# Brooks/Alden cordovan unlined penny loafer



## Hobson (Mar 13, 2007)

After wating many years, I recently purchased a pair of the Brooks/Alden cordovan unlined penny loafers. This is my first pair of cordovan shoes and I like them a lot. However, has anyone noticed that the backs of these shoes are quite low. Much lower than say the Brooks/Alden cordovan tassel loafer. It doesn't make things uncomfortable, but it does take getting used to.


----------



## bd79cc (Dec 20, 2006)

This may have more to do with the profile of the shoes' heel cups more than anything else. The backs of my Alden tassels are fairly round in aspect, and the backs of my LHSs aren't. To me, the LHSs seem to grab my heel lower than do the tassels, and they do grab _differently_ than true positive-fit moccasins like the Bass Weejuns.

Although this doesn't directly address your post, it may be good food for thought:

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?t=61484 .


----------



## Hobson (Mar 13, 2007)

That really is a great post, thanks for sharing. What I was talking about was that if you placed the penny loafer alongside the tassel loafer, the height of the very back of the shoe is much shorter. Shorter in fact than any shoe I own. In any event, I've waited years to get these shoes and I intend to enjoy them.


----------



## Tucker (Apr 17, 2006)

Hobson said:


> That really is a great post, thanks for sharing. What I was talking about was that if you placed the penny loafer alongside the tassel loafer, the height of the very back of the shoe is much shorter. Shorter in fact than any shoe I own. In any event, I've waited years to get these shoes and I intend to enjoy them.


I have two pairs of BB shell loafers. Each is a good 1/4" shorter in the back than any of my 986s. One pair came back from Alden recrafting even shorter. Doesn't grab the heel at all.


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

Tucker said:


> One pair came back from Alden recrafting even shorter. Doesn't grab the heel at all.


That must have been a major disappointment. Did they replace them for you?

DocD


----------



## Markus (Sep 14, 2004)

*BB policy after Alden service*

I had a pair of Alden for bb lhs pennys that went back to Alden for repair. I was not satisfied with their appearance (they were all messed up) and let my bb salesman, who had taken care of the return for me, know this. He replaced them with a new pair, which he had to order. In this case bb took the "hit" I suppose. Just an option for you to consider.


----------



## Hobson (Mar 13, 2007)

Is the unlined version of the loafer only available at Brooks Brothers? I seem to recall seeing a lined version everywhere else. I wonder why Brooks Brothers requested this modification outside of exclusivity.


----------



## Markus (Sep 14, 2004)

Hobson said:


> Is the unlined version of the loafer only available at Brooks Brothers? I seem to recall seeing a lined version everywhere else. I wonder why Brooks Brothers requested this modification outside of exclusivity.


Yes, the unlined version is a BB exclusive.

As to why they did this--my opinion? After about 10 years in and around procurement, I'd say the main purposes are:
1. parts count reduction (no wool interlayer, no calf liner) = lower materials cost
2. Fewer labor hours to produce
3. 1 + 2 above = lower wholesale cost

Having said all that, they're still very nice shoes. And who knows, I could be wrong. Maybe they just wanted to sell a really cool-looking unlined cordo penny loafer...


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

In my experience, unlined shoes are better for wearing sans-socks than their lined counterparts.


----------



## Tom Rath (May 31, 2005)

The brooks version is significantly more comfortable worn without socks, as mentioned above. They break in easier as well. I prefer the unlined version much more than the 986, but I think im in the minority.


----------



## bd79cc (Dec 20, 2006)

Phil said:


> The brooks version is significantly more comfortable worn without socks, as mentioned above. They break in easier as well. I prefer the unlined version much more than the 986, but I think im in the minority.


My view, as well. We have a minority of at least two.


----------



## Markus (Sep 14, 2004)

Phil said:


> They break in easier as well.


This is my experience also. I think it is because the soles on the Alden LHS are more substantial than on the BB.


----------



## bd79cc (Dec 20, 2006)

Tucker said:


> I have two pairs of BB shell loafers. Each is a good 1/4" shorter in the back than any of my 986s. One pair came back from Alden recrafting even shorter. Doesn't grab the heel at all.


I measured my Brooks LHSs this morning before work. From top of heel pad to top edge of the shoe opening at the very back of the shoe, 2-1/4". Measurements for the same part of my 986s and 987s: 2-1/4". Measurements for the same part of my 563s and Brooks burgundy calf tassels: 2-1/4". Go figure!


----------



## trgolf (Jun 24, 2011)

Add another vote for the BB unlined. IMHO much more comfortable.


----------



## Steve Smith (Jan 12, 2008)

Hobson said:


> That really is a great post, thanks for sharing. What I was talking about was that if you placed the penny loafer alongside the tassel loafer, the height of the very back of the shoe is much shorter. Shorter in fact than any shoe I own. In any event, I've waited years to get these shoes and I intend to enjoy them.


The shell tassel loafer is a taller shoe, but almost all of the difference is accounted for by its taller heel. Here are the two shoes, both 8.5D.


----------



## zman1 (Jul 6, 2011)

*Very comfortable and easy break in.*

I also prefer the BB unlined LHS loafer. It is much easier to break in, very comfortable to wear without socks and I just prefer the dark eggplant color.  I also previoulsy owned the 986 and its definitely a much more substantial shoe which requires a longer break in time and is a lighter burgundy color.


----------



## Bandit44 (Oct 1, 2010)

I ordered 3 pairs of the BB unlined before I found my correct size. The coloring varied from deep eggplant to burgundy. Matter of fact, I wore mine yesterday.


----------



## Charles Saturn (May 27, 2010)

Why doesn't BB offer an LHS in an E or EE? A's B's and C's but nothing wider than D. I don't get it. Same with their Rancourt's, D only. Drat.


----------



## Bucksfan (May 25, 2008)

Bandit44 said:


> I ordered 3 pairs of the BB unlined before I found my correct size. The coloring varied from deep eggplant to burgundy. Matter of fact, I wore mine yesterday.


Did you end up sizing down 1/2, as is the typical recommendation (i.e. the same size one wears for Barrie / Trubalance lasted Aldens)?


----------



## tonylumpkin (Jun 12, 2007)

Charles Saturn said:


> Why doesn't BB offer an LHS in an E or EE? A's B's and C's but nothing wider than D. I don't get it. Same with their Rancourt's, D only. Drat.


I have two pair of LHS from BB. One was purchased used from a member here, the other NOS from a thrift. Both are 13 *E*. Perhaps they were both special order or BB has recently discontinued the wider sizing, but the NOS pair are relatively recent as they have the rubber dovetailed heels.


----------



## Orgetorix (May 20, 2005)

Charles Saturn said:


> Why doesn't BB offer an LHS in an E or EE? A's B's and C's but nothing wider than D. I don't get it. Same with their Rancourt's, D only. Drat.


Where are you getting your info? They do offer them in E. I see at least 4 E sizes listed as available on the web site right now, and there are probably more that a store associate could find for you.

FWIW, I could not discern a difference in fit between 11E and 11.5D on my feet. I went with 11.5D only because I liked the color on that particular pair better. YMMV.


----------



## zman1 (Jul 6, 2011)

I am an 8.5D as measured on the Brannock device and wear the same size in J&M and other dress shoes. I went down 1/2 size and purchased a size 8D on the BB LHS.


----------



## Hobson (Mar 13, 2007)

In the case of the Brooks LHS, I think it is not just a matter of the last that calls for a smaller size. I believe the lack of liner is also a factor. 

I love the fact that I started this thread years ago, and have no recollection of doing so.


----------



## Anon 18th Cent. (Oct 27, 2008)

I go down a full size from my regular tie-shoe size. Three reasons: the Van last is very roomy, the lack of a lining makes the shoe even roomier and conform very well, and the last thing I want is a loafer slipping around on my foot.

I prefer no lining; I want some PTB's like that too. Didn't Leather Soul have some? But I want the Brooks style with metal eyelets, no welt, and M58 last.


----------



## Bandit44 (Oct 1, 2010)

Bucksfan said:


> Did you end up sizing down 1/2, as is the typical recommendation (i.e. the same size one wears for Barrie / Trubalance lasted Aldens)?


No, I tried the 1/2 size down but wound up wearing my true size. Don't own any Barrie lasted Aldens, so I don't have a way to compare the fit. For a brief time, I owned a pair of full strap pennies on the Aberdeen and found the toe box too tight.


----------

