Some shoes we simply wear. Others, we debate endlessly.
New Balance’s mutant 1906L is clearly in the latter category. Introduced last year, New Balance’s shoe is a mash-up of a sneaker and a loafer, christened the “Snoafer” by the internet. It’s a mutt-like design caught in the liminal space between informal and formal.
Whatever else the Snoafer may be, it has been polarizing. Versions of the shoes keep selling out (though how many have been produced is unclear), yet detractors say that the Snoafer is just plain ugly.
In an edited conversation, Jon Caramanica, Stella Bugbee and Jacob Gallagher, three members of The New York Times staff (two of whom actually purchased the Snoafers) discuss the shoe’s Frankensteinian merits, how it has been received by their respective family members and if it’s actually ugly enough.
STELLA BUGBEE There’s something profoundly perverse about these shoes.
JACOB GALLAGHER I could see someone saying that they don’t go together in an orange juice and toothpaste sort of way, but perverse? Say more.
BUGBEE They don’t know what they want to be, and yet they are unapologetically themselves. That tension produces an uncomfortable feeling in me — in a good way, I think.
GALLAGHER I felt that way a bit when I saw them online, but when I put them on after buying them and looked down, I thought, “Oh, is that all there is?”
JON CARAMANICA Seeing them, I immediately thought of, say, vintage Geox shoes — the sort of brand you might see in a print ad deep into the cheap pages of a men’s magazine. Or even worse, those terrible attempts at athletic office footwear from Cole Haan. We all hate those things.
GALLAGHER You’re talking about Cole Haan’s LunarGrands, which were a monstrosity. They called attention to their juxtapositions. The upper was dressy, while the sole, which was often neon, was not just informal, but futuristic. Or so Cole Haan wanted you to think. The 1906Ls though, meld. They’re like the creature at the end of “The Substance.” They takes two distinct halves and distort them into one uncanny whole.
BUGBEE The reaction I got when I posted pictures of the 1906Ls on Instagram was overwhelmingly negative, which only made me think that they were cooler. If everybody hates a thing, it must be doing something right?
GALLAGHER But to go back to your earlier point, Stella. Do you think people thought they were perverse or merely ugly? Are people reacting to this shoe because it’s new or because they find it unappealing? That’s an important distinction.
BUGBEE I can’t tell. I don’t think the 1906Ls are ugly, but that was the consensus from my friends and family.
CARAMANICA My counterpoint is that they are not ugly enough! The black pair especially.
GALLAGHER I’m with Jon here. They’re not ugly. They’re definitely not in the category of Jon’s beloved Balenciaga Triple S, a sneaker that knowingly bonked itself on every branch of the ugly tree.
BUGBEE People especially hated the tiny “N” on the top.
CARAMANICA That’s funny about the “N” — that’s the gesture on this shoe that feels maybe a touch radical? Like some intersection of a $3 pair of “breathable sock shoes” you’d find on Temu and the very long tail of Virgil Abloh’s sense of play with text on clothing.
GALLAGHER The “N” might be the riskiest thing on the shoe! Who puts a logo there? That to me is part of the appeal. They’re giving something new to a hype consumer (after all, they keep selling out) while knowingly dipping into geriatric territory.
CARAMANICA Can I offer two more reference points for shoes that tried to walk this tightrope before? First, my beloved Jordan Two3 Cavvy from the early 2000s, which is essentially a Prada loafer with an athletic tilting sole and an accentuated elastic top. A messy blend of casual and formal. And second is the Nike Air Verdana, a golf shoe, also from the early 2000s.
In their day, I disliked both of these. But at least on the Cavvy, I have come around to its elegance. Which is to say, maybe the 1906L will just need two decades to be normalized and appreciated.
BUGBEE I put them more in the category of the Nike Air Rift Tabis — sneakers with mutant ambitions.
CARAMANICA Yes, but the Rifts don’t pretend to any kind of formality.
BUGBEE The 1906Ls do not feel formal to me. They retain their sneakerness.
CARAMANICA Then it sounds like what you want is … a sneaker?
BUGBEE No, I wanted a comfy slip-on, with the shape of a loafer and the sole of a sneaker that would make my whole family want to walk 10 feet away from me in public.
GALLAGHER So you wanted the repulsion?
BUGBEE Yeah, I like a little troll.