So, after owning these shoes for a couple of weeks, and having recently made a decently long day trip with them where I tested them on urban floors, sand, and rougher terrain, I finally feel able to review my pair of Converse Chuck ’70 Utility Hikers.
While their name, their rough looks, and the fact that they have Gore-Tex as one of the main materials listed on the website might make you think that these shoes are in any way prepared to take the brunt of a hike, you would be sorely mistaken. They are definitely tough, and their Gore-Tex upper makes them quite waterproof, but in all honesty these were made to be used in urban environments. They are Chucks, after all.
The sole is the first thing I would like to focus on. Before getting these, my main pairs of shoes were a pair of Call It Spring Barigazzo (my very first tech shoes, albeit with no actual technical capabilities), and a pair of Adidas Originals Forum Mid. Coming from the Adidas, a rather flat-soled shoe, I did not feel much of a difference with the ’70s Utility Hiker. This isn’t a real surprise, however. As I mentioned before, they are Chuck Taylors, and the sole reflects that. The sole might as well be identical to the ones of my other pairs of Converse shoes, except with some minor aesthetic differences (Mainly the black bar towards the front and the lack of a racing stripe. The colours of the heel patch also match the colourway, being black and silver). I’d like to also make a note that while I don’t normally think of myself as a heel-dragger, my shoes tell a different story, with the heel sides of the soles showing some decent wear after only a while of being owned. Let this be a statement on the sole strength of the ’70s Utility Hiker.
Moving up to the upper, the collaboration between Converse and Gore-Tex immediately becomes evident, with the main material used being dark green Gore-Tex (although some, if not most, pictures make it look rather gray). The heel counter and upper reinforcement are covered with an unknown material, which I assume is to add waterproofing to the seams holding the shoe together. This material follows the eyelets from the upper reinforcement to the edge of the opening, which is a soft faux leather material. Sitting pretty on the edge of the opening is the obligatory Gore-Tex tag, with the well-known logo on one side and a link to their website on the other. The heel reinforcement is split halfway by a strip of the same Gore-Tex material, which makes a little loop to help with fitting. Inside the shoe one can observe the same faux leather being used as lining for the ankle support, whereas a Gore-Tex branded material lines the rest of the shoe.
The tongue of the ’70s Utility Hiker is made of a neoprene material, which although less waterproof than the upper, would still boast more water resistance than simple cotton. On the tongue is a neon orange version of the Gore-Tex logo. If you think that this is too gaudy for you, rest assured that the colour peeks out of the folded sole very little when on foot. One gripe I have about the tongue would be that it is actually attached to the sides of the upper, which makes both fitting and first putting the insole in quite difficult, as you can’t pull it out. This is also coupled with the elastic bands which make up half of the available eyelets.
This leads me to lacing. As far as I could think of, there are three possible ways to lace the ’70s Utility Hikers: One is passing the laces through the eyelets, like any other Converse shoe. The other would be to pass the laces through the first eyelet, and then alternating them through the elastic bands (The way that is shown on the website). Finally, considering the aforementioned elastic bands, one could wear these shoes without any laces, as the bands themselves hold the foot relatively snugly. It’d be rare for the shoes to fall out, but they are looser, specifically on the ankle support, as there are no laces there to hold both sides together. I would also like to mention that the laces that come with the ’70s Utility Hiker are relatively short, and if you lace them all the way up, you will not have that much lace left to tie them.
I would like to compare these shoes to my other pairs of Converse, with them being a pair of old Chuck Taylors (high) and a newer pair of Chuck Taylor 1s (short). When putting them next to one another, one thing becomes evident: The ’70s Utility Hikers are a noticeable amount taller than the older Chucks. This might be because my older Chucks are newer by design, as the Utility Hikers take inspiration from the ’70s model. I would not be able to tell you. Another difference that one would observe is that the Utility Hikers look a lot more rigid. While the older Chucks collapsed on themselves when not on foot, the Utility Hikers stand up tall regardless of whether your foot is in them or not.
Fitting-wise, these shoes are a nightmare. I have to loosen every single eyelet’s worth of laces to take them out, or put them in. They fit rather tight, even though I went half a size larger than normal. The elastic straps don’t help with this, as they limit the amount of movement you have when putting them on. Once on, they’re comfortable enough, but consider that I have a pretty skinny foot. They’re tight, but comfortable, at least for me. I would recommend that future buyers size up, particularly if they have a wider foot, as I doubt I would be able to put them on if I had gone TTS.
Now, before I start talking about aesthetics, let me establish two things: FIrstly, I don’t consider myself the best kind of person in terms of styling clothing together, and secondly, how good something looks is completely subjective. I, however, quite like how the ’70s Utility Hikers look. They are a tad more blocky and less running-oriented than the more conventional tech sneakers (see: Qasa High), and I feel like they would look better when implemented with a more military-looking style. I like feeding my pants inside my shoes when wearing high or mid tops, but this pair has made that difficult for me. Since they are so tight, if you do not stuff your pants correctly into them, the bunches of fabric that naturally form will start hurting your ankles or heels. Stacking the pants is a different issue, but I think that the ’70s Utility Hiker performs well in that aspect. This particular colourway leads itself better towards darker-looking fits, but there are two more colourways available: khaki and bright neon green and orange (which I personally think looks like a mess), which might lead themselves to other colour styles.
(Please pardon these pictures being overexposed, I didn’t take them myself.)
In terms of performance, which is something I take most of you care the most about, the ‘70’s Utility Hiker are fully waterproof, living up to the legacy of their materials. Water simply bounces off of both the upper and the tongue (which I suspect has some DWR treatment or something of the sort), and you wouldn’t need to worry about getting the soles wet.
Overall, I recommend the Converse Chuck Taylor ’70s Utility Hiker. They have astounding performance, and while I understand that they’re not for everyone, very nice aesthetics to boot.
