For a long time, my "athletic" shoe of choice has been Coverse's Chuck Taylor All Stars, either in high-top or low cut versions. I put the word in quotes for two reasons: the first is that I generally just wear them as shoes and the second is that their utility as athletic shoes is questionable. The original basketball shoe, I've found that they are adequate for that purpose if you are as an infrequent player as myself, though they've obviously been eclipsed by other brands as far as more serious hoopsters are concerned. I've been buying Chucks most of my life because they comfortable to walk around in, good looking (I love the classic design), affordable and they weren't Nikes. Now that Nike has bought Converse, the last part is no longer true and the rest of the propositions seem subject to change. I have two pairs of Chucks left, and they are likely the last pairs I'll ever own.

The canvas Chuck Taylor High Top (and its low top brother) is a minor masterpiece of design, in my opinion. A piece of canvas dyed in a solid color (there are some variations; I have a pair with racing flames rising from the sole against a black background) with a patch bearing the All-Star logo stitched to a rubber sole. A thin white piece of ruber with red & blue stripes is wrapped around the stitching for protection. Simple and elegant, especially when contrasted with some of the truly monsterous looking things I see coming off of assmebly lines today. This look is part of what gave Chucks a certain amount of punk rock cachet--they just naturally accessorize with, say, a biker jacket and a pair of jeans.

There were two other things that were cool about Chucks. One is that they were proudly made in the USA for as long as possible, although they started moving operations to the far east like everybody else a few years ago. The other is that they were cheap, cheap, cheap. I've never spent more than $25 for a pair of chucks, and I've paid as little as $6 (that was for a cool forest green pair with a thicker than usual sole and a true heel). They are still cheap here in California, but the reviews I've read on this site suggest that the prices have increased since the acquisition of Converse by Nike.

Durability of the shoe varies widely. I've had Chucks that lasted over a year, some that wore down in six months or so. The canvas uppers will eventually develop holes and/or separate from the stitching, and the rubber soles aren't the sturdiest--if they are the only shoes you wear, they will go quickly, but they can last a long time if they are part of a shoe rotation. Converse provide little or no arch support. It's kind of weird at first, but you grow to like it. Also, the canvas can be rather porous, so they aren't really ideal for rainy weather. At least as far as keeping your feet dry is concerned, that is; unlike leather, if you do get caught in a downpour the shoes dry out none the worse for where. I was wearing my white Chucks last month when I got caught in a flash flood in Compton--I'm serious, we got five inches of rain in two hours and I was out in it waiting for a bus part of that time. My shoes were soaked and my feet froze, but they both dried out fine.

Still, now that Coverse are essentially Nikes, I don't think I can buy them in good conscience. It may well be that most athletic shoes are made under sweatshop conditions in the third world, but Nike is the most visible example of that system and seem the most callous about it. They can't give the people that make their shoes a living wage, but they can give LeBron James $96,000,000 to wear those same shoes. Of course, I'm a hypocrite because I'm a long suffering Cavaliers fan that loves watching James wear them in a Cleveland uniform, but I still don't want to give my money to Nike. So, farewell to thee, Chuck Taylor. It was fun while it lasted.

Recommended: No