August 14, 2008

Baby Chucks

converse_first_star.jpg

Having a baby is a rough time for Chuck Taylor snobs. I mean, dude. Converse has been owned by Nike since before your kid was born.

For the rest of us, the obvious reasons not to buy Converse First Star shoes are because infant shoelaces are even more annoying than Onesie crotch snaps--and because infants need a pair of shoes about as much as they need a pair of cufflinks.

We have totally blown off shoes for K2; we may try to get a pair of lacy socks on her feet for church--they stay on about 15 minutes, long enough to evade judgment--but if she's not wearing footies, it's white trash toes, all the time.

ButOMGWOWjustlookatthemtheseChucksaresocuuute!!!

Converse First Star infant shoes, 1-4m, $20 [amazon, via goodyblog]

7 Comments

We were given these things (I wouldn't have bought them -- I'm a slave to a massive German "trainer" manufacturer), and also thought they were a bit useless -- at first.

Then we realized that ThisKid wouldn't/couldn't keep socks on her feet (and we had her in October, so her first few months were chilly), and we started putting the Chucks on her to keep the socks on. Perfectly effective, and, as you say, freakin' cute.

There are several reasons why everyone puts their kids into Robeez (or something like them) instead of Chucks. You've hit on one (the laces), but there are others.

I've got a pair of these first Chucks at home and we rarely even tried to put them on either of my boys. The real reason: fat feet and fat ankles don't work well in hightops.

It was a huge pain to even think about getting them on a squirmy kid.

The chucks don't work. What your kid really needs is a pair of Vans slip-ons

available in two colors: black and annoying.

Our baby turned one a few weeks ago and has never worn shoes. He wore socks during the winter, which prompted the great knee sock search. (We found socks that were meant, I guess, to have a cute little roll at the ankle but we just stretched them way up onto his thighs till he looked like a little Lautrec dancing gal & then pulled them up a million times a day.) He's still not walking so no problem yet, but I'm a bit worried about his reaction when shoe-time finally comes. I don't think it's going to be pretty.

And the Chucks? Absolutely adorable, but he'd never have the chance to get them all broken in, which is necessary to achieve maximum coolitude.

Ever bucking the trend, I will tell you that I got a white pair of these for my son ($4 at the kids used shop, clearly never worn) and they were a huge help during the cold winter months. You see, Mr E pulls things -- socks, slippers, footie PJs, and Robeeze type shoes -- off his feet. The baby Chucks, however, would not come off. It was worth the hassle of lacing them on to keep his toes warm in our drafty house during cold Maine winters (with a pair of smartwool infant socks on underneath ... mmmm, toasty).

Also, they were dang cute and we got lots of complements on them. Even from our pediatrician, which kind of freaked me out.

We too got a pair of these for our son, but he grew out of them quickly...the main reason for these shoes, like everyone else it seems, is to keep the freakin socks on.

Leave a comment


Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Google DT


Contact DT

Daddy Types is published by Greg Allen with the help of readers like you.
Got tips, advice, questions, and suggestions? Send them to:
greg [at] daddytypes [dot] com

Join the [eventual] Daddy Types mailing list!


Archives

copyright

copyright 2014 daddy types, llc.
no unauthorized commercial reuse.
privacy and terms of use
published using movable type

advertisements