Common Projects and BAPES

[aqhong]

^ No Court Lows there, homie.

 

[wildcard]

^ Whoops, you're right. Hopefully that will help out someone.

 

[Bsides]

ha, too bad I cant find the rod laver clean anywhere.

It does seem rediculously hard to find plain white shoes though.

 

[thefreeman]

Google works wonders: http://www.natterjacks.com/shop/product.php?xProd=13540

 

[aqhong]

Actually like these more than the Clean Packs. Shape seems closer to the Achilles while the Clean Packs lean a bit more towards the Courts, but I prefer Achilles to Courts, so YMMV.

 

[Bsides]

Originally Posted by aqhong

Actually like these more than the Clean Packs. Shape seems closer to the Achilles while the Clean Packs lean a bit more towards the Courts, but I prefer Achilles to Courts, so YMMV.

but eww yuck the green.

Thanks for the link, but on closer inspection, those are not as nice as CP's, which i will try to find used instead. Plus, is the sole off white? yuck

 

[XenoX101]

Originally Posted by Teger

If nobody can tell the difference, IS there a difference?
Thats the thing, people CAN tell the difference, first time I spotted CPs they were the all white ones at Assin in the city, you can't mistake that porcelain white finish for a matte canvas finish any day of the week. Here's a good example, two pairs of boots

Without knowing the brand, can you tell me which of these cost $110 and which cost well over $110? Yes, there are some small differences so you probably guessed it. The top pair is Loake, $110, the bottom pair is John Lobb, $450. But are these small differences worth the $340? If so, why can't this same principle of paying for details apply to Common Projects? Please leave your double standards at the door. Oh and about teger's comment of nobody noticing the difference, try wearing these two pairs on seperate days and I guarantee you nobody will blink.

 

[brad-t]

I thought the top ones looked nicer.

 

[blackplatano]

The top ones look way nicer.

 

[yoshii]

Originally Posted by Uncontrol

I thought the top ones looked nicer.

+1

 

[ampire]

top shoe definitely looked nicer maybe its the lighting or the fact that you cant see the inside of shoe

 

[StarterStyle]

It's the tree in there. Trees mean nice shoes and that threw us off.

 

[whacked]

2 pictures were taken at completely different angles, that's no good way to compare the shape of 2 elongated lasts.


Loake does NOT sell at $110. More like $250.
Lobb, especially, does NOT sell at $450. More like $1,600.

Xenox's post:

 

[XenoX101]

Originally Posted by whacked

2 pictures were taken at completely different angles, that's no good way to compare the shape of 2 elongated lasts. Loake does NOT sell at $110. More like $250. Lobb, especially, does NOT sell at $450. More like $1,600.
You fail to realise the point was not the exact prices, but the huge difference in price for minimal gain. I couldn't help the photos, I don't own the shoes. Oh and lastly, I wasn't talking retail, the loakes were $150 (my bad, not sure how I got $110 in my head) and the lobbs were the cheapest I could find on the marketplace (can't find the thread but they were going for 300 pounds which is 441 USD), though you will find lobb has gone for $500-$650 in the marketplace in the past. Here's the loakes. http://www.styleforum.net/showthread.php?t=100260

 

[onion]

If you are trying to say that JL and Loake have anything in common other than the fact they both are shoes, then you're marsupialed. The difference between Loake and JL is 35890729085623478956x more apparent than Chuck Taylors to Common Projects.