Puffer

2 hours ago, mlroseplant said:

It.  .  . actually.  .  . kinda does. I mean, it's not sidesplittingly funny, but it's worth a groan, at least.

I am obliged - and indeed vindicated.   I recall an aside from the late Bob Monkhouse (a polished if sometimes rather cheesy comedian) who said that 'Everyone laughed when I was young and said that I wanted to be a comedian.   They're not laughing now.'

The business does seem to be defunct, with no active links that I can see.   But this one may indicate a new (or intended) business, although it is unclear whether that is an active advert: https://www.instagram.com/cowboybootscustom/

I bought one pair of MJ boots several years ago and was pleased with the quality and fit.  A shame if he is no longer in business.

16 hours ago, Tech said:

Bloody heel, 5 weeks is crazy... 

The shoes must have been too tight, and worn for far too long!

15 hours ago, at9 said:

I was in Exeter city centre the other day. (For left pondians, Exeter is the biggest city in Devon, a lovely county in the south west of England). ...

The population of Exeter (Devon's county rown)  is about half that of Plymouth, but both are fine cities in a fine county.   (Only Bristol is bigger than Plymouth in the south west.)

27 minutes ago, CrushedVamp said:

...

Years ago, a person would buy a home to live in it, and now that notion is gone and so people buy and sell homes in order to work the most equity out of a place. My wife and I have bought and sold (7) properties in the last four years but it is not our main form of income.

... you are failing to calculate one important point… you have to have a place to live. With a house, you live there rent-free AND make $70,000 in financial gain in two years. If I rented an apartment I would have made $4000 on my $50,000, but also spent $24,000 on rent over the same past 2 years.

But it is even worse if you live in a forever-home and never sell it. All those improvements needed for the home over the years, never get deducted so it really ends up costing the homeowner a huge amount of money. It is $50,000 spent over 20 years instead of 2, but it can never be deducted because the owner dies before they sell.

And that is the real price for constantly buying and selling homes: you never get to live in a nice home that is all fixed up. Once it is nice, you pick up stakes and move on. You are not paying a mortgage or rent, and making investment money too granted, but only because you are constantly doing work on the place.

...

17 minutes ago, mlroseplant said:

I had never really considered buying investment houses and actually living in them. That would certainly be a good way for us to get rid of a lot of junk (all three of us tend toward being hoarders). But that's not how I roll. I'm going to die in this house. I like it here.

...

There is clearly scope to make a tidy profit (potentially tax-free) by 'flipping' houses bought, lived in and refurbished, before selling and repeating the exercise.  A person with sufficient skill (or good contacts) can do or manage the refurb himself, possibly full-time, and thus derive a fair income whilst having a place to live in rent-free - but not free of other outgoings.   And the cost and disruption of buying/selling/moving every year or so is quite daunting and not to be undertaken lightly.  It is certainly not something I would wish to do - and I've lived in my current house for 26 years, steadily improving it where necessary.   In theory, it is my 'forever' home, but my wife and I will probably have to downsize at some point - something I dread.   As to never realising the enhanced value of both impovements and inflation - in my case around 400% in all - that is academic whilst we still have the security of a comfortable home.   When the second of us dies, our five sons will inherit a tidy windfall - assuming that the government has not taxed it out of existence.

As to the ongoing cost of a second home, such as that I bought in 2011 and refurbed steadily over the next four years, the outgoings (council tax, insurance, utlities, minor repairs and (not to be overlooked), interest on capital), the total represents the 'rent' for the use and enjoyment of that second home - around £8,500 ($11,300) p.a.   Not a small sum and one which some would not consider worthwhile, even if the property was used regularly.   As we have made less use of ours in the last few years - particularly as our sons and their families are now living further away - and maintenance has become more of a chore, we decided to sell, although are currently letting it.   We don't need the capital that would arise on sale, but our sons will benefit at a time when they have a need to move to larger homes with their growing families.

20 hours ago, CrushedVamp said:

Here in the United States, we can deduct anything contributing to the improvement of the property. We cannot however make that deduction until the property is sold. It does not matter if it is 2 years after purchase, or 30 years after purchase, only when it is sold and not as a yearly deduction. Because of that, it is as I said: what the improvements costs are; can and will be deducted from any income derived in the year the property was sold. 

We do not have to pay captain gains tax either as long as it was a primary residence. That used to have to be for at least 2 of 5 years, but that has since been rescinded by Trump in his Big Beautiful Bill. A property investor himself, this was not surprising to see.

As for interest, that has no bearing on me as I do not finance any property I buy. I have a deep hatred for debt, so I do my level best to stay away from it. My aversion to financing (debt) is that I have to pay 100% of the money I borrow back, plus 3-5% of my own in the form of interest. NO THANKS! This applies to cars, houses, equipment, anything. It is like the movie War Games of the 1980's. In the end of that movie, the first about the dangers of AI, the computer states, "it seems the only way to win the war of thermonuclear war is to just not play". It is the same way with borrowing money. The only way to truly win is to just not play their games.

...

From what you now say, the US tax position is very similar to that of the UK: (i) no tax on any profit on the sale of a primary residence; (ii) capital gains tax on any profit on the sale of any other property, after deducting all acquisition, improvement and sale expenses.

You are, with respect, deluding yourself if you ignore the cost of the capital invested in a property bought for refurbishment and resale, whether you borrow the money or use your own accumulated funds.  To take a simple example:   you buy a 'doer-upper' for $100,000, spend $36,000 more evenly over the next year ($3,000 at the start of each month) in refurbishment and sell it at the end of the year for $200,000.   Your apparent profit is $200,000 - $100,000 - $36,000 = $64,000.   But, if you borrowed the money at (say) 6% interest, you would have had to pay out a further $7,170 to cover the borrowing: $6000 on the initial $100,000 and $1,170 on the progressive refurb costs.   So, your true profit is really $64,000 - $7,170 = $62,830.   Alternatively, if you funded everything from your savings (as indeed you prefer), which would have earned you 5% per annum if left invested, you are worse off as you have 'lost' interest income of some $5,975, so your true profit would then be $64,000 - $5,975 = $58,025.    There could well be a situation where a longer than expected period of ownership arose (because the refurb took much longer or the property would not sell quickly) and the extra interest cost (notional or actual) took a big chunk out of the profit or even eliminated it.

23 hours ago, CrushedVamp said:

Because how much money you put into the house is immaterial because it can be wholly deducted off your taxes. 

It is however, a good way to show how much work had to go into a property. It is not perfect I realize, as it is possible to put in $50,000 worth of electrical work and be something no one would ever notice, but as a rule $50,000 generally shows a fair amount of work went into a property. $10,000... not so much. It is why I used the amounts to show how much work went into the place.

But the actually amount spent has no basis on the profit of a house. It can be completed deducted off your income taxes.

I'm not sure I understand any of that, given that the US tax system is very different in some respects to that of the UK.   We cannot deduct the repair/improvement costs relating to our own (principal) residence from our taxable income, but we are not (yet!) taxed on any profit made when that residence is sold.   Any other property we own is subject to tax on any resultant capital gain when disposed of - the gain being (broadly) the difference between selling price (less sale expenses) and total purchase price, i.e. original cost of land/buildings plus acquisition costs plus all improvement costs (but not simple repair/maintenance costs as arising).   And of course any income from letting is taxable, after deducting most outgoings, including periodic repairs.

One should be mindful too of the effective cost of the capital invested in a property, i.e. the interest paid on any mortgage loan or that which would have been earned otherwise if the property was bought for cash.   In my own example I quoted earlier, I did not allow for 'lost interest' on the capital I invested, which would have been in the region of £20,000 during the period of reconstruction, so does make a fair dent in the notional profit if the property is sold.

I agree that the cost of some almost invisible, but usually essential, work (such as electrics and plumbing) may not be apparent in the finished property.  And the same applies to other remedial work relating to the fabric, such as wood/damp treatment.   I question however how one could spend as much as $50,000 (£38,000) on even a full re-wire of a large house - four or five times what I would expect.   But maybe CrushedVamp was including appliances and lighting etc, although those would scarcely be unnoticed.

On 12/9/2025 at 9:18 AM, Shyheels said:

I’m not following your math. If you bought for 180, put 50 into it, and sold for 250 that’s only a 20k profit - or 10k a year.

I agree - although we call it 'maths'!   I spent almost 600 days over 4.5 years, with very little outside help, rebuilding a derelict flat (above a shop) to use as a holiday home for family and a few friends.   The property has been for sale (although is currently let) and, if sold, I would expect the 'profit' to be in the region of £120,000 (before tax), which gives me a 'wage' of around £200 per day, which is roughly in line with what most tradesmen have been charging.  The work itself, involving almost all trades - carpentry, plastering, electrics, plumbing, gas heating, decorating, etc -  was enjoyable enough and ultimately fulfilling, but I'm not sure that (my increasing age and declining fitness aside!) I would want to do it again.

I was out and about in the London area on Wednesday, with much travelling by train and underground.   Although the predominant footwear for both sexes seemed to be the usual trainers/sneakers/plimsolls, there were a fair mumber of women in high-heeled boots of various styles - most often with a cuban or block heel of around 3" height, but higher and slimmer heels were also in evidence, including a few 4" stiletto boots.   I was briefly in a large shopping mall in West London at lunchtime and the mix among the shoppers was much the same.   Alas, there was little of real interest to see in the shoe shop windows, although dressy shoes and sandals with 4" stilettos were still in evidence.   

I ended up at 5.30pm in the City of London (the principal finance/insurance business area for those unaquainted) for an Institute carol service at one of the very old City churches.   Women working in the City have traditionally been more smartly (if usually conservatively) dressed and it was refreshing to note that a fair number of those enjoying an after-work drink outside the busy open bars around Leadenhall Market, or simply making their way homewards, were in high heels - typically courts or boots with a 3 - 4" slimmish or sometimes stiletto heel.  And several attending the carol service were similarly shod, with one woman in her 30s completely at ease in patent courts with a near-stiletto 4" heel and another in suede knee-boots with a true 4" stiletto.

Shyheels is right.   Very many men, of all ages, wear shorts in England (and the rest of the UK) for much or all of the May - September period whenever the weather allows - and often when it doesn't!   I am in shorts and sandals as a matter of course during that period unless my activity requires otherwise.   Twenty or thirty years ago, few men above school age would be seen in shorts unless for a sporting/recreational activity, and open sandals, especially if worn barefoot, were rarely seen except at the pool or beach - being considered too girly by many.   

What does surprise me is the huge popularity among men of trainers/sneakers/plimsolls in almost all modes of actvity, including with a suit or jacket/trousers in otherwise formal or semi-formal settings.   Comfortable they may be - although in my view far from ideal when the weather is hot or very cold - but smart they are not.  Here is Tim Davie, the recently-resigned Director-General of the BBC, in what appears to be his usual 'business' outfit of suit plus plimsolls.   Hardly impressive.

On 12/2/2025 at 10:08 AM, Shyheels said:

Indeed, I had the electrical system on my boat installed by a guy who turned out to be utterly incompetent, although he was working for a guy with a long and very good reputation in the boat building world. Because of the builders reputation, I never saw this screwball for what he was until it was too late and it ended up being a complete mess. 

I hope that all was rectified without further cost or inconvenience to you.   It's hard to imagine that much would go wrong in a normal boat electrical installation.   Are you using an inverter to provide 230v AC from 12v batteries, or solar power, or both?   And do you have a facility to connect to the AC mains when moored in a suitable place?

On 12/4/2025 at 10:59 AM, VirginHeels said:

Decided to go into Deichmann in Glasgow on Monday. Was looking at a few heels myself, alas they had stock that was too small. However, there was another man trying on a pair or knee high boots with a 3-4 inch heel on it.

Clearly in not the only guy here who is interested in heels. He must have had small enough feet as UK 8 was their largest.

On 12/6/2025 at 8:26 AM, VirginHeels said:

Answer is no. I was needing to get to my appointment at that time. They rarely have even a UK9/EU42. Have only seen it once for a pair of flat boots.

There are no Deichmann branches near me and I rarely visit, but my impression is that it does (or did) have a limited range of women's footwear up to UK10.   Maybe no longer.   That said, most of the styles on offer (regardless of size) have always seemed to be pretty uninspiring, with few heels of any significance.

22 hours ago, mlroseplant said:

Them days are over, friend. You can't afford to be too much of a lazy ass these days, or you'll probably be the subject of a one-man layoff pretty quick!

Perhaps so, but one still hears accounts of petty job demarcation and restrictive practices that interrupt progress, or worse.
I should have added to my last note that, although the tradesmen working at my stepson's house seem competent and generally efficient, there are many such people offering their services who carry out shoddy, over-priced and sometimes dangerous work, especially for naiive householders.   My wife may complain about me being a slow and maybe fussy worker, but at least I get a decent job done at minimal cost.

On 11/29/2025 at 11:42 AM, mlroseplant said:

...

If you can believe this, on larger jobs drywalling and mudding and taping are two completely separate operations, and never the twain shall meet. The drywallers are part of the carpenters union, and the tapers are in with the painters union! Both of them can be a pain in my butt.

I have no real idea of the corresponding 'union' position in the UK, but doubtless it will impede work and increase costs and time on a major construction project.   Fortunately, a great deal of new-build and renovation work is done by non-union businesses and individual tradesmen, who are usually fairly adaptable and often multi-skilled.    I can fairly claim to be too, in my 'amateur' way - and am currently doing some work (alas, unpaid!) on my middle stepson's rebuilt and extended house, alongside 'professional' builders, plasterers, plumbers and sparkies - none of whom seem to upset the others or object to my input - which has necessarily included some reworking of what they have done, e.g. moving a wrongly-placed socket outlet and altering skirting boards to accommodate fitted wardrobes.   So much for my retirement ...!

23 hours ago, mlroseplant said:

...

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.

In the UK, the size increment is supposedly a 'barleycorn' (= 1/3") but it is the last rather than the shoe that is designated, with men's and women's sizes being theoretically the same.   The last is intended to be longer than the foot by 'around' 1/2", but there is no clear agreement as to foot length; a UK11 shoe being variously said to fit a foot almost anywhere between 11" and 12" long!   

It is my understanding that US sizes also have 'barleycorn' increments; the sizing formula being quoted thus:  'Today in America, the sizing generally adheres relatively closely to a formula of 3 times the length of the foot in inches (the barleycorn length), less a constant (22 for men and 21 for women)'.   So, a foot measuring 11" would equate to a size of USM11 or USW12, which I find odd as perceived wisdom suggests that a number difference of two (not one) between male and female sizes is generally the case.  Or is that 'plus one' a purely theoretical difference, as in most cases the shape and fit of the female shoe requires 'plus two' in sizing?  (I know that my feet - equivalent to USM12 or 12.5 -  require a full USW14 if to fit properly.

You quote USW9 as being 9 7/8" (although 1/3" increments would suggest 9 2/3" or 10").  And the 'formula' would suggest USW9 = 10".   I'm sure that neither of us would quibble over these tiny theoretical differences, but taking actual measurements in millimetres to identify sizes (as the Eu system does) is less controversial.   That is how I got the Eu38:40 ratio of 95%.

I may have misunderstood your application of the percentage, in that I was suggesting that the steepness of an Eu38 4" heel is the same as that of an Eu40 4.25", obtained by dividing 4 by 0.94.   But we are both agreed that (obviously) the apparent steepness of a given heel height decreases with increasing foot length and in the same proportions.

22 hours ago, mlroseplant said:

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.

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.

On 11/26/2025 at 10:55 AM, at9 said:

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.

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!

11 hours ago, mlroseplant said:

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. ,...

11 hours ago, at9 said:

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".

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.

I think that the posts from mlrose and at9 are responding in the wrong thread - see 

On 11/23/2025 at 4:55 PM, Shyheels said:

Yes four inch heels does have a ring to it. Here in Britain we use both measurements regularly. Our speed limit signs are in mph, but we guy our food in grams and kilos. We measure our height in feet and inches and talk about our weight in pounds and stone. Screws and bolts are metric, as are most tools. We buy petrol in litres but talk of miles per gallon. It can be weird.

...

UK anachronisms also include: milk bought in either pints or litres (according to the seller); beer on draught in pints but when in cans or bottles it is metric (330, 440 or 500 ml etc).   Timber sold in length increments of 300mm (the 'metric foot') and plasterboard which was 8' x 4' now 'shrunk' to 2400 x 1200mm, but most other sheet material (e.g. MDF, plywood) still 2440 x 1220mm (equivalent to 8' x 4')!   And model railways, for example, are commonly built to a scale of 4mm:1 foot (UK) or 3.5mm:1 foot (US and Europe), both using a track gauge of 16.5mm (which is therefore too narrow to represent standard gauge of 4' 8.5" in the UK but almost spot-on for US/Europe models).  You need your wits about you when doing construction work or model-making, but we are used to the mixture.    I still 'think better' in imperial when doing joinery or plumbing etc but will often use millimetres when dealing with small measurements, as working in, say, 64ths of an inch is rather tiresome.

Getting back to the Hot Chicks discussion, this lady ('Engineering in Heels') has a number of videos showing her wearing, and analysing in detail, some very high stilettos - 13cm and above.   Well worth a viewing.   Link to one of the Hot Chick 130 appraisals: 

1 hour ago, higherheels said:

@Puffer I have a size 37.

...

I think your girlfriend was an exceptional talent in heels.

Her 14 cm heels would mean something like 13 cm in standard size, so like the Louboutin Hot Chick again. I was well used to high heels when I got mine, and yes I was able to walk in them from the very beginning. But it was not an elegant/comfortable walk in a way that I would've worn them out immediately 😉

And I've seen so many other women struggling to walk in something like a 7 cm heel.

So I think there is some kind of natural talent for walking in heels, and your girlfriend definitely had it!

...

Thanks for clarifying your shoe size; I now see why the heel height varied.

9 hours ago, Shyheels said:

That would be extremely unusual. I can only think that the bar to success in 14cm was set quite low - simply being able to walk without falling - or that there was a platform involved somewhere. Or that she is or was a ballet dancer.

...

So I’m just finding it hard to picture someone slipping on a pair of 14cm court shoes and striding out of the shop unless there is some very unusual circumstance.

My former GF had no obvious experience in ballet or any other activity that might have helped with high heel wearing.   (Her occupation was a maternity assistant in hospital - so on her feet most of the time and in 'sensible shoes' too!)  The 5.5" stilettos were slingback courts from Honour in London and had no platform.  She didn't go 'striding out of the shop' after they were bought, but wore them for a few hours at home before going out in public with little difficulty.  She did say that she doubted that she could dance in them; that was never really attempted.   I wish that I had taken a pic or two!

Some interesting discussion about these different heel heights and wearability.   But I'm confused - mlroseplant says that Hot Chicks in size 40 have a measured 13.7cm heel, but higherheels says that hers (apparently also size 40) measure 12.7cm, which sounds a little low.   Which is right, please?

Nearly 30 years ago, I had a GF who had not been a regular wearer of significantly high heels and had probably not gone above about 3.5" (9cm).   She was not a particularly nimble or athletic person either.  But she was perfectly willing to go higher and was soon wearing 4 - 4.5" stiletto heels (UK 7 = Eu40) regularly - and when she acquired a pair of 5.5" (14cm) courts she had little difficulty in wearing them from the outset (unless on very slippery/uneven ground, understandably).   Alas, the relationship did not last but the memory of her high stilettos did!

On 11/7/2025 at 9:18 AM, Shyheels said:

While I agree there is a north-South divide in terms of people wearing heels, I’ve not noticed any of the other characteristics you describe - at least not in Yorkshire or Lancashire, not in height, build or dress sense. Outlook may be more traditional, which is why you will likely see more women smartly turned out in heels in Leeds say than in London, but otherwise it’s all much the same. Unless you were looking for heels, and noticing that you saw more up here than down south, I doubt you’d notice any difference.

My observations about 'northern women' particularly relate to the Tyneside and Glasgow areas.   It was certainly more obvious there that shorter (but not necessarily slimmer!) women prefer heels and that 'dressing up' was more common, and likely more traditional/expected, even for fairly routine activity such as work or shopping.   The current observations of VirginHeels bear this out.   Frankly, I get the distinct impression that few women in the south can be bothered to make an effort unless they are attending a really dressy event, in which case expensive designer clothes will often be present, but not necessarily an improvement on high street fashions.

23 hours ago, Shyheels said:

I see heels quite frequently in Leeds and York. In York it tends to be more chunky heels because there are so many cobbled streets, although I have seen some intrepid souls gliding along in stilettos as though they hadn’t a care in the world. There is certainly a north south divide in the UK as regards heel wearing. It’s much more common in the north

There is certainly such a divide.   Women in the north of England and Scotland are often shorter, hardier and more inclined to make a statement with their appearance and demeanour (not always attractively).   Altogether, those factors tend to promote high heels - and bare legs/sandals/no coat, even in cold weather.   

From my own observations, men in the north tend to dress in a much more casual and often sloppy manner - unless at a formal event, such as a wedding, when the waistcoats and ties - albeit typically left undone as soon as possible (ugh!) - will be seen.   I suspect that this male contrast and discomfort stems from a working-class background: a miner or shipwright for example would tend to dress in rather shabby clothes but have a 'Sunday best' suit in which he was never really comfortable - and which was often in the pawnshop when not immediately needed.

I was at a modest family function yesterday morning - a granddaughter's third birthday party in a village hall.   The guests were mostly couples in their early thirties with their children aged  from 2 months to about 8 years.   Of the dozen or so mums present, all were wearing trousers (except for one in leggings), and all were in nondescript flat shoes or boots.   Whilst it wasn't a 'dressy' occasion in the accepted sense, it was disappointing to see that none of the women had made any real attempt to depart from very casual 'weekend' wear.   And the men were but little smarter; I was almost the only one not wearing trainers.