[ 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: 68 KB, 560x560, 1405993068155.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8569726 No.8569726 [Reply] [Original]

I know there is one but its for white high tops only, so thats pretty specific. inspo as well

>> No.8569739
File: 411 KB, 336x508, 52eafd6816e9fd42b6b53f8c4048a5d5.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8569739

man wish i could afford some black futures

>> No.8569766

>>8569726
Share jacket pls

>> No.8570112

>>8569766

im sorry friend i dont know where its from

>> No.8570134
File: 69 KB, 800x705, maison-martin-margiela-black-sueded-high-top-sneakers.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8570134

>>8569739
>tf when no $$

>> No.8570153

>>8570112
that makes me sad

>> No.8570167

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD WHERE IS THE JACKET FROM

>> No.8570181

>>8569766
>>8570134
this, dat jacket is dope
im praying its under 400

>> No.8570191
File: 43 KB, 500x375, tumblr_m3xgyp9VSx1qbptd1o1_500.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8570191

>> No.8570204

Black non-canvas hi tops for less than 200€?
Was thinking Blazers or maybe National Standards. Any others suggestions?

>> No.8570221
File: 14 KB, 714x148, trashhh.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8570221

>>8570191

>> No.8570254
File: 241 KB, 1920x1280, lookbook14.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8570254

>>8570134

ones with the gum looking sole are nicer, man idec what colour id cop them so hard

>> No.8570267

>>8570221
how is Adidas trash?

>> No.8570289

>>8570267

i dont think he meant the entire brand, just them specific ones that were in the pic

>> No.8570424

>>8570134
I just copped a pair of 22 high Margielas for $225, wassup.

>> No.8570446

>>8569739
w2c jeans?

>> No.8570448

>>8570289
oh. thanks for clarifying

>> No.8570502

>>8570446

represent clothing, they are always sold out of blue denim but doing collection restock friday if you want some, my black ones are coming this week ;)

>> No.8570857
File: 817 KB, 556x531, 39600815a6138b41ef260f57b28368dd.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8570857

hmm

>> No.8570927

>>8570204
im on the same hunt as you bro
af1? people dont really rate them in black though, what about jordan futures or maybe adidas c-10?

>> No.8570977
File: 39 KB, 428x428, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8570977

C/n

>> No.8572101
File: 23 KB, 480x360, 1372323-p-MULTIVIEW.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8572101

are these shoes /fa/?

>> No.8572111
File: 241 KB, 653x444, Spalwart_running_shoes_Marathon-.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8572111

Everything I want is too expensive for me right now.

>> No.8572799

>>8570927
Jordan Futures looks pretty interesting and they're even less expansive than the Footscape Woven Chucka. And I considered AF1 as well as Nike Dunks already and came to the conclusion that I don't like them that much. Same goes for the c-10 which looks hilarious to me at the moment, I suppose mere exposure is going to change and I'll regret not copping them.

>> No.8573711

>>8572799

yeah i cant seem to find that many pairs of just plain black on ebay though, im in the uk though

>> No.8574507

>>8572101
no

>> No.8574517
File: 68 KB, 1000x667, spalwart Marathon Trail - Wine.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8574517

>>8572111
They look strange in that pic

>> No.8574860

>>8572111

Are these better than 574s?

Is it wrong that I do not own any Nike sneakers? Does /fa/ have any favorites when it comes to Nike? I just don't see any of their offerings to be as good as others out there. Janoski and AF1 maybe but I still would spend cash elsewhere

>> No.8574928

>>8570446
Balmain biker jeans

>> No.8574939

>>8574860
pre montreals

>> No.8574952
File: 486 KB, 2024x756, 1406266852016.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8574952

saw these in another thread some days ago

Where can i still get these? (its a old collection of raf smons i believe)

W2C?

>> No.8574957

>>8574952
or can someone give the exact details of these shoes?

>> No.8575268

really need some decent mainly black mid/high top sneakers that are under £200, please help me out /fa please

>> No.8576421
File: 112 KB, 1027x1350, raf1622mul_03.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8576421

paid for these shoes in january on oki-ni sale, last pair, but got refunded because of an stock error or something

been haunting every auction site/forum every day since then to get my hands on them and finally yesterday a new pair popped up on ebay below sale price

now the guy has refunded me saying they've disappeared from his studio

fuck these shoes

>> No.8576627
File: 3.31 MB, 2448x2448, 1406346840334.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8576627

>>8570977
such a black guy fit. But it works

>> No.8576827
File: 367 KB, 1240x1772, tumblr_n68dafOaIG1sjf4hzo1_1280.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8576827

>> No.8576845
File: 103 KB, 930x620, adidas-zx-flux-fhb-ps-1-930x620.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8576845

>>8576827

>> No.8576850

>>8574952

look like a variation of 2k13 ss panelled sneakers, you're gonna have to cop them resale almost all rafdidas are sold out in stores atm.

>> No.8577023

>mfw lost the bid for a pair of black Yeezy 2's on eBay tonight for way less than retail

>> No.8577024

>>8569726
>copped white sk8 His from Pacsun site yesterday
>they had a 20% off $50 code
>put in code
>doesnt take any off
i was planning on paying full price, but im a little butthurt i gotta admit

>> No.8577053

what are some good shoes with minimal-to no branding in the $100-$300 range

i love >>8576827 but fuck paying $1,000 or anywhere close to that for a pair of shoes

>> No.8577065

>>8577023
link or ur lying fgt

>> No.8577067

I can't believe the amount of people that think high top shoes look good. They don't. At all.

>> No.8577190

>>8577067
why not, (at all)?

>> No.8577225
File: 62 KB, 600x450, Kris-Van-Assche-Beige-Tan-Suede-Sneakers-1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8577225

>>8576627
wait, that was for
>>8570857
not
>>8570977