Are the suede chelseas from represent clo shit tier? I think

>>11753805
looks like h&m shoes to me

>>11753818
you might be right
but now that you mentioned
would u like to link me a 300$ pair of boots that actually looks like a 300$ pair

File: looks expensive.png (217KB, 1083x758px)

217KB, 1083x758px

>>11753837
here ya go

>>11754147
ill give you props for that, cant wait for a pair on 50% tho with my size being kinda common
guess ill just buy something idk

>>11754147
nice gremlin boots

File: Vayq2xQ.jpg (2MB, 4752x3168px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4752x3168px

>>11753805
represent boot on the right

looks like shit imo

>>11754499
it looks way too round

Wc2 quality Chelsea's?

>>11756265
yea same, bumping for this. Allen Edmonds has some nice ones I saw, they're called Liverpool

>>11753805
Represent is a fucking shit brand, spend the extra money and get a pair of common projects.

>>11753805
ALL chelseas are shit tier. They're a meme

R.M. Williams are top tier chelsea boots.

yeah i guess im gonna pass on the drop today... was also considering the story et fall chelseas when they start making new ones again. are the export fees huge to europe?

>>11756343
No, they're really not.
They're mid tier chelseas at their mid tier price of like $400 AUD (MTO, not retail).
Higher tier chelseas from carmina, C&J, edward greene are better shoes and much more expensive. RMs are very great for their price, but they seem to be getting more and more expensive each year after LVMH takeover.

>>11756265
Cole Haan has some decent looking ones for a lower price, $100-$300, but I suspect there are higher quality options also available around the $300s

>>11753805
>suede chelseas
please don't

Loake, Meermin