The Loafer That Thinks It’s a Scrunchie

These shoes look like your lips after you’ve eaten an entire bag of Sour Patch Kids.

Known as the ruched (or puckered or scrunched) loafer, they look like a standard lithe loafer until you hit the toe, which wrinkles like a shirt in need of ironing. Go into any boutique where the sales people are icy and the cashmere sweaters start at four figures and you’ll find these shoes, their curled toes jutting from the shelves.

“It’s kind of like the shoe trend of the era,” said Jian DeLeon, the men’s fashion director at Nordstrom.

Tom Ford’s ruched slip-ons run to $1,190. Saint Laurent offers them in glossy leather and tan suede and even makes one with a collapsible heel. (Two unshakable shoe trends in one!) There are versions for men and women, evidence of eroding gender fault lines in the footwear market. All of these ruched-toed shoes seem, at first search, to cost more than $1,000.

The Row is the agreed-upon originator of the scrunched toe. Its $1,290 Soft Loafer, which it introduced several years ago, has a toe that sits with an angular tilt, casting all that puckering in italic.

“It was great when the Row came out with it 10 years ago,” said Becky Malinsky, who writes the popular shopping newsletter “5 Things You Should Buy.” Malinsky’s hyperbolic dismissal aside, the shoes continue to sell well. The Soft Loafer in brown eel leather is sold out in all women’s sizes on the Row’s website.

Still, I can see also why Malinsky would dismiss these shoes. They have become a component in the stale starter pack of people who dress in a way that is informed by, and that reinforces, what is deemed “cool” in online fashion communities like those on Substack. They symbolize that you’re so thorough, so attentive to each piece of your outfit, that even your loafers must be built differently. And that you’ll pay to make it so.

But, really, what is it about the wrinkly toe that evidently makes the cost worth it? DeLeon offered that the puckering was the shoe equivalent of scrunching up your shirtsleeves. It lends “a bit of drama and visual interest to something otherwise quotidian,” he said.

I think there’s something to that. The scrunch reflects a casualness, an openness to imperfection that shoppers find appealing. These loafers say, “I’m untamable — you couldn’t polish me if you tried!” (Maybe you could with a nail-polish brush, but it sure would be time-consuming.) They’re of a piece with a moment in fashion that has wedged the door open to clothes that are knowingly a bit off — a moment in which ripped jeans have once more reared their head and polarizing culottes are back.

DeLeon had another theory: The puckering is a marker of luxury, a sign that a label has the technical know-how to create those creases without crumpling the shoe’s front.

It is, he said, “a bit of a litmus test because of how hard it must be to achieve the perfect gathered effect of the Row loafers.” In turn, it allows shoppers to think that the shoe is so well crafted that it has to be worth the money.

This theory falters when you probe more deeply. Or when you watch, as I did, TikToks that recommend alternatives. (When a shoe that sells for more than $1,000 becomes popular, you can bet that there will be a fervent discussion online of where to get the look for less.)

The best I clicked upon was the $215 version from Atorie, a label I had never heard of. In shape and scrunch, the shoe appears identical to the Row’s version. I sent it to a colleague who agreed. “Nearly indistinguishable,” she wrote. I did not buy the shoes, and I imagine that were I to do so, the leather would feel less luxe and the puckering would be less precise. But on my laptop screen, they sure looked close. And for many shoppers today, that’s all that matters, isn’t it?

Other things worth knowing about:

Kate Spade, which has been in perpetual rebranding mode for years, hired Jonathan Saunders as its new creative director. Saunders is seen in the industry as a steady hand, having clocked time at Calvin Klein and Alexander McQueen.
A book of Yohji Yamamoto’s sketches is set to be released by Thames & Hudson in October. The never-before-seen drawings had been stacked in cardboard boxes in a Tokyo warehouse until being unearthed a couple of years ago. When Yamamoto was asked about them, he said they were “just drawings.” They are, though, interesting enough to warrant a book.
Also on the book front: A24, that plucky little movie studio that could, has a book coming out on July 27 tabulating 179 sites across New York that appear in famous (and not-so-famous) movies. It’s got the “Funny Girl” tugboat; the pavilion that appears in “The Wiz”; Balthazar, which makes a cameo in “Hitch”; and on.
The Polo Bar may be moving — just four blocks away, and not until 2029 at the earliest.
In its latest issue, the French magazine L’Etiquette (maybe the best fashion magazine on earth?) has cataloged its “100 icons of French style.” I can’t help it, I’m a sucker for lists.
I would also fall, unfortunately, for the Gap “Guac” hoodie from its collaboration with the New York taqueria Los Tacos No. 1.
Toteme takes the top spot on Magasin’s Brand Rank list, which is not exactly scientific but always illuminating.
I tried on this hat backstage at a Louis Vuitton show a few months ago. I liked its pliable shape. It’s now out, and it’s, uh, $705. Nevermind!
Conor Oberst is on “Popcast” this week wearing a Needles track jacket and Gucci loafers. As he said, “You got to be photo-ready when you walk out your door these days.” Who knew Bright Eyes had big fits?
And, lastly, I want to shout out the reader Allon Kaye for rightly pointing out that there is a name for the more moderate versions of the men’s pants I wrote about on Tuesday: Hollywood trousers. They were a specialty of the swingy British tailor Edward Sexton. The more you know.

Ask Vanessa

I have a beautiful, sparkly, wide Vivienne Westwood bracelet. But I am a single woman with a mundane life, fighting my inner child. If I could, I would roam my territory massively bejeweled, even though jeans and a T-shirt or sweater is more appropriate. How terrible would it be to wear this bracelet with my daily wardrobe? I hate to just have it sitting around. — Priscilla, Portland, Ore.

There is a famous portrait of Coco Chanel by Man Ray taken in 1935 that shows her in a simple black dress with a black hat, smoking and as casual as can be with her hands shoved in her pockets. Yet she is also draped in pearls with enormous bejeweled cuffs on each wrist. If the photo had been taken today, she probably would have been wearing jeans and a white T-shirt, but she would have been just as bejeweled. … Read more.