Converse Chuck Taylor All Star II

>>11124642
I'd say cop were it not for the fact converse shoes don't last longer than a year anymore.

look nicer. more comfortable.

>>11124653
Whaaat? Surely that must be the case of some faulty individual shoes. I bought mine four years ago and they seem fine.

(Though I don't expect the quality from over 15 years, where those are still wearable although all holey)

>>11124642
They look better than the old ones but I still prefer the jack purcell ones

File: converse-all-star-chuck-taylor-ii-bordeaux-and-thunder-00.jpg (991KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

991KB, 1200x800px

The general consensus is that these are better.

Now for the real question - high or low tops?

>>11124653
>not having a rotation of 10 shoes
poor people disgust me

>>11124703
>10 pairs
> not poor ;)

just copped a pair of white lows

there's more padding/support can see these being super comfy once broken in

So... These or the 70s? I would get the high top parcel colored

>>11124642
Trust me, nobody is going to buy them off you for more than you paid. Shoes are almost always a terrible thing to invest capitol in. It's must safer to invest in stocks or commodities instead.

>>11124653
i have literally had one pair for almost 12 years

>>11125058
Well Jesus that's slick, but I can assure you use non-godly beings cannot get a pair of Chuck "made by children in China" Taylors to last longer than a year.

The whole point of the shoe is its minimalism. It's just an inch of rubber under your foot with canvas to keep it there. Closer to being barefoot than most other socially acceptable / fa options.

I haven't tried the new ones but they seem to go against that.

Def cop for the comfort alone. I got the parchment high tops and they are some of my best shoes.

I'm not a huge fan of them, actually. They have a rigidity and a sort of plastic look that makes them way less appealing in person.

I do like that they got rid of the contrast stiching though.

>>11125082
>converse
>minimal
lmao, i hope youre joking

>>11124642
They look the fucking exact same as the OG

>>11124653
Buy the Japanese ones.
They're better than the made in China or Indonesia ones

>>11124684
High tops when wearing jeans or dresses.
Low tops when wearing shorts or skirts.

>>11125095
lmao youre an idiot

>>11125734
literally no

>>11125756
>large branding on both the sides and back of the shoe
>contrast stitching
>contrast stripes running around the sole
>useless eyelets on the side of the shoe
>obtrusive patterns on the toe guard
yeah nice minimalist sneakers you dropkick

They don't kill your feet as much, I hear. That's good?

File: 122092.jpg (596KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

596KB, 960x960px

>>11124642
Just copped pic related a few days ago. Comfy but honestly they're not hugely different from the old ones.

If you liked the old ones then I am sure you would like these, if you didn't like the old ones then look elsewhere senpai

>>11126230
these are GOAT converse

>>11126230
Are these white? Or I'm colorblind and that's another different color, beige-like?

>>11126230
How the logo is all-whitened?

>>11126550
eggshell white canvas, true white soles/toecap

>>11126550
they're parchment
a light cream color

>>11126604
>>11126678

shame, they seem to be unavailable around here. besides what's the inspo for high tops white sneakers? aren't white sneakers solely associated with summer light outfits and high tops are kind of the opposite?

File: image.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

CDG desu, its the only answer

>>11126728
this version sucks ass though

>>11125798
>literally any of those things
this is a thread about the chuck 2s you stupid fucking idiot.
>useless eyelets on the side
guess you just walk around with silica packets in your socks.

i've been wearing m9160 for over a decade now and my only complain was squeaky padding after walking down the mile and canvas wearing out on on the inside corners. im on the market for a new pair and that might just be the choice i'm gonna go with

>>11126728
horrible
you fell for the worst meme. I hope you're <16 because this shit is cringy af.

Might look okay on girls though

>>11127651
>Might look okay on girls though

I get sore ankles after like twenty minutes in all star 1s, so anything else is an improvement

>>11125089
got some pics/fits to post ? thanks

Difference between Chuck 2 and cons CTAS?

>>11124642
They simultaneously fixed and ruined a key part of the old ones: the soles.

The thin, kinda shitty padding in the old ones made them awesome deadlifting shoes and kinda uncomfortable everyday shoes. The reverse now applies, I imagine, though I don't own a pair.

>>11124642
Converse are like £15-£25 on amazon uk at the minute.

>>11124642
Got some during the holidays.
They're a big improvement. Way more comfortable and higher quality.

>>11124684
High-top for male
low-top for female

>>11128079
link

>>11129864
isn't that reversed? i always associated high tops with femals

>>11129912
>>11129864
nah either is fine for both genders.

>>11129944
>>11129912
low top chucks are definitely for girls

File: ht_chuck_taylor_all_star_II_wg_150723_4x3_992.jpg (75KB, 992x744px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 992x744px

Yes, I was thinking about these too. Sadly only four versions are available around here. And I'm unsure which one to choose.

Black is a classic choice, had that one previously, they all around good but my size is currently out of stock.

Whites are summer only right? And also hard as fuck to clean which is a minus there, which is a shame cause they're sexy as fuck.

What about blue and red? Blue sneakers feel weird for me, like they would clash with too many pants. And red? I'm worried they're too edgy or teenish, I can't imagine any adults wearing them - or maybe i'm wrong.

>>11126728
This is worse than normal converse. The reason the cdg versions are better is because of their cleaner look. These ones have contrast stitching, the massive converse logo, and the heart to fuck it up more. Why didn't you get the cream ones that aren't shit? Also your cuffs are fucked up.

>>11124913
by invest he means buy them and wear them, not resell them you retard

>>11124913
lol dude
>>11130251
this

Eggshell/cream or true white Chuck IIs? I imagine true white would go better with monochrome fits but /fa/ seems to love the eggshell ones and I'd love to see some reasoning for that.

>>11129960
buy the parchment ones online, they are GOAT.

File: 151222CS_1024x1024.jpg (57KB, 830x523px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 830x523px

>>11130758
>>11129960
G O A T
O
A
T O A G

>>11131498
Why is it GOAT? Please /fa/, I just want to know why.

File: tank-shorts-high-top-sneakers-tote-bag-hat-sunglasses-original-11361.jpg (92KB, 727x1000px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 727x1000px

>>11129864
>>11129955

nope.

highs look autistic and tryhard on men, if you use them be aware everyone is laughing behind your back.

>>11132235
High tops are fine for men. Low tops are more like a chill shoe that you put on when you go to the beach or on a hot summer day. Goes good with shorts.

>>11124642

The new Nike insole is great. In all other things you won't notice much of a difference.

>>11124642
I'd definitely cop if not for the fucking star logo. I'd love it if they got rid of it and just kept the heel stamp.

>>11132235
They just look bad with shorts

>>11133074
they are worse for shorts but not bad with shorts. its not like its really going to grab someones attention or ruin an otherwise good fit. if you have two of the same shoe then definitely wear the lows but if the highs go better than its fine.

>>11133071

Just cut it off, it's stitched on now versus the old iron on.

I need some white canvas shoes. Which one, CT II or jack purcell instead ?

>>11133117
Guys i need guidance

ive never worn either but id go jack purcell.

File: aid163470-728px-Wear-Your-Converse-Step-2Bullet2-Version-2.jpg (90KB, 728x529px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 728x529px

>>11133074
they look bad with shorts and ok with pants.

lows look good with shorts and good with pants.

there's no reason to prefer highs over lows imo

>>11132224
just look at 'em

>>11124679
The shoe of short highschool girls everywhere

>>11134283
Jack purcell? where exactly ?

Are the 70s chucks significantly better than regular cheap chucks?

>>11133117
Ct 2

>>11135271
Anyone?

>>11124642
Chuck Taylors of all kinds are ugly as shit.

>>11125058
>>11130251
I don't think OP knows what the meaning of the word "invest" is then. Extremely poor choice of word.

>>11135271
>>11135965
They are a noticeable upgrade. The rubber is far better quality an less prone to tearing like on regular chucks, as is the canvas. They're also a hell of a lot more comfortable to wear, at least for my feet, thanks to an actual insole. If you want black chucks and don't mind paying extra for the 70s, get them

>>11131498
what are those exactly ?

>>11137804
Parchment All Star II

File: [email protected] (135KB, 1523x868px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 1523x868px

which ones?

>>11137784
Thanks senpai

>>11138160
Left

>>11138288
Can you give some insight to why /fa/ thinks the parchment colored ones are GOAT?

The real question is: what color should chuck 2s be copped in? I'm hovering between black, bordeaux, and maybe grey.

>>11138308
I don't know why everyone else thinks so, but they look good imo

>>11129864
low top cons are OG...so easy to take on and off.

>>11138584
Wtf is og

>>11138596
ORIGINAL GANGSTA

what the difference, they look the fucking same

>>11138160
either, left will be better out of the box but they'll both look as good after they get dirty

>>11138849
cheers senpai

File: 152629C_standard.jpg (221KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

221KB, 1000x1000px

I bought these Jack Purcell's a few days ago but they haven't been shipped yet. I think the color looks nice but I have no idea how it'll look it person. Did I fuck up?

>>11138886
Awful

>>11138886
Sorry m8 but these look pretty bad...

>>11139053
>>11139057
Damn. Might return them and get something else anyways.