What do you guys think of shoes like pottery? How is the quality?

0/10
they are nothing like pottery

>>11067174
godawful
not worth it
just don't
ew

in all seriousness if they cost 40 or 50 dollars then sure, but they're way too pricey

>>11067174
>disgusting blue button
>overpriced
>Chucks for contrarians

The silhouette is great, super slim and articulate, but I wouldn't mess with it unless you've got money to burn. They're just nicer chucks.

I work with someone who's been putting serious wear on their indigo lows thigh and they look pretty great, I just have trouble wanting to spend almost $200 on them.

>>11067226
>in all seriousness if they cost 40 or 50 dollars then sure, but they're way too pricey
This is my thought on the topic. Way too pricey for what are basically Japanese Chuck Taylors. The delta between those and the real deal is so small as to be negligible.

>>11067174
90% sure every post about these on /fa/ is from a paid shill

I've never seen anyone here that actually owned a pair

File: IMG_3523.jpg (1MB, 2448x2448px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2448x2448px

>>11067174
I wear these at least twice a week, they're hella comfy and have held up really well
I paid like $135 AU for them but I don't really care since they're the only casual low shoe I own (other than a pair of AF1s that I rarely wear)

>>11067174
is there any reason not to get the chuck 2s in the cream colorway? looks almost exactly the same and might be a better choice depending on quality vs price

Do they size the same as Chucks? Thinking of getting a pair but there's no half sizes.

hey op, i actually have the same shoes as in your pic related. They run a bit big, the silhouette is sweet, and the construction is really damn good. great stitching everywhere without being too cluttered, the sole is attached very firmly and cleanly (no glue marks or weird lines) If youre strapped for cash, id just go with chucks however, its hard to justify 160 for nice chucks

I like the blue sole look. How horrible would I look with Parchment Chuck 2's that have a painted sole?

>>11067245
"disgusting" seems like an odd reaction to a tiny blue logo

Had the logo and sole not been a weird blue color, I might consider them, but those details just kill the aesthetic.

If you're really set on going with a more expensive iteration of chucks check out the Hill Side.

>>11067644
>those details just kill the aesthetic

A blue sole fits right in line with a Japanese streetwear aesthetic so I'm not sure what you mean

>>11067406
>The delta between those and the real deal

i'm an engineer and even that was embarrassing to read

I'm gonna cop em. Only thing holding me back is not knowing sizing.
>>11067406
Their appeal is meant to be that they're chucks that will actually last worth a damn, with a combination cemented/stitched construction like CPs and other fashion sneakers to make them last longer.

>>11067489

Basically this.
The only thing I don't like about it is the little blue logo, kinda takes away from the minimalism. If you got the money to blow, then go for it. Def one of my favorite pair of beaters.

>>11067924
I used to dislike the stamp and the blue sole but I think they're cool trademarks now

>>11067924
>>11067489
Any pics?

File: 12842404_10207195419337228_403613681_o.jpg (477KB, 1332x1776px) Image search: [Google]

477KB, 1332x1776px

>>11068033
this is the only one I have, kinda shit angle but hope you get an idea

>>11068033
>>11068045
they're way comfier than converse imo. Walked across SF in the rain in them and feet still felt pretty good.

>>11068087
>in the rain
did they not get wrecked?

>>11068045
These look like canvas socks

>>11067174
comfy as fuck, I over destroyed them for a whole year wearing them like 4 or 5 times a week and as my only shoes on a Euo trip... I still wear them with holes as beaters

>>11068653
i wore mine all throughout the new england snow storm last year and they're still good

>>11067658
yeah i actually really like the color

>>11068653
Nah, the canvas is pretty sturdy. Shoes felt dry after a couple of minutes. Wear them 4-5 days a week. Still no sign of wear and tear.

>>11067174
comfy af, go to goodweaver.jp they probably have the best price for anywhere

vulcanized gimmick might be a meme but it's worth it

>>11068834
Oh wow, that is a lot better than everywhere else, even with shipping. Thanks

>>11067518
looks like you got gum on your shoe

>>11067174
please post inspo for op's pic related

>>11067174
Does anyone know how these feel vs chucks? I have a pair of chucks already, but these look pretty nice to me.

>>11070596
Nvm read the rest of the thread.

Used a pair for a year straight nearly every day and they're still good to go, have four pairs now, will buy more if needed.

>>11067475
>>11067489
>>11067510

OP here, I copped the chuck 2's in cream. They're p nice. they're comfy and probably a better shoe for the money.

Chuck II's are way better IMO. No ugly blue stamp, no ugly midsole pattern, pretty comfortable (especially compared to normal chucks), and they're like 70 bucks. I really don't understand the obsession with shoes like pottery.

>>11070905
have you actually handled both shoes in person

>>11067174
used to own a pair. they're comfy, but not worth the price.

I found a really cheap pair of CPs I was looking at picking up but I'm on the fence now. Should I just cop some Chuck IIs?

>>11071339
i like CPs better but you do you