Newbie question that I keep seeing everywhere: are reps made in the same factory as the retail pairs? Half the listings and comments say “same factory, same materials, just no logo licence”. Is there anything behind that, or is it a story?
Related threads: the thread on first time reading sneaker QC photos, Batch names explained, QC photos: how they started and how they changed.
Short answer: it’s a claim, not evidence. And it’s a very convenient claim for whoever is making it. If a pair is “from the same factory”, any question about quality is answered before you ask it. That alone should make you careful.
There’s a real history behind why the story sounds believable, though. Most big brands don’t own their factories; they contract production out. A lot of that production has historically been concentrated in a few regions, Putian in Fujian being the famous one for sneakers. So “the city that makes the real ones also makes the copies” is true at the level of a region. It doesn’t follow that the same contracted factory makes both.
And the reporting points the other way. A long magazine feature on a Putian counterfeiter, quoted later in a Hypebeast piece, described the method: get a retail pair, take it apart, study the stitching and moulds, and reproduce it in a separate workshop. That’s reverse engineering, not a leftover run from a brand’s line.
OK, but what about “UA” and “B-grade”? People use those like they mean the same thing.
They don’t. B-grade (or a factory second) is a genuine pair with a small cosmetic flaw, released with the brand’s consent, usually through outlets. UA, “unauthorised authentic”, is a label used for copies with the story attached that they came from the brand’s own factory. A sneaker guide that looked into it found no independent evidence for that story, and pointed out that the term is marketing, not a grade.
One more point from a craft perspective: even if two pairs are made in the same region from similar materials, control is what decides. Lasts, patterns, adhesives and final inspection are specified for the original. A copy lacks exactly those specifications, which is why shape and workmanship vary from batch to batch.
And there’s the “marketing story” side too. A professor interviewed about “dupe” culture said that yes, some manufacturers work for several clients, but that the phrase “same factory” has become a slogan in its own right, with viral videos that are partly true, partly unverifiable and partly pure advertising. Scepticism is a must.
So why does it keep coming back if there’s nothing solid behind it?
Because it’s simple, flattering and impossible to check from a listing. Here’s the summary I’d give any newcomer:
Where the myth comes from
What the terms mean
| Term | What it is |
|---|---|
| B-grade / factory second | genuine pair with a flaw, released with the brand’s consent |
| UA (“unauthorised authentic”) | a label for copies, with an origin story nobody has shown evidence for |
| Batch names (LJR, GX, PK…) | names for copy productions, see batch names explained |
Why quality is not proof of origin
What to do instead
When you post a pair for QC, include the standard angles (side profile, toe box, heel, sole) so it’s judged on what the photos show, not on its claimed origin.
Really clear, thanks. “Region isn’t factory” is the line I needed. Marking it solved.
And if any term in this thread is new, the forum glossary in the Welcome & Rules section covers it.