# How trad are Chucks?



## GentlemanGeorge (Dec 30, 2009)

Just picked up these NOS vintage Chuck Taylor oxfords and was hoping someone could identify and date them, mostly. I know they are trad for their purpose, especially as basketball shoes, but these don't appear to be for any specific sporting use but rather, it would seem, as a casual "oxford" trading on the popularity of the look and name. Any thoughts or wisdom, fellows?


----------



## Steve Smith (Jan 12, 2008)

Those don't look like Chucks to me. I see what the label says, but I have never seen anything quite like those. They look like they are made for track or boating rather than basketball.

IMO, Purcells are much more trad than Chucks.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

All you lads need to stop worrying about how trad something is! The word for Chuck Taylor sneakers is classic -- everyone wears them and they're quite timeless.

The "Made in USA" makes me weep for the days where this was still so...


----------



## J. Andrew (Nov 19, 2009)

those are crazy... Look like converse "one-stars" only with Chuck taylor slapped on... maybe one of the first lowtops? 

+1 for Jack Purcells


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

I'm guessing 70s, I think they called them "court shoes." They're Converse All-Stars, all right, but you couldn't call them "Chucks." I remember stepping up to my first pair of Chucks when I made the jv, in 62. White high tops, double layer canvas. They make me think of the great Bob Cousy.


----------



## GentlemanGeorge (Dec 30, 2009)

Ok, I'm willing to rescind the how trad are they bit. They are at least an iconic and ubiquitous item of Americana, however, and vintage Chucks can be highly collectable--which, I admit, is the only reason I got them. They are very interesting, too, and not merely for being a) old and b) unusual, but because they are handmade, which is obvious from examining the sole especially around the sides. Here's another pic:


----------



## J. Andrew (Nov 19, 2009)

you should look real hard and see if you can see a fingerprint in the rubber


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

I like the way they look with khakis and a shetland sweater.


----------



## Coleman (Mar 18, 2009)

How Trad are Chucks? 7

This is their score on an arbitrary Trad scoring system that I have just devised called the Coleman Method for Determining the Trad of an Object. When queried, the first number that pops into one's mind is the result. Said result is meaningless. 

Congrats Chucks! You are 7 Trad.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

The Rambler said:


> I'm guessing 70s, I think they called them "court shoes."


I've been wearing All-Stars for more than 55 years and can't recall ever seeing a pair that looked like the ones in the OP. Perhaps they are much older than the 70's. Here I am wearing a pair of All-Stars in the mid-50's and as can easily be seen they look nothing like the ones posted.










Cruiser


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

right, those are chucks. black lowtops, rolled up jeans, that's a look that could never go out of style. My tennis playing wife had the pictured ones, I don't remember exactly when, I'm guessing early 70s.


----------



## GentlemanGeorge (Dec 30, 2009)

Ok, I understand the tedious hand-wringing over what is or isn't trad misses the point of this forum, and I wasn't trying to create another debate or even inquiry in that vein. I was mining your knowledge and trying to keep it topical. 

BTW, my last comment was all in fun.


----------



## Coleman (Mar 18, 2009)

I apologize, but the thread moved me to a fit of genius; it bathed my mind in the flames of Prometheus. My new method shall, hopefully, end all such agonizing; no more hours, days, and weeks lost to toil. 



More seriously, I have yet to see the shoes about which you've queried. My work's network blocks most pics posted here.

Like others though, I prefer Purcells to Chucks. After I switched, my feet just looked goofy in Chucks to my eye.


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

Oh no, thanks for bringing up chucks, it's brought on a flood of memories for me, if I thought buying a pair could make me feel as fleet-footed as I felt when I put on my first pair, even for a few seconds, I'd buy a 'em tonight!


----------



## vwguy (Jul 23, 2004)

Maybe we need a Trad rating scale 

Brian


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

Well following Coleman's approach, it's just like the universally accepted 10 point scale for rating women; posters on this forum do think about clothes as often as they think of women, right?


----------



## Coleman (Mar 18, 2009)

Nah, the Coleman Method for Determining the Trad of an Object has no constraints on scale (an object could score 1,567 for example) and is entirely arbitrary and meaningless. 

The 1-10 scale on judging the opposite sex, while often arbitrary, is far from meaningless. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Cardinals5 (Jun 16, 2009)

Coleman said:


> How Trad are Chucks? 7
> 
> This is their score on an arbitrary Trad scoring system that I have just devised called the Coleman Method for Determining the Trad of an Object. When queried, the first number that pops into one's mind is the result. Said result is meaningless.
> 
> Congrats Chucks! You are 7 Trad.


Coleman that idea should definitely be a thread that everyone can use to post and ask about the relative tradliness of such-and-such an item.

Might I suggest the thread be called: Coleman's Absolutely Arbitrary 100% Accurate Tradometer. This is actually a serious suggestion since we get a fair number of postings about "is this trad, is that trad", etc. I'll post things from time to time such as:


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

I found a similar picture . The site says they are One Stars and were made in the 70s.


----------



## PeterW (May 14, 2004)

*They look a lot like . . .*

Beta Bikers.

70's black canvas sneakers for cycling with the same little heel.

They were very popular in the mid-70s bike boom.

I doubt Converse had a version, but if they did, these are what they would have looked like.


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

Thanks for that link, Lax. A sadly all too familiar story of decline appearing to be growth. I wonder if the modern canvas Chuck is any good?


----------



## Joe Beamish (Mar 21, 2008)

Coleman said:


> ...Like others though, I prefer Purcells to Chucks. After I switched, my feet just looked goofy in Chucks to my eye.


I've wondered about Purcells, haven't tried them. Are they true to size? What do you like about them? Would you mind posting a pic next time you wear them?


----------



## Thom Browne's Schooldays (Jul 29, 2007)

My only qualm with purcells is that they're hyper-trendy right now


----------



## GentlemanGeorge (Dec 30, 2009)

Somebody pass me a vintage old stock Schlitz, I'm getting beat up over here!


----------



## vwguy (Jul 23, 2004)

Perhaps a 3/2 sack blazer w/ patch pockets could be the highest on the Trad ranking scale and the antithesis could be a dirty hipster. "How Trad is this widget?" "No more Trad than a PBR drinking, fixie riding, dirty Hipster". I'll let other work out the rest of the scale 

Brian


----------



## GentlemanGeorge (Dec 30, 2009)

vwguy said:


> Perhaps a 3/2 sack blazer w/ patch pockets could be the highest on the Trad ranking scale and the antithesis could be a dirty hipster. "How Trad is this widget?" "No more Trad than a PBR drinking, fixie riding, dirty Hipster". I'll let other work out the rest of the scale
> 
> Brian


Now _that's_ useful! I propose indie rocker lies somewhere in the middle with crusty hippy dog-on-a-makeshift-leash spare changing delusional minstrel falling off the scale.


----------



## Steve Smith (Jan 12, 2008)

GentlemanGeorge said:


> Ok, I understand the tedious hand-wringing over what is or isn't trad misses the point of this forum, and I wasn't trying to create another debate or even inquiry in that vein. I was mining your knowledge and trying to keep it topical.
> 
> BTW, my last comment was all in fun.


I didn't see it as hand wringing at all, more like throwing out an interesting item for comment. I think about 99% of the members of this forum wear what they like, regardless of whether others pronounce it as "trad".


----------



## Coleman (Mar 18, 2009)

Cardinals5 said:


> Coleman that idea should definitely be a thread that everyone can use to post and ask about the relative tradliness of such-and-such an item.
> 
> Might I suggest the thread be called: Coleman's Absolutely Arbitrary 100% Accurate Tradometer. This is actually a serious suggestion since we get a fair number of postings about "is this trad, is that trad", etc.


And we could get some software savvy fella to make it auto-respond with "Congrats, <insert queried object here>! You are <insert random number here> Trad.

Haha, yes, I think this might work. :idea:



Joe Beamish said:


> I've wondered about Purcells, haven't tried them. Are they true to size? What do you like about them? Would you mind posting a pic next time you wear them?


I sure will. They should come out of hibernation soon. The thing that makes the biggest difference for me is the shape of the toebox. Chucks are pointier.



Thom Browne's Schooldays said:


> My only qualm with purcells is that they're hyper-trendy right now


My disregard for fashion goes both ways. Don't care if it's in, don't care if it's out. I wear what I want.


----------



## Cardinals5 (Jun 16, 2009)

GG - it was just good natured teasing before. The only athletic shoes I currently own are the low Chucks in black.

Coleman, what says the tradometer on Chucks with 2" cuffed chinos?


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

I'm with Coleman. I've never gotten why people won't wear madras, boat shoes, etc. just because it's trendy. Seems to go against the principles of "trad."


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

Plus, it confers the glory of being fashionable from time to time, like the stopped clock that is perfectly accurate twice a day!


----------



## PorterSq (Apr 17, 2008)

J. Andrew said:


> those are crazy... Look like converse "one-stars" only with Chuck taylor slapped on... maybe one of the first lowtops?
> 
> +1 for Jack Purcells


Aren't those the version they sell at Target? I've seen them there and my theory (without any backing) was that they were selling them with the slightly different look at Target prices as a way to avoid offending buyers of standard Chucks who paid more for the classics.

Edit: yup. Go to target.com and type "one star" into the search box and you'll find them.


----------



## GentlemanGeorge (Dec 30, 2009)

PorterSq said:


> Aren't those the version they sell at Target? I've seen them there and my theory (without any backing) was that they were selling them with the slightly different look at Target prices as a way to avoid offending buyers of standard Chucks who paid more for the classics.
> 
> Edit: yup. Go to target.com and type "one star" into the search box and you'll find them.


Sorry, not even close, it seems you're not paying attention to the details, including the laces. Show me a hand-molded latex sole with a heel and I'll change my mind. The toe cap itself is a hugely indicative sign these are early. I'm waiting to hear back from converse connection to find out what they have to say, so I'll let you all in on the result.


----------



## Coleman (Mar 18, 2009)

Cardinals5 said:


> GG - it was just good natured teasing before. The only athletic shoes I currently own are the low Chucks in black.
> 
> Coleman, what says the tradometer on Chucks with 2" cuffed chinos?


63!:icon_smile_big:


----------



## PorterSq (Apr 17, 2008)

GentlemanGeorge said:


> Sorry, not even close, it seems you're not paying attention to the details, including the laces. Show me a hand-molded latex sole with a heel and I'll change my mind. The toe cap itself is a hugely indicative sign these are early. I'm waiting to hear back from converse connection to find out what they have to say, so I'll let you all in on the result.


Good point. Guess #2: this is what they sell at the Chinese version of Target and use even cheaper materials than at the American.


----------



## sjk (Dec 1, 2007)

Getting back to the original question...

These shoes are truly bizarre. I have no idea whatsoever what sport (if any) they were intended for. Track? The labels on the sole seem to be from a '60s version of the Chuck Taylor and usually were found on the heel. The chevron and star pattern first showed up in the mid '70s (see the classic Cons worn by Julius Erving with the Sixers). They almost look like some sort of Frankenstein prototype. I paid pretty close attention to the sneaker scene in the '70s as a kid but can't identify these at all. Where did you buy them?


----------



## GentlemanGeorge (Dec 30, 2009)

^At the downtown Goodwill in Savannah. They always throw out the boxes if they come with it, but the right shoe looks to have been a display--a little yellowing and some cracks.


----------



## katon (Dec 25, 2006)

It's all about the color scheme.  Unbleached or optical-white-and-grungy, instead of black. Extra points if you make them low-tops yourself, like that fellow from Take Ivy. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Thom Browne's Schooldays (Jul 29, 2007)

Jovan said:


> I'm with Coleman. I've never gotten why people won't wear madras, boat shoes, etc. just because it's trendy. Seems to go against the principles of "trad."


I'm with you both in theory, but in practice I'm much to conscious of it.
I know it's stupid, and just as bad as following fashions, but every other under 25 y/o guy started wearing plaid shorts and boatshoes, I held off on the madras and sperrys for a while.



vwguy said:


> Perhaps a 3/2 sack blazer w/ patch pockets could be the highest on the Trad ranking scale and the antithesis could be a dirty hipster. "How Trad is this widget?" "No more Trad than a PBR drinking, fixie riding, dirty Hipster". I'll let other work out the rest of the scale
> 
> Brian


Ironic though, considering how neo-trad is de rigeur among hipsters these days.
I see tons of trad-ish stuff (that I can't afford) from all these indie fashion places- Band of Outsiders, Crew, etc etc.


----------



## Coleman (Mar 18, 2009)

Joe Beamish said:


> I've wondered about Purcells, haven't tried them. Are they true to size? What do you like about them? Would you mind posting a pic next time you wear them?


I didn't answer one of your questions, Joe. I do wear my true size in Purcells (but I also wear my true size in Chucks when I know most people don't).

I'll put on a pair of both tonight and take pics.


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

Jovan said:


> All you lads need to stop worrying about how trad something is! The word for Chuck Taylor sneakers is classic -- everyone wears them and they're quite timeless.
> 
> The "Made in USA" makes me weep for the days where this was still so...


I'm happy to hear that others have noticed this trend here at AAAC towards asking what is or isn't "Trad." We've had threads inquiring about the most "Trad" job, the most "Trad" "Glasses," the most "Trad" car," and I even believe there was one about what's the most "Trad" wife!

I have a closet full of cuffed plain front khakis and 3/2 sack suits and sport coats but this group of "Uber Trad" geeks has shown me without a doubt that although I love Traditional American Men's Fashion,....I am not "Trad."

How about the first rule of "Trad" being that one must have a mind of their own!


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Oops, I misread. I thought the question was: How trad are _chicks_? To which I was prepared to answer: once the Mary-Janes come off, who cares?​


----------



## CM Wolff (Jun 7, 2006)

127.72 MHz said:


> I'm happy to hear that others have noticed this trend here at AAAC towards asking what is or isn't "Trad." We've had threads inquiring about the most "Trad" job, the most "Trad" "Glasses," the most "Trad" car," and I even believe there was one about what's the most "Trad" wife!


Not as much as a trend as a regular cycle. For years the board will have a month or two full of hyper "trad" questions, they eventually dissapate or collapse under their own weight, and the board returns to the more regular topics about clothes sourcing for six months. At that point, it will be decided again that it is time for more comic relief, and the "trad" questions pop up again in a flurry. It certainly isn't random or one-off and more than a recent phenomena....


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

CM: as a newcomer, thanks for the explanation: I'm on my first "cycle" of "is it trad?" questions, and still find them amusing. Seasoned vets seem to think that they are posted by trolls and troublemakers, but I think they're probably sometimes sincere. Someone trying to learn, (and, let's face it, it's possible to make terrible mistakes in dressing up) might deserve some mild hazing, but to the newcomer it seems like there's a rigid and somewhat impenetrable code known by the membership here. 

Clearly in this thread, the original issue is not are chucks trad? but what the hell are those shoes the op showed?


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
Actually the shoes pictured in the OP appear a lot better made and potentially more supportive to the foot, than are the 'come-as-you-are' Chuck Taylor's we all seem so familiar with, from the days of our youth. I cannot be the only one herein, who has noticed that Chucks are terribly unkind to the more mature foot...can I?


----------



## Joe Beamish (Mar 21, 2008)

Speaking of which, can anyone recommend arch support thingies for inserting into sneakers? Maybe those would help.

I think someone recently posted a pic of James Ellroy wearing Chuck T's or what looked like them. Somewhere or other in one of these threads. He's got a rather more mature foot no doubt.

My (white, low-cut) Chuck T's are simply flat-footed, like me. They're no more unkind to my feet than unlined boat shoes. I wouldn't want to walk too much distance on concrete in either pair of shoes. 

I suspect Purcells are kindly to the feet


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

Eagle: I think they might be kind to my gravity-flattened feet; I'm worried that they might be too, well, youthful-looking for a 62 year old. In fact, I wonder if my penny loafers are similarly mutton-dressed-as-lamb, as my Grandmother, an unkind old bird, used to say.


----------



## Joe Beamish (Mar 21, 2008)

Rambler, I don't know what circles you run in, but Chuck T's on a 62 yr. old guy isn't mutton dressed as lamb. It's a charming, if quaint, relaxed look -- and today what isn't relaxed? Check out the pic of James Ellroy in this forum sporting similar sneakers. 

Nobody is going to say, "look at that 60-ish guy in penny loafers (or chuck taylors), who is he trying to fool?"

A hairpiece, on the other hand....


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

yeah, I saw it, he looked pleased with them.


----------



## Joe Beamish (Mar 21, 2008)

Coleman, you're right.

As for the Ellroy pic, yeah I don't know what he's pointing at. The sneakers? I doubt it. I'm not a fan of his -- I'm not even a big fan of Chuck T's.

Which is why I was asking about Purcells.

(I will always be a big fan of penny loafers though)


----------



## Coleman (Mar 18, 2009)

Joe Beamish said:


> Rambler, I don't know what circles you run in, but Chuck T's on a 62 yr. old guy isn't mutton dressed as lamb. It's a charming, if quaint, relaxed look -- and today what isn't relaxed? Check out the pic of James Ellroy in this forum sporting similar sneakers.
> 
> Nobody is going to say, "look at that 60-ish guy in penny loafers (or chuck taylors), who is he trying to fool?"
> 
> A hairpiece, on the other hand....


+1!

If anything, we lambs are more open to ridicule for dressing like mutton these days (which seems to be anything more formal than a collared shirt and khakis for most).


----------



## Joe Beamish (Mar 21, 2008)

Coleman, good post.

Rambler, I'm not remotely a fan of James Ellroy, nor even much of a fan of Chuck T's. (So don't wear them if you don't want to.)

Which is why I was asking about Purcells.

I will always be fan of penny loafers.


----------



## Coleman (Mar 18, 2009)

LOL, my comment is after Joe's due to Forum weirdness. I've posted that comment thrice, it's shown up twice, and I deleted the first before I realized Joe responded.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Old guys can wear Converse All-Stars, and if they can play the blues it's all the better.










Cruiser


----------



## Joe Beamish (Mar 21, 2008)

Good point Cruiser. It's up to the wearer more than the shoes. 

Old blues guys can do anything. (People have been saying the Stones are too old for decades, but nobody said that about old blues guys like John Lee Hooker.)


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

Well Cruiser, I can't play the blues (though God Knows I've got the right to sing them), but that picture settles it, I'm getting a pair. Does anyone know how they run, size-wise.

Coleman: I take your point. Life is certainly ironic.


----------



## BinomialSpider (Sep 4, 2009)

Joe Beamish said:


> Speaking of which, can anyone recommend arch support thingies for inserting into sneakers? Maybe those would help.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


Purcells are essentially the same as Chuck T's, as far as I can tell. The sole might be a bit more flexible, but they have no arch support. Jack Purcell is, of course, a division of Converse, a division of Nike.

If you want arch support, you might look at PF Flyers. For insoles, any drug store has a selection of Dr. Scholl's products, one of which might work for you.


----------



## Joe Beamish (Mar 21, 2008)

No, there's a particular insert people often recommend, and I don't believe it's among that bewildering trial-and-error array of Dr. Scholl's products at the drug store. 

I think I read about some such insert in the customer reviews of Chuck T's (or Purcells) on the Zappos site and will eventually look it up.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Cruiser said:


> Old guys can wear Converse All-Stars, and if they can play the blues it's all the better.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


LOL, but, is he singing the blues because his feet hurt? Now that's the question!


----------



## Coleman (Mar 18, 2009)

The promised Chuck v. Purcell comparison:


----------



## TradMichael (Apr 13, 2006)

^Purcells all the way. That said, how old are yours? I haven't looked into all the variations of JP over the years but mine look a shade darker and are a bit different (no name or logo on the tongue, for one). I'd gotten them when they were still made in USA and I seem to recall they'd been discontinued for a while. (But have since come back on the market?)


----------



## Coleman (Mar 18, 2009)

Mine're only a year or so old (I think :icon_scratch:; I have a pretty poor concept of time the last few years it seems). They are a J. Crew special run that used some of their chino material or some such thing for the uppers, bought at a time when I worshipped J. Crew as a false idol and had Tradly sartorial impulses but knew not of quality and value (at least I didn't go for the pre-distressed ones, right?).

They are back on the market, brought back from the grave by Nike. This of course means they are now produced off-shore. All the usual online suspects carry them (Zappos, Piperlime, etc.).


----------



## TradMichael (Apr 13, 2006)

Coleman said:


> Mine're only a year or so old (I think :icon_scratch:; I have a pretty poor concept of time the last few years it seems). They are a J. Crew special run that used some of their chino material or some such thing for the uppers, bought at a time when I worshipped J. Crew as a false idol and had Tradly sartorial impulses but knew not of quality and value (at least I didn't go for the pre-distressed ones, right?).


That was only a year ago? You've come a long way!

Anyway, I like the color and material. It's about time I pull mine out, so maybe I'll get up a pic. But be forewarned, my main pair is pretty post-distressed at this point and I'm still not ready to give it up. (When I heard they were stopping US production and it was unclear as to whether they were going to ever bring them back, I basically mail-ordered a lifetime's supply from a midwestern family-run shoe store. That was maybe 7 years ago, and I'm still on pair #1.)


----------



## Coleman (Mar 18, 2009)

TradMichael said:


> That was only a year ago? You've come a long way!
> 
> Anyway, I like the color and material. It's about time I pull mine out, so maybe I'll get up a pic. But be forewarned, my main pair is pretty post-distressed at this point and I'm still not ready to give it up. (When I heard they were stopping US production and it was unclear as to whether they were going to ever bring them back, I basically mail-ordered a lifetime's supply from a midwestern family-run shoe store. That was maybe 7 years ago, and I'm still on pair #1.)


Yep, I'm a reformed man and all in around a year's time. It's all thanks to you gents here.

You've got a pretty nice thing goin' with your Purcells it sounds like. I'd like to see the whole fleet. Are they all the same color?


----------



## Thom Browne's Schooldays (Jul 29, 2007)

Coleman, looks good.
I kinda like those chucks you have actually, are those the ones orvis carried a while back?

Don't worry about J.Crew, they have some good stuff, there are more than a few trad J.Crew fans around here, myself included.


----------



## Coleman (Mar 18, 2009)

:icon_smile_big:, yeah, I still wear some J. Crew. All of my argyle socks are J. Crew (of which I have quite a fleet). And I've really enjoyed a couple flannel shirts I picked up at their outlet this winter.

Those Chucks were from Urban Outfitters of all places, from an even darker chapter in my sartorial life, my quasi-hipster early college days ic12337: (they are 4-5 years old I believe).


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

Coleman,

I really like the Jack Purcells and have been thinking about a pair for a while now. The problem is the soul always looks too thick when I see them in stores or online. I missed these at J.Crew, so I don't know if they're the same as the ones offered elsewhere, but they look a lot more streamlined. Is it my imagination or are yours actually different in some way than the ones I'd see on Zappos or in Nordstrom?

Thx


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

Would "my sartorial life" make an interesting thread?


----------



## TradMichael (Apr 13, 2006)

Coleman said:


> You've got a pretty nice thing goin' with your Purcells it sounds like. I'd like to see the whole fleet. Are they all the same color?


Yeah, all Navy. I like the other colors (like yours, and I think the black is as good or even better than my black Chucks), but I'd decided at the time that this pair and color would be my casual trademark, then quickly calculated how many pairs I'd need if I'd be uber careful and keep each pair going for a good 10-15 years. So all the others are the same as my "first" pair, as pictured---I assume, as I've literally never opened the boxes! (Well ok, maybe I peeked once when they first came, but still...)

I also have a few _really_ old (like 40s-50s) sneakers (not Converse) that look a lot like the first post on this thread. They were unworn but I'm kind of afraid to put any wear on them.


----------



## Coleman (Mar 18, 2009)

Trip English said:


> Coleman,
> 
> I really like the Jack Purcells and have been thinking about a pair for a while now. The problem is the soul always looks too thick when I see them in stores or online. I missed these at J.Crew, so I don't know if they're the same as the ones offered elsewhere, but they look a lot more streamlined. Is it my imagination or are yours actually different in some way than the ones I'd see on Zappos or in Nordstrom?
> 
> Thx


I don't think mine are any different than the current model sold elsewhere aside from the fabric. I've looked at them in-store at Macy's and other places (although I wasn't examining them closely), and I didn't notice any differences. Once these ones give out, I really want some white ones (unless, in the meantime, I come across a non-third-world produced white canvas sneaker, which seems unlikely).


----------



## TradMichael (Apr 13, 2006)

Trip English said:


> I really like the Jack Purcells and have been thinking about a pair for a while now. The problem is the soul always looks too thick when I see them in stores or online.


That's funny ... it's the thick soles that first turned me on to them. I liked the look (they're originally for badminton), makes me think of classic Sperry Top-sider canvas stripers or the 60s California look that SeaVees are trying to revive.


----------



## Coleman (Mar 18, 2009)

The Rambler said:


> Would "my sartorial life" make an interesting thread?


LOL, for some of us, it might be too dark a subject; one requiring therapy sessions.

Then I'd have to tell you all about my street punk days in high school when I had a mohawk, and I just don't know if I can go there at this time .


----------



## Joe Beamish (Mar 21, 2008)

Coleman, thanks for posting the pics. Does anyone wear the all-whites? My mental image of Purcells is the all white model. However, I also like the look of these blue ones. I'm sure they're just as versatile. They are a much lighter shade of blue than I recall seeing on the Zappos site.


----------



## BinomialSpider (Sep 4, 2009)

Trip English said:


> ... The problem is the soul always looks too thick when I see them in stores or online.


It took me a little while to figure out what you were referring to. Purcell soles are no thicker than Chuck Taylor soles; I think they may even be a bit thinner. But the Purcell shoes have a rubber sidewall, which blends in with the sole and makes it look thicker.

You might prefer a light color (say white), so the sidewall would blend in with the shoe. (You can pick your own component colors at the Converse Web site, for $65 (canvas) or $75 (leather).)


----------



## Cardinals5 (Jun 16, 2009)

The Rambler said:


> Would "my sartorial life" make an interesting thread?





Coleman said:


> LOL, for some of us, it might be too dark a subject; one requiring therapy sessions.
> 
> Then I'd have to tell you all about my street punk days in high school when I had a mohawk, and I just don't know if I can go there at this time .


Did you really have a mohawk? That's gutsy in Utah.

My shameful sartorial evolution has several significant valleys as well - my combat boot phase in middle school, I did the workwear thing for a while, but the capper is my 5-6 year long hippy/grunge look in the early to mid-1990s - Minneapolis was like Seattle back then. I had shoulder length hair, two pierced ears, and Elvis-style lambchops and you can imagine what the outfits looked like  When I finally cut my hair and shaved the lambchops no one recognized me anymore. Sorry, I won't be showing any pics.


----------



## Coleman (Mar 18, 2009)

^I did, a black one. And at various other times in high school I had green, blue, or purple spiked hair. I was always covered in patches, spikes, and studs, bleached denim, and wore heavy, black, steel-toed Doc Martens with yellow laces (my friends and I all had our own unique---within the group---laces color). Such a strange life to remember.


----------



## Joe Beamish (Mar 21, 2008)

Fellow punks and post-punks, you are not alone around here


----------



## Corcovado (Nov 24, 2007)

In my book, Chucks are trad. I don't care if this shoe or that shoe is more trad or less trad. Honestly, if Chucks were considered not trad I would still like them and simply consider it a point of departure from trad that I like for my own personal style. Alas, my feet are too flat to wear them anymore. So please, wear them on my behalf. I like the blue or forest green low-cut versions myself.


----------



## Coleman (Mar 18, 2009)

Joe Beamish said:


> Fellow punks and post-punks, you are not alone around here


I had many pairs of Chucks in my punk days too. It's intersting to recognize the few overlaps. The punk and more traditional skinhead aesthetics took a lot of cues from the past. The skinheads (the non-racist more traditional types) could almost be passed off as workwear Trads (plaid button-down shirts, Baracuta jackets, jeans and khakis, braces, nice boots).


----------



## Joe Beamish (Mar 21, 2008)

Yes and there's that Mod thing also, which blends in there somewhere. 

Lately I've wanted a cardigan again. I used to wear really nice vintage ones, used to thrift them in high school. I had a burgundy one with black trim and moosehead metal buttons which I wore (with t-shirts and dickies/jeans and chucks or boots) till it disintegrated. It was slimmish fitting. Later when grunge caused lots of cardigans I steered clear. Last week I almost snagged one at Club Monaco on someone's advice, but they only had black and I wanted navy. Missed that bullet.


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

I consider you gentlemen to be lucky to have had those exciting alternatives. In my high school days, early 60s, it was basically either "collegiate" (chinos, penny loafers, oxford button downs, a crew neck shetland; or what I now think of as Elvis, tight jeans with a comb sticking out of the back pocket, lots of brylcreem and black leather. I wasn't cool enough to even contemplate the look, which seemed to attract the best-looking girls. When I got to college, in the later 60s, the alternative to the "collegiate," which now included tweed jackets, and wildly impractical green cinched bookbags, which everyone carried, was slob, which gradually merged with hippie, which became "hippie slob," a look that carried me through grad school to my first job. In doing that (and I blame the drugs, by the way) I avoided most of the pitfalls of what has to be the darkest phase of the modern sartorial age, the 70s, in all their double-knit long-sideburned, superwide tied and lapelled glory. Pictures from that era are really humiliating, even baseball cards.


----------



## Joe Beamish (Mar 21, 2008)

Ha! Every baseball player had a mustache -- and a big one. No matter what!

In the 70s the men may have looked crummy, but in my opinion the ladies looked pretty awesome.

Rambler, I'd trade you my early 1980s* for your mid-late 1960s anytime, sartorially and musically at least. Music most of all.

* Edit: And anything since


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

with you on the music--and on the ladies.


----------



## Cardinals5 (Jun 16, 2009)

Joe Beamish said:


> Ha! Every baseball player had a mustache -- and a big one. No matter what!


I love the era of mustache baseball.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Joe Beamish said:


> Rambler, I'd trade you my early 1980s* for your mid-late 1960s anytime, sartorially and musically at least.


Although the civil unrest, assasinations, and the war weren't at the top of my list of things I remember fondly; the fact of the matter is that I wouldn't trade the late 60's-early/mid 70's for any other period during my lifetime. The music, the clothes, almost everything about that period made it magical to me; although to be honest I don't know if many of us really knew at the time how we would view it later on. I think we just thought that was the way things were and would be.

At the same time sometimes I find it hard to believe that someone with my conservative religious, social, and political leanings today could have ever been a long haired left wing hippie hard at work trying to get George McGovern elected President. But I was. Perhaps there was something in the water, or maybe the hookah? :icon_smile_big:

Cruiser


----------



## David V (Sep 19, 2005)

Cruiser said:


> Although the civil unrest, assasinations, and the war weren't at the top of my list of things I remember fondly; the fact of the matter is that I wouldn't trade the late 60's-early/mid 70's for any other period during my lifetime. The music, the clothes, almost everything about that period made it magical to me; although to be honest I don't know if many of us really knew at the time how we would view it later on. I think we just thought that was the way things were and would be.
> 
> At the same time sometimes I find it hard to believe that someone with my conservative religious, social, and political leanings today could have ever been a long haired left wing hippie hard at work trying to get George McGovern elected President. But I was. Perhaps there was something in the water, or maybe the hookah? :icon_smile_big:
> 
> Cruiser


I'd easily take a pass on the polyester leisure suites. 
As for Chuck's...never liked em. Guess everybody had 'em except for me.


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

Back to the punk-chucks thing, I think that there has long been a punk-preppy (if not Trad) axis; I believe it's mentioned in the preppy handbook. Be that as it may, my daughter who attended one of the preppiest of schools (no. 1, maybe, in the Preppy handbook) is a punk rocker now, and wears red or black chucks on stage


----------



## Thom Browne's Schooldays (Jul 29, 2007)

Coleman said:


> :icon_smile_big:, yeah, I still wear some J. Crew. All of my argyle socks are J. Crew (of which I have quite a fleet). And I've really enjoyed a couple flannel shirts I picked up at their outlet this winter.
> 
> Those Chucks were from Urban Outfitters of all places, from an even darker chapter in my sartorial life, my quasi-hipster early college days ic12337: (they are 4-5 years old I believe).


I think you have no idea how man others share your sartoral part, so to speak.

plenty of ex-punk/90s retro/rockabily/mod/urbanoutftters/etc etc trads out there.


----------



## Valkyrie (Aug 27, 2009)

Thom Browne's Schooldays said:


> I think you have no idea how man others share your sartoral part, so to speak.
> 
> plenty of ex-punk/90s retro/rockabily/mod/urbanoutftters/etc etc trads out there.


True enough. I have kept my black Doc Martens 10 hole boots, for foul weather (totally the best), and a 'cherry' Gibson oxford in the rotation, left over from those days. They were always worn with the usual preppy stuff (khakis, BB OCBD, shetlands, etc).

DMs have suffered the same as everybody else. My old ones are great, very comfortable, well made, and... made in the UK. I was at some shoe store the other day, and all the DMs are now made in China and a shell of their former selves-cheesy construction, plastic-y feeling leathers. The difference was immediately noticeable. Another recent sadness.


----------



## TweedyDon (Aug 31, 2007)

Just in case there's interest, I have two pairs of Made in England Docs (tan and green, size 10UK/11US ) up for grabs on the Thrift Exchange now..... and I'm very open to offers! :icon_smile:


----------

