Oct 102007
In surfing for some new sneaks I ran across these. “Official” Ramones edition Chuck’s Hi Tops. Pre-“Distressed” and everything. $61.99. You don’t even have to sniff glue or feed your smack habit by giving hummers to white collar businessmen to wear these babies.
Do ya think Chuck Taylor woulda been a Ramones fan?
My first thought on seeing these was “cool!”. My second thought after thinking about it too much was “way uncool!”. My third thought was “I’m over thinking it. These are cool. Aren’t they?” By the time you read this I’ve probably had my fourth and fifth thought.
What do you think? Seriously.
Available at Amazon.com
wrong wrong wrong. but kind of right. i think i’m turned off by the marketing of the shoes with distressed jean. not so much the ramones logo or the rubber itself… although come to think of it, it is reminding me of dey young. just the distressed jean. it reminds me too much of the whole acid washed thing and my roommate trying to talk me into a fringed jacket. no no no. i think i would wear a nudie suit (awesome) before a fringed jacket 24/7. although that nudie suit would have to be hot, and i don’t mean wool. is this a leather or jean kind of conversation? pre-distressed? okay, i’m turned off again.
these shoes should be black canvas.
These are wrong. You want to “honor” or “be” a Ramone? Then buy the regular black version with the regular Chucks logo and “Distress” them yourself! (and save a little money too…)
I think: who’s getting the extra brand licensing money? Aren’t all the Ramones dead? Aesthetically speaking, I’m with SallyC on this one: acid-washed sneaks are a definite NO. Speaking for myself, I’m rather proud of the Jack Purcells — the sneaks you see George and John wearing in the White Album years — I picked up in Tokyo. My less nerdy, and more downright cool, rock footwear is my pair of beat-up, lace-up, blue sk8tr punk Vans. The ones that look like deck shoes — you know, the O.G. Vans.
More than you ever wanted to know about Rock Footwear:
http://podiatry.curtin.edu.au/cool.html
Not cool.
They used to be cheaper than the more comfortable suede or leather sneakers – not no more expensive. I mean, that was the real thing, right, they were cheap, but not TOO cheap. Cold in the winter, hot in the summer, take days to dry, hell on your feet.
Not Cool.
fuckin jive.
sorry but the world already ended.
everything’s phoney.
the great fakening.
The acid-washed aspect is HEAVILY UNcool.
The branding of the sneaks with The Ramones logo is probably pretty cool in terms of the surving band members’ legacy and bank accounts.
The fact that people are getting bummed out by the big-money branding of a band that aspired, in a humorous way, to just such a thing, is VERY COOL.
The price tag for a brand of sneaks that was never really that great in its time and that long ago became so poorly made that you might as well strap a piece of cardboard to the bottom of each foot is NOT COOL.
Big picture: if you love The Ramones, why not grab a pair?
when the Ramones were cool/alive they couldn’t afford them.
I remember some years back Converse announcing they were going to stop making the Chuck Taylors. Was that just a marketing ploy? In any case, Nike bought Converse, and ‘real’ Chucks are now available, though they’re not quite the same:
“When Converse was bought by Nike and operations were moved from the United States to overseas, the design saw a few alterations. The fabric is no longer 2-ply cotton canvas but 1-ply “textile” and many wearers have noticed different patterns of wear.”
The Wikipedia (the source of the above quote) also says this, which I was unaware of:
“In the 1950s the shoes became popular within the greaser subculture and amongst many fans of Rockabilly.”
The whole point of these shoes being punk was that they were cheap. I just checked and it looks like the real thing in plain black will run you at least $45 nowadays. Relatively inexpensive by athletic shoe standards, but not really dirt cheap.
Forward into the past, and with a bigger price tag than ever.
You can wear these in your Ramones Surround Bubble, where it is 1977 forever.
I tend to agree with Sally on this one: these are Seriously Uncool, but only because there are so many details that are subtly but importantly Wrong. The acid-wash look is entirely wrong, but so is the logo: it should have been simply the shield, with nothing surrounding it. Having just the shield would be understated and cool, but adding the brand name and slogan makes it look like it’s trying way too hard. These could have been extremely cool, but they’re rather emphatically not, and the reasons why have nothing to do with “selling out” or overcommercialism: they’re just poorly designed.
Now, the New Balance Joy Division trainers, which the company still occasionally coyly hints might really go into production: Cool as fuck.
You can see them here.
If these Joy Division sneaks are being readied to coincide with the release of the film based around the life of Ian Curtis, a life made most interesting thanks to his suicide, shouldn’t the sneaks be fastened with Velcro rather than string?
What cool name will the sneakers be called. Kind of like the “Starbury’s”and also Ben Wallace has a $17 pair of sneakers coming out too.
those new order…uh..i.mean balance joy division sneaks are the shit!!!!!!