Alright, time to settle this once and for all. Are Chucks shit-tier

Chucks II are nice, classic chucks are nope.

>>11749860
they're meh at best

They're not terrible, but they're normie-tier as fuck.

>>11749873
Chuck 2's look really fucking boring and plain.
Black/white 70's chucks are great (see OP pic)

>>11749860
they're good beaters

I don't know why anyone expects anything more from them

Something in between

File: IMG_3191.jpg (82KB, 527x784px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 527x784px

>falling for the "x is a meme" meme

>>11749908
>>11750001
>>11749873
^this

File: Converse All Star '70 High Black $85.jpg (82KB, 880x1130px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 880x1130px

most normies haven't gotten wise to the 70's around here.
Also I feel like how I would interpret them is how they're worn, if they're clearly beaters, that's cool, if it's some bitch in white ones that are fairly clean, no fucking way.

Best beater shoes ever made
Not the best shoes everror made in general tho

File: b213160203cebd82675c749f782acabb.jpg (196KB, 750x500px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 750x500px

I'd rather have the Russian knockoffs

>>11749860
Unless you're really skinny and tall they're pretty bad. I used to be a big fan but i don't like them anymore. Also you'll look like a punk-ish teen

>>11749860
70s are nice

File: 16-06-2016_shoeslikepottery_01jplowsneaker_black_dw_1.jpg (18KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 400x400px

If you're going to wear a meme at least wear a good one.

they're good for retro fits and good for lifting overall a necessary piece

>>11750476
Kek funny cause manlets usually use the low tops

>>11750476
I'm built like a wannabe football player, what sneaker do you think would be best for me?

>>11750476
I'm skinny and 6'1 these sneakers fit me really well

File: 769184.jpg (46KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 640x480px

build quality wise, are the 70's > II's?

File: 1469151952556.jpg (443KB, 1379x1034px) Image search: [Google]

443KB, 1379x1034px

>>11749860
This.

>>11750652
Whatever your sisters wearing.

>>11750728
wtf I love converse now

>>11750752
fuck off and die

>>11749860
Classic chucks are good, 1970s chucks are god tier, chucks II are nope

>>11750430
fuck, wtc

>>11749860
just bought some dickies and im really thinking of coping some 1970 chucks to complete the urban bro skater look

>>11750722
yeah 70's has thicker canvas and better midsole

>>11750934
The brand translates to "dva myacha" ("two balls"), if you Google it you'll find it

>>11749860
Normy. Retro. Whatever.
All depends on how you are trying to wear it, same as anything. Theyre meant to be abused. If its a day you have an absurd amount of walking to do, or are going in wet/dirty unpredictable terrain. Lace up the Cons if only to not soil your more expensive footwear unnecessarily.
Like, if some wannabe punker was wearing edgy mismatched colour boot-types ones, or suburban housewife bitch in cropped mom jeans is wearing pristine white ones. Yeah its a bad fit.
I used to wear them. Not exactly as daily wear. Hell no. Just to save my better footwear if I was camping, doing any long periods of driving around. Situations more expensive footwear won't do. Something on my feet I didnt need to care about if they got scuffed, dirty, and I didn't need anything to show off.

>>11751977
I've got some 10 dollar white high tops, should I just let them get naturally dirty?

File: john-malkovich-en-mode.jpg (101KB, 720x720px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 720x720px

only weirdos that think they have good fashion discernment still wear chucks

exhibit A

File: John+Malkovich+Photo+Shoot+New+York+OVuk8zyE5Tnl.jpg (73KB, 442x594px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 442x594px

>>11752025

File: john-malkovich-46th-karlovy-vary-international-film-festival-02.jpg (163KB, 688x1000px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 688x1000px

>>11752026

>>11749860
you could put any solid shape on the side and it would be a better logo than what they came up with

>>11752003
definitely

File: Malkovich+promotes+Infernal+Comedy+rmZftSE7KJwl.jpg (101KB, 594x420px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 594x420px

>>11752030

File: 3071801_a-sup-2.jpg (56KB, 480x720px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 480x720px

>>11752037
thats all
bonus sick fit

>>11752003
You do what you like. heh
I meant as daily wear. They arent meant to be respected or babied as a big ticket item. More of a utility basic than anything else. Cest la point

>>11752041
Number of fks given: john malkovich

>>11750501
charcoal is better, still has the contrast stitching

They break within a year and rick made a better version.

They look fine but you must accept that they make you a basic bitch.

The bottom blew out last week after 8 months
I super glued the rubber bottom back onto the shoe and it's all good

>>11752041
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""sick""""""""""""""""""""""""

>not having a pair of beat to shit chucks in the current year of our lord
nothing looks better than some ripped and cuffed black jeans with some vintage looking high tops

>>11749860
Shit-tier. Low quality and overpriced. Good looking a lot of the time but not 100% of the time. Have fun in the rain

>>11749860
Only 70s are worth getting.
I have them they honestly look and feel 10x better than cheap regular chucks which I would never wear.

File: 4642.jpg (23KB, 570x377px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 570x377px

I like the all black ones.

File: 1434437586003.jpg (248KB, 531x594px) Image search: [Google]

248KB, 531x594px

Chucks are my go-to shoe. I usually wear them until they disintegrate then buy a new pair.

I just picked up a pair of Chuck II's and they are fucking FANTASTIC. They fix the design gripes I had with the normal version (the top is all black, bottom is all white, looks much more slick) and they're VERY comfortable. Like morphine for your feet, it's crazy. Plus chucks go with everything so you really can't go wrong.

They're really casual, wearing them all the time makes you look like a teenager. Kind of an essential though if you're looking for an outfit that says you dgaf.

I think maybe they're much more of a statement piece on girls than guys

>>11749860
jesus christ theyre just normal fucking beaters like any vans or other basic sneaker.
also chuck 2s are poor people rick owens and look fucking retarded

>>11754854
wtc

>>11755557
ebin

>>11750411
this 100x

chucks have an amazing ability to turn a good fit into something a kid would wear in highschool

I guarantee everyone ripping on chucks in this thread have a closet full of abominations they're convinced are SO EFFAY.

>>11755680
t. manchild with a closet full of chucks

>>11750411
my old ones are really beat up, I even intentionally beat them up and I like them

but my Chuck 2s, I keep fairly clean. i feel like the 2s look better clean. slightly worn in but still clean. whereas my old ones are beat to hell and glued back.

>>11755724
Post your new balances, cuck

Literally nothing wrong with them, ok with almost everything, not the most fashionable but it does enough

>>11755680
>tfw normies just don't understand my nike flyknit/yeezy/new balance crossovers in neon green

They look good until they're on feet, they can single handedly ruin an entire fit. Better in theory moreso than execution

>>11752025
>>11752026
>>11752030
>>11752037
>cuffing for lowtop sneakers
Actually disgusting, also this would all look considerably better if they were chuck II's hitops

>>11757313
>>cuffing
bending*

Girls and manlets can pull them off.

If you have size 11 feet or larger they look like clown shoes.