Men's Clothing Forums banner
1 - 20 of 52 Posts

Slowhands

· Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Discussion starter · #1 ·
Just had a pleasant but unfortunate conversation with Jeffrey of Sherman Brothers on the phone. Apparently Gucci is suing Alden for their Cape Cod Horse Bit loafer, and Alden has no plans to fight the suit, and will be ceasing production. He tells me the shoes off the production line this month will be the last ever produced, at least until Alden designs a new bit for the loafer.

The absurdity of this case aside, this is quite unfortunate news. While I was in the market for a new pair regardless of the announcement, these shoes have consistently been one of my more comfortable and great looking loafers. Get 'em from your favorite retailer while you can...
 
Having tried Alden's Cape-Cod Horse bits and their Flex-welt Horse bit loafers, I've always preferred the Flex-welts. They are just a better made shoe. Will Alden be continuing production of the Flex-welt horse bits? :icon_scratch:
 
The absurdity of this case aside, this is quite unfortunate news. While I was in the market for a new pair regardless of the announcement, these shoes have consistently been one of my more comfortable and great looking loafers.
I suspect Alden will just redesign the bit in some trivial, but legally adequate, way. So the shoes will remain just as comfortable as ever, and they'll look very similar to the way they always have.

While I don't own a pair of the Aldens, my AE Veronas are among my favorite somewhat casual shoes. I'd take them over a pair of "authentic" Gucci horse bit loafers, any day.
 
Just had a pleasant but unfortunate conversation with Jeffrey of Sherman Brothers on the phone. Apparently Gucci is suing Alden for their Cape Cod Horse Bit loafer, and Alden has no plans to fight the suit, and will be ceasing production. He tells me the shoes off the production line this month will be the last ever produced, at least until Alden designs a new bit for the loafer.

The absurdity of this case aside, this is quite unfortunate news. While I was in the market for a new pair regardless of the announcement, these shoes have consistently been one of my more comfortable and great looking loafers. Get 'em from your favorite retailer while you can...
That's definitely an absurd case, assuming your contact got his story right. Gucci loafers have been knocked-off for decades and the company never gave a damn. I wouldn't be surprised if there's more behind this than a design issue. After all, the Alden Cape Cod shoes are about as unlike Gucci shoes as you can get. The companies don't even operate in the same 'space'.
rich warren said:
Funny my search of Gucci and Alden on Google turned up nothing...
I had no luck either.
 
I contacted our friends at Carroll & Co. in Beverly Hills, CA who have a large inventory of Alden shoes. They knew about the discontinuation but still had a good selection at only $350.

They even carry a special color in tan suede!They have tan, dark brown and black suede, and Tan, Dark Brown and Black leather.

If you can't go by the shop, just phone (310) 273-9060 and ask for the Alden Dept. AND tell them hello for me!

And if you want to see the great looking store just watch the AskAndy TV show where owner, John Carroll is featured:
 
I contacted our friends at Carroll & Co. in Beverly Hills, CA who have a large inventory of Alden shoes. They knew about the discontinuation but still had a good selection at only $350.

They even carry a special color in tan suede!They have tan, dark brown and black suede, and Tan, Dark Brown and Black leather.

If you can't go by the shop, just phone (310) 273-9060 and ask for the Alden Dept. AND tell them hello for me!

And if you want to see the great looking store just watch the AskAndy TV show where owner, John Carroll is featured:
So this is true. Too bad. I think the Gucci loafer is overpriced, just like all their products. The Alden and even the Rancourts are a good alternative.
 
That's definitely an absurd case, assuming your contact got his story right. Gucci loafers have been knocked-off for decades and the company never gave a damn. I wouldn't be surprised if there's more behind this than a design issue. After all, the Alden Cape Cod shoes are about as unlike Gucci shoes as you can get. The companies don't even operate in the same 'space'.

I had no luck either.
You bring up a good point about the knock offs. I think if anything, Gucci is upset at the better made shoe that Alden is offering for about half the price of a Gucci. This makes me wonder if they gonna go after Rancourt, Allen Edmond and anybody else who has a similar horsebit loafer. I have the Rancourts and they are a better made loafer also.
 
I'm not an attorney so I'm not really sure about the nuances of how trademarks and knock-offs works. However, it's a horse bit. I'm not sure that the design is trademarked.

Wouldn't it be something like suing another shoe manufacturer for using laces to tie the shoe, or for the number of eyelets?
 
I'm not an attorney so I'm not really sure about the nuances of how trademarks and knock-offs works. However, it's a horse bit. I'm not sure that the design is trademarked.

Wouldn't it be something like suing another shoe manufacturer for using laces to tie the shoe, or for the number of eyelets?
Your first paragraph holds the answer. Trademark law is the result of legal contortion, compromise, political interference, corporate influence and inconsistency, not logic.

Your second paragraph is too logical for trademark / patent / copyright law.

Personally - and this is just an opinion - the horse bit loafer feels completely out of place in Trad / Ivy style to me (I have read our threads on it and know there are valid counterpoints - not trying to start that argument here), but find it interesting that the horse bit became a lawsuit issue. Could Brooks Brothers try to reclaim the OCBD - that would be something wouldn't it? Or Press trying to claim the pocket flap on the OCBD? This could get crazy :).
 
YCould Brooks Brothers try to reclaim the OCBD - that would be something wouldn't it? Or Press trying to claim the pocket flap on the OCBD? This could get crazy :).
I doubt whether Gucci is trying to reclaim the horse bit loafer.

Rather, Gucci may be trying to reclaim the specific design of the metal hardware which is part of the Gucci loafer. The design of the actual, metallic bit.

It's sort of how selling tennis shirts is okay, but closely copying the design and appearance of Lacoste's alligator and putting it on those tennis shirts you're selling violates Lacoste's rights.

But since I've read nothing about this suit, beyond what's in this thread, I obviously don't know any details, and the reality of the situation may be something else entirely.
 
Your first paragraph holds the answer. Trademark law is the result of legal contortion, compromise, political interference, corporate influence and inconsistency, not logic.

Your second paragraph is too logical for trademark / patent / copyright law.

Personally - and this is just an opinion - the horse bit loafer feels completely out of place in Trad / Ivy style to me (I have read our threads on it and know there are valid counterpoints - not trying to start that argument here), but find it interesting that the horse bit became a lawsuit issue. Could Brooks Brothers try to reclaim the OCBD - that would be something wouldn't it? Or Press trying to claim the pocket flap on the OCBD? This could get crazy :).
Gucci loafers would be the ONLY thing produced in Italy that i would say is trad. If it weren't so, Alden, Allen Edmonds, etc. would have never produced their versions of it.

Image
 
Gucci loafers would be the ONLY thing produced in Italy that i would say is trad. If it weren't so, Alden, Allen Edmonds, etc. would have never produced their versions of it.
Allen Edmonds and Alden have made plenty of things that are "not trad" -- just go into an AE store and you'll see plenty of ultra-modern designs, especially in the casual side of things.
 
Gucci loafers would be the ONLY thing produced in Italy that i would say is trad. If it weren't so, Alden, Allen Edmonds, etc. would have never produced their versions of it.

Image
I respect the historical evidence and believe your argument is strong, but they still feel aesthetically wrong to me / they don't feel Trad / Ivy to me. And this from someone who feels jeans are (and has taken sniper and machine gun fire for that view from many well-respect AAAC members) - as they don't jar my eye when I see them as part of the Trad / Ivy aesthetic, but even in this picture, the loafer looks out of place to me.
 
I respect the historical evidence and believe your argument is strong, but they still feel aesthetically wrong to me / they don't feel Trad / Ivy to me.
You're entitled to your opinion, of course. Even thought I don't happen to share it.

I'd note that individual determinations of what's "trad," can be colored by many factors - geographic, ethnic, socio-economic, familial, chronological, etc. (And, of course, many of these factors are themselves interrelated.)

It's not just horse bit loafers which can fall into a sort of grey zone. Consider questions about whether tassel loafers are trad? Or is it appropriate to wear an OCBD with a suit? Or loafers with a suit? Or socks with Top-Siders? Or a quartz wristwatch. Whether a Hyundai can truly be a "trad" motor vehicle. Or if there can be such a thing as a "trad" bar mitzvah. A "trad" gay wedding? And so on.

This time of year, I sometimes wear a seersucker suit. If I'm doing so when visiting friends of mine in central Virginia, nobody bats an eye. If I were to do so when visiting family in northern New Jersey, I'd be asked why I'm in costume.

The Académie française may be able to declare what is French, and what is not, and have most people accept the decision. But last time I checked, there's no Académie trad, with a similar power to promote uniformity and to protect trad's purity.
 
1 - 20 of 52 Posts