# Bit Loafer vs. Penny Loafer



## Sweetness (Aug 25, 2005)

If you had to choose one shoe for casual "loafing" around town, which would it be?


----------



## LeatherSOUL (May 8, 2005)

Penny. 986 to be exact.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

I would go with the penny loafer, without a doubt. The Alden cord LHS is my current favorite...it just works for me!


----------



## Harris (Jan 30, 2006)

LeatherSOUL said:


> Penny. 986 to be exact.


What he said. Uh, rather, wrote.


----------



## AldenPyle (Oct 8, 2006)

Penny. I wear as little jewelry as my wife will allow. My shoes feel the same way.


But that's just me. Not that I haven't seen good looks with the bit.


----------



## Northeastern (Feb 11, 2007)

Penny, as I do not yet own bit loafers.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

If it is truly for "loafing," I'd go with the penny. I like the look of bit loafers, but they strike me as a bit dressier.


----------



## paper clip (May 15, 2006)

Mike Petrik said:


> If it is truly for "loafing," I'd go with the penny. I like the look of bit loafers, but they strike me as a bit dressier.


Similar to my thinking.

I had never liked bit loafers, but since seeing all the pics of them of late, I now would not say 'never'.


----------



## Markus (Sep 14, 2004)

*I'll probably get flamed for this but...*

I just can't imagine ever wearing bit loafers. Guess they're too strongly associated with images (in my minds eye) of guys who were totally clueless when they first came out back in the 70s. Guys who were complete squares.

I've been surprised to see folks advocating them on this board, in spite of the OPH including them as a part of a trad look. I'm older now than the squares I knew 30 years ago who were wearing them but I still find myself feeling that they are somehow for an older guy. However old I get I doubt that I'll ever feel like I'm "that old" that I want to wear them...

(Ducks for cover)


----------



## mcarthur (Jul 18, 2005)

986 LHS for me


----------



## bd79cc (Dec 20, 2006)

Loafing around town, possibly in a coat & tie: 986 or 987.

Hard-core loafing: old Sebago Caymans or C-H "Pinch" Penny Loafers.

If I were single and dating a woman who liked shiny objects, I might wear some of those new Alden bits.


----------



## Good Old Sledge (Jun 13, 2006)

Pennies. I have both, but the pennies get worn probably 4:1 over the snaffles.


----------



## yossarian (Apr 17, 2007)

Maybe I am not trad enough, but, other than penny loafers, I just don't like loafers. I wear penny loafers as casual clothing quite a bit. And I almost always wear penny loafers when wearing a blue blazer. But when I wear a suit, I opt for wing tips -- always. 

But, then again, I also don't care for tassels, so that just goes to show how un-Trad my footwear is.


----------



## Duck (Jan 4, 2007)

I am 50 50 on this one. I have numerous pairs of bits, but my penny's get a lot of action as well. I find if I am wearing old canvas beater chinos the penny's come out. If I am wearing something a little nicer the bits come out. I am going to start tracking this kind of stuff.


----------



## mcarthur (Jul 18, 2005)

^
Good luck!


----------



## vwguy (Jul 23, 2004)

Penny loafers for me.

Brian


----------



## PittDoc (Feb 24, 2007)

Duck said:


> I am 50 50 on this one. I have numerous pairs of bits, but my penny's get a lot of action as well. I find if I am wearing old canvas beater chinos the penny's come out. If I am wearing something a little nicer the bits come out. I am going to start tracking this kind of stuff.


Everyone should have both. I agree w/ Duck and others here. Bit loafers are dressier but b/c I wear a blazer and dress slacks to work every day, my bit loafers get a lot of mileage (I have 4 pair). Penny's are great w/ heavy chinos, which means mine don't get a lot of daily wear, mostly weekends and vacation.


----------



## wolfhound986 (Jun 30, 2007)

A penny, preferably the Alden burgundy shell LHS 986. :icon_smile_wink:

Like paperclip, I never considered the bit loafer, but now that I've seen them on the forum here, I wouldn't rule them out in the future.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

OK, I'll be the one to come out and say it - 

Bit loafers are G_d awful. They look effete and bejeweled. Unless you wear gold chains, slick your hair back, and leave your shirt unbuttoned down to your navel, they should not be worn, IMHO. My opinion of a man, on first impression, always is lowered if he’s wearing those gaudy little shoes.

The rest of you may now commence insisting on how “classic” they are – I suppose they may be; after all, apparently, the pilgrims enjoyed wearing big silver buckles on their shoes……….


----------



## Brutus (Aug 29, 2007)

All penny, all the time.


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

I mentioned bit loafers to the sales guy at Harry Rosen yesterday, and he said they're popular right now but most men wear them incorrectly. He said they wear them with suits, but this is a mistake and they should be worn with business casual or casual clothing only.

DocD


----------



## PittDoc (Feb 24, 2007)

Doctor Damage said:


> I mentioned bit loafers to the sales guy at Harry Rosen yesterday, and he said they're popular right now but most men wear them incorrectly. He said they wear them with suits, but this is a mistake and they should be worn with business casual or casual clothing only.


Doctor Damage to the rescue. Defending us from Rockers and bit-biters everywhere!


----------



## egadfly (Nov 10, 2006)

Those who imagine the bit loafer to be more of a "dress" shoe may be interested in Tintin's and Duck's casual take on things.

I don't personally own a pair, but I certainly wouldn't rule it out. Nice work, gentlemen.

EGF


----------



## Duck (Jan 4, 2007)

egadfly said:


> Those who imagine the bit loafer to be more of a "dress" shoe may be interested in Tintin's and Duck's casual take on things.
> 
> I don't personally own a pair, but I certainly wouldn't rule it out. Nice work, gentlemen.
> 
> EGF


My shoes needed a good polishing that day.


----------



## Naval Gent (May 12, 2007)

I'd never wear bit loafers from any manufacturer. To me they just seem too "big city" or "New York". Not my style.

I'll wear penny loafers 'til I die, however.

Scott


----------



## qwerty (Jun 24, 2005)

Bit loafers are perhaps the most polarizing shoe made -- even more polarizing than the tassel.

That said, I always love bit loafers when I see men wearing them. I prefer the original Gucci. The Cole Haans have too low of a toe box, and I can always tell when the shoe I see is not Gucci.

I now also love the Alden bits featured in a contemporaneous thread. They look better than the Guccis, I think.

I just can't wear bits, though. I feel like many who see me wearing them (including myself!) will think them effete and too Vegas-looking. What's the next step? Crocodile-skin shoes? That's what I think every time I consider buying bits.

As for tassels, the ONLY tassels I would do are Aldens, probably only in Color 8 shell. Again, I am wary about wearing them, however, given that some have such strong aversions to them.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Definitely penny. Beef roll for me.

The bit loafer and the tassel loafer are anathema.


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

qwerty said:


> Bit loafers are perhaps the most polarizing shoe made -- even more polarizing than the tassel.


Up here those shoes are not just polarizing but actually a target of scorn from a large portion of the population. Or at least those old enough to remember our Prime Minister from 1984 to 1993: Brian Mulroney. To explain, here's an excerpt from the book _Scrum Wars: The Prime Ministers And The Media_ (1993), which describes 'the collection'.

_The cheque in question had been discovered among the papers of Giovanni Mockwinkel, an Ottawa interior designer who had worked for the Mulroney's but had fled the country (to Italy) owing more than $400,000. From these documents came the titillating details about Brian and Mila's "huge" closets. It was revealed, among other things, that the prime minister's bedroom closet had enough room for thirty suits and eighty-four pairs of shoes, fifty of which were Gucci loafers. For Mila Mulroney there was a special storage closet-which was always kept locked-with "nine meters of hanging space for blouses and suits, 3 ½ meters of hang storage for evening dresses and storage for 100 pairs of shoes"._

This was in the official residence, 24 Sussex, not his personal home! The _National Post_ from 2003:

_Each prime minister has left his mark on the circa-1866 premises. Pierre Trudeau installed a swimming pool and Brian Mulroney famously had a new closet installed to hold his and Mila's vast collection of Gucci shoes._

'nuff said.

DocD


----------



## crazyquik (Jun 8, 2005)

Penny loafer, with pennies.

The closest I could come to a bit loafer is a silver coin instead of copper...


----------



## tntele (Apr 12, 2007)

I like both the bit loafer and the penny loafer. I believe that my closet has a place for both of them. I wear my bit loafers with a sportcoat and nice slacks. I wear a penny loafer with Khakis, cords, and a navy blazer. I do not wear either shoe with a suit.


----------



## cglex (Oct 23, 2006)

Let's cut to the chase. Penny loafers are for wasps and bit/gold fangled jobs are for those with southern european heritage. (The Kiltie style is for those of Irish descent.) It is a simple as that. I suspect that schooled "style" experts such as Flusser will be able to explain why those of a particular heritage look better in a particular shoe style. So, said differently, wear what you look best in and have confidence that you know that in which you look best.


----------



## Claybuster (Aug 29, 2007)

Penny Loafer.

Danny


----------



## qwerty (Jun 24, 2005)

cglex said:


> Let's cut to the chase. Penny loafers are for wasps and bit/gold fangled jobs are for those with southern european heritage. (The Kiltie style is for those of Irish descent.) It is a simple as that. I suspect that schooled "style" experts such as Flusser will be able to explain why those of a particular heritage look better in a particular shoe style. So, said differently, wear what you look best in and have confidence that you know that in which you look best.


It's not as simple as that -- many whom you might describe as "WASPs" wear Gucci bits, especially in Manhattan.


----------



## mcarthur (Jul 18, 2005)

cglex said:


> Let's cut to the chase. Penny loafers are for wasps and bit/gold fangled jobs are for those with southern european heritage. (The Kiltie style is for those of Irish descent.) It is a simple as that. I suspect that schooled "style" experts such as Flusser will be able to explain why those of a particular heritage look better in a particular shoe style. So, said differently, wear what you look best in and have confidence that you know that in which you look best.


What is your bases for your conclusions?


----------



## Brutus (Aug 29, 2007)

egadfly said:


> Those who imagine the bit loafer to be more of a "dress" shoe may be interested in Tintin's and Duck's casual take on things.
> 
> I don't personally own a pair, but I certainly wouldn't rule it out. Nice work, gentlemen.
> 
> EGF


Very interesting takes on the bit loafer. Nice to see but still not really my style.


----------



## well-kept (May 6, 2006)

qwerty said:


> It's not as simple as that -- many whom you might describe as "WASPs" wear Gucci bits, especially in Manhattan.


... and in the Hamptons.

Do I own a pair of Gucci bits? Yes, from several decades back when they were truly handmade to a level of refinement I think no one does today, with very subtle, small bits and incredibly fine stitch-per-inch count on drop-dead quality leather. Do I wear them? Practically never.

Pennies of the welted variety? Many pairs and I wear them frequently. A near-perfect design.


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

I was so tempted to buy a pair of brown Gucci bit loafers at The Forum Shops in Caesars Palace this weekend. But considering I had just bought my wife an insanely expensive purse for her birthday present, I resisted the temptation. I have to admit I can't get those loafers out of my mind, though. They were (for me) the "perfect" shade of brown...not too orange, not too burgundy (kind of like the classic brown Weejuns). I keep thinking a new pair of penny loafers would be far more practical.


----------



## PittDoc (Feb 24, 2007)

TMMKC said:


> I was so tempted to buy a pair of brown Gucci bit loafers at The Forum Shops in Caesars Palace this weekend. But considering I had just bought my wife an insanely expensive purse for her birthday present, I resisted the temptation. I have to admit I can't get those loafers out of my mind, though. They were (for me) the "perfect" shade of brown...not too orange, not too burgundy (kind of like the classic brown Weejuns). I keep thinking a new pair of penny loafers would be far more practical.


Funny - that's exactly where my wife bought me a pair last year! (there's a recent pic in 'What shoes are you wearing today' thread) She buys her own insanely expensive purses too.


----------



## Saltydog (Nov 3, 2007)

tntele said:


> I like both the bit loafer and the penny loafer. I believe that my closet has a place for both of them. I wear my bit loafers with a sportcoat and nice slacks. I wear a penny loafer with Khakis, cords, and a navy blazer. I do not wear either shoe with a suit.


Ditto. However, the penny loafer would work with either of the above outfits, while the bit loafer would only work with the first--IMO. No question, the bit loafer is flasher while the penny loafer is the epitome of "classic tradition". I own more than one pair of both, but only wear the bit loafer with wool trousers when I want my shoes to be noticed.


----------



## THEBIGDODDY (May 14, 2008)

I personally would never wear a loafer with ANY suit.

That being said.. the bit, for me, is more an accessory to the shoe - outside of that they are not much different than the penny. It just depends on what else you're wearing.

You mean to tell me that this shoe isn't worthy?


----------



## EastVillageTrad (May 12, 2006)

THEBIGDODDY said:


> I personally would never wear a loafer with ANY suit.
> 
> That being said.. the bit, for me, is more an accessory to the shoe - outside of that they are not much different than the penny. It just depends on what else you're wearing.
> 
> You mean to tell me that this shoe isn't worthy?


 I have the Alden Cape Code bit loafers in black, they (bits in general) are the trendy shoe on Wall St., that is for sure all kinds of bit loafters running around big investment banks, I always take pride that I sport Aldens.

But if I had to choose - it would be Alden 986, can't beat 'em.


----------



## THEBIGDODDY (May 14, 2008)

Yeah.. I got my first pair of Aldens when I was 22. My friends thought I was bonkers for paying over $100 for a pair of shoes and not even a college grad yet - not to mention working part-time at *Payless Shoes!* The irony!!!


----------



## Helvetia (Apr 8, 2008)

Penny loafer - like loafers with tassels but not bits.


----------



## JLWhittington (Aug 20, 2008)

*OPH has them*

I've never worn bit loafers, but they are featured in the OPH!


----------



## Corcovado (Nov 24, 2007)

I rarely wear my penny loafers, and I'm not a fan of tassels at all. I wouldn't ever wear loafers with a suit. I don't have anything against bit loafers but since I rarely wear the loafers I already own I don't plan to purchase any more.


----------



## AdamsSutherland (Jan 22, 2008)

The 986 will always be one of my favorite shoes but the Alden CC Bit isn't far behind.

I think there's a place for both in one's rotation, but you can't beat the versatility of the penny.


----------



## My Pet. A Pantsuit (Dec 25, 2008)

I'm rather polyamorous about shoes. I arrange my attire for any given day around what footwear I have on. That said, I own bit loafers, but not a pair of penny loafers or tassel loafers - at the moment. When I have, I would wear each one in regular rotation.

What I like about bit loafers is the ability to grant a touch of something extra to a blazer and well-fitting chinos, sometimes strong enough to supplant the tie entirely. It doesn't replace the need for a tie, but for "blazer casual," a tie isn't about _need _so much as want.

I would wear penny and tassel loafers when I was already wearing a garment that was more demanding of attention (some of my Chipp ties, for example).


----------



## gman-17 (Jan 29, 2009)

Because there is nothing cooler, and nothing more likely to drive most of you to drink :icon_smile_big:, you will find me in bits of the widest variety.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
Pennies, snaffles and tassells, each wonderful in it's own right...now, I'll drink to that!


----------



## Brooksfan (Jan 25, 2005)

It occurs to me that Mr. and Mrs. Mulroney should have apportioned the closet space more equitably. Not sure why anyone would want 50 pairs of Gucci loafers other than if Italian shoes have the same reliability as their cars. I know if I wanted to be sure to get to work I'd have to have at least four of them and then still have a Chevy standing by just in case none of them would start that day. I remember reading Ralph Martin's book about JFK about 25 years ago and I think he said the president had 17 suits or something like that. Not sure if he counted the shoes but I doubt it was 84 pair.


----------



## P Hudson (Jul 19, 2008)

Can't believe this thread is still around. It is curious to me that nobody has raised the issue of comfort. When I'm "loafing around town" or however the OP phrased it, I never reach for a loafer. I go with a boat shoe if the walking is moderate and something with full support if more than a mile or so. Do people really wear loafers for, say, a day strolling Central Park?

I wear loafers mostly at work (pennys), which is only a four block walk from home.


----------



## bd79cc (Dec 20, 2006)

My 987s are the most comfortable pair of shoes I own. They aren't hiking boots, but I can walk and stand in them all day. Why pay over $500 for a pair of shoes that can't perform this way?


----------

