Comments on: Converse designed by UPSO

By: EH

EH — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

In the past year I've owned two pairs of Converse Jack Purcell sneakers and the quality of their product is nowhere near the pre-Nike days. This is true, apparently since the early 90s.

By: MITTZNZ

MITTZNZ — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Jack (#3):

I think Jack Purcellss are supposed to be “softer” than your average Chucks. That said, I own a pair of Jack Purcells from which a couple of eyelets dettached from the fabric just a couple of months into wearing them, which is unacceptable for any shoe. That’s just shoddy craftsmanship.

By: afrobella

afrobella — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

#14 – I love PF Flyers! More comfortable than Converse, any day of the week. And less ubiquitous.

By: Mim

Mim — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

These shoes are cute and all, but why are there no posts about David Foster Wallace’s death by suicide on Friday? It’s been 2 days, isn’t he worthy of a post? I submitted a link suggestion and I have no idea of what else to do about getting this noticed other than to reply off-topic here. Though, I think it is a bit on topic since this boingboing entry was posted at about the time that news of his death was spreading.

By: David Pescovitz

David Pescovitz — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

STEINY @5, You’re absolutely correct. Thank you!

By: bondjamesbond

bondjamesbond — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Nice shoe…

having grown up in the era when wearing converse shoes wasn’t only an option, it was, really, the ONLY option… these are nifty..

I like the fact that they are donating 10% to fighting aids…

however, Converse is owned by Nike, which has a reputation for using sweatshop labor…

Does anyone have any information as to where these are made and the conditions of the factories?

By: Jack

Jack — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

@#11 POSTED BY MITTZNZ:

I think Jack Purcellss are supposed to be “softer” than your average Chucks.

Not really. I’ve owned pairs before in the late 1980s and early 1990s and they were stiffer and required as much breaking in as the Chucks.

I’m investing in Asics & Puma from now on.

Don’t even get me started on New Balance quality nowadays. They are just as bad as Converse nowadays.

By: romulusnr

romulusnr — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

I believe they should reissue Weird Al’s 1980s purple-orange-green Chucks. Who’s with me?

By: Jack

Jack — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

@#1 POSTED BY BONDJAMESBOND

however, Converse is owned by Nike, which has a reputation for using sweatshop labor…

Not too sure about the sweatshop labor, but will say this: In the past year I’ve owned two pairs of Converse Jack Purcell sneakers and the quality of their product is nowhere near the pre-Nike days.

Yes, Converse sneakers are supposed to fall apart and degrade. But that was always the uppers. The soles and insoles of the Nike made Converses are horrid and fall apart before the uppers. So they are truly useless at that point.

Not to mention the cotton used in the material for the uppers nowadays are not stiff like in the pre-Nike days. They are soft out of the box and just don’t feel right.

I’m all for helping fight AIDS, but you know what? For $49.99 I’d rather just take that $49.99 and donate 100% of it to a charity and buy a better quality sneaker.

By: tricotomy

tricotomy — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

As soon as I saw this I also thought to comment on Nike buying up Converse. Quality, persistence of some really excellent styles and the lasts the shoes are made on have all changed for the worst. I used to be only able to wear Converse because the skate styles were completely flat, now they have raised heel type insoles, which are no good for me. I think the manufacturer changed when Nike took over but it would require a hidden camera, investigative journo to uncover where they’re made now and buy whom.

By: Steiny

Steiny — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

“…search for “Project Red” on converse.com…”

That should probably read Product Red, as Project Red returns no results using the site search at Converse.

By: gonzilla

gonzilla — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

I didn’t realize how much chucks are these days. The last pair I owned was in 1989-90. And back then, I remember going to any random discount store back than and finding a pair for $20. The regular canvas black and white chucks go for $40 now. If i’m going to pay that much for a shoe I might well just get a $100 pair that is 50% that are easy to find everywhere.

By: ntacsback

ntacsback — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Hmm, that design is kind of reminiscent of this Upset the System shirt that came out a while back.

By: figment88

figment88 — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

wow, I can not believe how bad the converse.com website is. By the time I finally find the project red 100 shoes, I still don’t get to see a bunch of shoe designs at once. You only get crappy little photos one at a time.

By: FourFiveFire

FourFiveFire — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Well, hey, we still have PF Flyers…
http://www.shoemall.com/product/PF-Flyers-Unisex-Center-Hi-Casual-Red-613526/

By: rollerskater

rollerskater — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

a post about DFW would glorify suicide.

my last pair of Converse were made in China, and now that they sell them in Target, you can sure you are supporting evil manufacturing. so support evil to fight a disease that can be stopped with edumacation.

similarly, the once Made in England Doc Martens of the 90s are now as sweatshop free as Levi’s.

By: Rich

Rich — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

RED: For African kids, made by Vietnamese kids.