Customer Reviews Converse Chuck Taylor® All Star® '70 Hi

Okay, folks. Today is 04/27/16 and I spent months researching the Chuck Taylor All Star 70s Hi-Top (hereafter: CT-70s) via user reviews found on google, yahoo, youtube, Zappos, etc. The reason I spent so much time researching and reading reviews is principally due to the fact that I found so many very conflicting statements from reviewers on what size (length) one should order (i.e. should you buy the same size as regular Chuck Taylors or some other size). It's not like one can simply go down to ones local shoe store and try on the CT-70s, and this is a shame. Instead, the CT-70s must be ordered online from Zappos or Converse. Interestingly, I found that the comments on sizing for the new CT-70s ran the gamut. Some users say the CT-70s are true to fit, others say they run half a size large, others say they run a full size large and still others say, oddly enough, the CT-70s run a bit small. Then there is the whole width issue - which is my estimation is a bit easier to answer as all Chuck Taylors come in only one width and that is which is "Standard" (aka: "D" Width, or regular in the USA). Anyways, my opinion after wearing my Size 10, CT-70s all day today is that they run very similar in size to the ordinary, off-the-shelf Chuck Taylors (hereafter: OTS-CTs) you will find at most local shoe retailers. If anything, the CT-70s might run a shade longer than the OTS-CTs, but I do not think it is even half a size, as I have found that I wear size 10 in the OTS-CTs and my Size 10 CT-70s when put sole to sole for comparison are perhaps 3/8" (a shade over a 1/4 of an inch) longer on the outside dimension. As for walking around fit / comfort - as in have them on your feet for 12 hours today in 80+ degree weather - they fit great and were very comfortable. I would say that IF I did exchange my Size 10, CT-70s for another size it would be for 9-1/2" CT-70s, but no smaller, as I am sure there would be some slight rubbing on the tip of the big toe. As for width, I personally do not see any noticeable difference between the CT-70s and the OTS-CTs. Now for my opinion on the rest of the particulars (quality, etc.) concerning the CT-70s... Are the CT-70s better than the OTS-CTs? Yes, Definitely! The CT-70s uppers (the canvas part) are a slightly heavier / different material and a bit more rigid, but still very comfortable. The footbed and soles are much thicker and made of much higher quality materials. The eyelet grommets are larger and nicer and the shoelaces are of a heavier material and nicer looking (but the laces could perhaps be a slight bit thicker). The only potential down side that I have noticed about the CT-70s is that "wear hotter" on the foot than the OTS-CTs. This result is clearly because of the higher quality materials used, but I see this as a non-issue, as the CT-70s do not make the bottoms of my feet ache like the OTS-CTs typically do. Would I buy the CT-70s again? Yes. In fact, I will not buy the OTS-CTs ever again, so long as Converse is still making the CT-70s. The price difference is of little consequence because these new CT-70s are far more wearable.

Those that think these are 'bulky' fall into one of two categories, or maybe both...they have either never played any real ball in Chucks, or they are under 30 years of age. I played hs and college ball in Chuck's in the late '60's to mid '70's and these are the real deal. The flimsy, unpadded, thin-soled ones out now are but a mere shadow of what they used to be. Feels good to have a real pair of Con's on my feet. Reminds me of when only legit ball players wore them. If you couldn't hoop, you looked silly in them. Times do change though...sigh.

Chuck Taylor All Stars are popular among ethical vegans, so I assumed the more comfortable '70 model was vegan too. It wasn't until I questioned the leather-textured logo patch (inside ankle) that I googled and found this official answer from Converse: "Chuck ‘70 is moving to a leather embossed patch, and updating the logo on the bumper plate sock liner, so the CTAS ’70 is no longer vegan." OF COURSE, Zappos was awesome as ever and gladly allowed my return, but WARNING to vegans, that Converse decided a 2" round patch was worth someone's life. :(

These are sturdier than the usual Chucks. The thicker sole and heavier canvas are great if you are over, say, 170 pounds. These are great sneakers for weightlifting since the thicker canvas gives lots of lateral support. They also work as a day hiker. The only thing I didn't like was the factory laces because they have too much 'give' and make it difficult to get the shoe laced up tight. But replacing them with 54" round athletic laces does the job.

Fits slightly narrow but nice cushioned footbed. I usually wear size 9 or 9.5 in running sneakers. Based on the description i size down by 1/2size to a 8.5. 8.5 feels great length wise but it does feel a bit narrow, like most Converse. The 70sHi does have more cushion in the footbed than the Allstar’s for sure!!!!! Still i love these and am keeping them. Definitely 1/2 size down! Happy Shopping y’all!

Much better quality than most Converse out right now! Look and feel better.

I've owned these for about a week and they're my "go everywhere, do everything" shoe. While i am not old enough to have played basketball wearing Chuck Taylor's, I wore them for weight lifting and as a casual shoe from the late 90's to about 2007. As other's have said, the quality of this shoe is reminiscent of the old USA made Chucks. I actually quit buying Chucks about 10 years ago because of the quality issues. I could only get about a month of wear with the cheap,"off the shelf" Chucks. Sizing: I ordinarily wear a 9.5 in regular shoes and a 9 in "cheap" Chucks. I have a medium width foot. I purchased these in a 9, and added a superfeet blue insole for additional arch support. Perfect fit. Without the insole (which i probably don't need considering the squishy factory insole) I probably would have gone with the 8.5. I should mention that I like chuck's to have a snug fit to provide maximum lateral support, and I wear Darn Tough wool socks. Bottom line: These shoes are an aesthetically pleasing, high quality, "old skool" athletic shoe. They're suited to a variety of settings, from a casual office environment to the weight room. If you are familiar with, and like Chucks, give them a try.

Grew up in Chucks in the late '60's. Got nostalgic and bought a pair of Chuck Taylor All Stars in 2012. They were fine and OK like. Lightweight and no real arch support, but fun. Then shortly after (2013?) Converse introduced Chuck Taylor 70's. Going by the specs the 70's sounded more like what I remembered, so I recently ordered a pair of 70's. While the 70's are somewhat more like the Chucks back in the day, they are also bulkier and clunkier compared to my 2012 All Stars. Makes sense because there's more sole and arch material in the 70's for support, the soles are thicker, the canvas thicker and whatnot. The 70's are warmer to wear due to some of the same reasons notes. Granted I've only had my 70's for a week like, so they need time to be worn in. My thought today is my 2020 70's might be my Chucks for cooler weather but my 2012 All Stars will remain my warm weather Chucks. [In the picture] My made in Vietnam 2020 70's (left) are a size 9.5 and my made in Indonesia 2012 All Starts (right) are a size 9.

These are by far the BEST Chuck's I have had since I was a kid!!!! I am old enough to remember when they were made this good. I am so pleased with these shoes. I hope and pray they keep the 70's line going for many years because this is not my last pair of them. I have worn Chuck's my whole life, and quit wearing them for a couple of years due to them not holding up to daily wear for longer than 2-3 months. I absolutely love the 70's Chuck's they are built far better than any CTAS since the early 1980s. The CT70's have better canvas,rubber,soles,footbed,laces,and they fit like standard Chuck's. These are the bomb and I love them Zappos is amazing with super fast and free shipping I will definitely be using them for all my orders. I see a bunch of Chuck Taylor 70's in my future!

A classic shoe both in terms of look & feel. The well padded in-sole is significantly better than the regular "Chucks." The toe box is a bit narrow and the laces a tad long, but otherwise an excellent shoe that garners compliments from all. The size (8) was perfect and what I always wear, so I don't know what to make of suggestions to order a half size smaller. Ankle support and lateral stability are good, but certainly not what you'd want to wear in an actual game, especially on an outside asphalt court. They're more for comfort in my opinion. Finally, and as noted in the supplied cleaning instructions, they should not be cleaned with any bleaching agents or come into contact with petroleum products. I bleached a pair of white "Chucks" with the regular wash and it pretty much ruined the shoes - canvas lost its shape. Get 'em!

Those that find '70 Hi's to be thicker, heavier, more padded, etc., and have a problem with that... have obviously never played real basketball in Cons,(I have). If they did, they'd know these are the REAL deal. I love mine and I get envious stares from all my friends and foes, that remember when those who wore these were ballers, not the wannabe hipsters (male and female)that have co-opted them in the past 40 years. I have several pair of the current thin, flimsy, 'shells' of what they used to be. I rarely wear them because they lack any support whatsoever. For me these throwbacks are perfect. They take me back to a time when...only REAL ballers wore Cons, and everybody else wished they had enough game to do the same without looking pretentious.

Got my first pair of the 70s last December and although there's nothing wrong with them, I decided to find a mate pair to alternate between...the Enamel Reds. Super happy with the same fit and comfort that you don't get with the classic version. A removable insole shows what looks like a gel layer in the footbed, no doubtedly increasing the comfort and support you get. Been wearing Chucks since getting out of high school in the later part of the 1980s and these are definitely the Cadillac version!

My experience: these are just a mega deluxe version of the standard chucks they make now. Higher quality all around down to the shoe laces. MUCH more comfy and cushiony than the regular chucks. I got the same size as always and the actually fit a little better for me. I will always buy 70s now no going back.

The Chuck Taylor 70's hi-tops are the kind of super-heavy duty, old school quality that put the doodie in my sole. The quality of these compared to the the run-of-the-mill Chuck Taylors is notable and obvious. It's so worth the extra money for these. They hark back to a time when shoes used to be made here in the USA with a level of quality that was intended to last. Bravo to Converse for bringing back old school quality. These are going to be my go-to shoes from now on.

My first pair of Converse Chuck Taylor All-Stars was around 1967 I guess (maybe earlier but not later I don't think). Hard to remember that pair well (or the next pair either). I do remember knowing they weren't good off pavement or for the woods. I wore them almost exclusively for the next ten years. Know that (after the first pair) for the first six months each pair was for hardwood floors only and nothing else. Second pair for practices and eventually street wear. In later years and well before Converse moved the manufacturing overseas something happened to the design and the shoes went in a slightly lighter direction. This was okay for riding public transport I guess but not for anything else. For these past 40 years or so I've known the lighter, more flexible shoe. It is good for long walks in the city in fair weather... but not as good as this shoe. This shoe is slightly sturdier, and a higher grade shoe using slightly more of the same materials. College and pro players aren't going back to wearing these new/old Chuck Taylor's (because they always had their limitations) but it is the same shoe that made the sport of basketball back in the days of the ABA and before. Maybe slightly better.

This is a great shoe! I typically wear a wide shoe and was a little concerned about not being able to order a wide width, but these are spot on. Buy them, you won’t regret it!

So comfy! ‘70 is Much softer than original style... love them!

Classic. Goes with just about everything and extremely comfortable. I wear a 10 in everything else and a 9.5 fits like a glove. So definitely go down a half size.

I am not sure if these are "exact specs" from the 70's, but these are significantly better than most Chucks that are being sold right now. The upgraded quality is apparent right away when compared to the standard Chuck of today. As a lifelong wearer of Chucks, I really hope that they keep these around. The top notch materials and better cushioning make these worth the extra money. The fit is the same, but feel is much better.

I've been wearing Chucks for years, and these are easily the best ones I've ever owned. Being only 18 years old, I never really got to experience Made in the USA Converse All-Stars, despite them having been manufactured in my lifetime. I didn't own any Chucks until about 2006, and by then they had already moved production overseas. I've owned the standard Converse all star, and the leather ones. The Chuck '70, despite being nearly twice the price of the standard Chuck, are easily twice as good. The build quality is much better, to say the least. The rubber wears better, and looks better longer. I've had mine since January, and they have definitely held up better than a standard pair would in that same time period. (I wear mine pretty much every day, I don't really rotate shoes like a lot of people do.) The Chuck '70 has lots of advantages over the regular Chucks: the fabric is thicker and more durable, the insole has more padding and again, is more durable, the eyelets are of much higher quality, everything is taken up a notch. The only beef I have with these shoes are the laces that they come with by default. They are way too long. I would recommend replacing the stock laces with the 54" White Retro Laces. Overall an excellent shoe and easily the best Converse has to offer today.

These Chucks really are an upgrade from the floppy, single-ply versions of the 1990s. This update is very well-padded, and you can actually walk all day in them. Materials are much higher quality, as is the detailing and attention to finish. Well worth the additional 20-30 dollars over the standard Chuck Taylors. My one complaint, and this is why I take away one star from my "overall" rating, is these shoes came with 72" shoelaces - this is a workboot length and even tied to the very last hole, the laces touched the ground and looked sloppy. Which is unfortunate, because the included laces are high-quality, but they ended up in the trash when I had to replace them with 52" laces, which lace up perfectly.

I've been wearing Chuck Taylors for nearly 2 decades now; with flat feet, I sometimes have a hard time finding shoes with zero-arch support and Chucks never have arch support (Yay for me). That's true with these 1970s throw backs, though it does have extra squishy cushioning inside, which feels great. The canvas is thicker and sturdier, which also feels great; I have some trouble with the regular All Stars where the tongue kinda just flops to the side, or the high top doesn't stay high. These things look and feel sturdy, easy to manipulate and get things to stay, and I don't think it s really that noticeably bulkier. I m a petite girl, 5 2, they look great and not at all like clown shoes. While the toe cap is smaller and shiny, none of that looks bad and it all works with the shoe. The shininess is not that noticeable in real life, especially in daylight. Even less in bar lighting. Unlike others who said they had to size down compared to regular All Stars, note that I did not have to change my typical Converse size. My size in Converse is a 5.5 (Men s sizing), and I really appreciate that this has been true for my whole life and has never changed. I have wide feet so the extra width these 70s throwbacks give is appreciated, compared to regular All Stars, though it is not terribly wide compared to other shoe brands. My European shoe size is 38, so a 5.5 Men's size for Converse shoes is perfect. Really glad to have found this size on Zappos because the local stores won t go that small, I guess it s primarily male shoppers buying it. In US Women's sizing I would be somewhere between a 7.5 and 8. Very high quality shoe. I love it so far, and I wish all Chucks were made this way. And while I'm wishing I also wish they were still priced like the last pair I bought (before Nike bought the brand). So I'm deducting one star for the high price. But, it;s hard to find a shoe that fits me well and is of-quality, so I'm still a happy customer.

The extra padding of the insole makes a huge difference on this version and the white is more of an off white...

These were for my husband whose middle name is Converse. He’s very happy with them; just what he wanted. They arrived in a timely fashion.