Magnanni Belmont Bit Loafer – $161.25 ($315)
Price reflects the current extra 25% off sale LastCall.com is running. Available in brown or black. Made in Spain. Ships free with the code FSANN4. Sale ends 3/13/12 at 8 a.m. CT, but c’mon, there will be more LastCall sales.
As in horse bit. If this really is going to be the year of the loafer, then these things need to be debated.
To some, they’re a standard. No big deal. To others, the bit loafer is the shoe version of a clunky metal man-bracelet. Jewelry for the sake of flash. Cheesy and even a bit skeezy. Not easy to pull off well.
But just about everyone seems to make a pair. In all sorts of price ranges:
- Aston Grey Belmont – $89.95
- Allen Edmonds Bit Driver – $195.00
- Cole Haan Air Adams – $198.00
- Brooks Brothers Alligator (yes. Gator.) – $1498.00
Would you wear a pair? Some would argue that they’re not that different than a monk strap. A detail that’s tough to ignore and more or less useless. Monk strap apologists will argue the straps do help keep the shoe on your foot. That and the straps are leather, not huge hunks of metal (aside from the buckles). Leave your take in the comments.
If the arguement against the bit loafer is that the bit isn’t functional, then that’s a little silly – it’s clearly in the name of added style. And yea, the monk probably falls into that category.
Today, the king of the bit loafer seems to be Ferragamo. I just looked on the Nordstrom site and for Ferragamo loafers, 31 out of 41 shoes have some sort of bit. The brand is almost always stamped into the bit in some way, be it the actual written name or the inherent design of the bit. They seem to scream “look at me, I’m wearing Ferragmo shoes” which tends to come with a $400-600 price tag. Not trying to knock the line, but it’s a bit of an ostentatious trademark. Everytime I see other shoes with a bit, I think – “they are ferragamo – oh wait, no they’re not”.
I’ve seen some guys pull them off before – generally men with more European personal styles. The Magnanni’s are some of the better looking bit loafers I’ve seen. They are personally not something I feel I look good in, however.
Nah, wouldn’t wear that.
Remember the Allen Edmonds Men’s McTavish you wrote about. They are 20% off at endless.com with coupon frndsfam. $236.00 shipped.
I didn’t realize this was a question. They’re pretty standard, much more so than monks and especially double monkstraps. Not really any different than penny loafers.
Where is the extra 25% off? I see them at $215 right now.
Interesting take.
In case anyone wants to learn way more than you ever wanted to about bit loafers, check this link out: http://www.askandyaboutclothes.com/forum/showthread.php?66471-Ode-to-the-bit-loafer-(pics)…
I’m pretty sure Gucci was the first to make a bit loafer. IMO, they are of better quality than the Ferragamos. However, the Gucci lug sole is significantly more rigid than the Ferragamo rubber soled models. For me then, if it’s a leather sole, I’ll go with Gucci (who actually uses some incredible-looking suedes), but if I’m looking for a rainy day or jean shoe, it’s the Ferragamos. And actually, the Allen Edmonds Verona or Lucca is a more modestly-priced loafer which is very comfortable. One advantage of the AE or Ferragamos is that they are widely available in various widths.
Tangent:
Almost anything with a brand can be considered ostentatious. To some, the polo player is asinine, as is the Sperry patch on the tongue. The whimsical animal print ties/scarves by Hermes are easily identifiable. The spinning propeller on the front of a BMW. The glass enclosed cell phone with a big Apple-brand on the back. To me, I buy what I enjoy. It’s not about screaming what I have or don’t have.
Most people are staring at the bit to see if it’s engraved with “Ferragamo.” If they are, you need not worry about their opinion.
Edit: “Aren’t staring at the bit”
Also, I don’t find the bit loafer to be in the realm of European style. It’s pretty widespread, and has lots of traction with the New England/East Coast crowd.
This is a pretty fashion-forward take on a classic. I can’t say I’m a big fan of the low, elongated toe shape. It looks like they took the classic moccasin shape and tried to make it more sleek. I believe that some styles don’t lend themselves to this adjustment. (longwings being another). I prefer the classic shape.
I would def rock these actually lookig for a decent pair for the summer to go sans sock
Wouldn’t wear them, but do not think others should not wear them.
The bit-loafer out here in DC, at least, is considered the “I am richer than you” shoe.
I love loafers, have for decades. The Magnanni’s are great looking. They are the best looking of the bunch you linked.
No. I just don’t like most old-fashioned shoe styles, like bit loafers, monk straps, and penny loafers. I like to keep my dress shoes and casual loafers more clean and modern. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with them, and others should feel free to rock ’em if that works for them; I just feel like I’m dressing like an old man if I put on something like that. Personal bias, I suppose.
I’d wear them AND double monks (though not at the same time). While they’re definitely not an every-day loafer option, I think I could find an outfit with a gold accessory they would work well with.
Sale ended early this morning.
That’s my take precisely.
I would disagree and say these are pretty modern looking…perhaps we have different definitions of modern?
I saw some loafers like this at the thrift store a week or so ago. I like the overall shape better than many more traditional loafers. I don’t care about bits and tassles so much as the, um, length of the vamp? If you follow me. To me, a loafer with a really short vamp looks awfully feminine, almost like a pair of women’s mary janes. The longer vamp styles are a little more modern- and masculine-looking IMO.
Amen. Never understood bit loafers, monk straps or penny loafers, in the way i don’t really understand wingtips. Admittedly, I am a modernist (as in anything from mid-century design to current), and there are way too many shoes that are over decorated for my taste, and some border on being retro costumes. Much rather have a simple but elegant Chelsea boot or a clean lined Bruno Magli loafer. But i have to admit, i definitely see men wear Gucci loafers and monk straps who can pull them off and look great.
+1
The ones pictured are fugly. But that’s just my opinion.
Ah, figured. Thanks Joe.
I would wear them, in fact I bought the Bruno Magli bit loafers that clad was clearing out last months. My question is, is the bit supposed to be audible? I assume not, so for any bit aficionados is this something my cobbler can remedy?
No reason for any men’s shoe to be adorned with a hunk of metal. Hardware on shoes is a huge turnoff for me.
Ha! I bought the same shoes and thought they were a bit loud. Haven’t worn them yet because the wife doesn’t know I got them. $145 for a pair of $465 shoes was an absolute steal though.
(should clarify: I’m agreeing the bit is loud when you walk. It clinks!)
Some do, some don’t – It depends upon the style of the link.
I’m not familiar with the Bruno Magli shoes, but a cobbler has tightened the bit for me in the past to remedy the clink. Truth be told, I’m not sure that I couldn’t have accomplished the same thing with a pair of pliers. The key is making the link between the two bits “tighter” so that the sides of the links don’t bang together.
If that makes any sense at all…
To each his own.
The counter would be: Do you wear nothing but wholecuts and venetian loafers then? Why bother adorning your shoes with brogueing or the penny strap? It’s just another style.
I almost purchased these last week, but couldn’t justify the price.
I would definitely wear these shoes as I think they’re very stylish, the GF approved and aren’t we on this site because we like to dress nice?
hmm, uh oh. there doesn’t really seem to be the middle link on these that more classic bits like the Guccis have.
Englishman – let me know if you come across a good fix!
Fair opinion but everyone just really wants to know: do you still love Anacott Steel?!
I’m sorry, but yikes, that is one unattractive shoe. It looks like plastic, the angled heel is odd and the pointed sides attaching the bit look a little theatrical. Gucci does the bit, how many more interpretations does one need?
Yes. Every day.
Before i found dappered, (was clueless), and i purchased a pair… i wore them pretty often and they make for a pretty sleek look with wool pants and a dress shirt….
These look like old man shoes.
Perhaps when I’m older.
hmm…i think it depends on the material of the uppers on the shoe for me. the muted tone of the leather in the banner picture makes the buckle pop as a tastefully understated detail. but the shine of the gator skin on the brooks brothers example amplifies the sparkle of the metal links so that the whole shoe becomes an attention-seeking mess.
Shoes should have laces. Period.
Shoes should have laces. Period.
Laces are best left for running shoes. Loafers and boots are so much more TSA-friendly, not to mention more contemporary.
agreed. Most of the American brands (ae and alden come to mind) have the short vamps with the wide stubby toe that make me cringe.
Metal belongs on your wrist not your feet
i generally loathe ornamental mass added onto an appendage but it’s pretty here.
I’d wear a double monk way before a bit.
I’ve never like the look of a bit loafer….bit’s belong in horses mouths not on your shoes.
Generally, I am a fan of the bit loafer if the shoes silhouette is sleek and the bit is not a big as a padlock.
– Sabir
I personally prefer them on a suede loafer.