LET'S SETTLE IT

most things > converse > vans

>>12165897

"CONVERSE" ARE BETTER SHOES, AND OVERALL, BETTER THAN ANY MODEL OF "VANS" SHOES.

IF I HAD TO CHOOSE BETWEEN ONLY THOSE TWO BRANDS, I WOULD CHOOSE "CONVERSE".

Vans. Converse makes everyone look like a /fa/g.
Vans make you seem like a normal human being and not some hipster pussy

>>12165897
IT DEPENDS, I SAY, ON YOUR "OUTFIT," THAT IS, THE CLOTHING AND GARMENTS WITH WHICH ONE MIGHT COVER AND ADORN ONE'S SELF.

IT IS THE YEAR TWO THOUSAND AND SEVENTEEN; THAT IS TO SAY, YOU ARE CERTAINLY ALLOWED TO CHOOSE FOR YOURSELF WHICH SHOES TO GIRD YOUR PEDIBUS--COMMONLY KNOWN TO LESSER BEINGS AS "FEET"--AS YOU ARE SURELY AN ADULT AND THUS CAPABLE OF COGNITIVE FUNCTION AND THE MAKING OF DECISIONS,

>>12165966
I know you're trying to make fun of him but everything about this post is cringier than he is and that's really saying something

File: flabbergasted.jpg (109KB, 371x464px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 371x464px

>>12165968
>I know this isn't meant to be taken seriously
>takes it seriously

>>12165988
No, it's cringey on a level past the one you were working on

The way you made fun of him was really really cringey and tried way too hard. A bad comedy is a bad comedy, "you're not supposed to take it seriously" is no excuse.

>>12165994
Turn your trip back on, consonant boy

>>12166021
I REFUSE TO PUT MY TRIP BACK ON

>>12166021
>consonant boy
LMAO

I thought nobody else noticed it.

>>12165897
converse with cropped pants look pretty nice

eras can never look that great

I prefer Vans. I don't like the soles or toe caps that most of the Converse have.

If I could only chose from one type of shoe for the rest of my life I'd choose vans

>>12166329
kys

Both are safe, uninspired bullshit for poor shoelets.

>>12166195
its true that new chuck daniels look pretty lame

>>12165962
converse looks like you don't belong to any 'scene'. like you don't have anything you feel the need to be 'advertised'.

vans looks like you 'attempted'.

>>12165897
Vans are more fashionable. I've been a die-hard converse fan my entire life until i recently became fashion-conscious, and realized that converses are way too high-profile, youthful and elongated which makes them akin to clown shoes. while vans are subtle and can go with literally anything. I wear vans to work in an office and i look great, i wore converses a few times and looked ridiculous. and i'm only 21.

>>12166195
Pretty much only black converses bitch

>>12165897
bot are shit and meant for poor people to buy

>>12165897
Vans

They're both uncomfortable

Vans are too normie.

>>12165897
Vans look good in some colorways particularly collabs
Converses are mostly shit and way too busy.

>>12165897
Vans, chucks are extremelly played out and they're so widespread that it seems there's no way to make them work.
Some vans are still alright.
I do agree Converses are better qualitty.

i had converse and the rings for the shoelaces started falling off and and the bottom ripped off after like 2 months piece of shit shoe and they also make you look like a clown because they are so long. they also look ugly if they are new. vans look somewhat okay if they are new, not as cringy

>>12167977
i agree thats why i only wear m_moria shoes and boots these days - ive never seen anybody else wearing them and that i believe is the only way to make something work

>>12167281
Dude and converse aren't?
Literally everybody and his mom has some pair of chucks, if not 2 or 3

>>12165897
Shoes Like Pottery

>>12169313
Settled

>>12165897
Vans personally, but I think Chucks can be cute on girls.

File: vans on the wall.jpg (120KB, 550x827px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 550x827px

vans

>>12165897
converse are autism tier

>>12165897
jesus fuck

At least make it an old skools vs 1970 lows thread next time.

I like the low profile looks but is there something comfier?

I like vans.
Converse just look realllly fucking goofy to me.

>>12165897
pf flyers.

Vans for guys, they look sleek and low profile. Look good with most pants/jeans/trousers without working around anything unlike Converses which kind of need to be styled (high tops look like shit with most pants and looks juvenile with all shorts).
The only con with vans is that they look considerably worse beat up rather than new unlike converse which is the opposite, if you're into that.

If you're a girl converses are much much better and always look cute. If you're a guy converses make you look like some wannabe try hard or a complete slob.

>>12166565
>vans are more fashionable
i associate vans with shitty teenagers whereas i dont associate chucks with anything; theyre not exciting but theyre a good unassuming while pleasant-looking sneaker

>vans are better than chucks for an office
if youre wearing either to an office kys

>>12166533
"chuck daniels"
holy hell m8

File: Royale-Suede-Matisse-Product-03.jpg (68KB, 700x470px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 700x470px

Did someone say, "both suck and are for 12 year olds?"

Reminder that Shoes Like Pottery are superior Chucks
Reminder that Doek shoes are superior Vans

>>12172512
>implying people buy chucks or vans for their quality

>>12172494
you really love these shoes huh