or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Streetwear and Denim › The Official Common Projects Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Official Common Projects Thread - Page 37

post #541 of 1407
Golden goose are ugly as shit.
post #542 of 1407
Lol. Obviously you've never tried a pair on.
post #543 of 1407

No, I don't need to try them on to think they look ugly as shit.

If you're trying to say they are comfortable, great, I'll take your word for it but they still look like they are made of rat anus.

post #544 of 1407
Well, as you can't seem to give a valid reason. Simply using distasteful metaphors I will discredit any comment you make.
post #545 of 1407
Lol how is that not a valid reason? I think they look horrible, people have differing opinions on these things. I've never seen a pair of Golden Goose that didn't look like shit, therefore they are ugly in my eyes. It doesn't make your opinion any less "true".
post #546 of 1407

Okay, so I went here to familiarize myself with Golden Goose as I didn't know about their sneakers before: http://www.goldengoosedeluxebrand.com/it/it/shop/kids/sneakers/cat-a0001-s-1-1

 

I'm still confused as to what the grounds are upon which you suggest that Diemme/GG are "better" than CP. I have to agree that GG look completely ordinary in a very unappealing way. They look juvenile. 

 

Diemme Veneto lows look somewhat attractive--at least in that they can be considered similar to the CP aesthetic--but I have no experience with them and therefore can't comment further. I will say however that the toebox and overall shape look distinctly more bulky than the Achilles. Lanvin cap-toes seem a nice alternative between the two. 

post #547 of 1407
To each their own. But I do remember now why I don't come here often.
post #548 of 1407
Wait, are you seriously mad because people don't share your opinion on something?!
Nobody said "hey guy you must be stupid if you like golden goose".
post #549 of 1407

^ Ha....

 

Have CP's,GG,Deimme, and Buttero and I am moving back to Con's and PF's albeit US/Japanese (VisVim/Lofgren).  Hopefully I will

 

end up where I started........Con's & Van's

 

Enjoy

post #550 of 1407
has anybody seen a size 40 in the white achilles lows on any european sites?
post #551 of 1407
Quote:
Originally Posted by masshi View Post

has anybody seen a size 40 in the white achilles lows on any european sites?

Peggs & Sons just got some new stock. Also try Mr Porter and END.
post #552 of 1407
Since I'm fortunate enough to own, or to have owned, several styles of Common Projects, I had intended to provide a somewhat comprehensive overview of my experience with sizing. That's perhaps a bit ambitious given my present schedule, but since there has been some question regarding the difference in sizing between the BBall Lows and the Achilles Lows, I will speak to this comparison here.

Firstly, regarding size, I am generally somewhere along a 12.5 US, in order to accommodate for one foot being longer than the other. My feet run on the narrow side so when it comes to dress shoes and boots this can translate to anything from an 11.5-12.5 US, but with sneakers I have generally fallen in the uncomfortable space between a 12 (too small) and a 13 US (too large). The pairs compared here are both sized 45 EU. I should also note that I used a 3/4 insole with mild arch support stacked on the factory insole in determining fit (I strongly recommend this unless you have flat feet - CPs offer 0 arch support).

Secondly, the pairs I am comparing here were both purchased recently and so I believe they are fairly-recent iterations of their respective models. I point this out because Common Projects appears to have changed their sizing somewhere between, say, 2009 and now, making their lasts more accommodating in width (based on experience and what I've read). I scooped the pair of Achilles from Yoox and so it is possible that they may be from a few seasons past, but based on the fit I can tell their production falls after this sizing transition.



As you can see above, a key distinction between the two styles is that the BBall has an oxford construction, whereas the Achilles has a derby construction. Someone may weigh in here with a passionate refutation, but in my experience the latter is going to allow greater control of tightness/looseness of the shoe.



You can also see that the forefoot is greater in height and broader in volume on the BBall Low (again due partially to the lacing construction). The toe box of the Achilles speaks to the model's overall lower profile (although not as low as it once was).



The BBall Low has a higher ankle and, again, a bit more volume in the rear.





The volume differential carries throughout the remainder of the shoe, with the result that the Achilles is not only lower in profile but sleeker in body, with a bit more indentation leading from the forefoot to the mid.



Despite this the length discrepancy is minor, although the BBalls are longer.

Overall, the Achilles fit me close to perfect (with a 3/4 insert on top of the factory insole), whereas the BBalls are too voluminous for my narrow feet (even with the insert). If I desired to wear the Achilles barefoot I would likely need to tighten the lacing more than I find aesthetically pleasing, but as is and wearing thin dress socks they fit with a very small amount of overall space leftover and no shifting. With the BBalls, socks or none, my feet have far too much space - lengthwise, but primarily in terms of width and height - in which to move. Given that the design of the shoe does not "naturally" secure my foot, an attempt to compensate for this via tightening of the laces would only result in the two sides of the vamp being burritoed on top of each other, and would only partially ameliorate the problem.

That being said, as this is the inevitable next question, I would not size down on the BBalls. A 44 in this model would likely be too short in length for me (sneakers don't stretch in length) and I doubt the volume discrepancy would be fully resolved. That being said, anyone falling closer to whole sizing might benefit from sizing down.

My final takeaway is that the Achilles are a good fit for somewhat-narrow feet or those with medium-width feet but less girth, whereas the BBalls would best accommodate someone with closer to a G fitting and/or greater girth. There doesn't appear to be a huge discrepancy in length between the two, however the volume consideration hugely impacts the overall fit of the shoe with the effect the BBalls feel longer than the Achilles. This is, of course, up for debate.
post #553 of 1407

^ Awesome, thanks so much. Would you mind sharing which insole you use? Haven't ever needed one but I'd rather use them for my CP lows since I don't want to be without arch support. 

post #554 of 1407
Quote:
Originally Posted by Death24xASecond View Post

^ Awesome, thanks so much. Would you mind sharing which insole you use? Haven't ever needed one but I'd rather use them for my CP lows since I don't want to be without arch support. 

Superfeet Delux 3/4: https://www.superfeet.com/en-us/delux-mens-3-4

I like them because they provide the arch support and place my foot more securely against the tongue/lacing, but leaves the toe box uncramped.
post #555 of 1407

Sizing question. I went true instead of sizing down for my achilles because of having wide feet. My feet hurt very badly during the break-in period when walking for long periods. More than a year later, the shoes fit comfortably except for the length/toe room which could be a tad less. I'm thinking that the difference in width between one size probably matters very little, and for all leather sneakers that use the same margom sole, I should be sizing for length instead of width since the leather will stretch anyway. Is this correct?

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Streetwear and Denim
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Streetwear and Denim › The Official Common Projects Thread