In this thread I am going to post a bunch of photos of bit loafers, of various brands and various types. I will start first with Gucci (obviously), then move on to others. The focus will be on classic bit loafers, and their close variants. I will also post some fake Gucci shoes, so that anyone who is buying on eBay will have a better idea of what to avoid. To our members I ask that you reserve me the first half-dozen or so posts, so I can cover a few basic points. DD
The classic Gucci bit loafer has undergone an evolution, probably under the influence of Tom Ford's tenure at the company. Bit loafers from the early 90s and before were designated as below. Below left is the 110-0009/3, and below right the 110-0010/3. Note the change in the shape of the toe box from left to right. Although not visible, the heel changes from a high but wedged heel in the 0009 to a high flat heel in the 0010. The 110-0010 model seems to have continued largely unchanged as the following models. Below is the 015937. Below is the 015938, the current model, and the only one of the above still in production. I will post larger images of this model, but the photos below allow comparison with the preceding models above. Personally, I suspect Ford's influence begins with the 110-0010 model with the blockier toe box and higher heels. This is essentially the modern "classic Gucci", as the model number changes are just that -- the design has not changed to the current model. DD
Here are some good images of the basic Gucci classic loafers. This makes comparing the colours of the materials an easy matter. 015938 016343
Here is a set of images, from an eBay seller. This is the 110-0009, the precursor to the current model of Gucci bit loafer. I really love the older look of these models (long gone), with the lower heel and more rounded toe. These are the 015938, new and used. These are the 016343 models. Next I shall post a few more pics of the lug sole version, then I shall post several recent Gucci models which look like the classic loafer, but were actually one-season-only models. DocD
I can respect that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I can respect that everyone has different opinions when it comes to shoes and clothes. I can respect that variety is the spice of life. But for the life of me I just dont get these shoes. They are a perfect storm of flash, poor construction and unusual design. To each his own I suppose...
No disrespect intended, but isn't there some sort of lower age limit as to when one can get away with wearing these? Whatever it is, I haven't reached it yet. Nice job with the research and photos, however. And hey, they're in the OPH, so they're alright with me.
I know I shouldn't like these. I do though. Especially the older ones. The bit should be too much flash but it isn't. Even with lugs they look ok. I love the toe seam. They just have good balance or something. I feel dirty. I need to go look at some Aldens to make myself feel clean again.
There should be no shame in liking these shoes. I think much of the aversion to the house of Gucci, and to similar brands like Charvet and Hermes, is to what they have come to mean not what they once meant. As I understand it, in the era of high trad (50s-60s) these brands may have been a bit eccentric, bordering on louche, but hardly worthy of outrage. I think we might have the same reaction to sack suits and Aldens if they were favored by eurotwits. In one of his novels, Auchincloss dresses his main character, an arch-WASP, in Charvet. Can't remember which one. Carefully brought into one's wardrobe the Gucci can be just the ticket.
The old model is remarkably more attractive and balanced than the new. I also don't get the mud-tired SUV model.
