Common Projects S/S '07

[macuser3of5]

Originally Posted by jet

If they were cloak you'd be all over them

Um, no, as I dont even like Cloak? However, Cloak shoes do have the benefit of not being stamped, so there's an edge up for Cloak.

I'm not even saying they are ****** or not worth the money (I quite like them, actually, and have come close to buying a pair in the past) I just wish they didn't have the stamp. It's an extraneous detail that I do not care for at all. And when paying a sizable amount for shoes, it's all about the little ****...I didn't realize CP was such a hot button issue here, but all in all you're putting too much stock in a throwaway comment about a stamp.

I will say that I find it funny that you accuse me of labelwhoring (if you wanted to be accurate you could have said Helmut Lang) when I made no mention of labels whatsoever. edit: To add something constructive to the thread, I really dig the slipons. Pricepoints?

 

[Manny Calavera]

Originally Posted by macuser3of5

Meh, the stamps put them into G-Star faux mil territory. Not a fan at all, especially for $200+ shoes ps. If you think stamps on the sides of shoes are genius you have more important things to worry about.

<3
G-Star comparison aside, the brand started out as "military territory". The first couple of lines were based on German military gym shoes. So that was kind of the point. I think the stamp is kind of cool myself, but I know people that've stated that it ruins the line of the shoe. Also, I'm guessing the slip-ons will match the current leather low-top pricepoint of $249.

 

[ghulkhan]

I agree with jet, stan smiths are garbage.

Common Projects makes amazing shoes. If you have to go against them and say buyiing stan smiths is the same then thats like saying whats the point of spending 200 bucks more on a pair of sugar canes when you can go buy a 40 dollar pair of levis at sears. People on here spend more on stuff that other people would not spend on. That being said Common Projects are perfectly acceptable to many that would not be to others. You arent part of the norm when you buy 300 dollar jeans that look exactly like 60 dollar jeans to many poeple. You arent part of the norm buyiing common projects instead of stan smiths either. The anti norm is going to argue that you dont need to spend 200 more on a pair of jeans just like some of you are arguing against the CP shoes. in a way its hypocritical

 

[vvoc]

does anyone actually own a pair of these? if so can you post a pic wearing them? im curious...also what are the &quot;details&quot; that set these apart from stan smiths other than the quality of leather... thanks!

 

[ghulkhan]

I own a few pairs, but I don have a camera but here you go, off the NDG website...

and a random cp google

They are much sleeker looking then stan smiths or chuks, theres no branding to them except the little gold code thing which looks cool, the leather is much better and softer 99 percent of sneakers out there, and the construction is much more solid. The sneakers are a step above pretty much any other sneaker out there

 

[vvoc]

whats are the details that you were mentioning, they look great...but i agree with everyone else that i cant pay that much for sneakers...cant knock you for doing it...they look great... theyre shoes are similiar to stan smiths and vans, ya?

 

[ghulkhan]

if you handle them in person youll see how much better they are then stan smiths or vans
as for details, its a pretty minimalist design, there just great construction, look great, and they feel great

 

[macuser3of5]

Originally Posted by vvoc

does anyone actually own a pair of these? if so can you post a pic wearing them? im curious...also what are the "details" that set these apart from stan smiths other than the quality of leather... thanks!
Well, judging soley from pictures, the sidewalls are actually stitched. That alone sets it miles apart in quality/longevity. Also, they have a structurally better shape, chucks just have a flatboard look, these keep a better volume.

 

[LA Guy]

I like Common Projects. The details are very nice. However, I go through sneakers way too fast and wear them way too hard to afford a pair. I walk a couple of miles in them just to and from work everyday. And call me old fashioned, but I really hate the idea of special "dress up" sneakers.

My litmus test for buying any article of clothing or any accessory is whether I'd feel comfortable wearing it, and unfortunately, Common Projects sneakers don't meet that criterion. Maybe if I made 3x + what I do. As is, I might shell out for a pair of Steven Alan sneakers, but I am more likely to go with the premium Chucks, which also have stitched sidewalls and a pretty well supported footbed, and are made out of decent Nubuck leather. They are not as nice as Common Projects sneakers, but I'd be more stylish in them if only because at $60-$70, they are much more my speed, and I don't care if they get dinged.

 

[Baron]

I really like those shoes. I've held them in my hands at South Willard and lusted for htem, but they're just too ******* expensive. By about double. At $125 they'd be pricey. At $250, they're just north of insulting.

 

[jonnydrama]

dammn...those white canvas ones are crazy!

anyone know stores in toronto that have them in stock?

i called the stores listed on their website but they don't know what the hell i'm talking about.

 

[Manny Calavera]

Originally Posted by jonnydrama

dammn...those white canvas ones are crazy!

anyone know stores in toronto that have them in stock?

i called the stores listed on their website but they don't know what the hell i'm talking about.

Yeah, apparently the shops list includes new shops for Spring/Summer and stock just went out this week. If anyone's out and about keep an eye out. I need the black leather slip-ons.

 

[drizzt3117]

I've handled these shoes in person, and while they're certainly nice sneakers, like I said, I fail to see a significant stylistic difference between them and stan smiths or any other white sneaker without much branding, and in terms of longevity, perhaps they'll last 25% longer but I'm not even convinced of that. This is completely ignoring the fact that in most people's wardrobes they won't be the primary sneaker worn so it's likely they'll NEVER wear out.

Again, IMO it's not the price vs the genre of shoe that makes these an unacceptable price quality ratio to me, as much as it is the fact that to me, they don't seem significantly better than Stan Smiths or similar shoes and are 5-8x the price. The reason that this argument comes up whenever CPs are discussed is obviously because many people don't think they're worth the money, just as many people decry Prada America's Cups for being $250 or whatever they are.

 

[jet]

Please let it go and stop polluting this thread. Those who like the shoes will not be convinced to not buy them due to your irrelevant diatribe.

By the way they are 4-5x the price of stan garbages not 8.

 

[jonnydrama]

..