Puffer

You are right on all counts. I'm certainly aware of the brick or other protrusions or gripping aids that assist lock beam movement, but equally there are places where a slippery but soft or grassy surface exists and when a boot heel would aid traction. I have slipped when wearing the sort of rubber soles that one would typically find ideal for working boats and locks, or even in wellies with a cleated sole. Some work boots can be lethal if they have a smooth sole too. I doubt there there is any one shoe or boot style that is ideal for all canal applications - working the boat and the locks and walking the towpath.

Having myself often been crew on a UK narrowboat, I would consider that a cowboy boot or similar with a heel that can 'dig in' a little would often be an advantage when working lock gates. It can be difficult to get a grip on the ground when literally putting one's back into moving a gate beam and (as cowboys found when roping steers etc), a boot with a heel gives a better anchor. I agree however that 'high' heels would be a hazard in most other canal pursuits.

I have said elsewhere that your shoes look to me to be 'lilac' (which has a pinkish tinge) rather than a true 'mauve' (which is more purple). Without being able to see them 'in the flesh', am I wrong?

Which reminds me that Whitby (on coast of North Yorkshire, for those unfamiliar) is known for its 'Goth' atmosphere, mainly due to the Dracula legend. And there are Goth weekend events on 1 - 3 November, doubtless following-in from Halloween. Even when these events are not on, Whitby is a popular place for people in Goth clothing, which will surely include some extreme heeled footwear, with long points, buckles etc.

Lilac maybe? Not too easy to see with glossy patent but it has a lilac/pink hue.

The further north one goes in the UK, the more heels are seen. And I would expect OTK boots to be popular in York as it tends to get flooded frequently!

These smart and sexy patent sandals are still available and I am now asking £20 (inc postage); UK only.

These ASOS 'Recite' ankle boots in black faux suede (not brown as pic suggests) have a sturdy 3 7/8" heel, a round toe and a side zip. Although stated to be UK13, they run slightly small and are a perfect fit for UK11/12, with thick socks if desired. Absolutely brand new and in original wrappings. Very comfortable and discreet - I have an identical pair which I wear outside frequently. I'm asking £22 inc postage; UK only.

These attractive and comfortable sandals in soft purple suede leather have ankle ties and a 4" shaped blade heel. Heels and trim are shiny black with a grained pattern. They run true to size in UK11. Worn lightly and briefly on carpet so can be considered 'as new'. A bit late for Halloween now but just the job for Christmas! Original price £45; I'm asking £20 inc postage; UK only.

I'm bound to ask whether a 'high level meeting' implies a reasonable showing of heels, as noted by you. What were you wearing? - I'm guessing 4"+. I was genuinely surprised to see so many 'dogs wearing heels' pics on the web; paws for thought indeed. 🤔 I could not resist adding this one, where the dog is the shoe itself!:

I have yet to see a dog wearing heels that high.

Gige: I have complimented you before on your clear writing style and I for one would rather read a lengthy (but well-presented and informative) piece than something short, possibly ambiguous or incomplete and likely with uncorrected errors. But I could hardly say otherwise as most of my erstwhile professional life has been spent in providing effective communication, largely in writing, to address the relevant technical and commercial issues - and I was sometimes paid by the word for externally-published articles. You look good in all of the pics and I'm sure you can carry off whichever image you favour, without causing too many adverse ripples in the workplace. The OTK boots look great, however you wear them. I would also just observe my concern that you had to travel 90 miles to what I assume was the nearest branch of your bank. We are losing many bank branches in the UK, but a journey of that length is inconceivable here - 20 miles would be considered an imposition. (I am also aware that the US banking system lacks many of the facilities readily available to UK domestic customers, so probably making a branch visit (rather than a simple online process) more necessary for US residents; you have my sympathy.)

I have used 'Stormsure Flexible Repair Adhesive' with some success to affix new or old heels, mend soles, waterproof seams, repair wellies/waders etc etc. It is polyurethane-based and sets with great strength and flexibility. Available in several colours. It must be kept in the freezer between uses as any dampness in the air will make it go off, and that will invariably be the case when the cap is replaced. Although UK-made, it should be available overseas, e.g. through Amazon: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Stormsure-S1B-Outdoor-Adhesive-Waterproof/dp/B003V71R6A

Thanks, but I'm still unsure. Detail on Giaro website for size Eu41 is heel 165mm (6.5") and platform 39mm (1.54"), giving net rise of 125mm (4.96"). Is that what you have; the shoes do look to be about that in their proportions and more walkable than your original dimensions suggested.

No reply visible!

What size and what is the exact heel height and platform thickness, please? I see that the supplier quotes a global 15cm (5.91") and 4cm (1.57") - giving a net rise of 11cm (4.33"), although they do vary with size. Your heels do not look as high as 7.5".

Here we go again - all metal sandals with 15cm stiletto heels in alternative thicknesses. I can scarcely imagine anything less comfortable; without padding those stiff metal uppers must surely cut into ones feet and toes? It certainly looks as though the wearer was having great difficulty in walking; hardly surprising. A fetishy gimmick if ever I saw one. Trying on NEW METAL SANDALS with 15 cm HEELS ! (youtube.com)

In two words: 'forbidden fruit'.

I note, Gige, that you lived in Den Haag for some years. I am not surprised, as most Dutch people have a very good command of the English language ('as she should be spoke') which is often better than those who claim British citizenship. I'm sure some of their skills rubbed off on you, in addition to the obvious influence of your stepmother. You are right about the importance of proofreading (or is that 'proof-reading'? 😜 ). Too many worthwhile posts, here and everywhere else, are let down by sloppy errors - often caused by the keyboard gremlin but always correctible. (I now see that, in my last post above, I failed to correct 'Geoge' to 'George'. I would chastise myself for that failure to spot and correct but I think I might enjoy it too much. 😏

We seem to be divided into two camps: those who consider 'high' to be an indicator of a more-than-minimal rise at the heel, and those who regard a 'high' heel as one that makes a detectable (but inevitably subjective) difference to feeling or gait when worn. There is nothing empirical to either view and perhaps we should leave it to lay people to decide (usually wrongly) what is, to them, a 'high' heel; each of us knows better! After all, we don't take much notice of laiety (especially if unbelievers) when it comes to heel heights or indeed shoe or other fashions in general.

I agree weith 2"; I wasn't meaning to suggest otherwise. I have three pairs of men's boots with Cuban heels of around 2.6", which I certainly consider to be 'high heels' (and have been described as such by others, albeit not in a censorious way). I have a similar pair with heels of 1.4" which neither I nor anyone else has said to be 'high', and I come to the same conclusion as you that 2" is probably the borderline, at least for a man presenting as such. I don't really feel that I am in 'borrowed territory' until I go above 3" in a block/Cuban/cowboy heel - my avatar boots (2 7/8") go unnoticed when worn under normal jeans.

Interesting that you should comment, Gige. I have read (and enjoyed) most of your posts and got the distinct impression from your writing style that you could be British. It's just the odd word or (mis)spelling (e.g. 'realize') that suggests the wrong side of the pond. Please maintain your high standards! 👨‍🎓 Compromise in language differences is no bad thing - but meeting halfway would doubtless mean both of us would drown.

I am delighted to hear that you say 'zed', in common with the great majority of the English-speaking world. Now, please concentrate on using 'different from' and using the 'loo/bog/toilet' rather than the bathroom or restroom. 😉 I agree that care must be taken in using certain words or expressions - not that this should really be necessary in intelligent society, and certainly not just because certain groups have hijacked perfectly good words and given them a new meaning that is now sacrosanct, and often for use only by other group members. But, in the UK at least, we are still able to use 'queer' in its established sense and context. And 'queen' likewise, which reminds me of a tale attributed to the late Queen Mother (widow of Geoge VI). Whilst waiting to be served her gin and tonic, the Queen Mum could hear two openly-gay members of her staff arguing in the hallway outside her sitting room. Impatient at being kept waiting, she eventually called out 'When you two old queens have finished arguing, this old Queen wants her gin.'.

Did you mean to put 'queen' (twice) rather than 'queer'? I am no expert (nor a practitioner!) but I don't think they mean the same thing.

Some interesting - and quite diverse - comments above on what is truly a 'high' heel. Imho, it much depends on what alternative descriptions are recognised; is the contrast between 'high' and 'flat' or should one take into account 'low', 'mid' etc? On the basis that almost all footwear has an element of 'rise' at the heel (either a thickening to the sole at the rear or an added separate layer, likely to measure 1/2" or so as a minimum) and this is regarded as the benchmark, anything higher than that could rightly be regarded as a 'high' heel. (I would opt, reluctantly, for that definition.) And many 'conventional' shoes (particularly those intended for men) have a fairly sturdy heel block of around 1" in height and certainly attract no special attention - but if that same block heel goes to 1.5" or more, it would be described by many people as a 'high' heel, even though very modest. To some extent, the shoe style and heel shape is relevant in practice. A kitten heel (i.e. a stiletto of typically less than 2") is widely regarded as a 'high' heel, but a 2" or 2.5" wide block heel would simply be looked on as 'chunky' rather than high. I don't think that any platform changes this; if a shoe with a flat sole and a 2" heel is described as 'high', then the same shoe with a 1" platform sole is just as high in terms of its heel - even though the rise is halved it is still a rise. A 'flatform' shoe is not an exception either; it is really a flat or almost flat shoe given an extra thick sole, and is not a 'high' heel as there is (almost) no rise to the foot.