/fa/ - Fashion

>>8414718
cheap shit like leather converses unless they're being offered through a collab with a company that does leather well i.e. Diemme x Vans

>>8273779
fair enough, i'll take the bait, though tell me one time where a "constructive argument" on /fa/ was cleverly argued back
>>8273746
people with €300 to spend are people who spend €300 on sneakers - people with €1300 to spend on sneakers will do so. Until you grasp the concept of luxury (which isn't necessarily synonymous with inflated cost) you'll continue to be dumbfounded. People buy CPs because they have the money to do so and because they appreciate the silhouette/construction/hype. people buy them even buy them on sale or used for much less.
>what's wrong with vans and etnies
nothing; however, they don't provide comparable silhouette/quality control/materials/etc. as CPs. Personally, I've never seen an attractive Etnies sneaker and though I like pieces from the Vans Vault collection (like the $300 Vans in pic related), the Vans brand doesn't deliver a similar product. Some from the OTW line looks similar, but after handling the Ludlows I can confirm that they're far inferior to CPs