Reebok Men's Club C 85 Sneaker

Comment

Usually in the Black/Black or White/Navy theres only a $5 to $6 difference between the Club C85 and the Club Memt . Though the shoes my look similar...they are NOT. There is a huge difference in the quality and wear. The C85 has a sewn/glued sole while the Memt has just a glued sole (look carefully at the top edge of the sole on both shoes). The C85 also has better ventilation. The C85 has good arch support for the average foot while the Memt has little to no arch support (If you have arch problems you may not like either style). I have been buying the Club C85 for +35 years...Because I was in a hurry (and their similar appearance) I made the mistake of getting the Club Memt at The Shoe Station in Florida and immediately returned them as soon as I put them on my feet. I almost made the same mistake here on Amazon. Ive shown a couple of photos of my current C85s...Both pair were purchased in 2012 for $54 each at The Shoe Station in Tallahassee FL. The White/Navy are my go to daily shoes after work and all day at least one day out of every weekend. I wear the Black pair 4 to 6 times a month...Hope this helps in making your purchase.

Show more

Comment

The shoe was manufactured in Vietnam. I have worn a size 10 D shoe for the past 50 years. My first pair said size 10 USA but was 9.5. I sent it back and received a size 10 (said 10.5) but had a C width so was too narrow (there was no option to choose width. This came came with a warning tag (see photo) "Due to material complexity this product is intended only for occasional wear. Material my crease and/or break at flex points with overuse." After I saw the warning, I looked closely and it is a piece of crap.

Show more

Comment

I loved these back in the 80s, and was excited to be able to get them again. I did my research and saw that, unlike the different types of Reebok tennis sneakers, these--with the GREEN lettering-- were, indeed, like the ones I had in the 80s. They are different from the ones sold in Kohls (the ones they sell have a white lettering). They were THE most comfortable sneakers I had worn. I used to describe them as "gloves for my feet," and bought a few pairs in that decade. The Bad news: Even though these look the same as the Reeboks I had in the 80s (though they have a bit less terry cloth in the lining than I remember), theyre not. As the Coca Cola company messed around with the formula for Coke, giving us the much-maligned New Coke, it seems that Reebok, too, has messed with their Club C, i.e. the cut of the sneaker. I feel that, because of a more pronounced angle at which the sole of the sneaker is cut, my right foot being pushed to the left, thus causing my whole foot to shift left, with my big toe squishing into the side front of the sneaker. Buy a bigger size, you say. Well, if I did that it would be too big for my left foot. Like many people, one of my feet (probably my right) is a tad larger than the other, but I dont think thats the reason for this discomfort, as my Reebok Club in the 80s didnt do this.

Show more

Comment

Ok, first I may burst a few bubbles here but this is a $60 shoe so please don’t expect the quality of leather or the arch support you would get in shoe costing over $100. All running shoes have cut cost one way or another and you are forced to upgrade to get the style, comfort and quality you desire. Yes maybe they have changed them so they can keep them in the price rang for their target market. I mean a good arch support if you buy something like Green Feet costs you about $40 on its own. Cheap shoes are difficult to find with expensive shoe features like for example ECCO shoes. I have both the Reebok shoes and ECCO. ECCO is a casual street/golf shoe and is far superior in terms of leather quality and comfort but at a price. They may last twice as long and be ultimately a better buy but they do not have the look I need for work. The look of the Reebok shoes allow me to wear them to work with dress slacks, kaki’s or jeans. That is why I bought then. Now as for the sizing I read that people are saying they are too small, too narrow and some just can’t figure out what it is. For me the shoe fits true to size however there is a catch to that statement. The shoe has a thicker flat insole that leaves less height room in the toe box. I believe this is why people are complaining about sizing. If you take out the original insole you should see that the shoe is pretty true to size. I added back in a cheap Dr Scholl insole that I had laying around the house. It has a gel heel, some arch support and a very thin tongue in the front. The thin tongue is the key!!! I get a pretty comfortable classic looking shoe with additional height space and width in the toe box and this works very well for me personally. The extra room in the toe box will make the shoe feel wider and more true to length. The gel heel and arch support of the cheap Dr. Scholl insole makes the shoe better than the original. Hope this helps.

Show more

Comment

I switched from a 9 to a 9.5. The laces are still not long enough to lace them completely up. Also, they come with a label attached that says "Intended only for occasional wear". This model used to be a great shoe. Ive had a dozen pairs over the years. Reebok really blew it with this remake. I will never buy another Reebok shoe!

Show more