MSCHF's Super Normal, Not-Force 1 Shoe Doesn't Belong Uptown
MSCHF is still in the throes of a legal battle with Vans over its last MSCHF Sneakers drop but no rain will stop this parade. MSCHF's Super Normal Shoe, which totally is not baiting any other low-top sneaker design, is dropping right before the end of June.
Though it was leaked (and confirmed) last week, MSCHF's Super Normal Shoe is best viewed in the context of a suitably downtown-themed editorial shot with friends of the brand at cool-dude locales Wo Hop and Lucien, the latter of which is where Julia Fox celebrated her birthday with Ye and Burberry dropped a collab.
Both restaurants and a couple Chinatown-adjacent streets play host to MSCHF's flashy white kicks, which warp the silhouette of Nike's Air Force 1 beyond (legal) recognition.
Just like the challenged Wavy Baby, though, the Super Normal Shoe is not merely an AF1 with some Photoshop warping applied. This is a brand new silhouette, concocted from the ground up with a bespoke upper, tongue tag, sole, and even a unique lace dubrae that matches the distorted theme.
If Nike, which already came after MSCHF for those Satan Shoes last year, doesn't interfere, MSCHF will drop the Super Normal Shoe on June 23 via on the MSCHF Sneakers app for $145 per pair.
The Swoosh had nothing to say about MSCHF's TAP3, the Brooklyn-based art collective's other Air Force 1 riff, though, so perhaps bygones are bygones.
Plus, it's not like the Super Normal Shoe will hurt sales of the AF1. Given the low-top's immense popularity, especially in and around New York's Lower East Side, perhaps it ought to be renamed the "Downtown," to match the "Uptown" nickname bestowed upon it's high-top sibling.
This is definitely not a shoe that belongs Uptown — the Super Normal Shoe is, as the editorial makes clear, right up the Nolita Dirtbag crowd's alley.
If Nike does find the Super Normal Shoe disagreeable, perhaps MSCHF can point to the bootleg AF1s — the Midtown and Downlow — that Supreme, a long time Nike partner, designed back in 2002.
What's good for the geese ought to be good for the gander, hmmm?
