/fa/ - Fashion

if you wear those.... just lol

the nikkas

>>14186583
>white suede gym shoes

if you are male: ONLY the standard black canvas and white rubber
if you are female: does not matter

Also, classic vs the 70s, which one?
I feel like the 70s are a bit gimmicky, no? Like the Converse 2.0 tier

>>14186560
Black but one stars look good in lots of colours

>>14186560
>converse
imagine

>>14187362
I feel leather converse are ok too, same colorway, just slightly better material, i just feel better with leather sneakers/shoes than canvas

>>14187367
the 70s ones are a lot more comfortable and have better build quality

>>14187367
>>14187397
This, also chuck 2.0 are literally dead, they where discontinued last year

I like the 70s base camp pack

>>14187362
Eh white looks fine on men too

>>14186560
nonexistent

Trash colored: So at least the last person to look at them as they go to the dump won't vomit at the sight of converses

>>14187091
there's literally nothing offensive about them

>>14187562
>wearing suede in the gym
Have you ever worn suede before? I take it you haven't or you'd know what happens to them when they get wet or rubbed too hard

>>14187577
don't get them wet or rub them too hard then.
or get a suede brush and care for them once in a while.

>>14186560
try the one called "eating a wine glass cup" because anyone who likes converse should just bleed internally.

>>14187639
Edgy!

>>14187577
excuse me, was under the implication anon was talking about how they looked.
however, i concur that suede is for the most part durable and that nobody would want to be wearing their white sneakers in the mud anyways. one stars are also skateboarding shoes, not gym shoes.

>>14186560
None. Converse at like putting literal flimsy cheap rubber slabs on your feet then wrapping them in cheap cotton, there couldn’t possibly be a more effective way to murder your feet slowly and destroyed their arches

>>14187863
Chucks literally destroy the natural curvature of your feet

>>14187866
And force u to walk like you have ducks feet. If you naturally have this flat duck foot then they are perfectly for you

>>14187367
don't compare those. 70s are standard now. regular converse are fine, but whenever i see them i just assume the wearer didn't know enough about the brand to get the 70s.

70s chucks in parchment, black, or red are solid. everything else is purely based on the way one wears them.

>>14187863
>>14187866
>>14187870
inferior foot genetics

>>14187889
Chucks are the cheapest most basic way to clothe your foot, they have been around since the 60s when it actually made sense because the masses couldn't afford decently made shoes, but to actually wear them today is the absolute dictionary definition of
>Fashion Victim
Just on a very cheap scale.

>>14187912
or definition of poor, minimalist, biologically flat-footed, or not needing to walk much in a day's length anyways.
it's actually silly to categorize the most basic footwear option for decades to be of a fashion victim's item, nor does it make sense fact being chucks are cheap. though i would agree to the CDG (literally paying the extra $100 for a heart) or any other collaboration as such for what should be treated as a uniform heritage brand.
fact is, anybody that has foot problems stemming from wearing flats would not be wearing flats in the first place. and some people just don't like the look or need for overtly padded up shoes like ozweegos.
those shits are ugly man

>>14187941
These are not Converse basketball-oriented gym shoes, they are Dock/Deck shoes, for those who spend time on SailBoat Decks, needing traction and avoid slipping, standing still for long periods. Your foot needs a very thin flexible sole, to follow the curvature of the deck's surface so you get an ultra firm grip and avoid slipping. Hence the opposite of walking/running. Hence the name Dock Shoe.

>>14187960
the point is going over your head, never mind the picture, it was the closest i had to what looked like canvas flats in my folder.
arguably though, deck shoes of this time period probably were not much different from basketball shoes fundamentally (non slip, rubber foxing, canvas uppers, etc.).
but even so, never mind how dock shoes are designed, the ultimate point is that both would provide acceptable foot support that you insist is so very outdated in this age.

>>14187941

It's actually just an extra $30 or so for the CDG heart, they're not expensive at all.

>>14187979
>the ultimate point is that both would provide acceptable foot support
they do not. This is something that you are clearly lying to yourself about. For day to day walking and activities that most people do, the masses who wear them, these are unnacceptable forms of footwear. They do not provide any support at all. They are literally thin pieces of rubber for soles. The Deck shoes make sense becaue you are not walking anywhere, you are using the ocean to move you not your feet. Converse are a blatent meme, and are the equivalent of fedoras for your feet. Or 3D glasses for your eyes.

>>14186560
If you're not in highschool, Converse are not /fa/. It's "I'm in my 20s and work at Hot Topic"-core.

>>14188016
Perhaps "acceptable" wasn't the best word but "adequate"
I would really not be lying to you if a generation of people got through without foot trouble while living simultaneously with a whole current generation of people who still buy Converse and the likes of Vans, Pro Keds, and Toms which probably even offer less foot support.
You clearly do not know how to read because I already addressed that Converse are fine suited to
>poor, minimalist, biologically flat-footed, or not needing to walk much in a day's length anyways.
-- oriented consumers.
I completely understand the majority who can't wear or have practical use for such footwear, I know my shit, the answer to that is to just not buy flats. That's why innovations like posture foundation were made and why shoe technology progressed to suit increasingly competitive sports.
If you watch a 40s basketball game, it's very slow compared to what we have now, and Converse's build quality was all that was needed.
As for fedoras for your feet, that's just your opinion, but they've been around since the 1900s and won't disappear any time soon.