# Trad Face Off -- Horsebit vs. Tassel Loafers



## jt2gt (Jun 23, 2011)

Would love to see Trad Faceoffs be a regular type thread.

Here's a good first one...looking to pic up either a horsebit loafer or tassel. Maybe in Alden or Edmonds. But which is more Trad? Anyone have a definitive answer. Here are a couple that I am looking at....thoughts or do you have any other suggestions. Remember to give an answer on the Trad Faceoff first. Thanks...JT


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

The pedigree of the tassel is 1920's American Ivy League, the horsebit was the invention of Guicci.


----------



## TheGreatTwizz (Oct 27, 2010)

arkirshner said:


> The pedigree of the tassel is 1920's American Ivy League, the horsebit was the invention of Guicci.


One would have to deduce that the tassel wins the 'Trad faceoff'


----------



## joenobody0 (Jun 30, 2009)

arkirshner said:


> The pedigree of the tassel is 1920's American Ivy League, the horsebit was the invention of Guicci.


Killed the debate in one sentence!

Tassel wins this one 100%.


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

Yeah. That's not much of a face off. The tassel's roots wind all the way down around the dinosaur* bones of our tradition. The bit loafer is a later off-shoot for a certain sect of degenerate and wanton dandies.

_

*I was unable to spell dinosaur without the aid of spell-check. Cripes._


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

arkirshner said:


> The pedigree of the tassel is 1920's American Ivy League, the horsebit was the invention of Guicci.


I tend to go with arkirshner on this one. I have three of four pair of tassels and I don't own a pair of horsebits. But the horsebits are alright, perhaps not my cup of tea.


----------



## AldenPyle (Oct 8, 2006)

I think I would prefer those particular bit loafers to a split-toe tassel.


----------



## Saltydog (Nov 3, 2007)

Bit loafers may be acceptable...but a relative new-comer compared to tassles and still a bit too fancy for some. No contest when it comes to Trad (BTW I own and wear both).


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

Those bits are swell, but the tassel wins it.


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

Could be time/place specific, but I equate bit loafers with neck chains, "daddy's first ear piercing", and "what's your sign, baby?"


----------



## Saltydog (Nov 3, 2007)

^^^
They do lend themselves to that connotation--and therein lies the problem. Strangely, as I said, they are one of the few hold overs from that period that I continue to like. However, I don't consider them nearly as traditional as tassels nor wear them as often. I still feel a bit flashy wearing them.


----------



## Mossback (Jan 11, 2009)

Horsebit is for those disco moments.


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

I wear my bit loafers once in a while but I wouldn't be caught dead in a ditch with tassel loafers. That's one item I am completely, irrevocably against.


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

Gucci supposedly invented the horsebit loafer in the 1930s, although it didn't become popular until the 1950s. So it has almost as lengthy a pedigree as tassel loafers and penny loafers.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Trip English said:


> The bit loafer is a later off-shoot for a certain sect of degenerate and wanton dandies.


That may account for their appeal...


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

The inclusion of the two shoe design in my wear rotation tells the story best. I've worn out two previous pair of tassel loafers and am working on pairs three and four. Still working on wearing out my first pair of snaffle-bit loafers! Alden's flexwelt snaffel bits are uber comfortable, but the design is more limiting than the tassel, when it comes to frequency of wear. :icon_scratch:


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

Tassels are certainly more "trad", but I prefer bit loafers. I have one pair of tassels and 3 pairs of bits.


----------



## bd79cc (Dec 20, 2006)

Truth be told, I think whether one prefers tassels or bits may come down to the particular shoe in question. I'm indifferent to both shoes the OP has exhibited, but I really like both of these:


----------



## Pugin (May 15, 2010)

arkirshner said:


> The pedigree of the tassel is 1920's American Ivy League, the horsebit was the invention of Guicci.


Not according to Bruce Boyer: https://www.cigaraficionado.com/webfeatures/show/id/Tasseled-Loafers_7439


----------



## jt2gt (Jun 23, 2011)

Thanks everyone for all the great info. I am still leaning toward the bits, but maybe its just my affinity for the toe on Alden's van last loafers...looks so nice.

Thanks again and lets see some more Trad Faceoffs (maybe i'll throw another one up there).

JT


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

Pugin said:


> Not according to Bruce Boyer: https://www.cigaraficionado.com/webfeatures/show/id/Tasseled-Loafers_7439


Great essay. Thank you for bringing it to our attention.

I certainly do not have the credentials to argue with Bruce Boyer. The citation for my post is Alan Flusser, Clothes and the Man page 103:

" The black tassel loafer---originally popular with the Ivy League set in the 1920's---offers about the same level of dressiness as the blue blazer, which itself falls on a somewhat ambiguous line between the business suit and the sports jacket."

It does not matter which of these luminaries is correct when it comes to which shoe is the more trad. The tassel loafer is simply a Norwegian with a tassel. Alternatively, a tassel loafer is a kiltie, which also has a tassel, without the fringed leather piece. Both the Norwegian and kiltie were worn in 20s and 30s.

Even if the first tassel found in the US in the current form dates from the 40's, it certainly predates the horse bit by some time. Moreover, while the post war tassel was worn by those men we consider trad, the Guicci came to prominence when taken up by some men on Wall Street who could never be considered trad.


----------



## triklops55 (May 14, 2010)

I actually like both pairs. But I must say, if bit loafers are your thing, Guccis are be originals, so those are the ones to get. Of these two, I'd probably go with the tassels.


----------



## P Hudson (Jul 19, 2008)

I'd wear a pair of bit loafers. I'd never wear a tassel. It is a question of being too fancy. For some reason, IMO the bit loafer is only a bit too fancy, while the tassel is like wearing a kilt to work. Fine for some, but I wouldn't do it.


----------



## Sartre (Mar 25, 2008)

I'm curious why it has to be an either/or proposition. I like 'em both and wear 'em both. The question "which is most Trad" ends in a rat hole anyway. They both are.


----------



## David J. Cooper (Apr 26, 2010)

I love everything about the OPs bit loafer except of course the bit. I'm a beefroll penny man. The only pair of tassels I have liked also had kilties.

I've stopped concerning myself with the what's more trad question. I'm sure I'm not alone.


----------



## Orgetorix (May 20, 2005)

The only metal that belongs on a pair of shoes is a monk strap's buckle. And maybe eyelets.


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

Orgetorix said:


> The only metal that belongs on a pair of shoes is a monk strap's buckle. And maybe eyelets.


Don't tell that to the shoe departments at Neiman, Bergdorf, Saks, Bloomies, or 95% of all independent specialty shops.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

nolan50410 said:


> Don't tell that to the shoe departments at Neiman, Bergdorf, Saks, Bloomies, or 95% of all independent specialty shops.


No one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public!!


----------



## jt2gt (Jun 23, 2011)

Anyone have thoughts on this tassel loafer from Bally. Actually look more trad to me than I would have expected from Bally. Bally doesn't get much play. But what do you think.

Thanks...JT


----------



## mhj (Oct 27, 2010)

I ordered a pair of Neil M Scot Tassel Loafers in black today from STP


They looked decent enough for the price with the 20% they are offering for orders over $100.


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

The question is "which is more trad?" right?

With the significant caveat that I don't know exactly what "trad" means, the answer which would (but for the caveat) be a slam-dunk is: the tassel loafer.

So far as I can tell, the touchstone of "trad" is what students at Ivy League and similar colleges wore during the decade or so before everything got turned upside down in the late '60s and '70s. Evaluating the contenders on that basis:

- Tassel loafer: At _least_ semi-trad. It would more likely have been worn by an alumnus than a student. On the other hand, its whole _raison d'etre_, at least originally and to my understanding, was to give the recently graduated students who really wanted to keep wearing penny loafers - but couldn't, 'cause they're not "grown up" - a sufficiently non-juvenile, cosmetically "dressy" alternative.

- Bit loafer: Not trad at all. They're "Gucci shoes." They only became popular, at least in this country, in the '70s, when they were worn by people who were specifically trying to wear something that didn't make them look like an old-fashioned fuddy-duddy (_i.e._ not "trad"). They're no more trad than a leisure suit or double-knit. Unlike most '70s innovations, they made it into the mainstream and are far from risible nowadays, but that doesn't make them trad, to my understanding of the term. If anything, they're part of what turned everything upside down, and thus are essentially _anti_-trad. Which is not to say that they're evil ... they're just not trad.


----------



## P Hudson (Jul 19, 2008)

mhj said:


> I ordered a pair of Neil M Scot Tassel Loafers in black today from STP
> 
> They looked decent enough for the price with the 20% they are offering for orders over $100.


This highlights the real problem: certain styles encourage people to wear black shoes.


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

Here's a citation (sort of ... it's by memory) for the early connotations of horse-bit ("Gucci") loafers:

In _Plaza Suite_, which premiered as a play in 1968, the main character in Act 2 is Jesse Kiplinger, a sleazy Hollywood producer, originally from Tenafly, New Jersey, who invites over Muriel, a high-school classmate who's now a housewife, gets her drunk and seduces her.

One of the jokes revolves around the fact that his nickname is "Gooch" Kiplinger, because he always wears Gucci shoes. Muriel gets it wrong, calling him "Pooch" in reference to Pucci shirts.


----------



## mhj (Oct 27, 2010)

P Hudson said:


> This highlights the real problem: certain styles encourage people to wear black shoes.


Sometimes a brown shoe just doesn't work. I don't think I need to elaborate on when.


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

jt2gt said:


> Anyone have thoughts on this tassel loafer from Bally. Actually look more trad to me than I would have expected from Bally. Bally doesn't get much play. But what do you think.
> 
> Thanks...JT


Not my taste, thin, unusual perforations and a lot of them, very European. But if you like an Italian/French silhouette this shoe complements it very well.


----------



## P Hudson (Jul 19, 2008)

mhj said:


> Sometimes a brown shoe just doesn't work. I don't think I need to elaborate on when.


Like when you're married and when you're buried? but surely those are occasions when white shoes will work.


----------



## Drew Bernard (Feb 19, 2009)

I have the Alden flex welt bits with lug sole and I'm loving them. I've owned countless pairs of tassel loafers.

I agree with my fellow Cornellian, like 'em both and wear 'em both.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

The tassel wins by virtue of just looking better, not necessarily its pedigree. But I wouldn't wear it either.


----------



## jwlester (Oct 20, 2009)

Doctor Damage said:


> Gucci supposedly invented the horsebit loafer in the 1930s, although it didn't become popular until the 1950s. So it has almost as lengthy a pedigree as tassel loafers and penny loafers.


Yeah, I'm not buying that the bit was a child of the 70's. In fact, I don't associate it with disco at all. Growing up in and around VA horse country, my association is "country gentlemen", "old money", "prep", whatever you want to call the stereotype. Seems others that show an affinity for bits may also be Southern gents. When I think bits, I see blue blazer and loud pants. Just my style, though I probably wear my tassels more.

Am I way off base here, or is there a totally different connotation in different parts of the country?


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

I don't know enough about most of the country to know the sartorial nuances, I've only lived on the Eastern seaboard from Northern Virginia to Boston. Some of the attitudes toward some clothing and shoes are, as has been said, a bit provincial. 

Bit loafers have never connoted anything sleazy to me because I've never seen them on a sleazy character nor have I known them to be portrayed this way in pop culture. 

It's the same attitude on my Belgian Shoes thread. Some of the views betray a fairly narrow view, if not an outright bigoted one.

It's one thing to say you wouldn't wear horse bit loafers in wherever, just as no one would fault you for thinking that cowboy boots are inappropriate for New Hampshire. But the fact is that these shoes are appropriate some places for some people.


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

I don't think people are saying that they're sleazy or inappropriate (anyway, I'm not, at least not in 2011), just that they're not "trad."

If the determination of what's "trad" has any historical component to it at all, it's hard to see how they could be. I don't know if it does or not. Perhaps "trad" just means whatever a circle of people today think looks a certain way.


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

A little more on the historical role of bit loafers, this time moving to 1975:
"When he kissed his mother good-bye and came down onto Fourth, strutting loose, he wore an open-necked shirt, ablaze with reds and golds, and he moved through the night with shoulders hunched tight, his neck rammed deep between his shoulder blades in the manner of a miniature bull. A bull in Gucci-style loafers, complete with gilded buckle, and high black pants tight as sausage skins."

"To qualify as an Odyssey Face, an aspirant need only be Italian, between the ages of eighteen and twenty-one, with a minimum stock of six floral shirts, four pairs of tight trousers, two pairs of Gucci-style loafers, two pairs of platforms, either a pendant or a ring, and one item in gold."

- From "Tribal Rites of the New Saturday Night," the 1975 story in _New York Magazine_ that served as the inspiration for "Saturday Night Fever."

While the author has since admitted that the characters and incidents he detailed in the story were, for the most part, made up, the article still described (and, to some extent, created) the cultural associations the items had in 1975.

Which - lest I be chastised for failing to repeat this for the third time - are different from the associations in 2011.

The other obvious bit of cultural evidence would, I suppose, be the reference to the halls in the Congressional office buildings frequented by lobbyists as "Gucci Gulch" (See: _Showdown at Gucci Gulch_, a book published in 1987 that described events occurring in 1986). Obviously, the association had changed by the late '80s, when it had more to do with money, though I'd argue that there was still a bit of shadiness in there.


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

+10

An opinion with footnotes


----------



## mjo_1 (Oct 2, 2007)

Starch said:


> Perhaps "trad" just means whatever a circle of people today think looks a certain way.


Quoted for truth....and for being one of the best responses to the never ending quest to figure out what "trad" is.

Let the record show I like both.

Best,

Michael


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Trip English said:


> It's the same attitude on my Belgian Shoes thread. Some of the views betray a fairly narrow view, if not an outright bigoted one.


It's not as if anyone came right out and said "those shoes are gay" or anything.

But...


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

arkirshner said:


> +10
> 
> An opinion with footnotes


Which goes to show, not all opinions are equal!!


----------



## jwlester (Oct 20, 2009)

Starch said:


> A little more on the historical role of bit loafers, this time moving to 1975:
> "When he kissed his mother good-bye and came down onto Fourth, strutting loose, he wore an open-necked shirt, ablaze with reds and golds, and he moved through the night with shoulders hunched tight, his neck rammed deep between his shoulder blades in the manner of a miniature bull. A bull in Gucci-style loafers, complete with gilded buckle, and high black pants tight as sausage skins."
> 
> "To qualify as an Odyssey Face, an aspirant need only be Italian, between the ages of eighteen and twenty-one, with a minimum stock of six floral shirts, four pairs of tight trousers, two pairs of Gucci-style loafers, two pairs of platforms, either a pendant or a ring, and one item in gold."
> ...


Nice response. Well said. I still hold out that today, as with 1975 or 1985, the connotation is totally different in New York than say, Charleston or Richmond, and probably different in California. The 70's stereotype seems to be an "italian new yorker". Of course we know what stereotypes are worth. I wonder what the connotation is in Europe or how prevalent they are these days.

Why would there be anything sleazy about the hallowed halls of congress?

I'm avoiding the discussion of whether it is trad or not...and will to the end.


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

One thing that has not been brought up yet is that while the Alden version and the Gucci version are both horsebits they are very different interpretations. When placed next to the light, thin soled Gucci, the Alden is more a rugged, substantial shoe in stitching, toe box height , sole etc. the difference between an Italian shoe pedigree and an American shoe pedigree is obvious. While some of us are old enough to remember the negative associations attributed to Guicci loafers, younger men unsullied by the negative imagery can look favorably on the Alden version.


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

Yeah. Gucci should really make a sturdier loafer.


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

The rubber pedestal has more height than to toe-box. Putting an Italian shoe on a slab of rubber does not an Alden make.


----------



## absent_prof (Apr 20, 2011)

Let's extend the face-off: is the kiltie less trad than the Norwegian tassel loafer?


----------



## Thom Browne's Schooldays (Jul 29, 2007)

I'd think so.

Honestly, I find kilties grotesque. 
Maybe it's just one of those things that will never appeal to me, like how others think of rbits/tassels/belgians (loafers and people).

They are popular though.
The midwest business traveler's uniform is a blazer (usually 2B and darted) dark gray worsted wool trousers and corrected gracing kilties, or sometimes tassel kilties.
On an early morning flight kilties outnumber tassels and pennies 10-1.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Thom Browne's Schooldays said:


> Honestly, I find kilties grotesque.


With the low vamp??

Hideous!!


----------



## Sartre (Mar 25, 2008)

Starch said:


> ...I don't know if it does or not. Perhaps "trad" just means whatever a circle of people today think looks a certain way.


I think this is true, with an emphasis on "today." Surprisingly few folks have an interest in listening to the older gentlemen who were actually there during the periods when this style of clothing was more prevalent and so might be uniquely qualified to comment on its provenance. "Trad" here can often become a sort of abstract, Platonic ideal based not on experience or widespread interaction with the world, but mostly on personal preferences, highly selective research, and the mutually reinforcing opinions of other forumites in this relatively small sartorial community.

I have the highest respect for the people who won't wear horsebit loafers (or Belgians, referencing the other thread) because they don't like the looks of 'em. But all this stuff about their not being admissible to the canon because they are not "trad" is nonsense. Both offerings have been worn by well-shod gentlemen of very traditional, not to say conservative, sartorial tastes, for more than 50 years.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Well, I admit to not being a fan of horse bits, tassels, or Belgians (the people are awesome... just not their loafers). However, I don't take points off just because someone who is otherwise well attired wears them. Just like I don't take points off of upr_crust because he wears more patterns than I would.

Not like anyone should base their attire off of my tastes to begin with... :icon_study:

Getting back on point though: I personally _love_ hearing from the guys who were around when Ivy League and later preppy style was at its peak. You don't necessarily have to take all of their advice or follow what was done in the '60s-'80s to the letter (I'm sure they don't) but they are helpful at debunking commonly held myths about the origins of certain Trad items and how they were worn. _Take Ivy_ was also a useful myth buster when it came into the clothing board mainstream. Pretty much blew out of the water the misconception that cuffs were de rigeur on khakis or that a number of preppy styles from later decades were worn then. Last I recall, boat shoes, Norwegian sweaters, Nantucket reds, etc. were merely New England outdoors clothing back then.

I'm fine with Trad as a style of clothing (albeit one culled from many decades of various American styles), but let's be honest about its origins and what was actually worn back then as opposed to fantasizing that it was all together in one place in one time. Apologies if I sound like broken record since I've talked about this at length before, but I feel it needs to be reiterated from time to time.


----------



## C. Sharp (Dec 18, 2008)

Agree



Sartre said:


> I think this is true, with an emphasis on "today." Surprisingly few folks have an interest in listening to the older gentlemen who were actually there during the periods when this style of clothing was more prevalent and so might be uniquely qualified to comment on its provenance. "Trad" here can often become a sort of abstract, Platonic ideal based not on experience or widespread interaction with the world, but mostly on personal preferences, highly selective research, and the mutually reinforcing opinions of other forumites in this relatively small sartorial community.
> 
> I have the highest respect for the people who won't wear horsebit loafers (or Belgians, referencing the other thread) because they don't like the looks of 'em. But all this stuff about their not being admissible to the canon because they are not "trad" is nonsense. Both offerings have been worn by well-shod gentlemen of very traditional, not to say conservative, sartorial tastes, for more than 50 years.


----------



## bd79cc (Dec 20, 2006)

Very well-said.



Sartre said:


> I think this is true, with an emphasis on "today." Surprisingly few folks have an interest in listening to the older gentlemen who were actually there during the periods when this style of clothing was more prevalent and so might be uniquely qualified to comment on its provenance. "Trad" here can often become a sort of abstract, Platonic ideal based not on experience or widespread interaction with the world, but mostly on personal preferences, highly selective research, and the mutually reinforcing opinions of other forumites in this relatively small sartorial community.
> 
> I have the highest respect for the people who won't wear horsebit loafers (or Belgians, referencing the other thread) because they don't like the looks of 'em. But all this stuff about their not being admissible to the canon because they are not "trad" is nonsense. Both offerings have been worn by well-shod gentlemen of very traditional, not to say conservative, sartorial tastes, for more than 50 years.


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

Four old duffers had played golf together for over 50 years, but the years had taken their toll, and when one finally keeled over it looked like their game was over, since he was the only one who could see well enough to tell the others where they had hit their last shot. So, they were delighted when the pro told them he had a fourth for them: " he's almost 90, but he has 20/20 vision." They all teed off on the first hole, then looked at the new guy: "so did you see our shots?" "Yep" "Well, where are they?" "I forget."

Sorry. I was in College in 1965, but my memory of what people were wearing, isn't very reliable :icon_scratch:


----------



## AldenPyle (Oct 8, 2006)

Sartre said:


> I think this is true, with an emphasis on "today." Surprisingly few folks have an interest in listening to the older gentlemen who were actually there during the periods when this style of clothing was more prevalent and so might be uniquely qualified to comment on its provenance. "Trad" here can often become a sort of abstract, Platonic ideal based not on experience or widespread interaction with the world, but mostly on personal preferences, highly selective research, and the mutually reinforcing opinions of other forumites in this relatively small sartorial community.
> 
> I have the highest respect for the people who won't wear horsebit loafers (or Belgians, referencing the other thread) because they don't like the looks of 'em. But all this stuff about their not being admissible to the canon because they are not "trad" is nonsense. Both offerings have been worn by well-shod gentlemen of very traditional, not to say conservative, sartorial tastes, for more than 50 years.


I dunno. Bit loafers are fine, of course. You can call me crazy though, but I can't shake the feeling that I can't stand split toe loafers for the simple reason that they're not "Trad". Can we at least agree that wing-tip loafers are terrible and work backward from there?


----------



## C. Sharp (Dec 18, 2008)

I believe Sartre was talking about the shoes in their original versions vs the ones the OP put up. 
The wingtip loafers are an inconvenient truth, Brooks Brothers has sold them forever. Flusser says they are for suits. I would be inclined to be a bit extra polite to an old fellow wearing theses. So I might give them a pass if I saw them in the city. I would have found them a completely unfortunate choice if I saw a college peer wearing them to a house party.



AldenPyle said:


> I dunno. Bit loafers are fine, of course. You can call me crazy though, but I can't shake the feeling that I can't stand split toe loafers for the simple reason that they're not "Trad". Can we at least agree that wing-tip loafers are terrible and work backward from there?


----------



## AldenPyle (Oct 8, 2006)

C. Sharp said:


> The wingtip loafers are an inconvenient truth, Brooks Brothers has sold them forever.


Not to be a stickler, but by forever, you mean what?



C. Sharp said:


> I believe Sartre was talking about the shoes in their original versions vs the ones the OP put up.
> The wingtip loafers are an inconvenient truth, Brooks Brothers has sold them forever. Flusser says they are for suits. I would be inclined to be a bit extra polite to an old fellow wearing theses. So I might give them a pass if I saw them in the city. I would have found them a completely unfortunate choice if I saw a college peer wearing them to a house party.


I still think they're are just wrong (at home or at the office), beyond simply being ugly. That is to say that despite the fact that there may have been some period of time in some location when prosperous fellows of impeccable pedigree wore well-made wingtip loafers with their suits to the office without facing social disregard from their peers (and that they could no doubt do so today) that they do violate key aesthetic ideals which make them uninteresting to me. In particular, they seem an insecure mismash for someone who's worried that their preferred wingtip lace-ups make them seem a fuddy-duddy but are afraid to wear "non-suit" shoes. They lack simplicity and classicism.

Now, this seems an easy case. But I do want to stand up for aesthetic ideals (Platonic or otherwise).


----------



## C. Sharp (Dec 18, 2008)

1958 and possibly before, never really cared enough to look into it. Image from Katon. I believe these first appeared in England sometime in the 1930's. I usually get in trouble paying amateur psychologist but these seem to have a dynamic tension. They say I am a sporty guy but don't forget I am the boss. I guess hence why someone called them as "mullet" shoes.


----------



## AldenPyle (Oct 8, 2006)

#1 Wow, I'm impressed that you could come up with that so fast.
#2 Wow, 50 years of ugly.


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

Bits always for me. I've never liked tassel loafers. Personal preference.


----------



## Sartre (Mar 25, 2008)

AldenPyle said:


> I dunno. Bit loafers are fine, of course. You can call me crazy though, but I can't shake the feeling that I can't stand split toe loafers for the simple reason that they're not "Trad". Can we at least agree that wing-tip loafers are terrible and work backward from there?


I agree with all of this. The tassel loafers in the original picture are terrible; just putting a tassel on them doesn't make them "trad" (as Exhibit A, I cite that monstrosity the kiltie tassel loafer). To further incite controversy, not only do I agree that wing-tip loafers are horrible, I'm fairly aghast that wing-tips in general receive so much play here.



C. Sharp said:


> I believe Sartre was talking about the shoes in their original versions vs the ones the OP put up...


Yes.


----------



## C. Sharp (Dec 18, 2008)

I would say there is the appearence of a cult of the Longwing on the site. I was surprised at first when I started viewing the site because there were so many gunboats. Some will call it a historical revival and drag out the pictures which is fine. I would say that some things are truly generational, I can not imagine the look someone would get if they showed up to a party 20-30 years ago wearing dark denim and Wingtips. I get the sense that some now find the wingtip a default shoe to wear, in my experience that was place reserved for the loafer.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
Think of the the world as one huge closet...one large enought to accommodate both long wings and loafers as default shoes to be worn with dark denim (or even chinos for those of us who prefer such trouser upgrades as our daily weat)! Either shoe design works equally well for casual wear.


----------



## eyedoc2180 (Nov 19, 2006)

Jovan said:


> Well, I admit to not being a fan of horse bits, tassels, or Belgians (the people are awesome... just not their loafers). However, I don't take points off just because someone who is otherwise well attired wears them. Just like I don't take points off of upr_crust because he wears more patterns than I would.
> 
> Not like anyone should base their attire off of my tastes to begin with... :icon_study:
> 
> ...


Great comments, Jovan. I do have to say that Penn circa 1979 had de-volved as decidedly un-preppy. You'd have to go 5 years further back to find the stronger preppy influence, before disco took full swing. There were lots of nylon patterned shirts unbuttoned to the navel and 2 inch heels on the guys, by the time I graduated. Blecch. St. A's et al carried the Topsider Torch for a while after Digby went on the downswing.


----------



## joenobody0 (Jun 30, 2009)

AldenPyle said:


> Not to be a stickler, but by forever, you mean what?
> 
> I still think they're are just wrong (at home or at the office), beyond simply being ugly. That is to say that despite the fact that there may have been some period of time in some location when prosperous fellows of impeccable pedigree wore well-made wingtip loafers with their suits to the office without facing social disregard from their peers (and that they could no doubt do so today) that they do violate key aesthetic ideals which make them uninteresting to me. In particular, they seem an insecure mismash for someone who's worried that their preferred wingtip lace-ups make them seem a fuddy-duddy but are afraid to wear "non-suit" shoes. They lack simplicity and classicism.
> 
> Now, this seems an easy case. But I do want to stand up for aesthetic ideals (Platonic or otherwise).


One of the Senior VPs of my former employer used to wear wingtip tassel loafers - black of course. Otherwise, he was a fairly well dressed guy. That shoe said "I want to be all things to all people," but it just looked odd to me.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

eyedoc2180 said:


> Great comments, Jovan. I do have to say that Penn circa 1979 had de-volved as decidedly un-preppy. You'd have to go 5 years further back to find the stronger preppy influence, before disco took full swing. There were lots of nylon patterned shirts unbuttoned to the navel and 2 inch heels on the guys, by the time I graduated. Blecch. St. A's et al carried the Topsider Torch for a while after Digby went on the downswing.


I can't claim to have seen any improvement or decline during my time in college!



joenobody0 said:


> One of the Senior VPs of my former employer used to wear wingtip tassel loafers - black of course. Otherwise, he was a fairly well dressed guy. That shoe said "I want to be all things to all people," but it just looked odd to me.


I'm on the fence about wingtip loafers but adding a tassel is definitely "a bridge too far".


----------



## Orgetorix (May 20, 2005)

Jovan said:


> I'm on the fence about wingtip loafers but adding a tassel is definitely "a bridge too far".


Kiltie tassel loafers are probably the most common shoe I see in thrift stores here. And wingtip kiltie tassels are the majority of those.


----------



## mhj (Oct 27, 2010)

Here's some interesting reading I came across this morning as I was scrolling down the list of the articles on Ivy Style. Near the bottom was "The Politicization of Tasseled Loafers" from the NYT.

https://www.nytimes.com/1993/11/03/garden/the-politicization-of-tasseled-loafers.html?src=pm


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Orgetorix said:


> Kiltie tassel loafers are probably the most common shoe I see in thrift stores here. And wingtip kiltie tassels are the majority of those.


Baby boomers dying off.


----------

