Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
NEW Converse Chuck Taylors II
- Thread starter 48thStreetCustom
- Start date
I never understood appeal of those shoes. They don't look comfortable, a lot of varieties are ugly, and on top of that, they are trendy.
Of course! I think different regions in the U.S. and Canada had different brands and preferences until the late '70s when Nike and Reebok became so huge and widespread.
Yeah man.. When I was a teenager you had Cons, ProKeds or skips... which were either regular low cut Keds or generic deck shoes... Or PF Flyers... with the built inaction Wedge.... Then the Pumas and Addidas came out then Reebok's were the first "designer" sneaker I heard of... The rest is history.
As a young kid in Montreal you had these black or white high-tops with rubber cleats and an rubber ankle guard, they were probably made by Bata and I don't remember the brand. They resembled P.D.Flyers and were probably knock-offs. Keds were around as were Sperrys but were mostly adult sneakers.
Then Adidas ROM came in and every kid had to have them. If you were poor you had the Canadian brand North Star with only two stripes. I had these for a few years until I graduated to the big boys- the Adidas by then had blue suede stripes and they were a thing of beauty.
There were always a few kids than had Stan Smiths, they were cool in their own way.
No wonder people spend so much on them, our whole identity as youths and our sense of belonging was so tied into our running shoes, and we never really grow up, do we?
When I was a kid everyone had whatever sneakers. You wore them out and your mom got you a new pair. Then Different Strokes came out and Arnold and Willis had a different pair of Nikes in every scene. Over night, BOOM! Everyone in school had Nikes. That was the first example of product placement I can think of.
Glad to see Converse updating the Chuck at long last. They definitely addressed some of the gripes that I've had with the shoes over the years. I had actually stopped buying the regular Chucks and was just buying the John Varvatos line of Converse/Chuck Taylors because they were so much more comfortable and durable. But the price tag for those JV Converse was up there, well over $100 per pair. With these Chuck II's ringing up at $75, I think it's a reasonable price point. Regular sneakers will run you about that much.
Back in the 80's in my area, we use to cut off high top Cons down to low top levels. The material was similar to denim. So, eventually it would get tattered almost loke cutoff shorts or the bottoms of jeans when people wear them too long and they drag the ground. Different but similar.
Of course, I was that guy who wore a black tux with red accessories including red Chucks to my prom. My buddy wore a white tux with pink accessories and pink Chucks. Ah..... the 80's.
Of course, I was that guy who wore a black tux with red accessories including red Chucks to my prom. My buddy wore a white tux with pink accessories and pink Chucks. Ah..... the 80's.
My feet are narrow like Chuck Taylors, so I enjoy them. True, the original/standard ones don't have much padding, but it never bothered me.
I bought a pair of the new ones, and they are great! They feel good, and I like the style. Shoes are like basses, music, food, etc. - to each their own.
I bought a pair of the new ones, and they are great! They feel good, and I like the style. Shoes are like basses, music, food, etc. - to each their own.
