Are Suede loafers a bad idea?

[Bexcellence]

How messed up would these get if these were put through a typical day in NYC? Are they worth buying?

http://www.neimanmarcus.com/p/Salva...o-Suede-Bit-Loafer-Black-Shoes/prod132080067/

 

[MyOtherLife]

It depends on where in NYC you intend on spending your day. Some areas are quite nice while other areas may offer a minefield of dog sh*t, dried blood, vomit, urine, trash, bodies and other assorted obstacles. If walking in the former areas, I imagine you'll be just fine. If in the latter areas you may want to have the shoes TOPY'd before venturing out.
Personally I am impartial to the Ferragamo's suggested. I have the AE Verona ($325) and love them. They are less $$$ and almost identical to Gucci loafers.

 

[12345Michael54321]

I'm not quite sure how to answer your question. I mean, I don't suppose they'd be any more, or less, messed up than would a non-loafer pair of suede shoes.

I have suede shoes (albeit, not suede loafers), and wear them in Baltimore, and have even had them on my feet one day when I headed down to DC. I put them on without any special worries for their continued well-being, not that I'd wear them to walk through the snow or something like that. I don't imagine that NYC is inherently all that much more prone to messing up shoes than are other major cities.

I happen to like loafers, and while I have only a modest fondness for suede shoes, the ones you mentioned actually sort of appeal to me. And they'd be versatile enough that I could get a pretty fair amount of use from them. I could certainly imagine wearing them with chinos, or cords, or with pretty much whatever pants I might be wearing with a sport coat or blazer. I wouldn't want to wear them with a business suit. It's not the "rule" about not wearing loafers with suits - I sometimes wear my AE Graysons with suits, and am entirely comfortable doing so. I just don't think the Ferragamo suede loafers would be an appropriate choice of loafer to wear with a conservative suit.

All that having been said, Ferragamo isn't really a favorite brand of mine. (Various reasons, probably having no bearing on their suitability for you.) And it's not like I'm in love with the loafers; I just think they look sort of nice. For the money, I could probably find some other pair of shoes I'd rather buy, from some other manufacturer, with which I'd be happier. But hey, this isn't rightly about whether they'd be worth it to me; it's about whether you feel that they'd be worth it to you. Go decide for yourself how happy keeping $500 in your wallet would make you feel, how happy spending $500 on the Ferragamo suede loafers would make you feel, and how happy spending the $500 on some other pair of shoes would make you feel. Then you'll know whether they're worth buying. It's not a thing someone can decide for you.

(I used $500 more or less at random. I don't actually know how much they might run you, given that there are always sales, and outlet stores, and whatnot to consider. But the principle's the same, regardless of the actual price. I mean, unless they're blowing the shoes out for some ridiculously low price, where you could simply buy them on little more than a whim and if they turn out to have been a mistake, the financial hit would be inconsequential.)
--
Michael

 

[12345Michael54321]



I have the AE Verona ($325) and love them. They are less $$$ and almost identical to Gucci loafers.

I have a pair of AE Veronas, myself. But I don't think the Verona comes in suede.

Still, the AE Lucca does come in suede, and it's almost identical to the Verona. And since it's an Allen Edmonds, I could even get it in a triple-E width, which I'm guessing might not be an option with Ferragamo. (Obviously, the width issue is of no significance to the majority of the population who happily wear a medium width shoe.)

I'm still not all that hot to buy myself a pair of suede bit loafers, though. Nothing horrible about the combination, just not something I feel an urgent need to add to my shoe rack, is all. But neither am I permanently ruling out the possibility.
--
Michael

 

[eluther]

While black suede horse-bit loafers inextricably say Nordstrom Rack to me, I think suede loafers are great. Get some suede water repellent if you're concerned about their ability to withstand abuse. Since they're black, you also don't have to worry about them showing minor scuffs.

 

[SpooPoker]

While I am sure those are nice for some people, they seem rather pedestrian to me (see what I did there?)

Explore the Crockett & Jones "Merton".

 

[ElDave]



I have a pair of AE Veronas, myself. But I don't think the Verona comes in suede.
Still, the AE Lucca does come in suede, and it's almost identical to the Verona. And since it's an Allen Edmonds, I could even get it in a triple-E width, which I'm guessing might not be an option with Ferragamo. (Obviously, the width issue is of no significance to the majority of the population who happily wear a medium width shoe.)
I'm still not all that hot to buy myself a pair of suede bit loafers, though. Nothing horrible about the combination, just not something I feel an urgent need to add to my shoe rack, is all. But neither am I permanently ruling out the possibility.
--
Michael

I was advised the Lucca and some Gucci loafers are made in the same factory. It's identical to some Gucci loafer, can't remember which.

 

[Ayrton]

Lucca on sale right now as well...

I picked up a pair along with some cordovans.

 

[b1os]



While I am sure those are nice for some people, they seem rather pedestrian to me (see what I did there?)
Explore the Crockett & Jones "Merton".

+1
The Merton looks great. I'd get the brown/mink one, but that's up to you. And yes, use something like the Saphir Super Invulner to waterproof them.

 

[F. Corbera]

I have several reverse calf penny loafers, but the sweetest of all are the Lattanzis in suede that I wore yesterday evening.