a retail product. No need to get all over him for expressing his opinion. I'm sure Reebok will now be scratching their heads in confusion now that they're finally offering the on-ice jersey at retail after a couple of years of criticism only to find that some people don't really want the expensive, on-ice jersey to fit like a hockey jersey. He's allowed to have his opinion and be disappointed by being surprised that a on-ice jersey fits like it was made to wear on the ice. Point WELL taken. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
00xtremeninja Posted February 28, 2013 Report Share Posted February 28, 2013 lulz are bring brought in by the truckfull Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MPF24 Posted February 28, 2013 Report Share Posted February 28, 2013 I'm sure Reebok will now be scratching their heads in confusion now that they're finally offering the on-ice jersey at retail after a couple of years of criticism only to find that some people don't really want the expensive, on-ice jersey to fit like a hockey jersey. He's allowed to have his opinion and be disappointed by being surprised that a on-ice jersey fits like it was made to wear on the ice. Point WELL taken. How about the fact that the on ice jersey fits extremely differently from the previous on ice jersey? That cost the same amount and was made by the same company? That's not allowed to be surprising? I'm sorry I'm such a dunce in your view. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob77ta Posted February 28, 2013 Report Share Posted February 28, 2013 Tastes great......Less filling...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrZero29 Posted February 28, 2013 Report Share Posted February 28, 2013 After reading the last few posts, I'm seriously considering taking the plunge on a $130 Indo-EDGE on Amazon over a $300 2.0. I have yet to see one of the new Canadian-made 2.0s in person. Is it vastly different (as in $170 better)? A subjective question, I know... but thought I'd get some opinions. Thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gr8erade Posted February 28, 2013 Report Share Posted February 28, 2013 So the 1.0 and the jerseys Reebok made before the Edge weren't worn with shoulder pads? A looser jersey is fine. The 2.0 is still tight around the midsection, but in order to accommodate for shoulder pads the armpit/shoulder region has a lot of extra material, which, when you're not wearing shoulder pads, becomes kind of like wings. I don't know how else to describe it other than to say you kind of have a bag of jersey under your arms. Again, you're being extremely condescending and not telling me anything that I don't know; just being a smart alec. I understand everyone wanted the jerseys that are worn on the ice, but knowing that the retail 2.0s were going to be worn by fans and not NHL players, Reebok could have made everything identical to the on ice jersey in terms of materials and construction but made the single alteration of acknowledging that we wouldn't be wearing shoulder pads with it. Just for example. And again, the 1.0 was worn with shoulder pads. I loved the 1.0. Apparently I'm just not allowed to have an opinion without being told it's wrong by you. Is this because I'm a Rangers fan and you're, seemingly, a B's fan? What you're saying, is that you don't actually want what the players wear on the ice. Hence the fashion jersey comment. And yes, that was a bit of a snipe, however, its accurate. You are disappointed that the retail on-ice authentic jersey Reebok now offers actually fits the same as the pro jersey. I get that. But don't lose sight of the fact that Reebok was criticized for years (and by many on this site) for not offering the actual jersey they wear on the ice at retail. Now they do. And you're disappointed that it fits like a real hockey jersey. Allow me to find your criticism a bit ironic. Yes, the 1.0 was better for you fit wise. I got that too. And to answer your other question, the 1.0 was very short lived by the majority of the players because they hated it for the very same reasons that you like it. It is too form fitting and tight in the areas that you (as a fan in the stands) seem to like it. The 2.0 has been in use for years in the NHL and Reebok continued to sell the 1.0 and then the Indo-edge as the authentics because for them, they didn't really care whether they actually offered the same jersey as the players were wearing on the ice. Most people didn't care or know the difference. Collectors and guys who were serious about getting the exact same jerseys (the 2.0s) had a much tougher time getting them if they wanted to. Now Reebok is offering the 2.0 at retail. And yeah, its a fuller cut. And yeah, you like the slimmer fit. I got that too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MPF24 Posted February 28, 2013 Report Share Posted February 28, 2013 The indo was very light and cheap feeling. The 2.0 is clearly a better quality product. In my view, it's not worth more than double the price, but it is certainly a higher quality article. My issues really stem from expecting something similar to the 1.0, simply with a few changes, and getting something that, if I had to say "is it closer to matching the 1.0 or the Indo version of the Edge?" I would say more resembles the Indo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MPF24 Posted February 28, 2013 Report Share Posted February 28, 2013 What you're saying, is that you don't actually want what the players wear on the ice. Hence the fashion jersey comment. And yes, that was a bit of a snipe, however, its accurate. You are disappointed that the retail on-ice authentic jersey Reebok now offers actually fits the same as the pro jersey. I get that. But don't lose sight of the fact that Reebok was criticized for years (and by many on this site) for not offering the actual jersey they wear on the ice at retail. Now they do. And you're disappointed that it fits like a real hockey jersey. Allow me to find your criticism a bit ironic. Yes, the 1.0 was better for you fit wise. I got that too. So did the 1.0, when the players wore it, and I bought it, not fit like a "real hockey jersey"? Or is your horse just really high off the ground so that it takes a lot of effort for you to come off it? What I'm saying is that I'm disappointed that the jersey CHANGED so much from the 1.0 (that was, you know, worn on the ice) to the 2.0. If I had KNOWN how much it had changed, then NO, I wouldn't have wanted what is CURRENTLY worn on the ice; I would have preferred to seek out a 1.0 and purchased what was PREVIOUSLY worn on the ice. Which apparently, was not a "real hockey jersey". Also, my criticism isn't the least bit ironic because I wasn't the one complaining about what Reebok offered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.