There's one crucial reason why I won't wear Converse's redesigned Chuck Taylor All Star
The new model, called the Chuck Taylor All Star II, features completely redesigned innards (using parent company Nike's Lunarlon foam impact-absorbing technology), a padded tongue, and micro-suede lining. They're like a stealthy luxury version of the retro original.
Beyond feel and performance, stylistic changes include better materials, color-matching shoelaces and grommets, and replacing a glued-on vinyl patch with a stitched cloth version.
For the most part, though, the All Star II looks the same as the original. And therein lies the problem: The All Star may be iconic, but it sure is ugly.
Don't get me wrong - the II is a vast visual improvement on the classic All Star. The subtle tweaks and use of higher quality materials certainly help, but the shape of the shoe is still a problem.
Given its icon status, I feel slightly blasphemous saying this, but I've never liked the shape of the Chuck Taylor.
The shoe has a near century-long history, and unfortunately it's showing its age. From its eight rows of shoelace eyelets to the tacky patch and rubber toecap, it has a clownish quality.
I realize that the All Star has a special place in the hearts of many who've either grown up wearing them or belong to a subculture that's co-opted the former basketball sneaker. They're probably overjoyed that their favorite shoe will now be more comfortable to wear for extended periods.
In fact, the high-top II is completely sold out on Converse's website, as of the time of this article, so I'm clearly in the minority here.
Unfortunately, I just can't get over the shoe's peculiar shape. It's not for me.