Common Projects and BAPES

Originally Posted by FidelCashflow

Click to expand...

Nope. I went to a store to finally see these Common Projects that everyone on SF seemed so enamoured with... they look the same as Converse except for slightly nicer materials, but at many times the price. Chuck's are $60 CAN a pair, these were like $475. It can't be a status symbol thing, since most people have no idea what common projects are.

I was with a buddy, and he just asked me "why are they so expensive?" all I could think of was "I think Kanye West wears them"

Sounds like they don't work for you. Nothing wrong with that.

I had a different experience. I tried CPs on and they seemed like a noticeable upgrade from other sneakers. Now I have a pair of achilles low on the way. I actually don't like sneakers generally but these are really nice.

They are expensive at full retail, no doubt.

Originally Posted by FidelCashflow

Click to expand...

What's with copies of classic shoes like Chuck's and Nike's that are actually more expensive than the original, like Common Projects and BAPES? Usually copies are cheaper. I don't get it.

quoted for truth. all status symbol. there is no look you can achieve with cps that you cant achieve with converse

they aren't really a status symbol though, i walk around my town with my ceepees, think anyone has an idea of what they are?

no one knows im wearin those ceepees on my feet son, stealth wealth

This thread is making both sides look like morons.
I'm definitely more on the "expensive sneakers are good if you can afford it" camp.

Originally Posted by XenoX101

Click to expand...

Think of a pair of chucks as a pair of black square toed leather loafers, say around $80-100 CAN. Now think of a pair of john lobb black leather loafers (not square toe), say around $900 CAN. Both are around ten times more expensive than the cheap pair, both are considerably better quality too. Tell you what, if you can't find common project quality sneakers for less than $200-$300 retail I'd be surprised, I recognize them instantly because of how flawless they are.
I have some JL's, and I can kind of see where you're going with this. The first thing that strikes me as odd is that with dress shoes, the cheap brands imitate the expensive brands. This is the exact opposite with the expensive brands imitating the cheap brands. As for quality, what exactly makes CP's so much better quality than chucks? Aren't they all glued together? Even $200 sounds reasonable for a pair of CP's, but I can't fathom why anyone would think full retail is a good value proposition.

Originally Posted by FidelCashflow

Click to expand...

I have some JL's, and I can kind of see where you're going with this. The first thing that strikes me as odd is that with dress shoes, the cheap brands imitate the expensive brands. This is the exact opposite with the expensive brands imitating the cheap brands. As for quality, what exactly makes CP's so much better quality than chucks? Aren't they all glued together?

They probably use better materials. The reason they are priced so unreasonably has nothing to do with materials. It's purposefully priced way too high to create a luxury sneaker market for people who have money to burn. It's not about showing off, it's about self-validation. If you buy them at $100, then good job. But at retail it's really just a Louis Vuitton play except for streetwear.

Originally Posted by FidelCashflow

Click to expand...

As for quality, what exactly makes CP's so much better quality than chucks? Aren't they all glued together?

According to this site, CPs are "sown by hand to the sole," not glued.

http://www.24sevenapparel.com/tags/common-projects

$250 Japanese selvedge jeans vs. $30 levis 501s. In this case its also the more expensive brand imitating the cheaper.

Sure a pair of common projects will wear out eventually, but they will last a lot longer than a pair of chucks.
And, besides the better material and construction quality, the people actually making the shoes in the factory are being paid a hell of a lot more.

Chucks arguably look better with age. You can wear a pair for 3 years and have that torn look that everyone throws street cred at. But if you ever decide that your Chucks are too raggedy, then you can just buy another pair for $25. You have another pair for 3 more years and you just saved yourself the $200.

Originally Posted by FidelCashflow

Click to expand...

I have some JL's, and I can kind of see where you're going with this. The first thing that strikes me as odd is that with dress shoes, the cheap brands imitate the expensive brands. This is the exact opposite with the expensive brands imitating the cheap brands. As for quality, what exactly makes CP's so much better quality than chucks? Aren't they all glued together? Even $200 sounds reasonable for a pair of CP's, but I can't fathom why anyone would think full retail is a good value proposition.
You are the first person I have seen take Xenox seriously. The thing about sneakers is that all the "cheap" brands own all the classic styles and have been putting them out for years, and with dress shoes, the same is true for expensive brands. Expensive sneaker brands try and put a spin on the classics to make a new classic of their own. IMO nappa leather over canvas is a bigger difference (the fundamental fabric of the shoe) than John Lobb over Florsheim (mainly the construction methods). I've always thought of the CP as more of a tennis shoe ripoff than one of the Chuck Taylor. Not very many CP models have a toe cap, never mind a white rubber one. Personally, in a similar price range, I like the aesthetic of the Wings + Horns sneakers over the CPs.

Originally Posted by FidelCashflow

Click to expand...

What's with copies of classic shoes like Chuck's and Nike's that are actually more expensive than the original, like Common Projects and BAPES? Usually copies are cheaper. I don't get it.

How does it feel to be absolutely marsupialed?

Originally Posted by FidelCashflow

Click to expand...

Nope. I went to a store to finally see these Common Projects that everyone on SF seemed so enamoured with... they look the same as Converse except for slightly nicer materials, but at many times the price. Chuck's are $60 CAN a pair, these were like $475. It can't be a status symbol thing, since most people have no idea what common projects are. I was with a buddy, and he just asked me "why are they so expensive?" all I could think of was "I think Kanye West wears them"
My guess is that this is really just a bad attempt at trolling SW&D. I would believe your argument if Converse made any model that strongly resembles the mainline of Common Projects, which they don't. . Okay, so Common Projects makes a lot of low tops, and some of them have cap toes, big ******* deal. The fact that you compared Bapes along with them is what makes me think this is just a troll thread, as very few on this forum would ever wear bape sneakers. Between converse and cp though, they barely have any similarities between their models at all, are constructed of completely different materials, have very different styles, etc. Also if you look around a bit, CPs can easily be had for around $200-$300, though at some places they have gotten up to over $300 at full retail. I am not trying to sound like a common projects fanboy or anything, I can understand how some people would think that spending that kind of money on a sneaker is pointless. At the same time though, making comparisons like this is just as bad as comparing $35 levis with $300 samurais, or $40 bass loafers with $400 aldens. When you are paying for a premium good there is usually some combination of differences in quality and also differences in style. There have seriously been enough of these kinds of threads that say "why do people pay X amount for Y item on this board? LAWL your all stupid for spending money on stuff that I think is overpriced". Also, how can you make some grand judgement on an entire brand when you don't even own a pair? I don't get how you can much such proclimations on the worth of a brand when you only saw them in a department store. Basically though, if you don't like it, then don't buy it, but theres no need to **** on everyone elses purchases.

Originally Posted by jet

Click to expand...

Voted on star level of this thread.

+1

This thread is terrible.

chucks are the black suit: dont do it. get educated and upgrade.

Originally Posted by Sylvr

Click to expand...

chucks are the black suit: dont do it. get educated and upgrade.

Into Raf-branded Chucks? I hear you there.