Converse - Chuck Taylor II (updated after 98 years)

Status
Not open for further replies.

SKORPI0

Lifer
Jan 18, 2000
18,468
2,406
136
-1x-1.jpg

http://money.cnn.com/2015/07/23/news/companies/converse-chuck-taylor-2/

Dubbed "The Converse Chuck II," this new version will add arch support, cushioned souls and a breathable lining.

The new shoe is set to hit store shelves on July 28 and comes in black, white, red and blue. The price: $75 for high-tops and $70 a low-cut pair.
From the outside, the Chuck II will look a whole lot like the original. The same capped rubber toe, canvas exterior and circular "All-Star" emblem will all be in place.
But the updated sneaker will have some bells and whistles, including a padded tongue, perforated suede lining and more durable canvas.

The shoe debuted nearly a century ago in 1917, and Copcutt says the company has been working on the Chuck II for more than two years.
 
Last edited:

WilliamM2

Platinum Member
Jun 14, 2012
2,829
799
136
In what way did they suck?

Shoes have come a long way since 1917, they are flat, uncomfortable, and ugly.

Converse has sucked ever since being bought out by Nike. They used to make some really nice comfy hi-tops. Now they seem to only want to make the outdated CT's.
 

Pacfanweb

Lifer
Jan 2, 2000
13,155
59
91
Everybody wore them when I was in elementary school in the 70's. Nobody called them Chuck Taylors. We called them Converse All Stars. I never even heard the name Chuck Taylors until the 90's, at least.
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
65,603
13,981
146
I didn't like them in the 60's when they were "the in shoe," and they certainly haven't gotten any better since then.

Really, only hipster douchebags..and Ellen DeGeneres (who is just another hipster dude) wear those shitty shoes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.