# Favourite high-end "penny" loafer? (photos)



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

What's your favourite high-end penny loafer?

Below is a list of several high-end penny loafers that I've put together, with photos. I'm pretty certain this list will make no one happy, but I'd like to hear which models our members prefer, and why. I only have one photo for Sargent, so please add photos if you have any, and I'm not sure what Trickers model should go here, so again please comment. I would also appreciate it if anyone can give current prices for these shoes.

- - - - -

EG "Harrow" 

John Lobb Paris "Lopez" 

Grenson "Hampden" 

Barker Black "Crown Loafer" 

Crockett & Jones "Rosebery" 
Crockett & Jones "Lincoln" 

Church's "Wesley" 

Trickers "244/Jermym"? 

Brooks Brothers "Unlined Penny Loafer" 

Sargent "Boughton/Kelmont" 

Weston "180" 

- - - - -

DocD


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

I dunno...if you ask me the Alden LHS in #8 cordovan is still the archetype and champion. I find most of the shoes pictured above too mannered, to sleek or too weird.

Buzz


----------



## Hobson (Mar 13, 2007)

Brooks Brothers. In my opinion, the most classic of the group.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

M6Classic said:


> I dunno...if you ask me the Alden LHS in #8 cordovan is still the archetype and champion. I find most of the shoes pictured above too mannered, to sleek or too weird.
> 
> Buzz


+1! There are none better than the Alden LHS in #8 shell.


----------



## jcriswel (Sep 16, 2006)

*Edward Green Montpellier*

I bought these Edward Green Montpellier's from Maus and Hoffman last year. They had marked them down by 50% so I was really excited to get them at a great price plus they have been fabulous penny loafers.



I have thoroughly enjoyed these shoes. They are in Edwardian and have the classic Edward Green antiquing. I'm hard pressed to think of a better pair of penny loafers. Personally, I don't care for the split toe on the Harrow. I do like the Piccadilly though.

As you can see, the styles of the Montpellier and the Piccadilly are similar.

jcriswel


----------



## RLW76 (Mar 17, 2008)

Doc, 

Is that representative of your personal collection? :icon_smile_big:

Good question, as I am in the market for a nice pair. Believe or not, I don't own a single pair of loafers (of any kind)  My foot has a very high arch and is extra wide, so loafers have never fit well.....although this will not prevent me from seeking that elusive perfect fit. 

I really like the look of the BB 2. 

RW


----------



## XdryMartini (Jan 5, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> +1! There are none better than the Alden LHS in #8 shell.


Eau contraire!! Alden LHS in Whiskey!!!


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

XdryMartini said:


> Eau contraire!! Alden LHS in Whiskey!!!


Just got the wife a LHS in Cigar ( it's her new favorite casual shoe :icon_smile_big: )- would have gotten one for myself as well if they had it in my size


----------



## Des Esseintes (Aug 16, 2005)

jcriswel has it right - Montpellier followed by Piccadilly and Harrow, in my view.

I guess there is a fundamental style difference between the classic American style Penny Loafer as represented by the "typical" Alden or AE models but also some of the Northampton-made loafers in the American style and the English "Wildsmith loafer" style. Whether you prefer one or the other will guide your preference for certain models. I personally find the American style Penny Loafer a tad cloddy and not very elegant, therefore my preference for the EG models mentioned above. The C&J Roseberry is also not a bad option.

dE


----------



## Puffdaddy (Dec 21, 2006)

Missing from this list is the C&J Harvard, which I am presently wearing in unlined shell. I think the last is slightly more elegant than the Alden LHS, which I also like alot.


----------



## Observer57 (Nov 25, 2007)

*I am going to go with these....*

Santoni FAM

Particularly because they arrived in the mail yesterday...


----------



## imainish (May 31, 2006)

https://img257.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ae5gj3.jpg

My favorite penny loafer is the AE Glasgow seen on the left. Great shoe on a great last.

Better photo from STP:


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

I see the LHS superfans have found this thread. <smile> This thread was intended to be serious and I included the Brooks Brothers shoes simply because they are well known, but to be honest I don't think they belong in this company.



Puffdaddy said:


> Missing from this list is the C&J Harvard, which I am presently wearing in unlined shell. I think the last is slightly more elegant than the Alden LHS, which I also like alot.


I posted some excellent photos of the whiskey shell Harvard here. Amazing shoes.



RLW76 said:


> Is that representative of your personal collection?


I wish! I cannot afford any of those shoes, except perhaps the Church's and then only because I get a 15% discount on them.

DD


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

Doctor Damage said:


> I see the LHS superfans have found this thread. <smile> This thread was intended to be serious and I included the Brooks Brothers shoes simply because they are well known, but to be honest I don't think they belong in this company.
> 
> DD


If you weren't really interested in peoples' responses <smile> then why did you even ask <bigger smile>? It would have been more intellectually honest to start by stating your own preferences and dislikes <even bigger smile with teeth bared> before belittling the opinions of respondents, myself included.

Buzz


----------



## Mark from Plano (Jan 29, 2007)

Doctor Damage said:


> I see the LHS superfans have found this thread. <smile> This thread was intended to be serious and I included the Brooks Brothers shoes simply because they are well known, but to be honest I don't think they belong in this company.


That's interesting. Different strokes, I guess. Before jcriswell posted pictures of his Montpelier's my comment was going to be that the Brits have no business making penny loafers. Styling on all of them (except the EG MP) is not good, IMO.


----------



## jcriswel (Sep 16, 2006)

*Now we know what you don't like...*



Mark from Plano said:


> That's interesting. Different strokes, I guess. Before jcriswell posted pictures of his Montpelier's my comment was going to be that the Brits have no business making penny loafers. Styling on all of them (except the EG MP) is not good, IMO.


Mark,

What do you like in penny loafers?

Personally, I used to wear these in high school and I loved them:

If you don't recognize them, they are Bass Weejuns. My tastes in penny loafers have matured in the many years since high school. I must tell you, my Edward Green Montpellier's feel a whole lot better.

Please tell us what you think are good penny loafers.

Thanks,

jcriswel


----------



## Mark from Plano (Jan 29, 2007)

^^^^ jcriswell,

2 points. First you should re-read my post (or perhaps I was less than clear). What I said was that I was prepared to conclude that the Brits couldn't design penny loafers *until* I saw your Greens. In other words I really like your Greens. They are great. I wish I had a pair just like them. Hopefully that point is now clear.

Second, as to what I like and don't like I take the Potter Stewart approach, "I know it when I see it." I like the BB ones, but the rest, including the Lobbs don't really appeal to me. JMHO.


----------



## s4usea (Jul 10, 2007)

Anything but circa 1980 Bass Weejuns look off to me, and even they look too collegiate to me these days.


----------



## Scarred by Homer (Sep 8, 2006)

C&J Marston. Probably the most contemporary-looking of the Enlgish slip-ons, thanks to the wonder of the 337 last. Look fantastic in mink suede.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

Doctor Damage said:


> I see the LHS superfans have found this thread. <smile> This thread was intended to be serious and I included the Brooks Brothers shoes simply because they are well known, but to be honest I don't think they belong in this company.
> 
> I wish! I cannot afford any of those shoes, except perhaps the Church's and then only because I get a 15% discount on them.
> 
> DD


So how would you know whether or not Aldens belong in "this company"?

Buy some shoes- then talk merits.


----------



## Brideshead (Jan 11, 2006)

I have struggled to find a way of expressing my views on this one - we have that problem over here you know.

I actually agree with Mark's original thought, that the English have no business making penny loafers. This idea for me goes right back to my old 'suedehead' days in 1969/70 when we had to have that 'authentic' Ivy look. Even though we probably did wear stuff that was copied from the classic US loafers we still felt deep-down that only the original was acceptable. For me today that means I have no interest in any English made American style shoe.

My English made shoes should look like English shoes - Oxford, semi-brogue and so on. 

However high the quality may be, an English penny loafer is still a 'wrong 'un' to me.

The Wildsmith style loafer does not suit my feet and I dislike the style anyway.


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

Brideshead said:


> I actually agree with Mark's original thought, that the English have no business making penny loafers.
> 
> .


Hm. Pursue this line of thought and you can make a case for saying they have no business wearing them either. Seriously though, loafers do look better on American feet, and only Americans can wear full tassle loafers and look right! That's one of the reasons I don't wear them.


----------



## Mark from Plano (Jan 29, 2007)

On rereading my post from yesterday, I find that it was much more glib and confrontational that was appropriate. I apologise to jcriswell and everyone. Perhaps I should have just given some example of what I meant. If anyone cares, if not just skip this post.

As I said, the BB and Aldens to me are the iconic penny loafer designs, with the BB being a bit more "mocassin-ish" and the Aldens a bit more "loafer-ish". It seems that the English designs are all variations on one or the other themes. Most of the variations on that theme simply detract from the overall look (to me). This is purely an aesthetic interpretation on my part with no rational basis whatsoever, so any disagreement with this is as valid, or not, as my own is valid, or not.

A great example of this is the Grenson:

It seems to me that this is a bad variation on the Alden design where the front of the shoe is disproportionately extended. It lacks a certain "golden mean" proportion.

In some cases the variations are to the length of the vamp or the shape of the toe box. None of these variations are terribly pleasing to my eye. The closer they are to one of the two American designs, the more likely I am to like them. Provincial of me? Absolutely no question.

JMHO.


----------



## Brideshead (Jan 11, 2006)

Mark from Plano said:


> It seems to me that this is a bad variation on the Alden design where the front of the shoe is disproportionately extended. It lacks a certain "golden mean" proportion.
> 
> In some cases the variations are to the length of the vamp or the shape of the toe box. None of these variations are terribly pleasing to my eye. The closer they are to one of the two American designs, the more likely I am to like them. Provincial of me? Absolutely no question.
> 
> JMHO.


 Perhaps, but a view I fully agree with. My objection may have seemed purely philosophical, but it is also aesthetic. When the English try to make an American style loafer they always get some aspect wrong. So for me, the Attitude that I perceive in the pure and honest US design is lost. It is a bit intangible I guess but the difference is there.


----------



## Mark from Plano (Jan 29, 2007)

Brideshead said:


> Perhaps, but a view I fully agree with. My objection may have seemed purely philosophical, but it is also aesthetic. When the English try to make an American style loafer they always get some aspect wrong. So for me, the Attitude that I perceive in the pure and honest US design is lost. It is a bit intangible I guess but the difference is there.


I forgot to mention that the great irony of all of this is that the only pair of penny loafers in my collection at the moment are Italian (and crocodile:crazy and I like them very much. Go figure.


----------



## nobody (Oct 26, 2007)

*Am I really missing something?*

The Brooks in your 2d picture Dr. Damage look very much like they are Aldens LHS, unlined shell, in burgundy/cordovan color. It seems as if folks are discussing the Brooks as if they were Aldens, and many contributors as if Aldens were not offered in your initial post [which I think they are, with a Brooks label painted inside.]

PS - love the Harvards. I am seriously craving a pair of these.

PPS - I have owned and loved 2 pair of Westons for ages - they have been are and great.


----------



## well-kept (May 6, 2006)

nobody said:


> The Brooks in your 2d picture Dr. Damage look very much like they are Aldens LHS, unlined shell, in burgundy/cordovan color. It seems as if folks are discussing the Brooks as if they were Aldens, and many contributors as if Aldens were not offered in your initial post [which I think they are, with a Brooks label painted inside.]
> .


Alden has been producing these for Brooks since 1957. They are not identical models but closely related.


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

I now regret starting this thread after seeing how bizarre it has become in places. My primary purpose was to post several good photos in one spot of several similar shoes and perhaps encourage some comments from those who own and wear them. My other purpose was to eventually get some pricing information on each of the shoes for a single market, i.e. what price are all of them in NYC? for the purposes of comparison. I'm glad a few members added some good stuff, such as the Santoni shoes (nice!), the Marston, and the member who said some positive words about Weston.

I think comments about how only Americans can make proper penny loafers are absurd. The LHS is actually very similar to many of the British offerings and in fact is _not_ a true mocassin and therefore _not_ a true penny loafer.

Regarding my personal preference, as I posted I can't afford any of them right now. But it's still okay for me to dream, right? If I had a choice, I would probably buy the Lopez since I absolutely fell in love with them when I saw a pair on Montreal a few years ago. I might be back in Montreal this autumn, so perhaps I will save up some money and pull the trigger on them.



yachtie said:


> So how would you know whether or not Aldens belong in "this company"?
> 
> Buy some shoes- then talk merits.


Edited. Kabbaz

Doctor Damage
[email protected]


----------



## well-kept (May 6, 2006)

Doctor Damage said:


> We're all friends here, right? Gentlemen, right?
> 
> Doctor Damage
> [email protected]


Some are gentlemen and some are friends. Please don't be discouraged or allow others to bring you to a lower level than is rightfully yours. You did a nice thing by initiating this thread. It is clearly of interest to many. Your contributions here are much appreciated.


----------



## mcarthur (Jul 18, 2005)

DD-
My friend, keep your cool. I greatly appreciate your efforts on this forum. Thank you for all you have done


----------



## qwerty (Jun 24, 2005)

Doctor Damage --

I consider you a true "friend" in the forum sense, and I share your affinity for shoe pictures. I always love your posts and threads, especially ones like this. Don't be discouraged by posts like yachtie's. That post was uncouth.

Qwerty


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

Think what you like "gentlemen" about the couthness of my post, but the only moronic thing here is the disparagment of shoes that the poster has never worn nor owned. If he's too thin skinned to be called on it, so be it. And no, I won't "screw myself" as you said in so "gentlemanly" a manner.


----------



## The Continental Fop (Jan 12, 2007)

Actually, I thought yachtie's post was right on. It's kind of silly to throw opinions around about shoes while freely admitting you can't afford them and have no experience with them. That was yachtie's point, at least how I read it. And as the proud owner of 2 pairs of Alden LHS's, I think it's asinine for anyone to dismiss them out of hand when discussing high-end loafers. They are the gold standard loafers, bar none.


----------



## qwerty (Jun 24, 2005)

You're being totally imprecise. The thread is about "high end" loafers, which is NOT the same as high _quality_. The issue here is NOT quality (though quality is certainly a component). If quality _were_ the only factor here, Alden would of course be in the core set under discussion. But there are other components to what makes something "high end".

For example, "high end" might be measured by price. The other loafers mentioned (for the most part) cost 1.5x-3x Alden LHSs (even the shell cordovan models).

Another example: "high end" might be measured by how often one sees them worn. Alden LHSs are _de rigueur_ in places like NYC, Boston, DC, and San Francisco. Not quite so for Lobb's Lopez, JM Weston's 180 Signature Loafer, or the EG Harrow.

Yet another example: "high end" might be defined as any loafer of better quality than Bass Weejuns or Sebagos. Or perhaps "high end" is any loafer which is NOT positive fit moccasin construction. In either of these cases. Alden would fall into the high end category. In the latter case, the JM Westons would not be considered high end (as they're true mocs).

In any case, even if we're talking only about quality, *one hardly needs to own a pair of shoes to be able to assess their quality, price, or prevalence*. If anything, DocDamage is at an especially good place to be evaluating the shoes as he is *not partial* to any models he might own (and that may not be the case for yachtie and others who reply to DocDamage with such vitriol for even suggesting that Alden doesn't play in the same class as Lobb and EG).


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

Vitriol? Care to look a few posts up? Say what you like. but $600 seems pretty high end to me, and no, one can't speak of the quality of shoes one has no experience with unless one is engaged in pointless hearsay.The OP's snotty dismissal of Aldens and subsequent childish ad hom categorizes him well enough in my mind, thank you.


----------



## qwerty (Jun 24, 2005)

If you bought shell LHSs in a normal shell color before February 2008 and paid a penny over $480, you paid too much. So I don't know where you get the $600 figure as you're a seasoned member here and have likely had your LHSs for a while. Also keep in mind that what's driving price with the non-Alden makers (besides operational costs, exchange rates, and mere mark-up) is quality and workmanship. What's driving at least 30% of the shell LHS cost is the fact that they're made of shell cordovan rather than calf leather. Calf LHSs were $320 until February 2008, and are now barely above $400.

But that is beside the point. One does not need to own a pair of shoes (especially ones like the LHS to which 3 threads, often with pictures, are devoted per day). You are just plain wrong.

For reference, I own LHSs in shell and calf, as well as the PRL Darlton shell loafers made by C&J. Both are higher end (whatever the definition) than Weejuns, but I'll be the first to admit that they're no EGs (especially not the Aldens, with their uneven stitching, clunky soles, and 360-degree welt). Not even in the same class. There are excellent shoes (Alden, C&J, maybe also Sargent, Trickers, AE,...) and then there are insane shoes (EG, Lobb, Vass, bespoke,...). Whether the difference is 20% quality and 70% styling/last and 10% rarity or 50% quality and 50% styling, I'm not sure, but there is certainly a difference.

Finally, I think the reason that DocDamage and others (including me) in this thread have responded strongly to yachtie's original comment is that there is an implication in there (perhaps unintentional) not merely that one must experience the shoes to evaluate them, but rather something along the lines of "no poor fool who can't even afford a pair of $450+ loafers could possibly be in position to estimate the relative quality of such shoes, which _I can_ afford". I grant this might have been unintentional, but it's there.


----------



## Teacher (Mar 14, 2005)

Guys, please. Doctor Damage, I think your initial response to yachtie was over the top and uncalled for. It isn't normally like you, and it happens, but nevertheless it was too much. But yachtie, _your_ initial criticism of him was quite rude. DD gave a simple opinion of a pair of shoes. You may not agree with him -- which is fine -- but there was no reason to take an insulting tone. He may very well have been speaking aesthetics, or going by price or status, or making a judgment based on other informed members' opinions (much as qwerty has already pointed out); however, we don't know because you didn't ask.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

qwerty said:


> If you bought shell LHSs in a normal shell color before February 2008 and paid a penny over $480, you paid too much. So I don't know where you get the $600 figure as you're a seasoned member here and have likely had your LHSs for a while. Also keep in mind that what's driving price with the non-Alden makers (besides operational costs, exchange rates, and mere mark-up) is quality and workmanship. What's driving at least 30% of the shell LHS cost is the fact that they're made of shell cordovan rather than calf leather. Calf LHSs were $320 until February 2008, and are now barely above $400.


The Cigars I just bought were $570. Hence the $600 figure.



> But that is beside the point. One does not need to own a pair of shoes (especially ones like the LHS to which 3 threads, often with pictures, are devoted per day). You are just plain wrong.
> 
> For reference, I own LHSs in shell and calf, as well as the PRL Darlton shell loafers made by C&J. Both are higher end (whatever the definition) than Weejuns, but I'll be the first to admit that they're no EGs (especially not the Aldens, with their uneven stitching, clunky soles, and 360-degree welt). Not even in the same class. There are excellent shoes (Alden, C&J, maybe also Sargent, Trickers, AE,...) and then there are insane shoes (EG, Lobb, Vass, bespoke,...). Whether the difference is 20% quality and 70% styling/last and 10% rarity or 50% quality and 50% styling, I'm not sure, but there is certainly a difference.
> 
> Finally, I think the reason that DocDamage and others (including me) in this thread have responded strongly to yachtie's original comment is that there is an implication in there (perhaps unintentional) not merely that one must experience the shoes to evaluate them, but rather something along the lines of "no poor fool who can't even afford a pair of $450+ loafers could possibly be in position to estimate the relative quality of such shoes, which _I can_ afford". I grant this might have been unintentional, but it's there.


No that wasn't my intention. I really don't care whether the OP can afford them or not. What I do take umbrage at is a thread purportedly devoted to "high end loafers" which the OP, without stating in his first post, desires to limit to certain "high end loafers" only and then summarily dismisses other high quality shoes halfway thorough the thread. Look,from a practical standpoint any shoe over $500 is pretty high end, isn't it. I don't post about shoes that I don't own for the reason I stated. Aside from price point and reputation, I have no personal knowledge about the quality of shoes I have no experience with. I've also been burned by purchasing "high end" (read price) shoes that were pure crap. On try and inpection do I think EG makes a better shoe than Alden? Can't say- I can say that they have neater construction and more flexible leather. Does that affect longevity, comfort or any of the other qualities that are important to me when buying a shoe? Don't know/ can't say. I'm thinking of a pair of Shannons so when I get them I'll feel comfortable commenting on the fit/comfort/ durability of *those *shoes. I always keep in mind that a lot of 'information' posted on the boards generally is just pure gas because the posters make assertions that have no basis in experience.

I may have been terse or unclear in my post,be that as it may, but the OP's response was in the poorest of taste.


----------



## The Continental Fop (Jan 12, 2007)

Oooo, a pedant death cage match! I love these, especially with the assuredly obdurate.

We can argue what the term "high end" really means, but even for a pedant death cage, we'll get nowhere. But just a quick aside before I go pedant-medieval on your ass -- the term "high end" IS most commonly used as a synonym for "high quality". That you have your own personal definition of the term is really neat and all that (and you get bonus points for double-capitaling the word NOT), but you're still missing the point.

YES YES, it is ASININE ASININE to opine about subjects with an air of great authority when you have absolutely NO NO personal experience with said subjects except maybe seeing some purty photomagraphs on the interwebs.

Note that I did not say it is forbidden to do so -- everyone has the right to talk out of his ass. But everyone also has the right to point this out, especially when the OP is casually dismissing a $500 pair of shoes as not being high end, which in and of itself would be high comedy except that it's compounded by the fact that he has no personal experience with these shoes, or any of the others he's ranking. Sure, you can have an opinion about any product, but how much weight should anyone assign to your opinion if it's simply arbitrary and arrived at without a shred of personal experience with that subject?

Now, as far as the meaning of the term "high-end" goes, it's safe to say that no matter what tastes in clothing the people who come to this board tend to have, the one thing we all have in common is that we are much more interested in quality than the silly and elitist notions you cite as defining what is or isn't "high-end". I don't know many -- any, in fact -- who would term a pair of shoes "high-end" simply because they don't see a lot of guys wearing them in a certain city. And if a pair of shoes are merely expensive but not made well, I don't think many would term them "high-end" either. "High-priced", certainly, but not "high-end".

You must understand me -- I really don't wish to take away anyone's good times here. Half the fun of these grown-men dress-up forums is seeing who knows their stuff and who's talking out of their ass. But one has to accept and expect a modicum of corrective response when one says something REALLY REALLY foolish. All the faux-gentlemanly buck-ups that entirely miss the point don't make up for the fact that the OP was talking out of his ass, that yachtie was quite correct and appropriate in his response, and that this has been the most fun I've had on here since the Great Brooks Brothers Slap Fight of Aught-Seven.



qwerty said:


> You're being totally imprecise. The thread is about "high end" loafers, which is NOT the same as high _quality_. The issue here is NOT quality (though quality is certainly a component). If quality _were_ the only factor here, Alden would of course be in the core set under discussion. But there are other components to what makes something "high end".
> 
> For example, "high end" might be measured by price. The other loafers mentioned (for the most part) cost 1.5x-3x Alden LHSs (even the shell cordovan models).
> 
> ...


----------



## well-kept (May 6, 2006)

Doctor Damage said:


> What's your favourite high-end penny loafer?
> 
> I'm pretty certain this list will make no one happy, but I'd like to hear which models our members prefer, and why. I would also appreciate it if anyone can give current prices for these shoes.
> 
> DocD


I'd like to refer everyone back to the original post, politely stated as a series of questions. The man deserves more respect than, on balance, he has received here.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

Doctor Damage said:


> What's your favourite high-end penny loafer?
> 
> Below is a list of several high-end penny loafers that I've put together, with photos. I'm pretty certain this list will make no one happy, but I'd like to hear which models our members prefer, and why. I only have one photo for Sargent, so please add photos if you have any, and I'm not sure what Trickers model should go here, so again please comment. I would also appreciate it if anyone can give current prices for these shoes.
> 
> ...





Doctor Damage said:


> I see the LHS superfans have found this thread. <smile> This thread was intended to be serious and I included the Brooks Brothers shoes simply because they are well known, but to be honest I don't think they belong in this company.
> 
> DD





M6Classic said:


> If you weren't really interested in peoples' responses <smile> then why did you even ask <bigger smile>? It would have been more intellectually honest to start by stating your own preferences and dislikes <even bigger smile with teeth bared> *before belittling the opinions of respondents*, myself included.
> 
> Buzz


'Nuf said.


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

For various reasons, I will address only one question that has arisen in this thread: Should the Alden/BB LHS be included in the original post?

Yes and no. Like everything in life, it depends.

Construction?
It is important to recognize that the LHS is a goodyear welted, down lasted, heavy dress shoe that is constructed in pretty much the same way as the other shoes listed in my original post. This puts it in the same category as the other shoes, at least from a construction standpoint. As I noted before, the LHS is not a true mocassin, but then neither are any of the other shoes on the list. So it is an equal player in that respect.

Finish?
Out of fairness to the other brands named in my original post perhaps I should have included the Alden calfskin LHS, rather than the BB unlined cordovan loafer, since each of the other shoes listed in my original post are calfskin. But would anyone here seriously pit the black or burgundy calfskin LHS versus the Harrow with hand-polished antiqued calf finish? or the Rosebery in the same? Probably not. So only the cordovan LHS is in the running, but that may be comparing apples to oranges; the calfskin LHS certainly cannot compete.

Design?
I consider the unlined, Brooks Brothers penny loafer (LHS) to be an iconic shoe and I expect most other men will do likewise. I expect most Europeans with an interest in American style will also see the BB LHS as an iconic shoe. But some of the other shoes listed in my original post are also iconic shoes (ex/ Harrow, Lopez, Weston 180) with equally long and respected positions in the footwear world. One could argue that the LHS is clumsy in shape and proportions compared to the Harrow, for example (and I think one would be correct to make that claim) but this includes a lot of personal opinion and will always be hard to quantify. So the LHS can be either advantaged or disadvantaged depending on personal taste.

Quality?
Impossible to answer, unless the same person bought and wore all of the shoes listed on the same day and wore them all regularly for an equal amount of time to the same places, etc. I suspect, however, the LHS might last longer than some of the other shoes listed in my original post. If so, this will be due to its rock solid construction and tough materials, not necessarily major selling points for high-end footwear which I think should also value lightness and fineness of detail.

Inconclusive? As I said already, yes and no.

I honestly have a great respect for the LHS, at least in cordovan. It is obviously a high-quality, high-value shoe that should be on anyone's list. It's even on my list, but only the BB unlined cordovan version. When the money answers, however, I suspect I will opt for a pair of the Lopez loafers no matter the cost. _But for the price of a pair of Lopez loafers I could get two pairs of cordovan Aldens or three pairs in calfskin._ But the Lopez just looks a lot more elegant to my eye. _But the Aldens are made of excellent, long-lasting materials._ But there is no question that Lobb uses the best materials in the world. _But the..._

And so it goes.

I believe I was right to include the BB LHS on the list in my original post, even if it was never going to lead the pack. And it probably never will.

Doctor Damage
[email protected]

P.S.: For those who think you have to own a pair of shoes before having an opinion about them, remember that I don't need to sleep with a girl to decide if she's good looking or not.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

Doctor Damage wrote

_"P.S.: For those who think you have to own a pair of shoes before having an opinion about them, remember that I don't need to sleep with a girl to decide if she's good looking or not."
_
Yes, but I would hope to know a good deal more about her than how she looked and how much she...er...cost...before I married her!
:devil::icon_smile::icon_smile_wink:

Buzz


----------



## qwerty (Jun 24, 2005)

......


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

Grenson vs Alden, apples to apples.


----------



## epl0517 (Apr 7, 2005)

*C&J Rosebery*

Thank you Doctor, for starting this thread. While it is not productive, I feel, to debate what does and does not meet the standards of "high end", I think it is relevant to discuss the relative merits of various penny models.

For my part, I quite like the C&J Rosebery, and I have been considering pulling the trigger on a pair for some time.

I think it is foolish to only consider pennies from the US merely because it was introduced here first, unless we are to also limit ourselves to split toes from Norway, brogues from Scotland, horse bits from Italy, and so on. The first automobiles were made in the US, but since then designers and engineers from around the world have improved on it, and thankfully so, otherwise we would still be driving model Ts. The point is that while there is some value in the original, such as the opportunity to own a piece of history, we must also remember that the first inception of a thing is not always, and in fact is rarely, the best available.

The English have improved on the original penny, I feel, by building it on longer, more elegant lasts, instead of the clunky ones that dominate much of American shoemaking. On the other extreme, however, Grenson has put the penny on an oxford/balmoral last, and the result is anything but aesthetic. (Paul Stuart offers a similar shoe in its Stuart's Choice line, which is also made by Grenson.)

EG and C&J have achieved an effective balance between the stubby Aldens and the misguided Grensons. The EG Montpelliers are fairly nice. However, the last falls on the long side of balanced, and the squiggle at the ends of the strap makes it look as much like a child's toy as like a piece of fine footwear. (This latter point is representative of certain immaturity that pervades much of EGs designs.) The Harrow and Piccadilly are better options. I agree with previous posts that disapprove of Harrow split toe. I think the Piccadilly is the best EG penny, and it is indeed a great penny. I would prefer the strap opening has the curved side on the bottom rather than the top, but that is an exceedingly minor point.

Thus I come to my first choice, the C&J Rosebery.


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

Menichetti.


----------



## imainish (May 31, 2006)

I could easily make this a favorite:


----------



## babycatcher (Apr 6, 2008)

I am surely taking a risk, as a junior member, by wading into this one, but the philosopher in me cannot resist.

I think we are mixing a few different values in these evaluations: aesthetic appeal vs intrinsic quality (i.e. comfort, durability, materials, etc).

DD's comment about judging whether a girl is pretty resonates for me a bit. I can surf the web and look at Lobb's and know they are not right for me, without ever handling one. Far too curvy to my eye, too "mod"--whatever. just not my taste (but quite obviously coveted by many with taste). This is just a matter of personal preference, and probably why my eye finds a BMW convertible more appealing than a Dodge Viper.

Quality is another matter. It is much harder to judge (though not impossible, but it takes a great deal of research) without handling, and possibly owning. To get a sense of a shoe's quality, you probably need to feel its heft in your hand, squint at the finer details of construction, and maybe even walk a few miles in them.

I will almost certainly never choose to buy many of listed shoes as they just do not "grab" me per se, except for maybe the EGs. I am sure most, though probably not all, are of high quality when it comes to construction, but at different price points, are probably not of equal value.

I will stick with growing my Alden shell collection, but that is simply my choice. The point of my post is that DD and yachtie are, in my humble view, both right, but simultaneously, both wrong.

I will also choose to work under the assumption that they are two highly valued members of the forum, from whom I have learned much from reading hundreds of their posts, who happened to both be having a bad day.


----------

