Jump to content

Puffer

Members
  • Posts

    1,627
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    10

Everything posted by Puffer

  1. I suppose that is true if you consider the angle of your feet!
  2. Depending upon the degree of gloss, I can only suggest a suitable oil-based paint might cover the scratches. You could try a black spirit marker if you just want to eliminate the light-coloured marks. Either way, I doubt that much of the damage would remain obvious. Going back to your recent comments about closed-toe mules, my eldest stepson's wife was wearing these Jimmy Choos today as she set off for a friend's wedding. I think she wore them for her own wedding in February - but, if so, they were totally hidden under her long dress - which rather defeated the object! A very thin 4" heel and a sharp toe. Elegant, although I think an open toe and/or a thin slingback would be better (and she is a regular sandal wearer). She is neither a wealthy woman nor a spendthrift fashionista and I can't help thinking that the money apparently spent (at least £600 in the UK!) could have been put to better use, including to buy several pairs of stylish shoes and sandals of good quality.
  3. I agree on all counts. A very nice-looking open-toed court shoe. In the press, or in catalogues/websites, I think that is how it would be described (i.e. NOT as a sandal), but the all-embracing term 'shoe' seems to be (mis)used for almost anything these days that is not clearly a boot. There is certainly a thin dividing line between shoes and sandals, with heels irrelevant.
  4. If the vamp of a closed-toe mule (effectively a court/pump with the back removed!) is not perforated or otherwise fails to expose the foot/toes, it can hardly be a sandal by either your reckoning or mine. Our views differ only to the extent that you consider an open toe to be essential on a sandal (if that is still your position); I don't.
  5. They would all appear to be sandals by Melrose's definition or by my wider one. I'm surprised you have to ask. Some people might regard your second pair as peep-toe shoes, given that they are not very 'open', but in my view they are a variety of sandal. But this is where it starts to get interesting - or difficult: Clearly a slingback shoe (court/pump): Clearly a peeptoe shoe (court/pump): But put the two components together and you have what most would call a sandal:
  6. Yes, you are certainly entitled to your opinion and I tend to agree that a 'sandal' ought to show toes - and properly too. But as, by definition, a sandal would generally be considered as nothing more than a light shoe with piercings or openings (not necessarily revealing toes or heel), I don't think you can be right. Below are examples of closed-toe sandals. That on the left is a man's 'fisherman' style; OK for walking but hardly attractive imho; not one I would wear. On the right are the sort of traditional children's sandals that are still (just about) seen in the UK. Well, I suppose that one might just catch a glimpse of toe-upper in some of these but I rest my case. And I now suppose that we need to consider the status of mules and slides. In my book, a mule is well-recognised historically as any item of backless footwear, but if also open at the front it will (also) be a sandal. A slide (which seems to be a newish and superfluous term) is seemingly an open-toed mule, usually but not always with a single strap - so is also a sandal. And a flip-flop (or thong, to some) is a slide that has a toe post. So, I wonder what we should call these 'sandals' (which I have heard described as 'toe-wrap'):
  7. I was surprised to note from my credentials that I joined in 2004. Seems like only yesterday; perhaps I was dozing - maybe I'm Rip Van Winklepicker?
  8. At least the lovely Nicola (!) is usually in decent heels! (SNP = Stilettos; no platforms)
  9. I too have often wondered why there was not a 'new sandals' thread. The problem might well be definition - here we go again!! What is a sandal, as compared with a shoe? Open toe/open side shoes are not sandals, but add an open back or sling back and they almost certainly become sandals, at least in common parlance. It's no good looking at newspapers or fashion magazines. There is no consistency in terminology at all, with many obviously sandal styles being described as shoes. I'm not looking for a debate here - but on the other hand ...
  10. You would have to be blessed with green toes, rather than fingers, surely?
  11. There does seem to be a growing trend for women to go barefoot in closed shoes and boots as well as in sandals. It would seem that, in the UK at least, sales of stockings are negligible (outside glamour wear) and those of tights (pantyhose) declining other than for some formal occasions. All part of the shift towards casual - often sloppy - dressing. In my view, sandals should be worn barefoot, by both sexes. I enjoy sandals when the weather allows, the briefer and barer the better. And open-toe shoes barefoot on women. I have also seen a trend for men to go barefoot in 'normal' shoes - typically loafers but also sometimes plain lace-ups; a look I find hard to acknowledge as either flattering or comfortable.
  12. Enjoy your trip - but I hope not literally! And please let us see a pic of your outfit when you tell us how it went. You might want to wear the boots tomorrow if you go out to vote - you will be in good company with an assortment of strangely-dressed individuals (quite apart from the candidates)!
  13. I quite agree! I find any detailed understanding or management of most computery a challenge, and one that regularly defeats me. That is why I produced two sons who are skilled in such matters and invariably sort out the old man's problems for him. In return, I spend many hours renovating and improving their properties. Horses for courses ...
  14. That makes you sound like William Tell! But Cali, lacking an Apple, is not Isaac Newton.
  15. Further to my last, and without trying to labour the points I made therein, I have just seen by chance on TV a film in the 'Look at Life' series made by Rank in the early 60s as 'cinema shorts', covering a variety of topical subjects. This one, made in 1960, was about the influence of Italy and Italian immigrants on British life and included references to fashion. Stiletto heels were mentioned and shown in several shots of shoe shop windows. The majority of the shoes on display (in several styles) had stiletto heels of at least 4" in height - totally typical of the prevailing fashion, although I certainly don't suggest that lower heels were not also sold and worn. I may be able to capture and show some stills, if my limited tech allows.
  16. Yes, I am pretty useless when it comes to managing phones and PCs but that technique using Paint works for me too.
  17. Yes, understood - but thanks! It is similarly used on plans here. I forgot to mention the old story about the couple who were enquiring about renting a country cottage for a holiday in Wales. They were put off by the owner's property details telling them 'The nearest WC is about two miles away as the crow flies, or five if you don't use the ferry'. ('WC' is also a common abbreviation for 'Wesleyan Chapel'.)
  18. I was referring to UK usage. Whilst the term 'water closet' (strictly, the room or cubicle containing the 'facility') is very rarely, if ever, met nowadays, the usual UK terms for the porcelain pan/cistern in the building trade are WC or toilet. As at9 says, Thomas Crapper's suggestive name is no more than that; he got the credit (blame?) for something established well before his time.
  19. I'm not sure if these 'slides' are your style, melrose - heels not nearly high enough? - but interesting that ASOS is doing them in sizes to UK12. I like sandals but they both seem to combine clumpiness with being a tad too femme, so not for me.
  20. In the UK (and other civilised English-speaking territories), the 'facility' is commonly (and politely) called a 'toilet', 'lavatory', 'loo', '[public] convenience'; occasionally a 'W.C.'. The porcelain item is a lavatory/WC pan. 🚽 Other names are many and varied but I will not embarrass you (or myself) by listing them here - apart from the self-descriptive 'bog'. I agree that the archaic name for the room containing the appliance is/was a 'water closet' (hence 'W.C.') but that is no longer used outside a historical reference.
  21. A toilet?? What is this strange facility? I thought that, in the US, you only have washrooms, bathrooms, comfort stations ...
  22. I say again, with great respect to my fellow 'researchers', that c1960 -70 heels were often higher than the 3 - 3.5" that are being suggested as typically the highest in everyday use, as exemplified by library photos etc. I can't speak from personal experience there for what was the norm in the US at any period but I CAN clearly recall my own sightings in England (London and the South East) from the mid-1950s onwards. I would agree that the most common woman's 'fashion' shoe in the 'golden period' of c1958-65 was a closed toe court with a sharply pointed toe and a stiletto heel of 'around' 3" (so usually 2.75 - 3.5") - BUT (and it is quite a big 'BUT'), it was by no means uncommon to see, worn in an everyday work/shopping/leisure context by women of 15 - 55, similar shoes with heels of 4" or more, and sometimes around 5". Such sightings were not infrequent and well-remembered for the impression they made on me! The 'classic' plain pointed stiletto court was not of course the only footwear item commonly seen. It had many variations - bows, slingbacks, T-straps, chisel toes, strappy sandals. About the only variations NOT seen at that time were peep toes and/or platform soles, both of which had been popular (with thicker high heels) in the earlier 1950s and would become so again from c1970. The 'famine' period was (broadly) 1965 - 70 (as the mini skirt took hold) when stilettos were 'unfashionable' (although a number of women remained faithful to them) and the prevailing fashion was for heels that were low and fairly chunky and squarish toes, often with slingbacks and embellishments such as bows. The strip of four pics (left) shows what many women would wear for 'smart' work or social occasions c1960. Yes, the heels are quite low but very similar courts with an extra inch or more were favoured by many. The pic on the right is quite typical of the late 60s, with the girl on the left faithful to pointed stiletto slingbacks (although lower than would have been common a few years earlier) and her colleague on the right wearing modest low-heeled 'mod' courts.
  23. I doubt that the shoes you saw before about 1975 were single-sole stilettos - they had all but disappeared in the UK between 1965-75. They may have had high straight heels with platforms, and often open toes. But, after about 1980, high stilettos did get increasingly common and platforms disappeared for a time. Overall there was a fair variety in the 1980s:
  24. I find it very difficult to write in the vernacular - there isn't enough light in there. The summerhouse is better. ⛺
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using High Heel Place, you agree to our Terms of Use.