/fa/ - Fashion

[Anonymous No.7616811]

What does /fa/ think of the re-release of the Adidas Stan Smith.

Can they be used as a cheaper alternative to the Common Projects achilles low?

[Anonymous No.7616827]

Never really thought about it I don't think i'm going to buy adidas again my last pair of adidas originals got fucking holes in the sole and I hardly ever wear them

my CPs on the other hand are holding up great they are like new except for the cum stains

>can they be used as a cheaper alternative to common projects achilles low
they are both white lowtop sneakers sure but they're not going to look the same in person trust me bro

[Yawn No.7616831]

they're ok for the price
raf has a pair lol
go 4 it OP

[Anonymous No.7616838]

>>7616827
yeah.. my thought also was that they were too "blocky"

[Anonymous No.7616841]

>>7616811
why even want something like cp's or any alternatives when even the cp's look like shit.

[Anonymous No.7616863]

>>7616838
also the leather isn't going to look as good in person nor will they hold up the same as cps. I also don't like the perforated stripes, but the toebox on these is infinitely better than the regular plastic shelltoe thing that is on all the other adidas. That being said I'd still cop as a pair of beaters

>>7616841
>basic as fuck sneakers
>looks like shit
yeah okay bro

[droak No.7616883]

they are nice, a classic.

[droak No.7616892]

>>7616883

[Anorak !!xPyeSRsxKUQ No.7616934]

The Stan Smith was the original blue print for the achilles low. It's the definitive tennis shoe, and the ultimate low key sneaker. Nothing comes close. If I could only wear one pair of shoes this would be them. And I did for about 5 years before I got this pair of Undercover replicas which I've been wearing for 2 years now and have vibramed. Will most likely try to get 5 years total out of them as well. When I have to replace them I'll probably get a pair of Visvim Foley Folks. Another Stan Smith replica sneaker. Anyway the point is I'm going to be wearing Stan Smith's or Stan Smith replicas probably until I die. I don't like the toe box on Common Projects.

Rei Kawakubo, Raf Simons, Hedi Slimane, Phoebe Philo, and Nicolas Ghesquiere all wear them too.

[Anonymous No.7616945]

>>7616934
>And I did for about 5 years before I got this pair of Undercover replicas which I've been wearing for 2 years now and have vibramed.
bahahahahahaha

[clarkey No.7616952]

no stan smiths look like shit

i used to wear them to school thinking i was a G

[Anonymous No.7616968]

>>7616811
lame af , mcnastys way better

[Anonymous No.7616978]

>>7616934
is this real anorak ? good to have you back

[Anonymous No.7616988]

god please release mid top version of these shoes

[Anorak !!xPyeSRsxKUQ No.7616993]

>>7616945

Yeap, the originals held up longer but I got the UC's on sale for $100 so they were less than replacing my old stan smiths with another pair. Also when I had to vibram them it was once again cheaper to spend $30 and get that done than buy another pair of Adidas for $150 or whatever they are. Also the black vibram sole matches the black embroidery and I think they look even better now, so I still spent less and still figure I can get 5 years out of them with the vibram sole now.

[Anonymous No.7616996]

>>7616993
Pics?

[Anonymous No.7617040]

>>7616934
I HAAAAATE the toebox on stan smiths

[Anonymous No.7617053]

>>7616993
i misunderstood, thought you were saying you were buying a replica of uc's take

>$100 so they were less than replacing my old stan smiths with another pairs
since when are stan smiths over 100

[Anonymous No.7617060]

the general idea is nice, but the execution is awful, which is partly due to the poor materials and low production value in general.
the the saint laurent version. hedi pretty much fixed this shoe

[Anonymous No.7617092]

>>7617053
You're probably the same idiot that sees "MMM GAT replica" and starts spazzing about fuccbois buying fakes. lel. Just leave, you can't even comprehend basic terminology or sentences.

[Anonymous No.7617098]

Nah, the best Adidas CP rip offs are Adidas x Edifice Campus 80's m8

Limited ed but they seem pretty easy to get atm

[Anonymous No.7617124]

>>7617092
>Just leave, you can't even comprehend basic terminology or sentences.
actually using replica in this context is incorrect
a true replica attempts to replicate exactly, thats the point
MMM and UC aren't replicating because they aren't trying to make their products as close as to gats or stan smiths as possible, they're taking the designs and tweaking them as they see fit

[Anonymous No.7617163]

>>7617124
Ok, but that's what they are called. That's my point, you see a word and are so ignorant of common terminology that you just assume it has to mean the rigid textbook definition, and commence spazzing about buying fakes.

[Anorak !!xPyeSRsxKUQ No.7617177]

>>7616996

Imagine the shoes I just posted with a black sole.

>>7617040

I haven't found a better one. I think they're one of the most ripped off shoes for a reason.

>>7617053

Nope, but they were made in Taiwan. UC has always had production and quality issues. I usually let it slide if I really love the design which was the case here.

And Stan Smiths to me have always been $100-$150, Firmament has the reissues right now for €100:

http://www.firmamentberlin.com/adidas/25480/stan_smith.html

>>7617060

>but the execution is awful

No it's not. The originals are actually pretty nice considering they're a mass produced sneaker from a mega company. The leather isn't buttery soft or anything but they're pretty decent and I think the construction is actually very sturdy. Better than a lot of designer sneakers I think. Although I know for a fact that the point of sale influences the quality somewhat. The shipment that Barneys gets I know is going to be more spotless than the shipment Footlocker gets.

As for the replicas a lot of people have done them and that's what I wear at this point because I like to be a special snowflake but the reality is they're still replicas, you have to give credit where it's due. I don't like the profile or outsoles on those SL's. I think Visvim has pushed the design the farthest with the gum sole they've started using. Feels like the ultimate combination between the Stan Smith and German Army Trainer.

Also Hender Scheme is doing big things, I don't like their styling as much (I think they use a shell toe) but the idea of a sneaker made like a bespoke leather shoe is pretty mental. The SL's feel like a step backwards. It's already been established that the overall shape is perfect. Why mess with perfection? That iteration looks more like plimsolls or something, I really don't dig it. Hedi normally does great shoes too and really gets sneakers, I think with that he probably just got bored and figured why the fuck not.

[Anonymous No.7617202]

>>7617177
>Why mess with perfection?
the stan smith toebox is very far from something one could call "elegant", its short and bulky and looks clinched in some weird way. hedi has simply reduced their form to its essence and thus perfected the shoe. have you had the chance to compare them in person?
sure i like stan smiths theres nothing sleek and elegant, and also nothing luxurious about them. of course if thats not your thing thats fine.
i agree on the sole though, there is a version that is closer to the original, pic related.

[Anorak !!xPyeSRsxKUQ No.7617228]

>>7617124

>MMM and UC aren't replicating because they aren't trying to make their products as close as to gats or stan smiths as possible

What the fuck am I reading, that's exactly what they're doing. Trying to stay as close to the spirit of the original design as possible while infusing it with their own spin. That's what a replica is in this situation. The word in this sense has a broader meaning than what you will find in the dictionary.

But in the case of MMM they actually do have legit 1:1 replicas, the GAT was part of the Margiela REPLICA line (their words, not mine) before it was adopted into into the main lines (MMM line 1 for women and MMM line 10 for men) and remixed regularly.

I don't know what else to tell you, that guy isn't being very polite but you did mistake what I originally said and thought I was talking about fakes when I'm talking about replicas. Now you're trying to tell me that I'm in the wrong and I'm not using the right terminology? Okay then what is the correct word for what we are discussing right now? Designer shoes that are obvious copies of existing designs. Designs that have not been altered significantly enough so as to create a new style of shoe but are very much almost identical to the originals but with slight tweaking. What would you call that? Because I would call that a designer replica and I don't know what else it could be called.

[Anonymous No.7617232]

>>7617163
>you see a word and are so ignorant of common terminology that you just assume it has to mean the rigid textbook definition
lol

the common terminology refers to counterfeits

>>7617177
ah right i guess europe has to pay import taxes or something on them

[Anonymous No.7617234]

>>7617228
>>7617124
>>7617163
get this stupid fucking argument out of a perfectly good thread.

[droak No.7617241]

>Can they be used as a cheaper alternative to the Common Projects achilles low?
no.

both sneakers have their own design, other than being white tennis sneakers they don't resemble eachother very much, silhouette and details are different.


I feel that many people assume that achilles are perfect, like they are absolute, I dont like that approach.

Maybe are the stan smith better designed than the achilles? I am not necessarily saying they are or that they aren't, but I think it should be considered that the achilles are not the absolute design of tennis sneakers.

[Anonymous No.7617239]

>>7617228
>while infusing it with their own spin.
if you don't see how this radically changes their intentions idk what to tell you you're either stubborn or very dense

>but you did mistake what I originally said and thought I was talking about fakes when I'm talking about replicas.
i already admitted my mistake and don't have a problem with it i have problem with this idiot acting like replica is the best word to use in this context

[Anonymous No.7617247]

>>7617239
>you're either stubborn or very dense
Are you fucking new? This is tripfag Nomad. Had to change his name after getting ethered out of the water. He is not one or the other. He's both.

[Anonymous No.7617252]

>>7617239
reverse tour de france world champion

backpedal harder

[Anonymous No.7617254]

>>7617241
stan smiths dont look like that in real life though.
they look a lot worse.
maybe you could compare the sl stan siths to cps though

[banana No.7617258]

>>7617247
wat

[Anonymous No.7617263]

>>7617247
never read that shit i don't keep up with trip gossip

>>7617252
how am i backpedaling

[Anorak !!xPyeSRsxKUQ No.7617267]

>>7617202

>hedi has simply reduced their form to its essence and thus perfected the shoe

Holy lol pull your head out of your ass, yes I've seen them in person and I think they look too European. I don't like that overall shape, they remind me of Football shoes. They make me think of the shoes you would see teenage Europeans wearing with too tight skinny jeans and big puffy jackets. I wouldn't describe this style as sleek or elegant at all. Pointy, thin, football shoes lol.

Once again I think you and Hedi have missed the point, the Stan Smiths aren't really meant to look sleek or elegant, they're not dress shoes. They were originally a tennis shoe designed for function.

[Anonymous No.7617280]

>>7617267
>missed the point, the Stan Smiths aren't really meant to look sleek or elegant, they're not dress shoes
never questioned this, just stating what hedi made them. his are extremely dressy.
to be honest i cant think of a more elegant sneaker, even cps are a lot chunkier in every way. try to set your personal preference aside for a seond and see what he was obviously going for.

[Anonymous No.7617286]

best c/w for the Stan Smith's? and why isn't there an all white one?

[Anonymous No.7617297]

w2c stan smiths

[Anonymous No.7617300]

>>7617297
adidas online store

[Anonymous No.7617304]

>>7617300
but they r 2expensive on there
surely there is a UK shop which sells them for cheap?

[Anonymous No.7617305]

>>7617304
they're $75 dude
if that's too much you're shit outta luck afaik

[Anonymous No.7617312]

>>7617305
75 fookin quid for a pair of fookin adiddas m8 thats out of order that

[Anonymous No.7617318]

Stan Smiths or Nike Tennis Classics?

[Anonymous No.7617323]

>>7617312
this is the only time I've been glad I live in the US

and when I buy form uniqlo

[Anonymous No.7617331]

>>7617312
ha sucks

[Anonymous No.7617333]

>>7617312
they're £67 m8, think I know a site where they are £66.95 if you want me to hook you up?

[Anonymous No.7617335]

>>7617333
yes please many thanks

[Anorak !!xPyeSRsxKUQ No.7617336]

>>7617239

Okay give me a better word to use and I will start using it!

>>7617247

Huh? Are you talking to me? I'm Anorak and I've only ever been Anorak. Go look me up in the archive. I am the most knowledgeable poster on this board and /fa/'s symbol of hope. If you think I'm stupid take a look at my mediafire of collected posts:

https://www.mediafire.com/download/9b6qw0a7kb7f9hc

Here have an image from that upload. If you even glance at it your IQ will be raised several points.

>>7617280

I don't like dressy sneakers I think they're stupid. I'm almost certain any dressy outfit that I could wear with those sneakers would look better with dress shoes. Look, I like a lot of Hedi's sneaker work but I think the chunkier designs he's done for Dior Homme are better to the slim stuff he's done at Saint Laurent. Especially for his aesthetic I think you need a chunkier sneakier. When the pants are super slim I think a chunky shoe looks dope while a really slim shoe looks like too much. I've been comparing the old DH ad campaigns and the new SL ad campaigns and I think the DH models look better because yes everything is really slim but you also have stuff like the chunky sneakers and all the stacking on the jeans to sort of balance it out. Where as with SL everything is slim and thin, there's no variety and I think it looks too much.

DH boys to me looked really sexy and almost dangerous like they could hop on a motorcycle at any second and pop a wheelie. SL boys look like emaciated nerds, DH boys looked so natural in the biker leathers, SL boys look like they're drowning in them or that they stole it from their older and much cooler cousin.

And this might be a stretch but I seriously think something as simple as having a chunkier sneaker can radically alter all this and make everything look much better.

[banana No.7617350]

>>7617336
he thought u were junior watanabe 8)

[Anonymous No.7617358]

>>7617336
>look like they stole it from their older and much cooler cousin.
haha i cant say i disagree with this.
i guess i like the sneakers because i dont usually like sneakers, if that makes any sense.
i got the white midtops from fw13 and wear them just as i would wear chelseas or jodhpurs, i could never do that with other sneakers.

[Anonymous No.7617365]

w2c black stan smith

[Anorak !!xPyeSRsxKUQ No.7617369]

>>7617358

>i guess i like the sneakers because i dont usually like sneakers, if that makes any sense.

Yeah I totally understand this and can see the slimmer profile dress sneakers having a market. In fact it probably makes more sense for Hedi to go in a new direction like this and corner a new market because what he did before at DH has been knocked off and copied so much now that it's hard for him to keep doing it.

Really not my style but I do like the mid tops a lot more, good choice.

[Anonymous No.7617383]

>>7617241
In fairness it's hard to deny that Achilles do look very good

[Anonymous No.7617384]

>>7617369
never seen a pair pic related for sale, unfourtunately.
i guess the days of dh footwear will just simply not return.
i really dont get why all the italian made slp shoes are so lightweight. is it the sole?
sure, the quality is amazing from what i can judge, but something doesnt feel right about shoes being this light....
dh chelseas felt so much more... "real"

[Anonymous No.7618975]

the adidas branding on the side looks stupid

[Anonymous No.7619672]

le bump