mlroseplant

Before I got a really good look at the after-Christmas bank account balance, I got a couple more pairs of new shoes in. Received last week is a pair of black Coach patent leather pumps, round toe. I was going for something that was a little bit conservative and less in your face than some of my other shoes. I'm not sure I succeeded with these. Here are my observations:

The first thing I noticed is that the soles are leather. I won't say I wouldn't have bought them had I realized that, but I have in the recent past promised myself that I'm not going to buy any more shoes with leather soles. They just do not stand up to the conditions around here. Yes, I could get a sole protector installed, but I've already dropped a bundle on doing that with several other pairs, and I don't yet know how much I will actually wear these.

The stats: 4 inch heel. I think we can solidly call this a block heel, though it does have some nice curvature up toward the seat area, making it more pleasing to the eye than just a plain ol' block. The heel tip measures 7/8" across, or 22 mm, so not too clunky or chunky. The patent leather is very nice, and that's what people seem to notice first, moreso than the heels. The shoes are very light in weight, almost like you've got nothing on your feet. Given their modest 4 inch height, I found myself not noticing I had them on several times during their maiden voyage, which was a total of probably 2 or 3 hours, something like that.

Overall, I am pleased with them, except for that fact that I can't wear them in the rain or snow, or on the overly salted sidewalks of our church. Since they are single sole, I can almost understand the advantage of a leather sole, but if they're going to do that, make the leather a little thicker, like you'd find on men's dress shoes. I've never ruined a pair of men's dress shoes walking 100 m on a wet sidewalk. I cannot say the same for some of my "finer" quality high heels.

22 minutes ago, Puffer said:

Indeed!   Which is really why I have suggested that 'stiletto' and 'spike' are sufficient to describe the two discernible types of high, thin heel.   Adding qualifiers to them is superfluous.   There is still justification for some other names relating to thin heels however, of which perhaps 'kitten heel' (= low stiletto) is the best established.   And of course 'block heel', 'cone heel', 'wedge heel' etc are descriptive of other types of high heel that are definitely not stiletto or spike.

I will probably continue to use the term "near-stiletto" to describe certain heels, one of which is on the pair of shoes that got this whole conversation started. I could call them "just-a-little-too-thick-and-having-not-quite-the-right-proportions-to-be-stiletto heels." Or how about, "Slim-tapered-heels-but-not-cone-heels heels."?

On 1/10/2022 at 1:13 PM, SF said:

Bluejay....   You are only as old as you feel and/or act....  If you are older than me it ain't by much, and I get the feeing that you are pretty young at heart.  Wisdom and treachery are the best.  Smile...  sf

Stand-by for my next post......   

 

As best I can remember, I bought the “wrap thong” sandals pictured above (and below) in the early 1970’s when I was around 16 to 18 years old.  I was in high school or just beginning college.  

For as long as I can remember, I have been attracted to gals shoes.  As I got older and became more mobile, I would go “shoe shopping,” on my bike and then later by car, now that I had a drivers license.  I just liked looking at shoes, and wanted a pair of my own. 

Two other shoe-shopping incidents I remember distinctly.  I found a pair of really nice looking all leather Bernardo strappy sandals with a low wedge heel (wish I had a pic to show).  They looked really “cute” and I wanted them, but again they were at a full service department store, so I had to interact with the sales folks.  I was nervous, but gathered my courage and went inside.  I was assisted by a female clerk who could have been my mom.  She asked if she could help and I pointed out the shoes, and told her the size – 10 - I believe.  She came back holding the sandals and said that the largest size they had was a 91/2, which in those days was not unusual.  In addition it seemed, at least to me, that shoes back then ran smaller than they do now.  

She handed me the sandals and said for me to try them on, and I did.  Sadly the shoes did not fit, they were a bit too small.  I was disappointed and the sales lady seemed genuinely disappointed too.  She made some comment about the sandals looking very nice, but telling me that was the largest size available.  She did ask if there were any other shoe styles around that I liked, there were not. 

I gave her back the sandals and she apologized that a larger size was not available.  Even though I was not able to get the shoes I wanted, I really appreciated the time, patience and understanding this nice lady gave me.  I am sure she saw that I was nervous, and probably wondered why a young guy like me wanted a pair of womens sandals, but nonetheless I much appreciated her gentle demeanor.  

The other “shoe purchase incident” was around the same time, early 1970’s at a Payless Shoe store (I miss Payless).  Payless was one of the first shoe stores, at least in my area, to go with a “self service” sales model, none or minimal interaction with the sales staff.  I found a lovely and unique pair of “wedgie and strappy” thong style sandals in my size 11.  I took the shoes off the rack and began trying them on.  One of the sales ladies, again she could have been my mom, rushed up to me and almost grabbed the sandals from my hand.  With a smile and a kind voice, she said something on the order of, “Honey (I love it when they call me honey) these are ladies shoes, the men’s section is over there.”  I was nervous and a bit shocked by her reaction, but could tell that she was honestly just trying to help this poor misdirected kid.  I told the lady that I knew they were ladies sandals but I liked the style and wanted to try a pair.  She smiled, acknowledged my comment and let me be.  She returned a few minutes later and asked if the shoes fit and even said they looked nice on me, and pointed out a few other styles that did not interest me.  

I put the sandals back in the box, the same lady completed my purchase and she asked with a smile that I come back again.  As with the first experience, I appreciated that sales lady and her understanding and compassion.  Those Payless wedgie thongs were fun to wear, but unfortunately they wore out early and went bye bye.  

Enough of my past experiences, but fond memories to share.  It was these and other early on life experiences that validated my fondness for women’s shoes.  And to make things “worse” in 1995, the “high heel bug” got me bad.  Why do I and others here have this attraction?  For me, I don’t know, it is just the way I am and will always be.  And actually I sort of like it!  

In conclusion, here is a pic taken today, of the flat “wrap thong” sandals that started this tome.  I actually found them hiding in my closet.  They may get some use this spring / summer, even though heels have taken priority the past 20+ years!  Sometimes flats are fun to wear too.  Smile….   sf

 

 

Huh, still have them! Nice! They don't look to be clear wore out, but I can see why they've been in the back of the closet for a long time. You really need size 12, don't you?

11 hours ago, Puffer said:

Mlroseplant hasn't yet clarified whether his 'stiletto' definition requires a heel that is not only slim but is tapered towards the top (as I suggest) rather than wholly parallel (as on the green sandals).   I do agree with him about these otherwise attractive green sandals being marred somewhat by their 'wire nail head' flared heel tip and the other aspects he mentions; I used them only to illustrate the heel shape.  

I guess I would personally consider them to be "near" stiletto or "stiletto-esque." It's good to be precise, to examine the world before us, and discuss things we enjoy. When it comes to aesthetics, however, we eventually come back to the fallback of, "I know it when I see it." Or perhaps even better, "I know what I like when I see it."

In the end, none of this really matters, and if we never agree on a definition of what exactly makes a stiletto heel, the world will continue on its merry way. I think what is far more important is that we have enjoyed ourselves along our merry way. I've always said that often the best threads are the ones that deviate from the subject randomly. This one evidently did not disappoint. Apparently, I missed the whole cricket thing, but I can scroll back and find it there.

One thing that I have come to appreciate is that we have so many choices in modern times that we did not only a few decades ago. You can find almost any style you want now fairly easily, and if you're willing to go Chinese, you can get it at a fairly reasonable price. This in and of itself is really quite amazing.

21 hours ago, Puffer said:

As you wish (and I await your further thoughts), but I don't think we should totally ignore history and precedent here.   Stiletto does not simply equate to 'spike', tapered or not.

Here is another example of a heel that might be borderline stiletto.   Slim, round and evenly tapered (so not it seems parallel for 50% or more of its length) and with minimal seating.   An attractive sandal and most would call it a 'stiletto' - but I rather think it falls foul of either of our definitions so far (unless you really mean that 'it must not exceed that diameter (~10mm) for at least 50% of its length', so permitting taper).   Over to you!

Yeah, I'd go with borderline- or near-stiletto. What I object to, however, is that big mushroom head at the bottom of the heel. It almost looks like somebody has been using this as a punch, and has mushroomed the end of it, and now it needs to be ground off for safety! Other than that, the sandals ARE quite nice. I wonder if that single, thin strap around the toes would bite into your skin after a while. Oh, and the pointy toes. They're not super pointy like many these days, but honestly, how did pointy toed sandals become a thing? Perhaps these sandals are not for me after all. I like the general concept, though.

44 minutes ago, Puffer said:

'A stiletto (Italian: [stiˈletto]) is a knife or dagger with a long slender blade and needle-like point, primarily intended as a stabbing weapon.'   

The use of the word to describe a slender high heel clearly derived from this because of the perceived similarity of shape/appearance, probably influenced by some of the first truly stiletto-heeled shoes being made in Italy.   As the fashion became established (mid-late 50s), the term became the norm in the UK at least, although I believe that the alternative of 'spike heel' was more commonly heard in the US, at least initially.   (No doubt some older US members can comment on that.)

I'm surprised to know that the usual term in the Netherlands and Germany (at least) was simply 'high heel'.   That is so vague as to be barely descriptive at all - how high; thin or thick etc?   If someone says 'I like wearing high heels', it really tells us nothing about the shoes she favours other than they are not 'flat' - another vague description.

The terminology here in the midwest U.S. in the 1980s was generally "spike" heel. If you could pop a balloon with it, it was a spike heel, and if you couldn't, it was a regular high heel. I don't think the term "stiletto" caught on much until that Sex and the City T.V. show, more than a decade later. That's a good thing, because those spike heels of the 1980s were NOT, in my opinion, stiletto heels, any of them. The shape was all wrong. 80s heels share more similarity to cone heels than they do stilettos. They are not cone heels, of course, but stylized, curvier versions of cone heels.

A few observation about women's high heels of the 1980s: They got worn a lot more by more people than do today's heels. Open-toe/peep toe pumps were a serious fashion trend back then. Always worn with hosiery. I do not recall a platform in sight, unless it was on a Candies type wooden shoe, where a platform is kind of necessary for structural integrity. And lastly, they just weren't as high as I remember them. The awful high heel desert of the 1990s affected my memory. Thanks to social media in the modern era, my present recollection has been refreshed, and in some cases, corrected.

You see, in my mind, when I remembered high school and college, I remembered girls wearing what is pictured in the first image, and I sort of romanticized the era. Yeah, you had that over-the-top hair and some other somewhat ridiculous looking accessories, but hey, it seemed like everybody wore heels that were quite high at least somewhat regularly! Now, because of the internet, I have many photographs at my disposal from that era, and I see that nobody wore shoes like that. Not around here, anyway. They wore shoes like are pictured in the second image. Or, even more probable, the third.

15 hours ago, Puffer said:

Do you mean a wedge shoe similar to these below.   Most usually, as you say, with the upper and entire heel in the same material and colour.   I think they are rather elegant and appeal to those women who like a high but more stable heel that is not clumpy.   As single-sole sandals, they were popular in the UK for several years (but not I think for the last 15 or so) but are still around as boots.

                 

 

Do you still consider the 'spike' heel (as I described it above) as being a true stiletto - or even a sub-set?   My view remains that it is in a class of its own and does not justify the 'stiletto' label.

 

Yes, that is an iteration of what I am talking about. Somewhere in the back of a closet, my wife still has a couple of pairs of these, I am sure. They've probably never been worn. As I recall, they were courts or possibly Mary Janes, I don't remember. We carted them all the way from Vietnam nearly 14 years ago, but her feet grew an entire size after the baby, not an unusual story. I have never seen shoes like this since.

As far as my definition of "stiletto heel," I was basing it more upon the shape of the dagger rather than any precedent set by shoe designers of the 1950s. In my definition, the seat is irrelevant. And by the way, I just completely made this up last week. This is nobody's definition but my own. I have only two requirements for something to be called a stiletto heel. 1) The tip or top piece must be small, probably 10 mm or less, and 2) it must retain that diameter for at least 50% of its total length. Any other curvature is merely ornamental.

I haven't time to finish my thoughts at the moment. I'll check back later.

I kind of understand why one would get the urge to coin a phrase like "stiletto wedge," but even if the term were correct, the above example of such shoes would not qualify anyhow. The heel has got to be 3/4" wide, and it has too gradual of a taper, more in the style of a cone heel.  Nice shoes, but they don't really resemble a stiletto in any way. In fact, I have never really seen a wedge in this country that would really fit the bill. I have seen such shoes in Vietnam, where they were somewhat popular for maybe a year. They resemble stilettos, only with the triangular space between the heel and the angled part of the sole filled in with a wedge similar in color and material to the rest of the shoe. Their popularity did not last long, as they have all of the visual heaviness of a wedge (at least from the side) while at the same time retaining most of the disadvantages of a stiletto.

15 hours ago, HelenInHeels said:

Nerdy describes it pretty well. What is it with you guys that you make a science out of everything? I simply buy the shoes that i like and can afford and do not care what the type of heel is, the heel just has to match the other part of the shoe.

Why? It is probably because I am my father's son. My father is not a scientist, but rather a philosopher. He taught at university for 37 years. Among his students were many of my peers, and over the years, my father became famous for one teaching method in particular: Number One, he would call directly and individually on his students in class, and if you hadn't read your assignment for that day, God help you. Number Two, even if you had read the assignment, and answered his question, after he had listened to your answer, he would often give you that LOOK, and say nothing. After several seconds of silence had gone by, he would ask, "But why, Miz Helen, WHY?" I know English is not your first language, but you have to imagine a Southern U.S. accent when you hear in your head the word "why?" I have heard many of his former students try to imitate his voice over the years. Only I can do it properly, as my voice sounds pretty much exactly like my father's. Eventually, the student would work out what he was trying to teach.

So, in answer to your question, I guess this is my way of trying to answer the question "why?" Rather than just saying, "It is what it is." Why do we find certain things pleasing? To be sure, I do not go through this process when picking out a pair of shoes (or anything else, for that matter), but I do find it interesting to attempt to answer the question "why?" If that makes me a nerd, so be it. I've been one all of my life.

I remember those, although I was in elementary school at the time. As I recall, it was not a great time for heels, but there were a lot of these type of sandals floating around. I am curious, just how old were you when you went into the shoe store to purchase these? There ain't no way I would have done that at such a young age. Ain't no way.

I get the pack rat thing. Unfortunately, there are 3 of us who are that way in this household, and for different sorts of things. We drive EACH OTHER mutually crazy.

21 hours ago, Jkrenzer said:

I agree with your assessments as a whole, and love your examples. I have a pair of blades, actually seem to get the most and best comments when I'm wearing them. I have another example not shown, I'm at work so no access to imagery. I have severl pair of metal round cross section heels with little taper from the tip until just before the foot heel. I consider these to be stilettos but kind of a sub-class. Spike stilettos. 

21 hours ago, Isolathor said:

Are these stilettos?

Both of you seem to have the same type of heel in mind, and I believe I addressed that in my initial definition, but without a pictorial presentation of such. And yes, I think such shoes clearly meet the definition of "stiletto heel." I believe that definition even includes those shoes of this type without a true "seat," ungainly as that may look. See attached photo. The shape and size of the heel still meets the definition.

On a more personal note, I have always liked the metal heeled stilettos, but don't actually own any. I was introduced to such in the late 1980s, when shops such as Wild Pair and Bakers had models with just the bottom half that was metal. Such a pair was featured as the murder weapon in the 1992 film "Single White Female." Oddly enough, this type of heel was on its way out of fashion by then. I've only seen a few of these out in the wild, but they sure did have a distinctive sound.

15 minutes ago, Chorlini said:

I think splitting hairs with a measuring tool is a bit on the nerdy side.

A bit on the nerdy side? What are you talking about? It's totally nerdy. But it makes for better conversation than simply going with the U.S. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart definition of pornography, "I know it when I see it."

7 hours ago, Cali said:

The type of closure makes a difference to me. The harder they are to get in and out of makes a big difference. My wedges are very easy to get on and off. So when I am home working at my desk I tend to kick them off and walk barefooted. If I have some lace up or zip up ankle booties, I tend to stay in them. My knee highs stay on all day, I don't even think about taking them off.

Also I almost always drive in heels.

I never realized it before, but this might be one reason I prefer mules, and 50+% of my collection are of that configuration. However, not all of my mules are really easy to get on and off. That will give me something else to catalog--"no hand" shoes vs. "hand" shoes. Hand intensive shoes vs. minimal hand shoes. It could be interesting.

We live in a "hybrid" house. The downstairs is so configured and floored that you probably would not want to walk barefoot most of the time, so downstairs is a shoe-on space. Shoes are not allowed upstairs, however. Therefore, it behooves one to wear easy-on, easy-off shoes around the house. I do occasionally break the rule if I've gotten fully dressed to go out somewhere with fiddly shoes, and need to run upstairs for something at the last minute.

Several days ago, I took part in an interesting discussion about stiletto design, mainly involving @Pufferand me. Unfortunately, it was on the "new shoes" thread, and I thought it would be in bad form to continue it there. I've rarely had success in keeping momentum when transferring something to another thread, but I am going to try anyhow.

In the knife world, a stiletto is a small, straight dagger that has an extremely sharp point and two cutting edges. Traditionally, the edges were not even sharpened, and the user relied solely upon the sharp point for the dagger to do its damage. In modern times.  .  . well, who cares what they do in modern times, what has this got to do with heels? The point is, and I do mean point, that the dagger and the style of shoe heel have certain similarities, but the similarities only go so far.

The discussion that Puffer and I were having centered upon the question of "When is a stiletto heel not really a stiletto heel?" We both agreed that mere tininess at the bottom of the heel does not necessarily a stiletto make. It has to have a certain shape to it from top to bottom, and a certain proportion which can be rather difficult to describe. After some consideration, I have determined that the key factor is that to be a true stiletto, the heel tip must be small, and it must have a straight section that extends somewhat more than halfway up the entire length of the heel, starting from the tip. Traditionally, there is a pleasing curvature between the seat (the part where the top of the heel meets the body of the shoe) and the straight section, but I do not believe it is a requirement for stiletto status. To my mind, the transition from large to small diameter could be angular, or it could not exist at all, as in those awful heels that look like 3/8" metal rods stuck to the bottom of a shoe.

Let us examine five pairs of shoes that I have pictured here, and I will say why I think they are examples of true stilettos or not. The first example, pictured in the first two images on the left hand side, is what I would call a classic shaped stiletto heel, if a little bit on the tall side for some here. It begins at 10 mm, both front to back and side to side, remains at that dimension for half the length of the heel, then gradually curves to the larger dimension, both from the back and from the side(s), until it matches the dimension of the seat. No question about stiletto status here.

The second example, pictured in the first two images in the center, I would call a "setback" stiletto, though the setback is not as severe as some examples we see in modern fashion. It starts at 9 mm, remains at that diameter for more than half the length of the heel. Although it has very little curvature at the back (viewed from the side), it has a marked curvature on the sides (viewed from the back), until it increases to the dimension of the seat. Not perhaps as pleasing as the first example, but still clearly a stiletto.

The third example, pictured in the first two images on the right hand side, are the new-to-me pumps I bought recently, and here is where things start to get a little murky. This heel begins at 10 mm measured side to side, but is 12 mm measured front to back. A little bit on the big side for a stiletto, but not in and of itself a disqualifier. The murkiness begins when you examine the curvature of the heel. Moving from the tip up, the tip dimension is only maintained for about a inch, maybe a little bit more. At that point, the dimension of the heel gets larger, and it gradually increases at an ever increasing rate (in other words, not straight sided like a cone) until it finally meets the seat. I could go either way on this one. I don't feel like it's a true stiletto, especially when viewed from the side, because there is not really enough percentage of straight section, although there is some. I could entertain an argument that says this is a stiletto, although my gut tells me that it's close, but no cigar.

The fourth example, pictured in the third image by itself, are the Aldo oxfords I bought probably 8 years ago, and were my first truly narrow heels, and also the first heels I ever had that were dressy enough to wear with a suit. Previous heels I had were all chunky-ish heeled clogs or wedge sandals. Although these were benchmark shoes for me in my heeling journey, I'm going to draw the line here, and say that these are NOT a stiletto heel, at least not in the pure sense. First, the tip starts at about 12 mm measured in both directions, which is ever-so-slightly on the big side for stilettos, but let's ignore that for a moment. The shape of the heel is not right for a stiletto. Starting from the tip, there is almost no straight section, especially when viewed from the side. It's not a cone heel, it definitely has a nice curvature to it viewed from the back, but it doesn't really have much of a straight section, so therefore cannot be called a stiletto heel. I still like them though, and have worn them very recently in public. They nearly always get compliments.

Lastly, we will examine the fifth example, pictured in the fourth image, and lifted from the internet, the Casadei Blade heel. Though it seems in many ways like it ought to be a stiletto (after all, its name is "blade," is it not?), the curvature of the heel starts way too soon after moving away from the tip, and that to me disqualifies it as a true stiletto. Also, it has that rectangular cross section. I don't know if that alone disqualifies it, but it somehow doesn't seem right. I could definitely imagine that there may some disagreement on this example.

And that's my attempt to resurrect a subject I feel needs more discussion. It took rather more pencil than I had at first imagined, but hopefully I have laid out my opinion clearly enough, and now you can add yours!

As a juror? I would, absolutely! As a defendant? Probably not.

20 hours ago, bluejay said:

Nice pic mirose. Just a question, what are you wearing for pants under your top coat. Are you wearing skinny jeans or something else. Last night when I went to my 6 PM church service I wore a pair of blue knee boots with navy blue leggings. My coat was shorter and one could see that I was wearing leggings. I like wearing leggings and I do so alot, whether with boots  or shoes. Heels of course.

Happy Heeling,

bluejay

In this case, I was just wearing jeans, which I suppose you could have seen if I had taken a picture without the coat. It didn't occur to me to do that, since it was right around 0º when I took this picture. I have worn leggings to church before, but not very many times. Usually I wear some dressier pants that are skinny-ish, but didn't on this particular day.

I actually voluntarily wore boots yesterday! Sorry for the grimace. It was awfully bright outside, what with all that snow.

On 12/29/2021 at 1:56 PM, Cali said:

  While that was happening I had a conversation with one of their sales associates while she was fitting a woman customer. She wanted to know how high my heel was (5 inch with a 1.25 inch platform). I told her it was about a 3.5 to 3.75 inch rise, and then she told me that she could never walk in heels that high. 2.5 inches was her max and she feels like she is about to tip over at that height. How many times have you heard that?

We've heard it a lot of times, and it continues to be one of the mysteries of life. The question remains, are we freaks of nature, or are we simply more committed to wearing heels than are the vast majority of others? I think it is some combination of both, the combination being different for each person, of course.

21 hours ago, mlroseplant said:

I didn't wear heels at all this week! Unless you count the 2 inch wedges I normally use as house slippers and/or "farmer's market" shoes. I don't feel they really count as heels. Some of you may be wondering why, and like the song says, I can't tell you why. I just didn't feel like it. We will see what next week brings. I do plan on wearing heels to church this morning, if the car will start. Currently, the temperature is -9º F, -23º C.

Broke my streak! But the total time was less than 3 hours. I think I'll do better this week. Besides, I'm supposed to get a new pair of shoes today.

7 hours ago, Pierre1961 said:

It happened to me to have to skip heels for  some days. Then I have to restart with lower ones on the first hours. To give the ankles some time to regain the flexibility. 
Same for you? Or any tip !

Yes, it is the same with me. I have to start with lower heels. It's like with ballet dancing or playing a musical instrument. If you skip a day, or three, you must begin again. Well, maybe not begin again, but it is time to relearn.

By the way, the cars all started! They didn't like it, but they started.

I didn't wear heels at all this week! Unless you count the 2 inch wedges I normally use as house slippers and/or "farmer's market" shoes. I don't feel they really count as heels. Some of you may be wondering why, and like the song says, I can't tell you why. I just didn't feel like it. We will see what next week brings. I do plan on wearing heels to church this morning, if the car will start. Currently, the temperature is -9º F, -23º C.

Isn't funny how some shoes catch your fancy, and some just don't? My latest pair is a "don't." There's nothing wrong with them, Franco Sarto navy blue suede and snakeskin print pumps, they just don't inspire me like the previous pair of new shoes did, introduced about 15 replies before this one. My newest shoes feature a 4 1/2" near stiletto heel and a slight hidden platform, making the steepness factor somewhere south of 4".

I say "near stiletto" because for some reason, even though the tape measure says otherwise, these just don't have the look or feel of a true stiletto. My personal view is that stiletto heels start at about 10 mm in diameter and go thinner from there. I could see where one could make the argument for 12 mm, but certainly no bigger than that. The heel of this shoe bumps up against both of these parameters but does not exceed them. The heel is 10 mm measured from side to side, and about 12 mm front to back, theoretically putting it in stiletto territory, but it still does not seem like a true stiletto to me. Perhaps it is because the heel doesn't slim down from top to bottom very quickly, especially from the side, it doesn't give the visual effect I feel a stiletto should.

I've worn these out in the real world once, and they are.  .  . unobjectionable. The one thing I discovered right away is that I don't own any navy blue socks/hosiery, so I had to wear black. I wore enough black with my ensemble, which also had brighter blue elements in it, to make it appear as though I had done the black socks on purpose. Even though that may have broken several rules of fashion, I think it went all right together. The shoes themselves are comfortable enough, and walking at an effective 3 3/4" or so, why wouldn't they be? I just can't get really excited about them.

An interesting question, and more difficult to answer than I would have thought at first blush. I am one of many who cannot wear heels to work because of the nature of my profession. When I get home, I always change into heels, though sometimes the height is not particularly impressive. However, it doesn't feel like much of that time counts because it's incidental and intermittent. Theoretically, I'm in heels for about 6 hours a days on weekdays, but it feels like it should only count for 1 or 2. For example, my shoes are right here beside me, but not on my feet as I type this. I do have some outside obligations during the week, those definitely count.

Same thing for the weekend, only more. Theoretically, I'm in heels more than 16 hours a day on the weekends, unless I've something specific to do where I wouldn't wear heels, like yardwork and such. But you can't really count that as being in heels for 16 hours. Typically, whether it be church activities or the occasional shopping trip, the maximum continuous duration I'm ever "in heels" would be about 5 hours. I have had occasion to have been in heels the entire waking day before, and it's definitely something I'd have to get used to should I ever decide to become a tour guide in my old age.

On 12/26/2021 at 9:07 AM, Puffer said:

I'm never sure what is the attraction of added clear vinyl panels (or straps etc).   They are not needed to strengthen what would be quite an attractive D'Orsay cutaway court like these and, to my mind, cheapen the overall look.     But if they get your wife back into heels ... 

PVC is certainly all the rage with Asian women, usually combined with a Lucite block heel.

On 12/25/2021 at 5:25 PM, VirginHeels said:

I suppose that’s the difference between here in the UK, apart from crown owned or land owned via certain Dukedom’s, trees cannot be within a 4meter (13ft 1inch) range of any plan of the house. Plus trees must be limited to a 6 foot (England) or 2 meter (Scotland & Wales) in height and diameter, in line with fence height. Your neighbours can sue for enforcement, but is largely a last case scenario, but is often done for right to light.

Not that you can sue a neighbor for cutting down a tree here, but most of us would rather have the shade than the light. Different climate, I suppose.

Merry Christmas, everyone!

I finally did make it to the optometrist last week, for the first time in 4 years. Surprisingly, my prescription changed only slightly during that time. Therefore, I will soldier on with my current specs. It IS time to get new safety glasses, though. Those things are holding together with a little spit and bailing wire.