mlroseplant

4 hours ago, Puffer said:

To whom is that comment addressed, Bubba?

That would be me. There is this nasty rumor floating around that I'm a lawyer. To tell the truth, I'm really not sure whether I am or not officially, and at this point, I don't really care. All I know is, the insurance company (homeowner's insurance) paid to clear my driveway so I could get to my garage, but they would not pay for my guest's crushed car. None of it was worth enough money to fight over, which is probably what the insurance companies count on.

Interestingly enough, the tree was sound, in other words, not rotten. It's just that we had an early, very heavy, wet snow, and the leaves were still on the trees. It just couldn't bear the weight of all that sloppy snow. Bad luck! I miss that tree. And my guest misses his classic Honda Accord.

I had no idea that they had made honey locust trees into boots.  .  .

THIS was considered to be an "Act of God" by my insurance company. They would pay to clear my driveway, but they wouldn't pay for the poor car!

On 12/20/2021 at 10:31 AM, Cali said:

Mom pants or mom jeans is a slang term for high-waisted women's jeans that were originally fashionable in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
 

They are characterized by being high waisted (4+ inches above the belly button), baggy, high ankle in length (short), with a flat curvature for the buttocks. Non-flattering.

I prefer slim and skinny jeans, especially those that are hyper-stretch.

My own mother attempted jeans at about this point in time. They were so not her style that I don't think she's ever worn a pair since.

I like the super stretch skinny jeans for myself, but at this time of year, it's difficult to fit the long johns underneath, so I opt for just a tad looser than skin tight. My ex-wife (from Orange County) used to say that because southern Californians didn't have to focus on staying warm, they could spend that energy to develop humankind--like inventing the perfect fake fingernail!

14 hours ago, Puffer said:

  At the end of the day, the name doesn't really matter - we know what we like to see or wear!

At the end of the day, you and I just like to talk, so none of it really matters. That's what my wife would say.

On 12/14/2021 at 4:39 PM, Puffer said:

I prefer the mules!   

I think that the pumps (courts) have what is often called a 'French heel' - the thicker forerunner in the higher/slimmer heel category to the stiletto.   (I would hope that Pierre1961 is an expert on the history of these!)   Whilst on the subject, to my mind a block heel does not need to be truly rectangular (if only because its back will almost always have some curvature) but is typically a heel that is of the same width as the shoe and has a similar front-to-back length and little or no taper.   But I don't think any heel nomenclature is that precise - many shoes have what are called 'stiletto' heels (simply because they are slim and usually high) that have a shape and/or position that owes little to the classic stiletto.

I'm afraid we're going to have to change the name of my new pumps, now that I've gotten used to calling them the "French heeled courts." I thought so at the time, but didn't have the time to dig it up, but I didn't really think my shoes looked like they had a French heel, despite the catchy name. A French heel, as I suspected, is curvy, both at the front and the back, whereas my shoes have straight sided heels. Here is an interesting article:

https://blog.americanduchess.com/2012/08/v234-what-kind-of-heel-is-that-quick.html

If we can take this woman at her word, the closest I can see in this article to the shoes I've got is a Spanish heel, although it's an imperfect fit. The problem is that all of these names are historical names, and my shoes are relatively new by comparison, with much higher heels than any of the shoes pictured (or in several cases, not pictured) in this article.

14 hours ago, Puffer said:

Yes, different terms for the same thing.   In the UK, a vest is usually regarded as a sleeveless cotton (or string cotton) undershirt (which may or may not have buttons), although we do understand its alternative name for what we usually call a waistcoat - they are both sleeveless and worn under something else.   A T-shirt is like a vest but with short sleeves and is generally worn exposed, but can be used as an undershirt.  A singlet can be a vest or a sleeveless T-shirt, the latter being worn exposed (as for athletics etc); I have never heard it called a A-shirt here.   The term tank top is not used so much but is understood to be a more stylish sleeveless T-shirt/singlet, particularly if worn by a woman as a fashion garment.   Some people wear a T-shirt rather than a vest/singlet as an undershirt.   Complicated, ain't it?   And, to round things off, there used to be a man's jacket called a doublet - which despite its name was not the equivalent of two singlets and fell out of fashion in the 17th century!

Here is the well-known Scottish character Rab C. Nesbitt, wearing his grubby string vest (and sweat band).   He was the star of a late-1980s comedy series and, although an alcoholic and uncouth layabout, not a wife-beater as such!   And slovenly layabouts in general (real or fictional) do often wear a fully-exposed grubby singlet in the warmer weather, typically sitting above a beer belly - not a pretty sight.

Nobody calls them "A-shirts" here, either. That's just what the package they come out of says. The thing I've never understood about A-shirts as undergarments is what, exactly, are they supposed to do for you, besides possibly show through your dress shirt? They do nothing to protect the armpit area from sweat stains, which to my mind is one of the reasons for wearing an undershirt in the first place. Back when we didn't wash clothes every single wearing, this was kind of important. Now that we do tend to throw the shirt in the wash every time we wear it, I'm not entirely sure what the purpose of an undershirt, sleeved or unsleeved, is. No wonder we had to start wearing them on the outside.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but your illustration depicts perfectly why I won't wear a tank top. Fair or not, that's the image that goes with such a garment on a man. Well, that and the fact that my shoulders are toilet-bowl-white, and it would take many sunburns to get them to equal out with the rest of my arms after so many years. I would be remiss if I didn't mention the fact that this is a double standard, and one which I personally am not willing to break, particularly at my age. Women are allowed, if not expected, to show their shoulders and arms, even in some of the most formal settings. Men aren't allowed to do this.

Back to our original image of the halfway normal looking guy, the deeply scooped tank top combined with the super high waisted (and front pleated!) Mom pants, not to mention to mention the empty and protruding belt loops, produce an image that I would rather not be associated with. Same goes with the other normal looking guy with the Lucite pole shoes. Why didn't somebody get him a decent looking pair of shoes to wear instead of those ridiculous things? Does he actually wear those in real life?

On 12/15/2021 at 3:58 PM, Puffer said:

In the context of your overall look as pictured, the court shoes do look a better 'match'.   But in terms of footwear style/design, I prefer the stiletto mules to the 'French Heel' courts!   

Since this reply, I've worn the French Heeled Courts (I guess we'll call them that, for lack of a better name) a couple more times.  For some reason they seem very natural, even though they are clearly styled as a woman's shoe, and one that is quite possibly a little out of date, at that. See here the semi rounded toe and clearly defined "V" throat.

On 12/17/2021 at 3:57 AM, Puffer said:

I agree with you about the emphasis being totally wrong, given the photos; they all made me cringe, especially silver streak.   And I was completely flummoxed by the reference to 'a wife beater', which I now understand to be a sleeveless vest - a singlet to those in the UK.   A nasty term with a nasty origin, and rarely acceptable dress outdoors except for athletic activity.

I guess I'd never really thought about it, that's just what we've always called them, though to be fair, a true "wife beater" would probably have to be white, perhaps slightly ribbed, most likely be slightly stained, and have orginially come out of a package that said "Hanes A-Shirt." What the fellow in the article is wearing is technically here in the U.S. called a "tank top." The A-shirt was originally designed as a piece of upper body underwear, the function of which I never quite understood, having always preferred T-shirts myself (same thing, but with short sleeves). It wasn't until I was quite a bit older that I would have considered even wearing a white T-shirt as an actual shirt, much less an A-shirt.

The difference between an A-shirt and a tank top is unclear to me, there probably isn't any. I find it rather charming that you British English speakers refer to this as a "vest." We also have "singlets" here, but they are used only for the sport of wrestling as far as I know, and they include the pants in one piece as well, so they're totally different. Yet another way we are divided by a common language.

I suppose I had ought to stop using the term "wife beater" to describe said item of clothing. It just never occurred to me that one would call it something else.

The creator has been sued many times, but somehow never successfully!

I'd call myself of child of the 80s, but since I'm from the midwest U.S., we're behind a few years on all things fashion, so I definitely remember the 70s styles lingering on well into the 80s. I definitely remember my share of huge shoes, mostly on women, but on men too. I also remember a lot of bell bottomed pants where you couldn't really see what kind of shoes a person was wearing.

I never liked any of it, and once shoes with smarter, thinner, tapering heels started showing up on girls' feet, I was happy. That doesn't mean I liked everything that was going on at the time. Before the classic 1980s pump with its uniquely shaped stiletto heel took over, there was a period where girls wore sandals with tall, tapered wooden heels with everything, including all winter. The most famous example of this style was Candies shoes, but most girls wore a similar style, only with a back strap or with an ankle strap. It's a style I always liked, and my current collection features many shoes of this type. However, at the time, you wore them with pantyhose. I always thought this was dumb, but I do not remember any girl violating this rule when dressing up, in either flats or heels. I only remember one girl in junior high school who wore heels with jeans, and I think she probably wore knee high nylons with her wooden heeled sandals, if not full pantyhose. By the time I got to high school in the mid 1980s, it was pumps with jeans (or dresses, or skirts), so the sandal and hosiery thing was no longer a thing.

I could give other examples of fashion trends I did or did not like in my formative years--it's really a mixed bag, and then there are some things I've done an about face on between then and now. I don't mind Big Hair, but I've always hated bangs, especially with long hair. I like long fingernails, which was definitely a thing in the 80s, but I hate fake fingernails. I used to hate platform shoes, but now like them within some severe limitations, most of which Histiletto listed in his last post. I would definitely not look forward to seeing 70s style shoes everywhere again, but perhaps they would be preferable to Crocs?

1 hour ago, Puffer said:

My understanding is that a finger or toe nail will usually grow back unless the nail bed has been badly damaged, physically or through infection.   Over the years, I have lost at least two toenails through injury (heavy weight falling on foot!) and both grew back.   Ditto fingernails after crushing injury or similar.

Yeah, you have to do something extra special to actually "kill" a nail. I think they apply some sort of strong chemical to the nail matrix, and then you have no more nail, ever. If you're lucky. I don't even like to think about that.

I did not expect anything different that the opinions which were expressed. The only surprise was that there was one vote for the mules! Even in the "civilian" world, the pumps got the nod. Perhaps it is the relative formality of the rest of the outfit? It seems that my friends would prefer that I wear pumps more often, but whatever. It seems that my friends would truly prefer that I wear Allen Edmonds, so what's the difference?

To be perfectly honest, the pumps are growing on me. I got the chance to wear both pairs of shoes once again yesterday, enough to wear down my heel tips to where you can't read "SuperTap" anymore. I wore the mules for errand running and grocery shopping yesterday, and the pumps for Christmas caroling. Our church choir spent about 2 hours yesterday visiting shut-ins and singing for them. I'm becoming a fast fan of these pumps. Did I say that out loud?

I had the opposite situation--I was 5'6" and my ex-wife was 5'8". Back in the day, heels just weren't as high as they seemed, but we all know from the laws of geometry that you gain most of your actual height from the first three inches of heel (if you're not wearing platforms). So I will not claim that my ex-wife was over 6' in heels--she wasn't. But she was every bit of 5'11", and it never seemed to bother either of us. Unfortunately, OTHER things bothered us, and we are no longer married. Differences in height never did.

Having said that, I don't care anymore. I simply don't get a charge out of being taller or shorter than the next person. My current wife is 5'3", or 160 cm, and I have shrunk to 5'5", or 165 cm. She used to be a high heeled girl, but life has changed all that. I just don't care anymore. I just like wearing heels, irrespective of the effect that it has on my effective height.

I was lucky enough to play in the pit orchestra for a production of "Sunday in the Park with George." I played cello. And viola on one particular night. That's a story in and of itself as to why I played viola on that one night. Good times, good times!

This is ironic, as I've favored platforms for years (though not the super huge 70s style), but lately I've been gravitating toward single sole. Always a day late and a dollar short.

I don't yet have any feedback about the new brand of heel tips (labelled "SuperTap"), other than they seem to be slightly louder than the old ones (labelled "Bissell"), but despite this seeming hardness, they do not slip on polished tile floors, which is a good thing. I have no data or feelings on the durability. However, I was able to try out both "new" pairs of shoes properly yesterday, and with the same outfit! I figured that if I had two pairs of blue shoes to try out, I'd ought to have a blue themed outfit.

First, the FSJ cheap stiletto mules. After a very dodgy start to our relationship, these inexpensive non-leather shoes seem quite all right, once some proper heel tips were installed. In fact, they were so all right that I can't really tell you much about them, as I was rather busy and distracted pretty much the whole time I was wearing them, which was a few hours. I didn't do a whole lot of walking in that time, but I did a considerable amount of standing, and I don't remember either state being noteworthy. By the end of my time in them, I did notice that the area directly behind my right big toe was starting to rub a little raw, but that has happened with several of my shoes of differing types over the years. It may be part of my physiology, rather than bad shoes. A small bandage put over that piece of skin doesn't show, and it solves the problem 100%. The stiletto heels, while equipped from the factory with incredibly substandard heel tips, seem quite sturdy in and of themselves for such skinny heels.

Next and last, the Steve Madden pumps. The heels are about 1 inch wide, and 3/4 of an inch front to back, which definitely takes them out of the stiletto range by a lot, but I still wouldn't refer to them as "block" heels, as they are not rectangular. They are not "cone" heels, as they have a pleasing slight curve to them. "Tapered" heels would be accurate, but rather vague. So what on earth does one call this type of heel?

Whatever it is, these shoes seem to work out well in the real world. So far, I am much more impressed than I should be, as they are not real leather. I found them to be unexpectedly comfortable, despite the fact that I wore them without hosiery, which I rarely do with any type of enclosed shoe. It's not that I don't like the look, it's that my feet usually won't cooperate with such shenanigans, becoming soaked in buckets of sweat in short order. That did not happen on this particular afternoon, perhaps due to the cool weather, and perhaps other factors beyond the scope of this post. Not once did I have the misfortune of walking out of the pumps, while at the same time, there is sufficient room for the toes at the front of the shoe. An unusual situation for me with a pump. I shall have to try them with hosiery at some point, and see if this is still true.

With both of these shoes, the somewhat modest heel height of 4 1/4" for both gives them enough height to be "high," but they are low enough to where you can actually kind of forget about them if you are doing an activity that requires your attention elsewhere. My only wish is that the pumps were in fact a little bluer. They are obviously not black under strong sunlight, but they definitely appear black in this photo. The sandals are almost equally as subtle, but they are definitely more noticeably blue than are the pumps. Which do you like better?

I finally made it to the cobbler with the two pairs of shoes, both of which immediately destructed upon first wearing, chronicled in the "New Shoes" section. So, I guess we'll try this again. I have not worn the FSJ stilettos yet, but I have worn the Steve Madden pumps. I think they're going to work out. Though they are much quieter with their new Vibram heels, the sound they now make is not unbalanced, the heel sound sort of complements the toe sound.

There is a third pair of shoes I had reheeled that I didn't mention before, because they are old. They are my BCBGenerations "Milliard" clogs, which I evidently liked well enough last year that I wore down the heels. The only reason I mentioned them is because I noticed once I got home that my cobbler seems to have switched brands of replacement tips, or "top lifts," as he would call them. These say "SuperTap" on them, and he used them for both my near-stiletto clogs, and my obviously stiletto mules.

The curious thing about these new heel tips is that they appear to contain a harder substance in the center of the heel tip. Or, it might just be the way they are finished. Up to now, the best wearing rubber heel tips I've run across are Bissell. It is very difficult to tell whether these new tips are actually harder than the old ones, and if so, whether it's a plus or a minus. Part of the test will involve going to my favorite supermarket, where they have polished tile floors, and are a true test of whether something is too hard, and by extension, too slippery. I guess another, perhaps more crucial test will be to pound the pavement for a few miles and see how they wear. It would be most useful to do this in the next few days because I still have another pair of shoes into the cobbler, for pickup sometime next week. Hopefully, it's not too busy when I can make it up there, and I can ask him about the new product, and give my feedback.

I'm not totally negative about the article, but I have some serious problems with it. Actually, it's not the article itself, it's the accompanying photos. The article sounds so reasonable, like "Oh! This is something I've always wanted to do, and finally I decided I'm going to do it." It's a road that a lot of us have already been down. But then, you see the photos.

I won't even talk about the guy in the silver banana hammock and the tinfoil boots (in lieu of a tinfoil hat?). Next, you've got the guy in a sport coat. Check. Button down shirt. Check. Nicely tailored and not skinny, jeans. Check. Lucite extreme platform sandals. What the actual?

Exhibit 3, pretty normal looking guy. Says he likes the way heels make his legs look. Then, he's pictured wearing a wife beater, Mom pants, and about 2 1/2" boots. It could have been a normal, positive picture, but no.  .  . the fashion world has to introduce some weird, unflattering element into everything, just to be different, even when different is already there, front and center. Not to mention the fact that in this outfit, you can't even tell what his legs look like.

I am guessing that this article is directed mostly at women, but I am not at all sure what the intention was. If the intention was to normalize men in heels, the writer bombed badly, or has a skewed perspective. If the intention was to show how ridiculous we look, they did a halfway decent job. Having said that, it may have been an editor's decision to include the silly photos. The article itself doesn't really match the photos. Even Mr. Banana Hammock must have photos of himself in normal street clothing and heels. Why weren't these included? Somebody wants to keep us on the fringe.

19 hours ago, Cali said:

I only had a small part of each big toes nail removed. Yes its painful for a few days, but so are ingrown toe nails when they get stepped on or when you kick something (by accident or soccer).  Any toe surgery is ALWAYS very painful because you are always on your feet.

Besides, I get regular pedicures, so I need my toe nails.  Cure nail fungus with light, not smelly chemicals.

That is so funny. I have a coworker who tends to get a little rambunctious from time to time, and more than once, he has trod on my feet. Or foot, I should say. He always steps on my right foot, which is the one that is prone to ingrown toenails. "Dammit BK! If you're going to step on my foot, could you at least step on the other one, just once?"

I have had very good luck with Vick's VapoRub for getting rid of nail fungus.

I've been to the podiatrist twice. Both visits were an exercise in frustration. Wanting to remove toenails. Wanting to do surgery. Is that the only thing you have to offer? No thanks. My feet are beat up enough as it is without you making them truly ugly. It is my lot in life to have toenails which are prone to becoming ingrown. It is also my lot in life to prefer wearing sandals whenever possible.

18 hours ago, spikesmike said:

White jeans : Are all of you dirty people or what ? I never had a problem like that . Mike

Yes. I am. I really can't tell you why, but I only know that it is so.

On 12/1/2021 at 1:25 AM, Isolathor said:

 

Love the white jeans, although I don't dare indulge myself in the wearing of such. I can't seem to even make it out of the house without getting them dirty.

On 11/27/2021 at 3:54 PM, Isolathor said:

No, they don´t.

European sizes increase by 6,67mm ( "Pariser Stich") per step.

Asian sizes increase by 5mm per step.

UK sizes increase by 8,47mm ("Barleycorn") per step.

US sizes use the Barleycorn as well, but with a different starting point.

In each system there is no definition if the length of the foot is used or the inner length of the shoe. That alone causes differences of up to 15mm in the EU and up to 2 Barleycorn in the UK and US.

I had been trying to find this information, but was unable to come up with it. Thank you. I was aware of the 1/3 of an inch or "barleycorn" system. Who uses 1/3s of an inch, anyway? Where did they come up with that?

And yes, it is difficult to know whether the listed shoe sizes, even if they are in inches/cm, are designed for the actual length of the foot, or whether that's the length of the shoe. When people are selling used shoes and they provide a length, it is often measured in such a way as to be completely useless.

It has been several weeks since I purged 11 pairs of shoes from my collection. I have not even thought about them until now, much less missed them. Perhaps I should purge more. I can think of several more pairs that I'm on the fence about, but probably wouldn't miss much, if at all if they were gone.