7 Best Retro Sneakers for Men 2025
Briefly

7 Best Retro Sneakers for Men 2025
"The Puma Club II Era are a low-top, minimalist sneakers that work great for everyday wear. They are not nearly as famous as the Puma Suede, but they're aesthetically similar in that it's minimal and easy to wear. This style is casual, low-key, and cheap. We love them as beater shoes for weekendsomething to throw on without thinking too much. These don't have the kind of arch or ankle support you'd want for long walks or heavy activity, but for easy-going wear, they're solid."
"The Vans Authentics are, of course, classic skate shoes. It launched in tandem with Vans itself (in 1966, how retro). The canvas upper and waffle sole were the standouts then and they are the standouts now. Only, you don't need to be a skater to wear them. Since the '60s, the Authentic has had some upgrades, and we like this one in particular for its burnt-brownish textured suede upper in place of canvas. The style is old-school but the color makes them retro."
"The Asics EX-39s are, if you can believe it, old basketball shose. And no, we would not recommend you play basketball in these. Many things have changed since 1989 and athletic textiles are one we're on board with. But we do like it for every day. These are still a low-top sneaker, but it's a little less minimal than the Puma or the Vans. They feature a chunkier design, more akin to a New Balance 550."
Three retro sneaker styles are highlighted: the Puma Club II Era, the Vans Authentics, and the Asics EX-39. The Puma Club II Era are low-top, minimalist shoes suited for everyday casual wear and weekend beater use, though they lack substantial arch and ankle support. The Vans Authentics retain classic skate features like a canvas upper and waffle sole, updated here with a burnt-brownish suede upper for a retro look without requiring skating. The Asics EX-39 recalls old basketball silhouettes with a chunkier profile similar to the New Balance 550, comfortable for daily wear but not for athletic performance.
Read at www.esquire.com
Unable to calculate read time
[
|
]