or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Streetwear and Denim › Sin City, who should not wear Chucks
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Sin City, who should not wear Chucks - Page 3

post #31 of 58
chucks are a classic. i think older guys look fine wearing them.....considering they probably wore them when they were kids. if younger people think you look goofy or trying to hard to be 'hip' you can tell them that you were wearing them before they were born.
post #32 of 58
Chucks can fine on anyone imo. Now, if I saw an older person wearing them with skinny jeans and an ironic t-shirt I'd probably think they looked strange. But they're classic enough to go with a lot of different wardrobes and styles.

And maybe it's just me, but I think they look just as good with looser jeans as they do skinny stuff.
post #33 of 58
the sartorialist has a few shots of this dapper old japanese dude who's probably in his 60's (i think he's a tailor who draws inspiration from classic Hollywood cinema), in one photo he wore some kinda overcoat with chucks (red, iirc?) and he always looks badass. so i think age isn't a matter so much as attitude
post #34 of 58
I have them in white and black high top, and brown, white, and red low cut. I wear a pair at some point during the day almost daily.
post #35 of 58
Say no to chuck ox's. Just get purcells if you want lows.
post #36 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kent Wang View Post
I finally saw this movie the other night.

Elijah Wood in Chucks, yes. Clive Owen, no. It looked very strange for a tough guy in his 30-40s to be wearing them, much less in red.

I'm in my 30's and I only wear Chucks.

I remember (everyone in my neighborhood) wearing Chuck Taylors waaay back when I was in elementary school. They just have a consistent charm...they're simple, yet stylish in a way that transcends time or age and that's what's so special about them. Chucks were popular well before you were even born.

By the way, if it makes you happy, I would never wear red shoes.
post #37 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark C. View Post
By the way, if it makes you happy, I would never wear red shoes.

I felt this way until one day seemingly out of the blue I decided I wanted red Chucks.
post #38 of 58
I've never liked the cap, but I own one pair in white. However, I don't wear them much, I find that there's so many other tennis shoes out there that look more intersting.
post #39 of 58
hopefully everyone knows by now how i feel about chucks... but just for old time sake...


no other piece of classic footwear has the abililty to singlhandedly ruin on otherwise fine look... its amazing how theyve been consistently doing it for like 50 years...
post #40 of 58
Maybe its just because I teach at a University, but 90% of the men I see are wearing dirty white cheap running shoes, including shoes with various shock absorbers. This includes both students and department heads. In this context I think Chucks would be an improvement for almost everyone.
post #41 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark C. View Post
By the way, if it makes you happy, I would never wear red shoes.

funny. I don't normally wear Chucks but the one pair I have that are the only color I wear is a red pair.
post #42 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by lupin23rd View Post
Anyone wear the "loose-fit" Chucks as seen on Zappos?

Could be a better fit for those who wear non-slim jeans, or those with wider feet, provided they don't fall under the "square-toe" category... (never seen any in person)

m



I used to own a pair of "loose-fit" chucks. I have pretty wide feet and wearing normal Chucks are not an option for me; the toe box is too narrow and would cause blisters if I ever tried walking in them. Anyway, I saw the loose-fits on sale and thought "Alright! Chucks that actually fit me!"

Well, I have to say they look a bit funny. If the normal chucks look like clown shoes because they're too long, the loose-fit ones look like little boy shoes because they're too squat. The toe box is super-wide, even for me, which shortens the visual length of the entire shoe. They're not bad, but they never looked quite right. My pair was poorly made and fell apart after less than a year -- the brown sole came apart from the white rubber lining. That might have been a problem with my pair, but for all I know it's endemic to all Chuck Taylors.
post #43 of 58
All Chucks are like that. They're dirt cheap shoes that are nothing more than a couple pieces of canvas on a pad of rubber, and they cost at most $0.25 to make with slave labor. I don't know why you'd expect more from them.
post #44 of 58
My Clive Owen red chucks have lasted me nearly 4 years and I'm still proudly wearing them with my Clive Owen leather jacket and my other assorted Clive Owen black apparel.

Then again I'm 23 so maybe the original poster would let me off the hook for such a sartorial nightmare.
post #45 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by borderline View Post
Maybe its just because I teach at a University, but 90% of the men I see are wearing dirty white cheap running shoes, including shoes with various shock absorbers. This includes both students and department heads. In this context I think Chucks would be an improvement for almost everyone.
Chucks would definitely be an improvement. I hate the shock absorbers on shoes.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Streetwear and Denim
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Streetwear and Denim › Sin City, who should not wear Chucks