or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Gucci loafer
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Gucci loafer

post #1 of 29
Thread Starter 
Whats others opinion of gucci loafers in comparison to other brands often discussed on SF such as c&j , ferragamo tramezza lines ?

Was looking at a pair today with leather sole and bamboo snaffle, to me construction looked reasonable but didn't blow me away .. inside the insole was a little messily glued on which was a bit dissappinting. However, the leather they use on the sole felt really pliable, even though the shoe was brand new, would be interested to learn why their leather soles are so soft on comparison to other leather soled shoes?

Any views would be appreciated. Cheers, dandy.
post #2 of 29
The sole is soft because of the construction method of the loafer.

If I'm not mistaken, the Gucci loafer is a moccasin construction and IS meant to be soft.

The leather and construction methods, by the way, are nothing to write home about. It's more of an iconoclastic item than anything.
post #3 of 29
Thread Starter 

Thanks Lee, yes its priced at a fairly punchy £420 and for that you would expect a certain level of detail and work as well as high quality leather.

 

This is the pair I was looking at:

 

 

moccasin with bamboo horsebit and web detail.

post #4 of 29
http://www.allenedmonds.com/wcsstore/AllenEdmonds/Attachment/images/database/allenedmonds_shoes_verona_brown-dark-brown_l.jpg

http://www.allenedmonds.com/aeonline/producti_SF49600_1_40000000001_-1

Sorry, I have no experience with Gucci, so this may not be helpful. These don't have the bamboo piece, but at $199 they are a much cheaper alternative if you're just looking for a Gucci-style bit loafter. They also have a very soft flexible sole.
post #5 of 29

The gucci bit-loafers are a classic look, but that doesn't mean they're really all that nice, they are merely decent shoes. Quality is better than stuff like cole haan, j&m. I have a pair (just the bit, no bamboo) - they're comfortable and kind of fashionable looking in that designer/obvious, recognizable brand kind of way. But they are nothing special at all; I didn't and wouldn't pay full retail for them. C&J's are vastly nicer, IMO.

post #6 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by dwntwnjay View Post

The gucci bit-loafers are a classic look, but that doesn't mean they're really all that nice, they are merely decent shoes. Quality is better than stuff like cole haan, j&m. I have a pair (just the bit, no bamboo) - they're comfortable and kind of fashionable looking in that designer/obvious, recognizable brand kind of way. But they are nothing special at all; I didn't and wouldn't pay full retail for them. C&J's are vastly nicer, IMO.

I also own a pair similar to those described above, with a gold metal bit, but no bamboo. I also concur with the assessment above. Gucci bit loafers are an iconic item and are comfortable, but they are not high quality shoes. The leather is nothing special; my C&J and Ferragamo Tramezza shoes are much, much better made, use better leather, and I expect them to last much longer. My Gucci bit loafers are worth the ~$120 I paid at a consignment store, but I wouldn't pay much more. Of course, YMMV.
post #7 of 29
Thread Starter 

cant go wrong at 120 bucks! the £420 they are asking for in the london bond st shop is ridiculous .. but i do like the style so might try allen edmunds loafer recommended above (thanks for the tip) or possibly pick them up in the sale.

 

its interesting as the gucci loafer with the bit or bamboo has an iconic status as mentioned above, and is seen as a symbol of success and prestige (at the moment the british tabloids talk about gucci wearing city bankers, although ive never seen anyone in the square mile wear gucci shoes .. plenty of C&J and perhaps tods on a friday at certain places).

 

how do gucci get away with producing lower quality shoes at a price tag in excess of most C&J and a lot of ferragamo tremezza shoes? has quality declined over the years, think theyve been making this model in some form or another for at least 50 years!

 

dandy.     

post #8 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by dandy1 View Post

Whats others opinion of gucci loafers in comparison to other brands often discussed on SF such as c&j , ferragamo tramezza lines ?

Was looking at a pair today with leather sole and bamboo snaffle, to me construction looked reasonable but didn't blow me away .. inside the insole was a little messily glued on which was a bit dissappinting. However, the leather they use on the sole felt really pliable, even though the shoe was brand new, would be interested to learn why their leather soles are so soft on comparison to other leather soled shoes?

Any views would be appreciated. Cheers, dandy.


Say what you will on this topic but I know this, they are among the most versatle of shoes, work with everything from jeans to chinos to a blazer and I even have a pal or two (Sigma Chi types from USC) who will wear them with shorts! There is nothing I want to walk in more after a long flight than a good pair of bit loafers. And being I am in my offensive prep mode, bit loafers, no socks, jeans thing is working for me right now.

post #9 of 29

Gucci shoes are ok shoes but none of their shoes are worth more than a 1/3 of what they ask for them.. if you love the look and think that look is worth the money then buy them, but you are not getting your money's worth as far as quality goes..  I worked in shoe repair for several years in an area where fine shoes were the norm and Gucci is nothing to write home about.. for the same money you can buy shoes that are an order of magnitude above Gucci.. based on a comparison of materials and construction to other well known brands most $600 Gucci shoes are worth about $200 - $250

post #10 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by dandy1 View Post

Thanks Lee, yes its priced at a fairly punchy £420 and for that you would expect a certain level of detail and work as well as high quality leather.

 

This is the pair I was looking at:

 

 

moccasin with bamboo horsebit and web detail.

 



I actually got a pair of these shoes and love them. Definetly an eye catcher when you wear them. I only worn mines once but plan to wear them again for a wedding next month. If you have the money for them then buy them.

post #11 of 29

Gucci is classic. All other bit loafers are copies of the original. 

 

Gucci is a must own.

post #12 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by elegance007 View Post

Gucci is classic. All other bit loafers are copies of the original. 

Gucci is a must own.
puzzled.gif
post #13 of 29
I wish my narrow feet could fit into the fairly wide Gucci loafer. I've had to go with Ferragamo's take on the bit loafer since their shoes come in narrow widths.
post #14 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by DandySF View Post

I wish my narrow feet could fit into the fairly wide Gucci loafer. I've had to go with Ferragamo's take on the bit loafer since their shoes come in narrow widths.

Have you tried going down half a size?

 

The 157440 runs narrow.

post #15 of 29
I now reluctantly admit that I once bought a pair of the bit loafers. They are THE WORST shoes I have ever purchased and worn. Cheap construction, very uncomfortable, and clumsy. Thanks to Gucci, I swore to treat my feet properly and stick to the.Northampton lot. I purchased some Todd's recently and was surprised that they aren't half bad.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Gucci loafer