or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Why aren't Clarks Originals given the love they deserve?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why aren't Clarks Originals given the love they deserve? - Page 2

post #16 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by bunburying View Post
That's not true. Theya re not ugly in the least. In fact they are objectively and universally beautiful. Admit it. Now!

Quote:
Originally Posted by bunburying View Post
How can you say that black leather Clarks Desert Treks are less pleasing on the eyes than Monica or Jennifer?

What a maladjusted things to say! One could start a shoe porn thread for these shoes alone.



If you like it, that's fine.

A lot of people, myself included, think they look like shit. I'd rather go bearfoot.
post #17 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by lee_44106 View Post
I'd rather go bearfoot.

Given your avatar, unsurprising.

The real problem with Clarks nowadays is that they are made like crap -- in Vietnam, I believe -- using crap materials, especially the leather.
post #18 of 32
Clark's line is mostly -- like 98% -- fugly.

And that's from a patron.

I've been wearing Desert Boots on and off for twenty years.

I've also got newish winter boots and turd-brown tennis shoe-like things, both pairs of which I can't wait to hoik out the window once I get through the season.
post #19 of 32
Clark's are comfortable and good for walking, and as a casual shoe I like the look. I bought a pair about 10 years ago and wore them often for a couple of years - I love to walk for hours. Last week I put them on walked for 5 minutes and the rubber sole fell off - I had them reglued and sewn.
post #20 of 32
I have the Desert Khan and like them; they are not the most comfortable, though.
post #21 of 32
I've never been a fan of Clark's even though I imagine the shoes are quite comfortable.
post #22 of 32
I think desert trek's are fresh. I bet if you polled streetwear + denim you'd find you're not alone. As a newbie to these fora I've found that there are both lame and fresh styles in each forum.
post #23 of 32
Compared to Crocs, Clarkes Originals are haute couture.
post #24 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Man Of Lint View Post
Compared to Crocs, Clarkes Originals are haute couture.
Actually I would say the shoes in the OP are as ugly as Crocs, maybe less noticeable because they are not as bright, but damn, they are ugly. Desert boots look ok, those look like the shoes the weirdest boy in class would wear to school aged about eleven.
post #25 of 32
I am likewise not a fan of Desert Treks. They look clunky at best. I do like their Desert Boot. And while I would never wear a Wallabee outside of the house, they are terribly comfortable, and the do make a great house shoe.
post #26 of 32
I actually do like the Desert Boots and have several pair of them. The shoes in the OP are ugly as sin, though.
post #27 of 32
Lots in the streetwear/denim crowd love the desert boots, but not much else as far as I know.
post #28 of 32
I find them popular with line cooks.

post #29 of 32
Wallabees are my preferred shoes in a very casual setting.
post #30 of 32
I have a pair of Natalie's which I really like. I don't think they were sold in the states so when I was studying in europe I had to track them down. They were very big in Japan at the time (late 90's?), but have since faded into obscurity. I don't really think they are that ugly at all actually and look pretty good with a pair of APCs, but I am sure many will disagree. I still wear them infrequently as they still look nearly brand new.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Why aren't Clarks Originals given the love they deserve?