[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/fa/ - Fashion

View post   
File: 237 KB, 700x700, smi_converse_jackpurcell_shoes_milspec-2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11966047 No.11966047 [Reply] [Original]

Did Converse drop in quality after Nike bought them?
I see some quality lunarcore crap there.

>> No.11966146

Why do you hate clownshoes?

>> No.11966184
File: 35 KB, 480x360, PF changs.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11966184

>>11966047
Chucks have nothing on PF Flyers in terms of quality, the nice part being that if you buy their base model shoe, you still get the extra quality missing in the base model chucks.

I'd even go as far as to say that the 70s don't even match the quality level of the basic canvas center hi's.

PF flyers also has higher quality options and more variety. you can get all leather, partial leather, etc etc. vastly superior colorways

>> No.11966191

>>11966184
>that fucked up toe box though

>> No.11966639

>>11966184
this is the ugliest thing I've ever seen in my life. they look cheap as fuck too, shill

>> No.11966655

>>11966047
that thing they added on the front is really fucked up

>> No.11966658

>>11966047
Oh hello, how's the marketing internship in Nike?

>> No.11966706

>>11966184
Goddamn I love the fact that you can get models made in the US, but they're fucking ugly. The toebox is fucky, the proportioning looks flat out strange, I dunno man. Maybe chucks are shit quality, but there's a reason they're popular.

>> No.11966719

>>11966184
Stop shilling this garbage here

>> No.11966736

>>11966047
>>11966184
hideous toebox general?

>> No.11967155
File: 88 KB, 500x750, 38bd72661303e40d5b9d28126856d2d7[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11967155

>fucked up toe box
literally what?

chucks can't even into symmetrical stitching unless you fork over extra shekels, fuck off

>> No.11967245
File: 17 KB, 480x360, 5d7bd8c58b7e98a9ccc8456126fa84a6.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11967245

>>11966655
Those are Jack Purcells, not Chucks.

>> No.11967974

>>11966191
>>that fucked up toe box though

So no different than Converse then?

>> No.11968901
File: 103 KB, 1045x699, pf-flyers-x-todd-snyder-bring-back-the-grounder-sneaker-5.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11968901

>>11966184
/pol/ has been shilling pf flyers here because theyre owned by New Balance. but I do like these ones. they're a cross between chucks/rainboots.

>> No.11968950

>>11966184
>>11968901
Those ridges on the front look like dog shit.

>> No.11969101

>>11968901
PF Flyers also has a made in USA line too, so that helps appeal to people too over converse which are made overseas nowadays.

>> No.11969117

>ask if converse are decent quality
>get called a shill

I just want a goddam shoe that looks like palladium but palladium has AMAZINGLY SHIT quality (boots didn't last me 3 months of summer and I wasn't wearing them in the rain too).

Converse look SORTA like that but I won't be surprised if they'll get rekt in a few days of wear that's why I asked you numales.