[sskim3]

Looking at sskim3's picture, two things come to mind.

One, to my eye, that is one Trad - in the sense of American Traditional clothing - sneaker: A hundred plus year pedigree, was one of the few go-to sneakers for Americans for decades and is still successful today. A classic piece of American Trad clothing.

Second, if you weren't raised with them - as I assume most of our non-American friends on this forum weren't - they would make no sense at all to you. And, as with almost all clothing, some raised with them will dislike them (I don't get the bit loafer, but I know it is Trad - that's my personal Trad item that I dislike).

I had a pair back in elementary school. Didn't see the appeal in high school and middle school and strictly wore basketball shoes. It was the cool thing to do back then. And I never considered Converse basketball shoes, the ankle support is horrendous. In college, I bought a brown pair and a black pair. After 10+ years, they are still holding up fine (granted i do not wear them that often anymore).

 

[Fading Fast]

I had a pair back in elementary school. Didn't see the appeal in high school and middle school and strictly wore basketball shoes. It was the cool thing to do back then. And I never considered Converse basketball shoes, the ankle support is horrendous. In college, I bought a brown pair and a black pair. After 10+ years, they are still holding up fine (granted i do not wear them that often anymore).

The standard off-white low rise, because that's what I had as a kid (when the Army Navy store had them on sale), is "the" classic one in my opinion - but that's based on nothing other than my personal experience. I have a couple of pairs that are at least as old as yours, but like you, that's also do to limited wear.

When I do throw them on with jeans or beat-up chinos, it feels very college in the '50s to me.

And yes, the ankle "support" is a joke. As mentioned, I do believe these are American Trad by definition, but if you didn't grow up with them, I can't see embracing them as an adult.

 

[meanoldmanning]

It saddens me that almost nobody has had the minimal diligence to actually compare the new and old shoes. There is some true laziness evident.
I'm also curious to the age of people that associate this shoe with athletics, as they were a nostalgic revival item at least thirty years ago.
Seriously, nobody knows anything about the ankle logo? The new one appears sewn on, whereas the old was some sort of applied vinyl or rubber. This seems like more labor for a clunkier result.

I don't really see enough of a difference to really care. Yeah the logo has changed some, but not to the point where it matters to me. I'd probably opt for the oxfords anyway. Not likely to wear a pair any time soon, but I did like using them, or my old airwalk skateboard shoes for riding a bicycle that has flat pedal, like to a coffee shop, or the local market.

 

[Shaver]

Oddly enough FF I wore these boots as a boy, a touch of Americana has ever appealed to me.

 

[Fading Fast]

Oddly enough FF I wore these boots as a boy, a touch of Americana has ever appealed to me.

And I have always had a touch of the Anglophile in me.

 

[FLMike]

Chucks are one of those iconic brands/items that are experiencing a renaissance of sorts, as a result of being embraced en masse by the trend-chasers. Same thing that happened with Bean Boots the last couple of years. As much as I hate to admit it, Bikenstocks are poised to be next. The fashion set is all over the Birks right now (who knew Dr L would be back in fashion after all these years of wearing those fugly things!).

In the spirit of full disclosure, I wore a pair of Birks through college some 20 years ago, and I had a regrettable skateboarding phase as a teenager, during which I wore a pair of red high-top Chucks with various punk rock symbols drawn on them.

Oh, and anyone who says Chucks are only suitable for the basketball court either aren't being intellectually honest or they are not very athletic. As has been mentioned, Chucks haven't been used for actually playing basketball in at least 40 years.

 

[Tiger]

Oh, and anyone who says Chucks are only suitable for the basketball court either aren't being intellectually honest or they are not very athletic. As has been mentioned, Chucks haven't been used for a actually playing basketball in at least 40 years.

Those are the only options in the universe, huh?

Chuck Taylors were originally introduced as a basketball shoe, and that's precisely what they look like to me. The better-than-Chuck choices of footwear to wear with non-athletic attire are astounding. That was my point - no "intellectual dishonesty" (over a damn sneaker?!).

As far as athleticism, I'm way past the sports-playing stage of my life, but I was a very good baseball and football player in my time. Maybe not quite the Olympian you presumably are, but still pretty good...

 

[ouinon]

Chuck Taylors were originally introduced as a basketball shoe, and that's precisely what they look like to me.

Saying these still look like basketball sneakers is like saying this still looks like a goalie mask. That is what they used to be, but they are not anymore. Now that goalie mask looks like a Halloween costume.

And now those off-white sneakers look like preppy casual wear. I personally associate black or coloured ones with punks/skaters, and the new ones look like what they are: modern fashion shoes. The matching stitching does make a noticeable difference. They're not really my style.

 

[Tiger]

Saying these still look like basketball sneakers is like saying this still looks like a goalie mask. That is what they used to be, but they are not anymore. Now that goalie mask looks like a Halloween costume.

And now those off-white sneakers look like preppy casual wear. I personally associate black or coloured ones with punks/skaters, and the new ones look like what they are: modern fashion shoes. The matching stitching does make a noticeable difference. They're not really my style.

Calling a sneaker a "modern fashion shoe" doesn't change the fact that it is a sneaker. Again, there's a plethora of "fashion" items that look ridiculous, regardless of what one calls them. Skinny jeans, Affliction t-shirts, sweatpants, pajama pants, and sports team attire have all become "fashion" items too, and they also look ridiculous on everyone I've seen wear them (other than perhaps teenagers).

Perhaps you can post some pictures of people wearing these "fashion" items, so that we can see just how wonderful they look and how appropriate that clothing is for so many social settings (excluding for lounging around the house, which seems to me to be the only time such attire is even remotely congruent!).

 

[meanoldmanning]

 

[meanoldmanning]

 

[Tiger]

Nothing screams "modern fashion shoe" like photos that are about a half century old!

I did a search on "people wearing Chuck Taylors" and the results were predictably appalling. The only people who looked fine were the kids and young girls; the men (who presumably this forum caters to) couldn't look more foolish. If I get a chance later, I'll post some of those modern photos.

 

[FLMike]

My pre-teen daughter and my wife both have a pair of the low white ones. They wear them casually, usually with shorts and no socks, and I think they look cute on them. I don't like them on men. Same goes for most fashion....it can look good on women but silly on men. My opinion, of course.

 

[Tiger]

My pre-teen daughter and my wife both have a pair of the low white ones. They wear them casually, usually with shorts and no socks, and I think they look cute on them. I don't like them on men. Same goes for most fashion....it can look good on women but silly on men. My opinion, of course.

We agree completely on this!

 

[FLMike]

Cool looking H&R 939.

 

[ouinon]

Calling a sneaker a "modern fashion shoe" doesn't change the fact that it is a sneaker. Again, there's a plethora of "fashion" items that look ridiculous, regardless of what one calls them. Skinny jeans, Affliction t-shirts, sweatpants, pajama pants, and sports team attire have all become "fashion" items too, and they also look ridiculous on everyone I've seen wear them (other than perhaps teenagers).

Perhaps you can post some pictures of people wearing these "fashion" items, so that we can see just how wonderful they look and how appropriate that clothing is for so many social settings (excluding for lounging around the house, which seems to me to be the only time such attire is even remotely congruent!).

I said the shoes in the All Star II redesign, the "premium" models created in 2015, look like modern fashion shoes. I also said they're not my style, but I disagree that every Converse shoe looks ridiculous or appalling. If you want to see examples of people wearing the original sneakers paired with classic outfits off the b-ball court:

Maybe not up to the particular requirements of what constitutes a good look on Ask Andy, and maybe people here would choose a different shoe to wear in these settings. But these still are very basic classic casual sneakers and I don't see what all the fuss is about.

 

[Tiger]

Hmmm...the fuss was made by people claiming that Chuck Taylors were something other than what they always have been - a "basic classic casual sneaker" according to you, and precisely my point as well, i.e., they look best in that context, not as a "modern fashion item."

Your first photo shows a guy wearing deck shoe on a deck. The third is a 1980s-ish jeans/flannel shirt/sneaker guy walking his dog. Both far more utilitarian than "fashion." The person in the middle photo would look far better with a different choice of footwear - no need to catalog the alternatives to sneakers here, as it has been done on AAAC so many times before.

Let's be honest, when posters having been writing about Chucks as "modern fashion footwear" they mean this sort of thing:

And this:

And:

Not to mention:

And who wouldn't want to look like this:

The epitome of "modern fashion"! Too bad I'm so antediluvian that I can't be a part of this captivating trend...

 

[meanoldmanning]

utilitarian vs fashion? Kind of splitting hairs.

And the canvas deck shoes aesthetically are quite similar to the low top converse, only major difference it the rubber rand. Is that what you take issue with, or are you simply on the me to bandwagon of converse haters?

The pictures you posted above are exactly what I don't like about what Chucks have become. But to be honest, any shoe would have looked terrible in every one of those instances.

 

[Tiger]

utilitarian vs fashion? Kind of splitting hairs.

And the canvas deck shoes aesthetically are quite similar to the low top converse, only major difference it the rubber rand. Is that what you take issue with, or are you simply on the me to bandwagon of converse haters?

The pictures you posted above are exactly what I don't like about what Chucks have become. But to be honest, any shoe would have looked terrible in every one of those instances.

No one is "splitting hairs" - wearing a deck shoe on a deck is not what the "modern fashion" posters were talking about.

I took issue with the wearing of sneakers in nearly every setting possible - and the ridiculous look that it portrays - and the attempts by some to justify this and make the sneaker into something it is not, like these sartorial paragons:

Somehow, the slovenly aspect of many Americans' clothing has become "fashion" - sweatpants, pajama pants, t-shirts, sneakers, ripped jeans, sports jerseys, et al. - I think it's because most Americans are slovenly and infantile, and so every merchandiser under the sun wants to cater to the lowest common denominator to make a sure-shot profit. Of course, for marketing flair, they'll portray this infantile slobbery as "modern fashion." Look at the Emperor's new clothes!

 

[meanoldmanning]

certainly your splitting hairs. The individual in that picture could be wearing any number of styles of boat shoe, ranging from Keens to Topsiders of various style yet chose a canvas sneaker style. That is a conscious decision based on a sense of what they felt was fashionable or stylish.

And again, the picture you posted above is of terrible clothing choices regardless of the shoes.