Reviewer julie ashmore
I love these snickers. Perfect fit and don't have to bother with shoe laces. Very comfortable.
Reviewer andyc
The shoes are really nice, the only bad thing (that’s why just 4 stars) is that it said “leather” and that’s why I bought them but are fabric. They are nice but will get dirty quickly, I was looking for leather shoes and not just leather shoelaces
Reviewer julio py
Very nice shoe and comfortable.
Reviewer transistic
Great looking shoe another great shoe from Lacoste .
Reviewer Em Gallagher
A good pair of hiking boots, but not as good as 'Red Wing or Fyre boots'! I have found them to be somewhat , uncomfortable & prefer my more comfortable 'Combat Boots'!
Reviewer samuelh
These are converse shoes. They will fit exactly like all converse shoes will. I'm usually a size 5 womens, it recommended get the size 3, I got the size 3, the size 3 fit.
Reviewer Ariadne H
My son loves them, easy on, easy off, no ties!
Reviewer reviewernc
Puma's are nice shoes that always fit me great. They're also easy to find on sale, which makes them the price/performance king. They look quite nice, as well!
I purchased these to replace some Nike Sweet's that were a little too big for me. I think the Nike Sweet is a nicer shoe (more padding and softer, thicker leather, etc), but they also cost more. These Puma's are tagged the same size as the Nike's, but they run a little smaller (the footprint does appear a little wider, though). I own several pairs of Puma Suede's and these run about the same size as the Suede does.
Even though I think the Nike Sweet is a better made shoe, there's something about these that I just like better. For one, I think they look better and I'm just more comfortable in them. I wore the Sweet regularly as a kid, back when Nike originally released them, so that's why I purchased them first. When they didn't fit, I purchased the Match 74 to replace them and I couldn't be happier with them.
Reviewer trevstonlongworth
I normally only wear 574's from New Balance, but I purchased these because they share the same shoe last and they're similar. I can't say that I like them as well, but they're alright.
I believe the mid-soles are different, and while I think I like the 574 mid-sole better, the 565 doesn't seem bad. One thing I definitely don't like as well is the lack of mesh in the all-suede upper. They probably don't breath as well, but that's not a huge factor for me in a suede shoe. I just like the looks of the mesh/suede combo better then the all-suede shoe.
I saved my final criticism for last, because it applies to both the 565 and 574 models of "Lifestyle and Retro" shoes. These are the ones with model numbers that start with "ml". I don't like them because they appear to be the hipster version of New Balance shoes, with laces that usually match the suede. Like any good hipster shoe, they seem to be more narrow, which is antithetical to the very thing that made the 574, and probably 565, popular shoes in the first place (i.e. spacious.) Even though these are supposedly made on the same shoe last as other models in the line, they definitely don't have the advertised toe depth of the SL-2 shoe last. I've also noticed that many New Balance shoes made on the SL-2 last don't seem to be as wide as they used to be, so that issue probably isn't for the lifestyle and retro shoes alone.
Seems strange that New Balance would ruin a popular line of shoes by changing the very things that made them popular, but that's what they seem to be doing. For customers that want a more narrow 574, it seems like New Balance would just suggest the 363 or one of their models made on narrow shoe lasts. Regardless, I wish they'd leave the SL-2 shoes alone, so that customer who appreciate them can continue to do so. I've worn them for 20 years and the only thing that will stop that is if New Balance changes the shoes so much that they're not the same.
Reviewer Phillytomster
real and soft.
Show26-
260(Results:
302)
