Customer Reviews Converse Chuck Taylor® All Star II Hi

Zappos was out of my size in white when I wanted to purchase these so I actually picked them up elsewhere, but wanted to let everyone know how amazing these shoes are. Obviously, you cannot go wrong with the styling of original Chuck Taylors but before there was something left to desire in the comfort arena; not any more! If you like (even just a little), original Chucks you will absolutely love these. These are the most comfortable pair of shoes that I have ever worn. More comfortable than Brooks, Birkenstocks and definitely Nikes, they are also incredibly stylish and on trend.

I have worn Chuck Taylors for many many years and I can tell you that they fit true to size. Do not order a size or half size down. The new footbed is extremely comfortable and no need in worrying about the tongue moving side to side. Converse is owned by Nike now (and have been for a while) and they have made some great improvements to original shoes.

I wrote another review of these but I couldn't figure out how to edit it... in that review I stated these are true to size: a half size up from the original Chuck sizing. They do seem to have a similar amount of wiggle room in the toe area. BUT, after having these for a few days (and, regrettably, wearing them to the point of no return,) I now think they do in fact run a bit large, and if I could I'd exchange them for a half size down. Maybe I was influenced by the "70% felt true to size," maybe they for whatever reason felt more snug at first (they take considerable effort getting on.) It could also be that they are about the same in length as the originals, but that the larger width makes them a looser fit. In any case, they are fine for now as casual shoes, but not much good for athletics due to the looseness, and give me slight foot cramps after a day's wearing. Also, if this helps: the "size finder" chart on nike's website seems to indicate that these are true to size but just barely, almost hitting the "loose fit" area, which maybe says something about why there's so much difference of opinion on the matter. Basically comes down to if you prefer a looser fit or a snug fit. I find that snugness seems particularly necessary in Chucks highs, since the nature of the style doesn't give you a ton of support, especially in the ankle area. Very long winded way of saying: these are a great, comfortable shoe, but order wisely, and make sure you're content before committing. I'm considering ordering another pair in a half size down while they're still on sale and maybe giving the others to my pop.

I'm absolutely in love with them. They look better in person. The picture doesn't do them justice. The only problem I have with them is that they are very narrow. I ordered 7,5 which is my regular size, but I'm not sure if I'm going to keep them since they feel super tight. They are definitely beautiful, though.

I'm new to Chucks, I was mostly searching for an all white classic high top trainer so I went for these... but I couldn't help but order a pair of the classics as well so I'll try to compare them here. As others have noted, these offer more support, so you're feet will probably thank you in the long run. However, I wouldn't say they're more comfortable than the classics per se, at the moment I kind of prefer the lightness of the classics compared to the II's comparative heaviness (not that heavy) and thickness (tho to be fair I haven't worn the classics out and about yet.) These also are definitely true to size: there is the same 1inch wiggle room in the 1/2size down of the classics I got. Main plus is the style: I'll probably wear them more often because all white is more versitle. All that said, the II's a bit wider than the classics, and if the classics came in all white I would have just gotten those because I prefer the narrowness, which is part of what makes the classics just look and feel more classic, like you're playing bball in 1978 or running around Edinburgh shooting up in Trainspotting... they look like beaters you can't wait to get dirty compared to the *slight* fanciness of the II's you want to avoid staining... long story short, these are great, cheaper and (probably) better for long days on your feet, but if you're in love with your classics they probably won't be a replacement. If you're crazy like me, just get both!

The Chuck Taylor II uses a premium canvas upper similar to the Chuck Taylor's of fifty years ago. It adds a thicker foam insole for improved comfort.All Chuck Taylor shoes are a half size long so if you wear size 10 1/2 with New Balance you need a 10 with Chuck Taylors.Chuck Taylors are tight across the toe box, and the thicker insole of the Chuck Taylor II creates a snug fit that is too tight across the toes.My solution is to wear them two hours a day in the house with very thick socks. After a week they loosen up enough to wear all day. After two or three weeks they conform to your foot for a snug and very comfortable fit.The ultimate Chuck Taylor II is the leather version which looks great, is rain resistant, and which should outlast canvas.

Nice to have Chucks with stronger soles and water-resistant. Love the style. But the seal between the rubber and shoe material on one broke only about 6 months in leaving a large gape. Seems like the canvas sneakers lasted longer...I need more comfortable shoes though. Was hoping Chuck II was going to allow me to continue wearing this brand since I love the design, but I have to look for something more durable. Bye Chucks.

These are super comfortable, sizing is normal converse sizing. However, after a couple months, the fabric on the shoe on the inside of the shoe by the second eyelet from the toe, ripped into a 1 inch slit.

These shoes are great looking and much more comfortable than my classics. The toe is a tad narrow compared to my classics but I'm hoping I can break that in.

Really like these shoes. Big upgrade from the classic Chuck Taylors, better materials, great insole, and tongue stays in place all day. I only wish the logo was the red, white, and blue like the classic versions. Also the inner lining of the White pair is lime green which took me by surprise when I first saw them.

I really like this update to the classic. It is much more comfortable and feels more supportive. One drawback that I miss is the black trim on the sole to give it more pop, but the simplicity is also really rad.

These are super cute and very comfy! Only thing I don't like is the toe area fits a little too tight but I'm hoping it'll loosen up with some wear. The insoles are comfortable but are sort of squeaky.

I am a Converse fan from way back. So when I heard about the new design I was excited. I have flat feet, and was looking forward to having a pair of Chucks that would give me arch support. These don't feel any different from my old pair. So that was a bit of a letdown. As for the style,it looks to me like a bit of detail was lost. The color is great. But with the solid white rubber as apposed to the color strip; well the show looks bland. I am still happy to have this pair, I guess I was expecting more.

Classic converse look, feels better than the original ones

Definitely feels more premium than original Chucks. The extra cushioning is very nice. Like the originals, these run really big. I tried different sizes and ended up going one full size down.

First off, I've always liked Chucks but I've had two issues with the classic models: Too narrow and not enough heel support/cushioning. As far as the style of the new ones, they look pretty similar, so it's hard to tell the difference. If you liked the old ones, you'll like the "2's". What's good about the new model? they are WAY more comfortable than the regular Chuck Taylors. The Lunarlon insole makes a huge difference in comfort, with great heel cushion and overall support. Unfortunately for me, they are still too narrow towards the toes, and I can't wear them every day like I'd like. Eventually my little toes get sore or a blister, which sucks really. I wish they made wide models!

I want to like these, but they really need some breaking in. The canvas is quite stiff unlike the old Converse. I didn't find much extra support in the new arch support. I still do like the styling, will just take getting used to.

I remember getting my first pair when I was a kid. I was so excited because Chucks are cool. I put them on and was shocked at how uncomfy they were. I looked at my dad and wondered how had an entire generation done anything remotely athletic in these? Since they were announced, I've wanted to try on the All Star II. Here's the scoop. They are not as comfy as Nike Frees (I wear a size 12 Free and a size 11.5 Chuck II), but they are way comfier than their predecessor. I won't be planning to wear them for any long walks, but I think I'm going to happy with them.

These shoes are definitely more comfortable than the old Converse. Gave four stars because they are pain to get on. I have to take the laces out almost entirely, which I did not have to do on the old style (and I have narrow feet to begin with). However, got a compliment the first time I wore them so guess it's worth the trouble!

They are different than the originals but not sure they are worth the premium. Definitely not worth the wait/search to find the pair I wanted.

Very comfortable! I love converse!

The Chuck Taylor IIs are an improvement over the originals, comfort-wise. I liked the shoe but returned it for the oxford (low-top) version, since I found the high-top style cumbersome to put on.

I already have two pair of Chucks: One in size #3 in Red and another pair with the Flame screening in a #3.5. These are in the classic style: With ZERO padding & arch support. I since they don't have much toe-room, it is inevitable that you will eventually break a hole in the rubber tips. When It came time to replace the red ones I was excited to try These "All Star II" because of the improved foot padding. I ordered a half-size up, like the better fitting shoes I already own. Well, the new styling, with the plain soles and matching grommet color, looked even more "Blah" in person. Most importantly: Converse seems to have increased the cushioning without allowing for more material in the upper?!? I ordered the #3.5 but it was still too small for my foot! I will exchange these for the "Classics," (whose design I prefer, anyway) and with the money I save, will buy a pair of good quality of insoles.

I've had a number of pairs of Converse All Stars over the years, low and high tops. These feel quite different, but perhaps not worth the additional cost. First, make sure to buy your normal shoe size, not your "Converse size"! I am typically a size 12, but have always bought size 11 when getting a new pair of "Chucks." When buying these I attempted to split the difference (11 1/2) and ended up having to exchange for the full size 12. The Lunarlon soles make these shoes feel completely different, snugger than a standard All Star, and the spandex straps that keep the tongue in place feel tighter along the side of your foot. The originals have thinner canvas and a free range tongue, making them very easy to just toss on your feet. When I put these on, I need to loosen the upper laces, then use both hands to hold the shoe in place with the tongue out while I push my foot in. The thicker material makes them feel a bit warmer as well, which could be good in cooler seasons, but not great in summer. Overall, they are more comfortable than the originals, which may be appreciated by those whose feet can't put up with the flimsy soles of the originals. Most importantly though, they retain the classic look. I hope that the more "advanced" sole will keep them from falling apart as all my older pairs have done.

The sides and sole are cushier, but the sole still lacks arch support (I have average arches). Also, the sole isn't completely sealed around the edges of the heel, which causes squeaking with each step. Be aware that Zappos increased the price from $75 to $80 as of 6/1/2016. It was $75 when I purchased these on 5/31/2016. Overall, Converse II are worth trying if you like the style. They just weren't for me due to fit (narrowness), squeakiness, and comfort (lack of arch support).