All Activity

I’ve been a writer and photographer for some fairly well known magazines - the guy they send to the really weird and offbeat places, lot the guy they have covering business or politics!

I've worn 12 cm heels for a whole day, but It depends a lot on what you're doing. I wouldn't wear them if I had to stand or walk for hours consistently. Giving a tought about it is always useful. Regarding the height calculation/conversion discussion: Another factor probably is that different manufacturers will use different scales. Then you'll never be able to have an exact calculation formula for all, but it doesn't have to be 100 % accurate anyway. @mlroseplant That makes sense, in this case I also wouldn't wear heels to the "office".

That's basically 2, 3, and 4 inch in my imperial mind. Part of the reason why I came up with the 94% calculation is because the Italian Heels chart did not quite make sense to me. In particular, why in size 40 do I have to have a full 11 cm to equal a 10 cm in size 38, but I only need 12.7 cm to equal 12? The proportions are all a little bit off. Therefore, I came up with my own. It may be that an 11 cm heel is what you get when you order a 10 cm heel in size 40 from them, but the math doesn't quite math. Oh yes, it absolutely does! To be fair, it has taken me over a decade to get to that point, but I didn't exactly take the short route when it came to training. If I were in the main office far away from any construction job site, I might consider wearing heels to work, but the far more likely scenario is that I'd be in the field office, the temporary office that is right there on the job site. Those folks often wear tennis shoes or casual loafers to work, and then have work boots and all the PPE there for the occasions where they might have to step foot on the actual job site. If I could guarantee that wearing heels in such a situation wouldn't negatively affect my job somehow, I'd do it, but I certainly can't guarantee that. Even the female superintendents and other supervisors would have a hard time wearing heels to the job without negative consequences. I did it in inches. USW size 9 is 9 7/8", which is the actual measurement of my size 9 foot. This is also typically given as an equivalent for EU size 40. Size 7 (or 38) is somewhere around 9 5/16". Looking at it again, the charts disagree with each other slightly, and depending upon how you round certain numbers, I came up with something like 94.3%, which I rounded down to 94. It seems some charts list size 9 as being 10" long. Your mileage may vary. Also why would I divide by 94% to convert something bigger to something smaller? I have the size 9 (40) in my hand. I can measure it. I do not have the size 7 (38) in my hand. Therefore, I need to multiply by 0.94 (or 0.95) to find out the information I need.

Interesting, and forgive me if I rework your calculations (with no criticism intended). I'm assuming that you are taking Eu38 as the benchmark for heel measuring? I think you meant 'divide by 94%' to convert a size Eu40 heel into its Eu38 equivalent, i.e. 100/0.94 = 10.64 or 4.2" (10.7?). I have a table quoting the length of Eu38 as 237mm and Eu40 as 250mm, so the ratio 237/240 is 0.948 - in round fgures 95% (rather than your 94%). On that basis, a 100mm heel in 40 would be 105mm in 38 to be in proportion. I accept of course that tables do vary and so do manufacturing tolerances, so differences of two or three millimetres is of no real consequence (except to a statistician - and we all know that there are 'lies, damn lies, and statistics'!). I can certainly agree that a 'high' heel is 4" or more, so the difference between that and its metric equivalent (102mm), or when considering the proportions on either side of a 'standard Eu38', is pretty trivial. For the record, I would consider a true 5" (127mm) heel as being the start of the 'very high' range - or 'stripper territory' when combined with a big platform as Shyheels opines - so 120mm is a tad on the low side. As higherheels says, a 130 or 140mm stiletto (with little or no plarform) can look very elegant and remain wearable, albeit not by everyone. And a 120mm heel with, say, a 30mm platform can look both ungainly and ugly.

Yes the Hot Chicks are very chic! I would love to try a pair out of curiosity’s sake, but they don’t come in my size and even if they did it’s too expensive for idle curiosity! I'm glad to hear that even you give thought to a day in 12cm heels - i feel a bit better about my own struggles with them! I’ve a pair of very nice suede Jean Gaborit OTK boots with 9cm slender - not quite stiletto - heels that would be great for Christmas markets. Warm and with slightly thicker 9cm heels perfect for a long day. I need to find some Christmas markets to wear them too!

OK, so we have the same definition 😉 I was just asking because you said upper limit of not-stripper-heels. 13 cm or 14 cm heels without platform sure are extreme, but I wouldn't describe them as stripper heels. But a 14 cm heel with a 6 cm platform might be a typical stripper heel in my eyes. I've also always been a big fan of 12 cm heels, but liked the Hot Chicks from the moment I first saw them. And now that I'm wearing them out more, I like them even more 🙂 Still not an everyday shoe though, mostly because of (dis)comfort. Style-wise it would work, but definitely always be an eye-catcher in every outfit. This weekend we're going to a christmas market already. Maybe I'll try some 11 cm boots for the beginning. Mostly there's standing for a long time at christmas markets, so I don't wanna regret it in the end if 12 cm were too much.

Yes, I’d agree with your definition. I don’t think there is an official definition, but the huge platforms and absurdly long heels (although not when you deduct the platform height) just scream “stripper” to me. aesthetically I always thought that 12cm stilettos are the ideal - they project just the right sort of stilettos imperiousness without going over the top. To me that always seemed the limit. I must say though your Hot Chicks and the new boots you’ve bought have shown me that heels of 13cm and even slightly higher can look really smart. it would be fun to go out to the Christmas markets in 12cm heels. I can see where your new boots could be a bit too much of a challenge for that just yet, but that fact that you feel nearly ready to try them in a real world setting is hugely impressive. I’m wearing 10 or 12cm stilettos all day, every day in my home office, and have really grown used to the idea of high heels being the norm. This challenge has been so beneficial

You guys must have or have had interesting jobs, I can't even really follow from the descriptions 🫢 How come that you would long to, but still wouldn't wear them? Good categorization, I also go with that! Is there actually a definition of stripper heels, or do you have a personal one? For me, the only type that comes to my mind are the ones with huge platforms and rather low heels (if you subtract the platform). Of course, join us if you want! I can also recommend trying something higher if you like the style. And yes, it really helps with lower heels too. I can feel the difference especially in something like a 11-12 cm heel, they became more comfortable for longer walks. Now that all the christmas markets and events are starting, I might as well try some higher ones for that and see how it goes. Not my new 13+ cm boots though, that would be too much. But I wear them everyday at home and it's getting better. I'm close to wearing them out for the first time.

I must say, practicing in higher heels really does improve one’s ease and ability in lower heights. I’ve been really surprised how much easier I find walking in my 10cm boots now that I’m putting in time in my 12cm ones.

This thread makes me want to go and get those 135mm Castamere boots and give walking higher a shot. Especially if it makes walking in 85 and 105mm heels more comfortable, or the feeling of walking in slippers.

Exactly (as I stated in the 'other' thread). UK timber is invariably sold in length increments of 300mm, which is close to the imperial foot that used to be the increment. 2.4m (7.87 feet) is a very common length and still often referred to as an '8 foot' - but don't complain if it isn't quite that long when making something! UK Practice does vary. It seems that '4 x 2' is very commonly used (and I favour that), but some chippies and most timber merchants would refer to or list it as '2 x 4'. The latter is logical in that a whole range of timber used for rafters, joists, studwork etc is a nominal 2" thick but varies in width from a nominal 2" to 8" or more, so typically listed as '2 x 4, 2 x 5, 2 x 6' etc (or nowadays by the metric equivalents: 47 x 96 etc). But any builder or carpenter will know what is meant by a '2 x 4' (or a '4 x 2'!) even if he never worked in imperial measurements. 'Plasterboard' is the usual term for the generic product (as we have at least three major UK manufacturers) but some older folk call it 'Gyproc', which is the trade name used (though not now very prominently) by the oldest supplier - British Gypsum. You will sometimes hear the installers called 'dry wallers', but that is not really correct as plasterboard was originally introduced as a means of boarding ceilings - walls came later! It is more usual to call the installer a 'plasterer' (if he also skims the boards) but plasterboard is often installed by general builders or carpenters; it is not really a skilled task. Boards often have tapered edges (filled with plaster filler over paper or mesh tape - another relatively unskilled task) rather than square (flush) edges which need tape and a full skim-over, which is where the proper plastering skills come in.

Happy Thanksgiving to all you in the other side of the pond. It is one of the traditions I most miss about my childhood in America all those decades ago - the great turkey feast and those once a year recipes that would be trotted out. I hope you are all enjoying yours! As for me I’m sitting by the fire, listening to the wind howl outside and enjoying a tot of rum while my curry simmers in the stove - and giving thanks in my own way, and not least for the comradeship found here in this forum!

I would agree with your assessments - 7.5cm for mid heel and 10cm as a minimum for high heels, with 12cm - or in the case of @higherheels Hot Chicks or the new boots she bought, both unusually nice exceptions - being the upper limit of classy (not stripper) heels. i just use the heel height chart on the Italian Heels website to reckon my actual heel height as opposed to the nominative height

As far as I'm aware, in the UK we always give the larger dimension first for sheet materials and timber. Hence 8' x 4' and 4" x 2". In the US I believe it's always the other way round. Sheetrock is not a term used in the UK. It's always plasterboard. I don't know what term is used for the guys who instal it, but I've heard "dry wallers".

I had some spare time yesterday, and wondered if I could come up with a formula that makes it easy to convert my size 40 into size 38 proportions. What I came up with is 94%. In other words, take my actual heel height, measured in person on size 40, multiply it by 94%, get the proportional heel height for size 38. It seems to work reasonably well, but it now requires that I rethink my entire categorization of heel heights. For example, I've always thought of 10 cm as being the minimum to be considered a "high" heel. Looks like I'm now going to have to up that to 10.7 cm, or almost 4 1/4". Interestingly, I have an oddly large number of shoes with that incline. It all make sense, now. It's probably an upscaling of a 4 inch heel from size 7 (38). I suppose it fits my new standard anyway--a 10 cm heel in size 40, which I now have to discount to 9.4 cm, feels remarkably mid-heelish these days. Here is my mental categorization, translated to size 38: Less than 5 cm is a flat, 7.5 cm is the lowest mid-heel, 10 cm is the lowest high heel. I'll go with 12 cm and above as being Very High, since I can't walk in them properly! I am trying to decide whether I'm going to convert to full-on metric the next time I do a shoe inventory. I'm kind of inclined (no pun intended) to do that, but since I do this for my personal entertainment anyway, why should I? Inside my weary head, I still think in inches, though I'm a whiz at translating to cm quickly, thanks in large part to my immigrant wife.

It's interesting that you refer to the plywood, et al., as being 8 x 4. At least in my locale, we would never refer to it that way. It's 4 x 8 here. Plasterboard we typically call sheet rock, though I think that's a brand name. Drywall is the generic U.S. term. I'm sure if I traveled 500 miles in any direction this would change slightly, but here in central Iowa, the person who installs said material is a drywaller, but we turn the brand name into a verb to describe the process of installation. Example of a conversation you might actually hear on a construction site: "Are you gonna rock that wall right now? "Uhhh, I was planning on it, yeah." "You know the fire alarm guys haven't finished that yet?" "Well, what if we just rock one side for now?" "They can prolly make that work. I'll let 'em know."

You didn’t miss much if you were going to be staying at McMurdo. Pole is pretty cool though. I got booted out of Palmer once. A few of us were whooping it up with a few of their guys and the base commander broke it up at 3am and ordered us back to our ship. There’s not exactly a great sense of joie de vivre amongst the NSF and military types that run the American bases

Well anyway, the point is that some of us have jobs that will allow the wearing of heels at work, and some of us do not. It has nothing to do with our professional qualifications or opportunities. It's more to do with circumstances. I doubt I would wear heels to work, even if I were in the "office." Though were I in the office, I would sure long to.

I pulled my name out of consideration for a 6-month scientific assignment for NASA in Antarctica in the late 70's.

Yes but your job doesn’t take you to Antarctica, Papua New Guinea, Chad or the Darien Gap - mine does and heels are not useful in those places, but otherwise I’m in heels at work, and since I’ve largely stopped travelling, in heels full time!

I'm more like @higherheels, I have a professional job so I can wear what I want at home and when I go in, and for me that's high heels.

I have the luxury of being self employed so when I am not travelling on assignment I am working from my kitchen table and can wear whatever I please. Theoretically I can wear whatever I please on assignments, but most of my assignments are in wild remote areas where hiking boots or engineering boots are the only sensible option. Even then, though, I do have some knee boots with the right soles

Ah, of course if you have to wear specific work shoes you don't have that much time left for heels. I have an office job so I can wear whatever I want at work, that's a plus when it comes to heels.

In the UK, as others have mentioned, you get plasterboard in sheets of 2400x 1200mm (8x4 metric feet) and plywood etc in 2440x1220 (8x4 proper feet). When you have that sort of thing, it's often convenient to refer to 300mm as a metric foot.

They are not. I purposefully diverted the off-topic conversation to here, where I don't care what we talk about. Do you know one of the meanest things you can do that is basically harmless if you don't count other people's wasted time and frustration? Throw a good sized handful of 12 mm bolts into a box of 1/2" bolts. I don't quite understand how the metric foot works--why not just use the SI unit? I do confess that when it comes to heel height, I think of 10 cm/100 mm as being four inch heels, and 150 mm as being six inch, even though it's not exact. So I suppose I get the rough approximation extrapolated to 300 mm/12 inch. What I don't understand is in what context is it used that way?