/fa/ - Fashion

>>7402479
I don't think you know what the word "autism" means.

the fuck? if you dont like them, then dont buy them? Why do you want us to convince that they are good?

>>7402479
You are not alone OP. It's a sneaker that's lost in it's own irony.

theyre really divisive in that. its chill if they aint ur thing

>>7402517
i'm not going to buy them i just don't see why these are different from run of the mill perforated adidas. instead of shooting down other peoples' preferences i try to understand them

I think they look cool, but I wouldn't actually wear them. I would just leave them on the counter to serve as a paper weight. They can be something that I can look at and think, "Coool".

I think they look like bad walmart shoes but with slightly better colorways. ugly as fuck

>>7402479
inb4inb4

there's a sense of rejection of current design trends for running shoes imbibed in these, delibearately appropriating a pair of shoes with design characteristics in stark contrast to the minimalist influenced design being peddled by major sportswear brands. On that note, it can be seen that adirafs are reactionary, whilst at the same time they embody a nostalgic bent that meshes with Raf's aesthetic perfectly. Don't they remind you of sneakers you wore a a kid OP? They're meant to be playful, look at the styling for ss14, its the same deal. You should look beyond the spectrum of "nice walmart autism shoes" when examining them - the excessive techy aspects of the shoes were mainstream throughout the 90s and early 2000s, becoming ubiquitous with cheap footwear by 2007-2008. Chinese companies had knocked off 90s nikes for so long that design trends had filtered down to the lowest tier and were consequently incredibly cheap to manufacture.

It's an ironic appropriation of this that adirafs use leather and other unusual materials with clearly defined design aesthetic that, tho subtle, is obvious when compared to the cheap autism shoes that you speak of. This is changing now, as chinese made fakes of nike frees are starting to appear in the cheapest variety stores, replacing the cheap 90s nike knockoffs that were commonplace - hence the embrace by Raf and Lanvin (best examples) of the ugly running shoe aesthetic.

>>7402551
Good analysis.

Also: They're beautiful.

>>7402479
w2c?

>>7402479
It is ironic that they look like payless/walmart iter shoes
but that irony is lost on 99.9% of the population
so most people think you just bought your shoes from walmart

What if it's not ironic and it's just bad design?

>>7402904
black ones suck

>>7402935
it isnt ironic

can you explain how its bad design?

don't buy them OP, don't do it

>>7402950
yeah the black ones lose the interesting color contrasts and the detailing and just become straight up autism shoes

>>7402962
all of those buzzwords lmao
>color constrast
>detailing
>autism

the black ones draw your eyes to even more detail imo because the detailing in the design is the only thing you can even look at

>>7402923

yea lol.. you sure got them. Paying exorbitant amounts of money for shoes that look like cheap shit.

>>7402950
>>7402962
Please go back to /mfa/

Raf Adidas do suck, they're just made in China Adidas

>>7402479
they are running shoes you idiot

>am i the only one X?
no

>>7402551
But I can go out and buy a pair of asics that look like these for a much lower price tag.

If you truly appreciate the design and aren't just a brandwhore, you should have no qualms with that.

rafdidas are garbage just like all red shoes are

At first I thought they're ugly as fuck too, give it time OP, you'll like them soon

>>7403035
>>7402962

Really the preference for Raf lies with the stuff like the "Visors" on some of the ss14 collection, the gel-like pearlescent bubbles and the "shoe within a shoe" details and the much wider variety of better thought out colorways. The black on black ones I would not buy for this reason, I consider them close enough to some black asics that the latter would more than suffice

They look ridiculous

I don't know if people get them ironically or not

>>7403035
>But I can go out and buy a pair of asics that look like these for a much lower price tag.

No, you can't.

>>7403166
u wot m8

>>7403035
show me said asics

Anyone got a pair up for sale in 9 or 9.5
Pls rspond with good prices

>>7403184
>>7403181

>>7402479
you kind of have to "get" Raf to get the shoes
not being pretentious, he's just a designer that not many people on /fa/ talk about in depth compared to say Rick or Yohji
if you study his shows you realize the point of the shoes and why they're dope as fuck

>>7403181
not ugly enough

but they're missing the main appeal: they aren't raf simons

>tfw found a listing from 2011 on SF of the old raf x asics in my size for 50$

>>7403166
look harder

>>7403181
Yeah, they're clearly the samen. You sure showed me.

I can see why you'd be mad at the Raf sneakers if you can't tell them apart from those.

>>7403231
>>7403296 goes for you as well.

>>7402961
mmm fuck what collection is this? too nice

>>7403296
yeah and the slight difference sure justifies the added $200 right?

>>7403356
Trove ss10

I thought they looked autistic until I started seeing them in fits. I kind of dig them, not that I like the idea of wearing sports shoes anyway.

>>7403372
Don't even argue with them. Raf designed an ironic spin on the "ugly autistic running shoe" and these brandwhores are just performing mental gymnastics to persuade themselves they look nice.

>>7403433
They look good tho. The colored one that is.

>>7403396
tes

>>7403088
this
I don't even like raf and I hated these at first, but now I think theyre really cool

>>7403433
Wrong

>>7403495
fucking disgusting. I have yet to see a great fit with someone wearing a pair of these.
>someone please prove me wrong

If you bought these or like them, the only thing your tasteless ass likes is the name Raf
>read:you're a fucking idiot

>mfw /fa/ talks about them way more then they should

>>7403495
spiderman

>>7403519
>stop liking designers, u cant tell a diff btw designers n not designers clothing

oh boy another shitty tasteless namefag.

>read you're a fucking idiot

>>7403516
yeah this is my problem with them. i like the shoes but i've only seen them look good on the runway
the only thing people are wearing them with is all black, i wish we could see a creative fit where they actually look good

>>7403372
>u cant pay 200$ 4 shoes jus cuz u like the design u dick I h8 u im poor

>>7403541

I imagine any of the more subdued colors with a crisply tailored navy trouser and a beautifully textured knit would be easy enough. Frankly, I don't think it's that people can't wear it with more colorful outfits so much as the people who choose to wear them have darker palettes overall and wear the shoes specifically because they're a very unusual, but understated way to add color.

remember the first collection they were released in they were the laughing stock of /fa/ then as soon as they started hitting sales all the thirsty fuccbois realized they could own some cheap raf so they convinced themselves it was an ironically shitty design and that they'd be next level if they owned them so they started making rafidas inspo threads to astroturf themselves into thinking they were really cool.

>>7402904

>>7403396
it's beautiful

>>7403547
i agree, but nobody seems to play with the textures which is where all the potential is imo. it's like they haven't adopted/understood the mindset that the shoes were made with and lazily try to incorporate them into an incompatible aesthetic

>>7403560
http://trove.co.jp/shop/
has a list of their stockists. U can order from a few jp websites or yahoo jp im shur. Use the japanese character spelling. its fairly cheap

>>7403582

Given how thoroughly textured the shoes are with all their various meshes and laces and molded shapes and whatnot, I imagine it's a smarter choice to play things simpler than to go overboard.

>>7402479
They're used for running you autistic hipster faggot.

>>7403596
maybe you're right, but i think it could be nice to go the total opposite of that and aim at a really loud and overboard fit
or not, that's not what raf has been doing with them. i just haven't really seen a fit that i thought did them justice

do you have to call everything you don't like autistic
I think you overlook the meaning of this word

>>7403553
Yeah. Or, you know, people just like them.

Raf styled these things with suits

Anyone on /fa/ want to attempt a fit like pic related?

>>7403606
Nope. They come with a note that advises you not to use them for running.

>>7403653
if someone sells me their fuckin rafs i will
i can't justify spending 2hunna anymore after u sold urs for 85

>>7403653
Is it wrong to think he might have styled them like that because the rest of his collection is that subdued stuff. He didn't have the more edgy shit he did 10 years ago to pair them with.

>>7403653
No, too soon to revisit the 80s. Maybe in a couple of years.

>>7403658
btw i played basketball and ran in them and they are good for running

they look like shit
mind you that you are on 4chan home of the neckbeard when people defend this

>>7403679
I'm sure a pair of Geos can be used for that as well, but you wouldn't say 'they are used for running'. That is not their primary use, generally speaking.

>>7403682
True. You shouldn't really listened to their detractors, because they are probably wizard NEET's-

>>7403689
>i know u are but what am i
LISTEN HERE MOTHERFUCKER YOU WOULD HAVE A POINT BUT I ALWAYS SEE DWEEBS LIKE YOU SPORTING THESE KICKS AT RECESS STEER CLEAR OF THIS THREAD IF YOU DON'T WANT A KNUCKLE SANDWICH

>>7403686
great analogy dude 10/10 A+ analogy are you an english major?
lmao i was joking it wasn't a good analogy you're comparing an adidas running sneaker to a shoe without the usual running features
>pic related

>>7402961
Why do you say don't buy them? did you have a bad experience with them >>7403679?

>>7403731
niga sends me a snapchat today tellin me not to buy them
makes me wanna buy them more

#dyeldave2013unknowndeath

>>7403711
Calling them 'running sneaker[s]' isn't going to change the fact that they are not.

>>7403711
Also, why the hell are you tripping? I haven't seen one decent fit from you.

>>7403761

So that it's easy to filter.

>>7403766
>tfw #ethered

>>7403761
for snapchat

>>7403746
save up for 2014 dude

>>7403793
http://www.kicksonfire.com/2013/07/20/raf-simons-x-adidas-ss-2014-collection/#page-1

>>7403766
Just seems so arrogant to trip on a fashion board when you know nothing about fashion and post no worthwhile food.

>>7403793
2014? whats comin out, im buildin my summer wardrobe atm
new rafidas :) :) :)?
i've wanted these 4 so long but ive been too poor, and now i actually have some spair change but i dont wanna drop 2hunna bc this guy sold his for 85$

>>7403805
>food
fits*

>>7403825
>>7403805
>lel
got trip = post food
no other choice

>>7403815
>new rafidas

yap

>>7403801
>http://www.kicksonfire.com/2013/07/20/raf-simons-x-adidas-ss-2014-collection/#page-1
o shit i forgot about these!!!

the ones that look like nike shox... i used to have the adidas rainbow ones of those in like gr 7 lmao

>>7403793
i'm doing this atm, want to put together a fit with these, a white thom browne shirt, and cropped trou (pls do not steal)

>>7403975
actually a pretty cool idea. white buttonup with the r/w/b gosgrain placket?

>>7403975
lol find them doggy

>>7403975
make sure the trou texture works w/ it :^)

>>7404110
>>7404124
ya exactly

anyone have that Belgium site that was selling black ones for cheap ? someone made a thread about a little while ago

if only they werent so damn expensive make me cumm mmmm

>>7402988
>>7402904

>>7402551
are you just making things up?

>>7402479

nope I saw a guy wearing them irl, look like neckbeard shoes. In fact I had a pair of gore text running shoes just like the black ones a few years ago lols

>>7405329

I see the basis for comparison, but there are still plenty of subtle differences. One is tonal, the other has obvious contrast details with writing; one is just two finishes (matte and slightly rubber), the other has all sorts of different ones; one has an elongated profile, the other is shorter and stubbier; one has an obviously defined heel, the other is just a chunky wedge across.

I get that they are similar, but it's the differences that make people prefer the former.

>>7405575
the biggest difference is design. that is, raf is a good designer. he can make this aesthetic look good because he designs well, the body, the silhouette, the details, what it LOOKS like. but people are so used to this general aesthetic looking like crap (because the vast majority of it is total crap; terrible designs; clashing lines, poor use of texture and pattern, gross silhouette, annoying branding, etc etc, not to mention shitty craftmanship/build quality) that they are completely biased and cant understand that any general aesthetic can look good if its done well.

i hate when people call these ironic. the only irony in it is that he is taking your expectations and saying fuck you, i can make this look good, and he does. the use of materials, the colors, the large sweeping lines and shapes that work harmoniously together instead of looking like they just took whatever materials laying on the sweat shop floor and tried to make patterns for shoes out of the scraps.

to those who dont like the new rafs, shut the fuck up honestly. if you actually knew about design, then you could debate me and we could get into some nice subjective areas. but the people who cant actually see the design work going on, come back when you have an eye for subtlety.

>>7402551
that looks like something i would say when i dont know shit about something, and oh man, i really like to talk bullshit when i dont know shit

>>7405624
there's nothing wrong with the asics design its just been around for a while

tbh i don't think the all black rafs are cool either

in the end they're still clothes that people buy

>>7405329
i like these, are these Raf?

>>7405624
funny post

>>7405641
the asics design is fuckawful
a good design usually stands the test of time

the all black rafs arent the best of this batch but asics aren't even the same fucking ballpark

in the end we're on a fashion forum

>>7405665
pigfuck, i don't even need to tell you what you are because you already know it.

fuck off you ignorant piece of shit

>>7405668
>the asics design is fuckawful
is that why they've been selling it for decades?????

Don't dig urself into a hole dude

>>7405624
>to those who dont like the new rafs, shut the fuck up
well after reading that and specially the quoted part i think i´m ready to do some sketches about fits, maybe i´ll post a thread in the near future, who knows, maybe /fa/ would like it and i would make them real and be rich and maybe be the next Raf Simons

>>7405674
>
to those who dont like the new rafs, shut the fuck up honestly. if you actually knew about design, then you could debate me and we could get into some nice subjective areas. but the people who cant actually see the design work going on, come back when you have an eye for subtlety.
you're funny

>>7405677
they've been selling it for decades because most people dont know/care about design or what they wear?

how has fast fashion/kmart/fucking yesstyle even stayed in business for years?

hows this even your reasoning?

sorry banana you're a funny guy but asics look bad

>>7405674
>
to those who dont like the new rafs, shut the fuck up honestly. if you actually knew about design, then you could debate me and we could get into some nice subjective areas. but the people who cant actually see the design work going on, come back when you have an eye for subtlety.
funny post

>paying for a shoe created for fat people and retards

They make me think back to when I called a buddy rainman in high school because his shoes blew out, and he wore a pair of work sneakers until he got a new pair of shoes.

So yeah, they remind me of the type of shoes a retarded person would wear, at first glance. After looking at them for a bit, they look alright.

>>7405674
>pigfuck

raf x adidas is pretty uninspired, poorly made shit tbh. the asics collabs were a lot better.

>>7405698
even wal-mart has a design team working around the clock to make sure ppl buy their clothes

asics look bad to us because the design has been overplayed and such but i assure you if they never existed before and were released today they'd have merit

what raf is doing is taking designs like those and adding his touch/details to it, taking a new spin on an old trend

but i don't think the black ones look nice cause you can't make out the detailing on them like how you can on the coloured ones

you don't have to go hardline on one "side" of an argument because it "seems" right, things aren't ever that simple dude

I don't see why this is such a big deal 2 u

if you want to see what i mean by him doing it better just look at the actual raf asics themselves

http://www.freshnessmag.com/2009/07/31/raf-simons-x-asics-running-shoes/

>>7405698
>hurr I'm better than average people and smarter and make better purchases

typical misanthropic 4chan moron

"b-but muh patrician taste"

okay sure. yeah you know so much better than millions of people. okay.

they're the only designer sneaker I really want besides the new white hi's from the wilhelm x camper stuff.

but i've been told i either have god tier taste in sneakers or vomit inducing sneakers by people i know.

>>7403296
Don't worry, nigga; I got you.

>>7405721
>even wal-mart has a design team working around the clock to make sure ppl buy their clothes
this doesnt mean they make good designs. they design specifically for their market.

> design has been overplayed
like i said, good designs usually stand the test of time, i.e. its very hard to overplay them unless its literally the only thing you see out in the world

> released today they'd have merit
i really doubt i would like them if i just saw them for the first time today but of course theres no way to tell. honestly seeing them on here is basically my first time; although they look familiar because i've seen them around, i never thought of them and never remembered them because they dont make me remember them. good design is pleasing, and pleasant stuff gets remembered

>what raf is doing is taking designs like those
yeah, i just said that

>and adding his touch/details to it
woah woah haha no he's redesigning

>you don't have to go hardline on one "side" of an argument because it "seems" right, things aren't ever that simple dude
what? you are saying they look fine i'm saying they look bad. it really is that simple.

>I don't see why this is such a big deal 2 u
design is a big deal to me

>tual raf asics themsel
yeah those look really good and nothing like the other asics i've seen. that design has unity and rhythm in shape, the sleeve thing is a really nice contrast in texture but the lines on it echo the ones on the shoe body and tie it all together. the giant warped tic tac toe board that looks so awful isnt even on there; but he's taken the parts of that shape and used them in a way that looks awesome.
the only thing i dont really like is the detailing on the toe line i think it fights with the silhouette shape too much

fouuund it

>>7405761
bretty gud :DDD

>>7405764
>>7405624
>>7405677

hes the creative director at two major fashion houses plus his own label which he clearly doesnt give a fuck about anymore. its funny that you think he did anything more than approve the designs of these ugly sweatshop made pieces of shit.

This is my favorite colorway, personally.

>>7405722
>okay sure. yeah you know so much better than millions of people. okay.
pretty much.

if you've read a book you are already smarter than millions of people.

if you can name all 50 states of the usa you are already smarter than millions of people.

its not that fucking hard

also i shop at "low tier" stores too, i just buy the good stuff there. i only own 1 designer item

the stuff i'm contesting here is design. any piece of clothing or brand can have good design it doesnt matter what store its in. but most people dont know what looks good and what doesnt. how can you contest that? its true in every field, that there are a knowledgeable minority and an ignorant majority

>>7405779
regardless, they are good designs

replace anywhere i said raf with 'x designer' it doesnt matter

contest me on something that matters dumbass
"oh we are arguing about if they look good or not? i know, i'll tell him they werent actually designed by the person he assumed they were designed by! that's totally relevant to the subject of how they look!"

>>7405783
Take note, however, that these are only $40 cheaper than the Rafdidas.

>>7405779

Nobody designs in a vacuum. Not even grand couturiers who sell solely one-offs and definitely not people working in a large fashion house. If you think Raf didn't have people helping him before now then...well...I don't know what else to tell you.

>>7405790

>If you think Raf didn't have people helping him before

didnt imply that

>>7405764

>even wal-mart has a design team working around the clock to make sure ppl buy their clothes
this doesnt mean they make good designs. they design specifically for their market.

thats what im saying
things liek asics are designed to be inoffensive i'd assume (based on the initial design they had, i don't know what they looked like initially)

the reason u see it everywhere is because that general sneaker concept has been around for a long time BECAUSE it was a "good" design (I'm not saying asics made it first - i'm p. sure it was made for functionality anyway)

being designed to loo inoffensive to normal ppl isn't any "better" than being designed to be a fresh new take on a black runner and look "aesthetic"

I can't understand why you'd say asics look "bad" but the rafs look "good" its like ur trying to force or opinion as fact pls dont do that :(((

if anything the new black rafs are just a black sneaker for ppl who wanted to wear black sneakers but couldn't because they were all old designs but it doesn't invalidate that the asics thing worked well for a long time

just cuz it doesn't appeal to u doesn't make it "bad"

also redesigning is liek the same thing as what i was saying??

>>7405791
>'we're arguing whether they look good or not'

pointless to begin with, especially when the summation of your 'they look good argument' was

>he designs well, the body, the silhouette, the details, what it LOOKS like. the use of materials, the colors, the large sweeping lines and shapes that work harmoniously together.

>texture, aesthetic, silhouette , materials!

the foundation of your argument seemed to be that raf is a talented designer and his intentions in the creation of the shoes were X and Y and thus they're works of art. when in reality they're sweatshop made and designed by a team of collaborators before being sent to raf who then approves it and cashes his nice big adidas signed cheque. they're no more well made or designed than anything else asics/adidas/nike has churned out, they just have the benefit of the raf simons brand.

my last post is too rambly

what i'm trying to say is i can't udnerstand why you think the raf all blacks are good but the asics r bad when they're based on the same concept, where raf just made the textures work together properly in a modern, sleek way on an outdated black sneaker design from the 70's or whatever

i'm just asking u to appreciate the design (I'm sure he did)

>>7405767
:^)

>>7405818
eh I'm not really trying to change anyone's opinion I'm just trying to let them know its a retarded opinion. you can't hate me for that can you?

like I said I barely ever saw asics before these threads or if I did I don't remember them at all but looking at them now they aren't only unmemorable they're pretty ugly

designing shit for people with no taste is definitely worse than making good designs

>>7405833
what I've been saying is that although they come from the same general idea and could be grouped together into a general aesthetic, they don't look the same at all. you juat answered tour queation yourself. raf made the aesthetic look good by making the patterns (among other things that ive already mentioned) work together. the asics look like shit because the design has no unity, annoying branding, conflicting lines, no sense to the use of pattern or shape beyond fitting the logo on which takes up half the upper and squeezing some random shit around it that all clashes.

>>7405872
I'm on my phone now excuse typos

>>7405832
the foundation of my argument is how it looks. and you're right i forgot these were made in china

If they weren't Raf Simmons you'd ALL hate them. Are you really going to lie to me and pretend otherwise?

Imagine they were just Adidas and someone posted them in a Cop or Not.

>>7405872
I don't think he made it look "good" he (or the ppl working for him or w/e, i don't know how it works) just modernized it and cleaned it up to our tastes

I wasn't alive back when these shoes were new but if they were truely "new" the things you see as "bad" could be seen as good, the hexagonal detailing between the upper and the sole, the contrast of the huge asics logo thing and the mesh of the upper was fresher then than it is now

concepts like that get recycled/tired over time which is why HS yearbook pics always look weird

obv there are clean-cut simple designs that last for centuries and still look good but those rafs and those asics aren't that kind of design

its just a time thing, me nor you eren't born back then

sure the raf are more continuous and subtle due to the lack of logo but what if people wated it to be discontinuous? what if back then having a logo pop out like that all shiny was cool?

that what im saying

dont act like the design is horrible and the raf one is good

they're just variations

>>7405903
I can definitely say something is good and something else is bad. and variations can be good or bad. and what you're talking about is something I'd call fads. big logos are cool now, its just which logos, because people always want gain authenticity or whatever by latching onto something that has a reputation. that's besides the point. i wouldn't mind a logo if the logo looked good.

good design is of course a product of its time and its surroundings and out of context of course it could/would be judged differently. but I don't care about that. I'm not talking about the historical critical reception of asics. I'm talking about what these particular shoes look like right Now.

in my opinion this pair of asics looks nothing like the all black adirafs. in the grand scheme of every shoe ever created sure they have a similar silhouette, sole, and are both black. but they are not the fucking same. in my opinion the asics look like crap. in my opinion the rafs look good.

end rant and convo agree to disagree hope we can still be friends banan go fuckyourself pigfuck goodnight

>>7405946
i don't mean fads per se but ok i'm also v. tired so i'll wrap it up

if you mean how you'd judge it against the current historical backdrop then sure the rafs r nicer but that may change in the future 2

keep in mind its easy to spice up asics in a way that doesn't do it in the way rafs do if that offers any insight

good night :)))

I think they're hideous and would fit seamlessly into any fedora/trenchcoat/stonewashed jeans/anime t-shirt attire.

I would rather shoot myself than wear any of these. I keep telling myself that one day I'll learn its this super elaborate /fa/ troll.

They are fucking hideous and are the spitting fucking image of knock off walmart shoes from around 95-2003.

>>7406037
>>7402551

>>7405898

>stop liking what i dont like

ahahaha stupid ass fuckboy log off b4 i trace ur ip address and come holla round ur hood with my choppa lil bitch

>>7404469
I fedora tip this question in an effort to find my cheap fedora brethren

2cool4rifrafsimon

>>7402551
Jesus, more purple prose than poet.

None of that matters when you have to utilize them in an outfit. What are you going to wear with them? Do you even know? Do you have pictures of them being worn well, or are you just looking at the shoes by themselves?

So fucking pretentious. You wouldn't bother to write this for anything other than your precious rafdidas, would you?

Aren't these from the same series?

>>7403296
Are these adidrafs? w2c?

>>7409886
Naw that's just Raf 2012

>>7402479
they don't bother me aside from the fact that they're incredibly played out, but i also don't mind the running shoes they're based on

>>7409698
nah thats mainline

>>7402479
those are hideous. Not a single redeeming quality.

Pro-tip.
Go to Forest Hill Toronto.
Go to Aroma cafe
See 40-55 year old jewish millionaires getting coffees and breakfast with their dogs and leather jackets and yoga pants.

See them wearing these raf abortions.
Seriously, that is where they belong

>>7403648
Zellers Ninja Turtles collab. 99.

bitch

>>7409698
w2c? What line/year is this?

>>7402508

They look like something an autistic person would wear. Its not difficult.

>>7404469
>>7409548
Labelsinc.be

>>7411323
>Pro-tip

le epic meme!!!! xD

>>7411946
I wish I knew... I also really wish I could get that sweater...

>>7411946
>>7413670

It's current season Walter van Beirendonck.

>>7413656
>ironically le epic meme

le epic meme!!!11 xD

>>7413686

Here it is for reference:

>http://wutberlin.shop.multilingualcart.com/goods_en_jpy_4364.html

>http://www.farfetch.com/shopping/men/walter-van-beirendonck-colour-block-sweater-item-10541305.aspx?storeid=9143

its just anti fashion

i think they add fun to a fit yknow

like to liven it up a little

>>7413686
I meant the shoes.

>>7413651
ty
Not as cheap as I had hoped.

Are these fake?

>>7417020
What the fuck are you doing in this thread?