Hermes Sydney Loafer vs Gucci Horsebit 1953?

Those shoes are fresh af!! Was NOT hating on Gucci logo'd items at all, many of their lines are designed around one of their logos and look amazing imo. Was just saying in my experience many of my (typically younger) coworkers finding excuses to pull out their wallets in the office (???) to 'flash' their logos, etc.

I understand lol but was just showing my new pair which IMO ARE screamers but I loved them. They remind me of my Adidas from my youth.
 
I have both brands (with the addition of doc martens and handmade boots, H and Gucci shoes are all I've bought with few exceptions for 5 years. I don't have the Sydney (but then I'm not a man). I do have 4 pairs of 1953s though.

The Gucci 1953 is closer to the Norwegian indoor moccasin that the became the penny loafer Weegun. The Hermes Sydney are slightly more conventional/formal, they are more a direct comparison to Gucci's 1970s loafer (now called Jordaan).

Since you can get both resoled 'forever' price needn't be your sticking point. The classic is the Gucci, in this case Hermes is actually the 'wannabe'*.

Alain Delon wore Gucci 1953 loafers IRL and the films that counted. I mean, what other choice is there really?

*Incidentally there were also Cox loafers in the 1990s that were called Wannabe because they acknowledged wanting to be 1990s Guccis heeled version of their 1953 loafers (now called Vegas at Gucci).



They are both equestrian. The Gucci has a snaffle horse-bit, Hermes has a D-ring. They are 2 of the most common, simple horse-bits. Hermes is of course the only one of the two you can actually buy both full-size bits for your horse whereas the Gucci snaffle is an affectation, used to emulate saddleries (like Hermes) when putting it on their shoes.

Sorry to even ask as this was such an insightful, constructive write-up..

When you say the H is the 'wannabe' here, is it that it is the less original of the two loafers OR that is inferior in quality to the 1953? Is it still the superior shoe in terms of quality (back to H vs Gucci)?
 
  • Like
Reactions: kraaks
Sorry to even ask as this was such an insightful, constructive write-up.

When you say the H is the 'wannabe' here, is it that it is the less original of the two loafers OR that is inferior in quality to the 1953? Is it still the superior shoe in terms of quality (back to H vs Gucci)?

Not the poster (waving at papertiger)who made that statement but I doubt that anyone would suggest that Hermes footwear is quality inferior to Gucci in any shape, way or form. Hermes is also the much smaller and more carefully controlled production IMO. One can argue though that Gucci “holds the reins” (excuse the pun) on ownership of the luxury equestrian bit footwear business as they were making their loafers decades and decades before Hermes although I personally wouldn’t suggest that the Hermes is a wannabe-just that Gucci was known for that type of footwear first. That’s what I thought papertiger was saying anyway and I agree other than with the wannabe part. In my mind it made sense for Hermes to put a bit on their loafers-it reads as a stylized H and they are a true esquestrian house,

Gucci’s is “gutsier” IMO and Hermes is more refined. They’re both great loafers. I’m sorry I no longer own that Gucci loafer as I’d love another pair on the rubber lug sole.
 
Last edited:
If I understand correctly, h shoes used to be manufactured by Lobb. Since H acquired Lobb, shoes under the H brand are manufactured else where. I think those from Gucci are of better quality.
 
Sorry to even ask as this was such an insightful, constructive write-up..

When you say the H is the 'wannabe' here, is it that it is the less original of the two loafers OR that is inferior in quality to the 1953? Is it still the superior shoe in terms of quality (back to H vs Gucci)?

The first. Although Gucci wasn't the first loafer, Gucci made the slip-on shoe the desirable classic it is today. As yet, Hermes don't have a iconic men's shoe. Most men who are 'into shoes' shop elsewhere. Either the sturdy sort of British lace-up like Crockett and Jones sell or, basically Gucci for 'continental' style. BTW you ca do Made to Order from Gucci if you want an unusual or personalised special-to-you pair (I have some tan boar-skin loafers with light gold hardware, the skin is traditional to Tuscany, Gucci's birthplace ).

Hermes and Gucci shoes are quite similar in terms of quality and aftercare.
 
Last edited:
I
*Incidentally there were also Cox loafers in the 1990s that were called Wannabe because they acknowledged wanting to be 1990s Guccis heeled version of their 1953 loafers (now called Vegas at Gucci).
.

OMG I still keep one pair of Cox Wannabe’ s. They are black and shiny patent gold :P
When I got a pair of Vegas at Gucci last Winter, I liked that they reminded me of the Wannabes. Gucci is also playing with the association as they have a version with the Union Jack.

Sorry for the off topic. To the OP: Not doubting the quality of the Hermes version but, Gucci, a classic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: papertiger
DH and I have Lobb, made to order from carmina, bespoke from Japan, Chelsea boots from Australia, Gucci loafers, etc. H branded shoes are the last to considered in term of quality and making. But don’t take me wrong, I admire and is a fan of bags and many other things from h.
 
Gucci link doesn’t work but it doesn’t matter. We all know the shoe. IMO the look is virtually the same so I’d choose on fit/comfort. Chances are that one will fit you better than the other so go with the better fit as the look is pretty much the same. If resale value is important to you for down the road, IMO the Hermès will retain better value assuming you take care of your footwear,

BTW, I love Gucci and just bought a new pair of their sneaks last week, but I personally will always put Hermès at the very top of the luxury labels over all others. Still think you should choose on fit.

Oh! Really prefer the Gucci. They aren’t really the same just similar but I think the Gucci’s flat out look better.
 
DH and I have Lobb, made to order from carmina, bespoke from Japan, Chelsea boots from Australia, Gucci loafers, etc. H branded shoes are the last to considered in term of quality and making. But don’t take me wrong, I admire and is a fan of bags and many other things from h.

Was it bespoke from TYE? Their shoes are exceptional.