The Dude Society

An Online Magazine for Guys.

Get Yourself Some Converse Jack Purcell’s

Behold, my own personal collection of Jack Purcell Converse. I admit, a couple pairs are in storage and missing from the photo, but these are definitely the essentials. Starting from the top-left, you have the John Varvatos slip-ons in black and white ($95), the two pairs on the top-right are custom color combinations I ordered from converse.com ($70), and the bottom row consists of the Jack Purcell CP ($55) in blue, white, and black. A little background... Jack Purcell was a Canadaian badminton player. He designed this shoe in 1935, and it was later produced by Converse starting in the 70s. Jack Purcell's are an extremely versatile casual shoe. I wear them with jeans, pants, and shorts. I don't personally care for the sneakers with suit look, but if you're into that, a clean pair of JP's is probably your best bet. I even wore my all white pair (bottom-middle) with John Varvatos pants to a (casual) wedding in Mexico last year. Jack Purcell's can be worn with or without socks. If you do wear socks, I strongly suggest very low cut ankle style socks (these are what I wear).

Converse Jack Purcell in White

There are a number of ways you can obtain your much needed Jack Purcell's:

About the author

Jamie is the Founder of The Dude Society and a New York City based web designer & developer. He really likes telling people how to think, act, and dress.

All articles by Jamie »

27 responses to “Get Yourself Some Converse Jack Purcell’s”

  1. bradmcnett says:

    A comment on socks: I find that when I wear ankle socks they still show more than I'd like, but I still like to wear a sock to keep as an extra barrier between sweat and the shoe during the hot summer months. They make "no show" socks that I find work great. You can barely see them above the shoe if you see them at all. They look goofy once you take the shoe off, but typically you're only doing that at home so who cares?

    • Jamie says:

      I have some black loafer socks that basically just cover the lower part of my foot. I typically wear those if I want to look like I'm wearing loafers without socks, without the associated grossness.

      Problem is, having them actually be invisible depends on the shoe and getting them positioned right. Can be a pain in the ass.

      • bradmcnett says:

        I didn't know about the loafer socks… I may have to look into those. I've never attempted the loafer with no sock look because I figure I pay too much to actually wear them sockless.

        • Jamie says:

          I know what you mean. I have some prada loafers that you kind of have no choice but to wear sockless or maybe with some real thin loafer socks.

  2. Jamie says:

    You're absolutely right. I wear socks like you're describing. They show, but end just above the shoe, and that is what I recommend to people. Some brands call these ankle socks, others "no show" or similar…. so it can end up being a bit confusing. Some "ankle" socks are too much as you mentioned.

    Maybe I will find a link to some example socks and add that to the article to avoid any confusion. Thanks for the input!

    • bradmcnett says:

      Sorry, it didn't show my original comment at first and I ended up posting again and then saw the original and deleted it…

      Who'd have thought socks could end up being so confusing? I can typically find the type we're talking about at stores such as Journey's or even Target's cheaper Converse line makes a good no show/ankle sock. I suggest staying away from your run of the mill brands such as Hanes, Fruit of the Loom, etc. because the sock won't be low enough and to me I feel like it's the equivalent of being of those guys who wears socks and sandals.

      • Jamie says:

        The ones I wear are from 2(x)ist. I got a bunch cheap at a discount store (gasp). I never lose any clothes except for socks, so I definitely need to find some good ones to stock up on!

  3. Joey Fagundo says:

    I feel like I’m always looking for interesting things to read about a variety of subjects, but I manage to include your site among my reads every day because you have interesting entries that I look forward to. Here’s hoping there’s a lot more amazing material coming!

  4. Jose says:

    Sure..its not ok to look like you came off your boat, but its ok to look like you just came off the basketball courts…not! Ill take leather boat shoes over some canvas Converse any day, let alone in public, please.

  5. Really? says:

    What's funny is that you think Converse are not douchey but boat shoes are. It's quite humorous actually. For some real advice from men, not dudes, check out: http://artofmanliness.com/2011/03/01/guide-boots-

    • Jamie says:

      Thanks, dick. Who said a pair of converse were intended to replace all other shoes. Would you like a photo of my shoe rack?

  6. Really? says:

    Hahaha, you're hilarious! No one said converse would replace all other shoes, its just funny that you think they're not douchey but boat shoes are. Especially considering you didn't give any actual reasons.

  7. Hanee says:

    These are so ugly? Why would you have so many.
    It looks juvenile over men over college age and even more douche-y than boat shoes.

    • Jamie says:

      Well, I disagree with that, but I also have a lot of all shoes :) Casual and not.

    • Jamie says:

      As an alternative to boat shoes, I'd suggest some regular loafs. John Varvatos makes some cool ones, among others.

    • Jamie says:

      Realistically, what shoe you wear depending on what else you're wearing and where you are going. Casual, non-athletic sneakers can be one alternative, so could a more casual leather shoe. I just fucking hate boat shoes, but more overall appearance/vibe of those who wear them. If you live somewhere boat shoes fit in, fine. If you go to school in a urban area, and every dbag wears plaid shorts an boat shoes… That's another story. DC, specifically Georgetown, is a great example of this.

  8. Frank says:

    Just curious, why the JP's over the Chuck Taylors? I haven't worn JP's, or even checked them out yet, but I will…

  9. Piotr says:

    Those are shit: expensive and the sole in one of them came off after less than half a year of wearing.

    • Jamie says:

      They not all expensive. Which did you get? Sadly, some Converse soles do come apart quickly while others last a long time. I've actually never had that issue with JPs, mostly Chucks. It can be a little hit or miss. Weirdly, I've had the most quality issues with the John Varvatos Converse, not sure if they are made differently or what.

  10. love purcells says:

    Oye. The age-old debate of grown men complaining about other grown men who wear sneakers. PLENTY of fashion-minded people find it acceptable, even endearing. If you don't, great. But don't make it out like people who do it are lesser people. That's absolutely the worst kind of fashion elitism and it comes off far more douchy than a 30 year old wearing Jack Purcells ever could. They are quite popular for a reason and it's because they are great casual shoes that are the perfect alternative to Chucks. I have a few pairs and I love them and others love them as well.

    Jamie, you ever run into the JP boaters? I'm not into Sperrys and shit but I was able to make an exception for JP boaters…

  11. John says:

    Unless you are within 30 feet of a badminton match, in which you’re playing, I don’t want to see these on your feet.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *