No announcement yet.

School me on Chuck Taylors

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    School me on Chuck Taylors

    So I've been pondering picking up a pair of Chucks (or Jack purcells or PF Flyers) for a couple of months now, and then just today, out of the blue, my girlfriend said I should get some. So I figure that's enough of a sign that I should go for it. I've never owned a pair though, and I want to make sure I get it right.

    I'm gravitating towards the slip on variety in a grey sort of color. Someone posted a picture of the John Varvatos a week or so ago, and I really liked them, but yikes they are expensive for a Converse shoe. Is there anything else other than the sole that's particularly special about these?

    Then I spotted these which look pretty similar minus the cool sole, and half the price.

    So, what am I missing? I'd also definitely be open to similar suggestions that aren't Chuck Taylors, they just seem like the standard.



    As the proud owner of 10-plus pairs, I have to say that Chucks/ Purcells are possibly the most versatile, simplistic, universal, throw-around, "match with anything" shoes out there. From time to time, Converse utilizes the design of others (i.e. Varvatos) to "spice" up this basic of a shoe. Essentially, the premium derives from the name of the designer & the inspiration he/she provides and those small idiosyncrasies that differentiate it from the original. Personally, get a pair (or two or three) of the originals at the lower price. You can go to Off Broadway, Gap, and Marshall's and get them for less than $30.

    There comes a time when you will see a "premium" Chuck, possibly made of leather, nylon or unique colorway. Got my eyes on these right now:

    Recommendation: When you purchase, buy a pair of good insoles. My experience is Chucks and Purcells alike don't have enough cushioning.

    Good luck.



      I am a picky, by the book, conservative guy. To my eyes, a grown up can wear short or hi-top Converse in grey, classic blue, red, or black from the original color lineup of the brand found here if you make sure to sort it by collection>Classic Colors:

      I am not into any kind but the original, classic lace-ups in the colors I mentioned (almost always hi-top for me). I personally only wear them on occasion with jeans. Currently, I like my black pair the best, but I like grey as well.

      Most other styles and variations look trendy, flashy, or a bit high school for my eyes. I also can't help but love the appeal of having the classic ones that made the brand famous back in the golden age

      I like the crisp look of the colors I mentioned:

      Sin City

      Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix

      I, Robot



        I knew you guys would be full of good advice.

        Do I remember correctly hearing that I should size down when buying these shoes?


        I actually just caught a bit of Sin City last weekend on TV and definitely noticed the red Chucks



          @Deke, Chucks typically run a half size large (for me) but I have to purchase my actual size to accommodate the aforementioned insoles.



            I used to size half a size down under their recommendations, but I found true to size more comfortable. I would try it on.



              Chucks, Converse, etc - are they all brand names that people use as a general description for a type of shoe?

              Like - when you say Varvatos makes a Converse: what does that mean?



                @Nick - I'm no authority on the topic - and this might be an old wives tale so by all means if someone knows the correct story let me know - but legend has it that Converse made the Converse All-Star in the 20s. It was their foray into the elite basketball boot market. At some point a pro baller called Chuck Taylor complained to Converse that he had sore ankles after wearing their shoe, so they asked his advice on improvements. He subsequently went on to be a salesman for Converse, and after making some changes to the shoe, had his signature attached to the ankle logo thus giving the shoe its name of Converse Chuck Taylor All-Stars. As with many things, I think these days the reference to 'chucks' is often used to describe a style of shoe than the specific model. Jack Purcell is a whole different shoe altogether (he was a badminton player, and I think Converse bought the licensing rights from another company well after he'd made his splash anyway).

                Your specific example, I would guess, refers to Varvatos' personal spin on the All-star shoe, officially endorsed by Converse.



                  Gotcha. I would call those Converse shoes high-tops back when I was a kid. =)

                  So the Converse and PF Flyers seem really similar while the Jack Purcells seem to be a sneaker with a lower profile.

                  Where's the "All-Stars" part come in?



                    The Chuck Taylor and All-Star are one in the same. It was originally the Converse All-Star until Taylor made his changes at which time it shifted from simply being the Converse All-Star to the Converse Chuck Taylor All-Star.



                      Anyone have any experience with these? A little slimmer than the standard. They might not be quite substantial enough with jeans though...


                      Also, what brick and mortar stores actually sell CTs? (so I can go try them on).



                        Pretty much every shoe store ever... DSW, Famous Footwear, Payless, etc.




                          Haha, I guess since I've never really looked for them before, I never noticed. Then again, I buy most of my shoes online these days.



                            Converse also has outlet stores in some areas. I live by one and got one of my pairs for $17. I really can't figure out why they were priced so low, but it's worth looking into.

                            "You don't need money to dress better than you do" - Salvatore Romano



                              I have a pair of Varvatos Chucks (not the kind posted in the op) and the clear, rubber sole separated from the rest of the sole at the back so it kind of flaps around. That never happened to any of my other Chucks before.