The Official Common Projects Thread

[Jhericurls]

Aha! The RGxCPs have a really thin removable insole. So I just need a thicker one. All my concerns are relieved

What do RGxCPs look like? I've never seen a pair.

 

[melonadejello]



What do RGxCPs look like?  I've never seen a pair.

This season it's suede bballs with a side zip in navy or taupe.

 

[typericey]

White Achilles lows delivered by DHL today in size 41. Fits perfect lengthwise but tight with regard to width as I have wide feet. Most folks here are saying as long as the length is ok, the width will eventually stretch, so it looks like I should be fine. Happy happy!

My sizing info:
9.5E - Brannock
9.5US - Nike
8.5US - Alden Trubalance, Wolverine 1000 mile
7UK - Lanvin Cap Toe

These are my 2nd pair of CPs. Sold my 1st pair of size 42 Achilles retros coz I fitted and bought them judging on width but it ended up being just clowny long. Had to lace them tight too which was aesthetically wrong. Too bad coz I really loved the color and the buttery Nappa on those retros.

 

[piblondin]

White Achilles lows delivered by DHL today in size 41. Fits perfect lengthwise but tight with regard to width as I have wide feet. Most folks here are saying as long as the length is ok, the width will eventually stretch, so it looks like I should be fine. Happy happy!

My sizing info:
9.5E - Brannock
9.5US - Nike
8.5US - Alden Trubalance, Wolverine 1000 mile
7UK - Lanvin Cap Toe

These are my 2nd pair of CPs. Sold my 1st pair of size 42 Achilles retros coz I fitted and bought them judging on width but it ended up being just clowny long. Had to lace them tight too which was aesthetically wrong. Too bad coz I really loved the color and the buttery Nappa on those retros.

I just got my first pair of Achilles. I'm a 9D on Brannock and wear 9D in AE, 42.5 in SLP, and 9.5 in Nike. Got 42 in the Achilles, which I hope work out.

 

[heytchap]

This may help others with sizing.

Vans: 8.5
Converse: 8
Nike: 8.5
Clarks: 8
Viberg: 8
Doc Martens: 8
Supra: 8.5
Raf (velcro high - Portugal, not Italy): 41

CP achilles low: 41
CP achilles high: 40 (the 41 were laughably huge)

I can post pics comparing the 40 and 41 CP achilles highs, and I can also post pics of the CP achilles highs vs the Raf Velcro highs.

The 40 CP high and the 41 Raf Velcro high have an identical sole size.

Also, pulling the insole out of the 41 CP high and looking on the bottom, I see: "42"; whereas, with the 40 CP high, I see: "41"

I guess that goes back to what someone said earlier: 40 IT = 41 EU = UK 7 = US 8

 

[whorishconsumer]

As the last of three posts on comparative CP fit/sizing (see previous posts here and here), below is a comparison of the Tournament Cap Toe Low vs. the Original Achilles Low.

Firstly, regarding size, my feet run on the narrow side and one is longer than the other, so when it comes to moccasins, loafers, dress shoes and boots this can translate to anything from an 11-12.5 US. 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.

Secondly, the pairs I am comparing here 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 (based on experience and what I've read). The Tournament Lows were purchased last March from Tres Bien. I scooped the Achilles from Yoox, a few months ago, 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.

Both shoes are derby (open-lace) construction, thereby allowing greater control of snugness, as compared with the BBall Low and in my opinion.

The toe box for both shoes is relatively narrow and flat to the ground. An argument could be made for the Tournament Low being slightly narrower and restrictive, but the two shoes are fairly comparable in this area.

The Achilles have a slightly higher heel, in terms of the collar, but there is not a notable difference in height positioning (where your heel sits in shoe) between the two models. There is little difference in rear volume between the two models, although it could be argued that the Tournament Lows are slightly tighter back here. The outsoles are the same for both models.

The throat on the Achilles is higher-raised and in general this model's last leaves more space at the top of the foot. In other words, if you drew an arrow raising at a slant from the toe to throat, the Achilles would achieve a higher angle. This is partially what establishes the Achilles as a bulkier shoe, although not with the result that the shoes are loose on the foot (like with the Retro Achilles). In terms of width, the midfoot is about comparable between the two models, while the forefoot comes out a little more accommodating on the Achilles.

The other aspect contributing to the Achilles' bulkier silhouette is the padding along the ankle and tongue, while the Tournament Low has zero padding. (Additionally, and unrelated to fit, the Tournaments are cloth-lined, where the Achilles are all leather). The effect, when on foot, and even on a narrow foot like mine, is that the Tournament Lows hug the feet more, striking more of a Converse-All-Stars silhouette. The tongue of the Achilles is also longer, extending further up the top of the foot, past where the lacing ends.

Length is the same.

Overall, both pairs fit me close to perfect (with a 3/4 insert on top of the factory insole), while achieving completely distinct aesthetics. Because my feet are narrow, and because Achilles ran smaller at one point, Tournaments were in the past my preferred CP model (I had a pair of Court Highs back in the day). Out of the box they still fit me slightly better than the Achilles, but after a year-plus of wear on the Tournaments, I'd say both shoes are on par.

Because they are a more naked shoe and have a tighter last (read: less space above the foot), the Tournaments wrap the feet a little tighter, and are somewhat more restrictive in the forefoot. What added space the Achilles accomplish is largely compensated for with padding, but this model remains more accommodating in the forefoot than the latter.

My final takeaway is that both models are a good fit for somewhat-narrow feet or those with medium-width feet but less girth (all-around dimension). If you ride the fence on having feet that are too wide, the Achilles would likely be a better fit. This is, of course, up for debate.

 

[jlchau]

Is the only difference between mens/womens achilles low the serial number?

 

[Viral]

Looking to buy my first pair of CP...............please PM me if you are selling white/off white achilles low in sz 39

 

[whorishconsumer]



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.

I need to revise this entry (and am unable to edit): having given into temptation and purchased a pair of BBall Lows in 44 I can say that, in fact, they are not too short in length. The major difference in lasts between a 44 and 45 seems to be mainly in the width, girth (space above top of foot) and overall volume, as opposed to length. Lined up against the Achilles it would appear there is no length discrepancy whatsoever. That is not to say there is not a length difference - the 44 BBalls are shorter than the 45s.

Comparing the BBalls in a 44 against the Achilles in a 45, the takeaway is still that the latter provides more overall space, particularly in the toe box and above the top of the foot. The fact that the BBalls are oxford lacing adds additional looseness to this model, compared to the Achilles. That being said, they are not far off in terms of fit. Mainly it is the weight of the BBalls that, when combined with these other factors, makes the looseness more pronounced than with the Achilles, which is a lighter shoe, and to the extent that the Achilles has volume that is not made up for with padding. In fact, they would fit my foot better than the Achilles Retro Low in 45, were it not for the latter model also being a lighter shoe.

The BBall Lows would still be the best option, of the CP models reviewed, for individuals with wide feet. If you have medium-to-narrow feet but want a pair, I would definitely suggest sizing down. But if you are to size down to with particularly wide feet you may find the fit too snug, at least at first.

Note: While the BBall model originally reviewed is the grain-leather style (1842) and the 44s just purchased are the plain-leather variety (1887), and despite a slight differential in the outsole, these two are comparable iterations of the BBall Low.

 

[tropics]



White Achilles lows delivered by DHL today in size 41. Fits perfect lengthwise but tight with regard to width as I have wide feet.

Out of curiosity, how do you judge the length?

 

[piblondin]

I just got my Achilles lows in size 42. As mentioned, I wear size 9.5 in most Nikes. The 42s were tight at first and then stretched out. They mostly fit okay except that they are a little long for me. As a result, the toe box creases in front of my toes--i.e. between my toes and the very front of the shoe. Is that a certain indication that I should size down? Is it just something that happens sometimes? Or is it a common problem that will work itself out with more wear?

Thanks!

I just got my first pair of Achilles. I'm a 9D on Brannock and wear 9D in AE, 42.5 in SLP, and 9.5 in Nike. Got 42 in the Achilles, which I hope work out.

 

[wurlwyde]

Use shoe trees and loosen up those laces. Also add a half insole if they're slightly too big or wear another pair of socks. A 9.5 in Nike is roughly a TTS 9. The creases probably won't go completely away but shoe trees prevent that. You could also do as some of the sneaker head kids do with the towel and iron to get them out. Shoe trees are the best way to go if that worries you.

 

[piblondin]

I am using shoe trees. The creases don't bother me aesthetically. The problem is that when I walk, the leather creases in front of my toes and that irritates them.

Use shoe trees and loosen up those laces. Also add a half insole if they're slightly too big or wear another pair of socks. A 9.5 in Nike is roughly a TTS 9. The creases probably won't go completely away but shoe trees prevent that. You could also do as some of the sneaker head kids do with the towel and iron to get them out. Shoe trees are the best way to go if that worries you.

 

[OccultaVexillum]

Then they are too long. But depending on how wide your feet are sizing down might just be too small. I'd try them with an insole and see what happens.

 

[whorishconsumer]

To round it all out, I've noticed there is practically zero photos or videos out there of the BBall Lows on foot (other than a few from Borasification, which if you haven't seen it, is a good little blog; and he's wearing the first-release model, which is from ~2009 and has been drastically revamped since then). Therefore, I thought I'd fill this gap here.

Alright, I'm out. I gotta make moves! Got things to do, people to see. I can't be expected to hang around this forum all day posting photos and videos of my expensive sneaker collection.