Puffer

Yes, I miss the pipework background and am 'waiting for' it to reappear.   But the shoes look nice (although I too am not keen on the colour) but I can understand your wearing concerns - they are not for everyone.

At least there can be no doubt that we should call these 'stiletto heels'.  😁

5 hours ago, mlroseplant said:

...

Unless we can figure out a way to make an offshoot, I think we have probably beat this subject to death. We are probably some of the few people who care what you call a certain heel shape, and even among our number there are a significant portion who really don't care. I suppose this is the reason why the vague term "high heels" persists without question, and that's because nobody even gives the subject a second thought. We are a very, very narrow slice of the world.

...

I think you are right - but the lack of further descriptive names will not help us here when discussing particular footwear, unless we rely mainly on photos.   Perhaps the thicker 'near-stiletto' that you favour (for very good reason) should henceforth be called a 'Melrose Heel'!

11 hours ago, mlroseplant said:

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."?

I was not clear enough in my previous post.   We had been addressing what you and I would both regard as a true 'stiletto heel' (much as you originally defined it, with my suggested amendment) and also the similar but 'unflared' thin parallel heel, which I suggested is called a 'spike heel'.

I agree that your (now famous!) shoes, as pictured, are neither stiletto nor spike and are indeed in style 'near-stiletto', which to my mind is a perfectly good description, although not an adequate definition as it begs the question as to what exactly is a 'near-stiletto' - there could be a number of variations in shoes that would still fit that generic term.   Likewise, to say simply that it is a 'high heel' is not precise enough as that term covers an even wide potential range - although I agree that your shoes are (to the layman anyway) almost the epitome of a typical high-heeled shoe that is not extreme in any detail.   

All things considered, I would suggest that anything that is not clearly a stiletto, spike, wedge, cone, cuban etc has to be given its own description (or illustration) unless and until someone comes up with a good name - preferably one that is self-descriptive and not too vague.   Which others have done - as discussed in your 'Ruminations' topic.   I repeat below the drawing I included there as a reminder.   If it isn't a 'French heel', maybe our other European friends would like to announce a 'German' or 'Dutch' heel, with your shoes being the prototype!

1 hour ago, Isolathor said:

So now we have stiletto, near stiletto, stiletto-esque and spike heels. Did i forget anything? Time to forge an ISO norm ..... 😉

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.

Yes, I agree on all counts!   Without getting bogged-down in too much minutiae, we have explored the subject amicably and ended-up with something a little more recognisable than before.   No significant deviation either - but there are those (such as my wife) who think male heel-wearing is 'deviant' enough, alas.

Until further notice, I will regard a 'stiletto' as any heel that conforms to our 'joint definition', i.e. a heel being (a) not more than 10mm across in its parallel or near-parallel lower part; and (b) with a definite outward flair in its upper half.    And anything that conforms to (a) but not (b) as simply a 'spike' heel.  🤓 

Some interesting responses above. 

My memories of 'high heels' (and particularly stilettos) go back in the UK to the mid-50s - and certainly embrace the 'golden age' before they were largely ignored from c1965-75.    Girls in my part of the UK were certainly then wearing pointed stiletto courts of the type pictured in mlroseplant's first picture (and sometimes higher), to the almost complete exclusion of the other two styles, until the latter crept back in from the late-60s.   

And I do recall early-60s press reports of Jackie Kennedy (and other US trend-setters) referring to 'spike heels', which is why I suggested that this was the common US term at that time, and probably only changing to 'stiletto heels' when (as usual) those in the US and elsewhere came to recognise the superiority of established UK terminology and it became more disseminated through TV etc. ☺️

Younger women's dress shoes in the UK from about 1970 commonly had high (4"+) but thicker heels with increasingly thick platforms, much as is the current trend (alas).   When stilettos reappeared after c1975 in the UK, they were typically paired at first with thinner platforms, but single-sole shoes soon took over and the chunkier heels were less common but still seen, as were cone heels and other variants.   Peep toes were very common on all these styles, much as today, but hosiery was indeed the norm except in casual summery settings.

As to our former EU-partners using the relatively meaningless term 'high heels', it is scarcely 'nerdy' to be precise when precision is needed - and our correspondence here is in the English language too.

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.   

3 hours ago, Isolathor said:

Outside of this forum a "she" is much more likely than a "he"!

It was a typo on my part; I intended to say 'he or she'.

'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.

7 hours ago, VirginHeels said:

I can imagine those on sone pretender on Rodeo Drive in some narcissistic wannabe rappers music video. The level of drip that would be required for that look to happen would be high.

In English (or Scottish)?

44 minutes ago, mlroseplant said:

...

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.

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!

1 minute ago, Shyheels said:

I’m Australian - cricket is a much, much, much bigger deal in Australia than it is in Britain. It is often said, only half in jest, that the second most prominent job in Australia, behind the prime minister, is the captain of the Australian cricket team.

... or whoever in the government decides whether a visiting tennis-playing bloke is allowed a visa.

8 hours ago, Cali said:

Sorry my bad stereotype, I thought EVERY Brit knew and was required to played cricket in school.  ...

A fair assumption, if not entirely correct.   Being 'required' (or even just 'expected') to play cricket or any other sport in school does not automatically lead to any interest or skill in or more than the most rudimentary knowledge of the game.   In my case, I have no interest or ability in any form of sport (as player, spectator or follower) and prefer to channel my time and whatever skill and energy I have into constructive and academic pursuits.   But my two adult sons are both keen footballers in an amateur team and I had a great uncle who played rugby union for England ...

23 minutes ago, nyenor said:

I'd like to see women playing ANY sport in stilettoes. What a sight that would be. Tennis might be fun or how about high heeled ice skating?

From my limited observation of ice skating on TV, it seems to me that both men's and women's skating boots have a 'high' heel, not unlike a Cuban.   This must be intentional (much as with men's Latin American dance shoes) and could quite possibly be increased to 3" or even more.   I wonder what difference it would make; it would likely help the skater to bend further forward for more streamlined speed, if that is what is required?

2 hours ago, Cali said:

A knuckleball or knuckler is a baseball pitch thrown to minimize the spin of the ball in flight, causing an erratic, unpredictable motion.  Many baseball players have a tough time hitting such a pitch. Very similar to a knuckleball in cricket.

I thought  I would throw a knuckleball (instead of a curve ball) to lighten up this analytical discussion. 

Those vintage Victoria's Secret stiletto wedges were one of my first high heel purchases. Before those I only had 3 inch heels.

Thanks for the explanation, although I know nothing about cricket so cannot really visualise the concept or make any comparison!

16 hours ago, Cali said:

Those are vintage Victoria's Secret stiletto wedges. (And yes @spikesmike I have worn them to work.)

I thought I would throw a knuckle ball into this conversation.🙃

I hesitate to ask what a 'knuckle ball is'.   😕

8 hours ago, mlroseplant said:

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.

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.

5 hours ago, Cali said:

...

Where does "stilettoes wedges" fall in the discussion?  All the same criteria, but in a wedge form.

 

I think the term 'stiletto wedge' is a non sequitur; I assume it was coined simply because the heel on such a shoe is relatively narrow and tapered across its back (and typically high too - but that is irrelevant).   However, as I suggest just above, imho a true 'stiletto' heel cannot be contiguous with the sole, as a wedge clearly is, regardless of its profile.   

Nice sandals, by the way!

I am trying to ignore the suggestions that any analysis along the lines capably outlined by mlroseplant should be 'nerdy', where that term is used pejoratively.   But if it is nerdy, then I for one make no apology for contributing on that basis.

As I see it, the key issue is not so much whether particular types of heel are within the 'stiletto' category but initially more a matter of defining the true stiletto heel, as originally developed, made and so-named in the early 1950s.  We do not need to consider first the question of what is a 'high' heel - a concept independent of shape or proportions but which the consensus suggests is around 4" or more in height - or the existence or otherwise of a platform sole that is not contiguous with the heel itself (as with a wedge).  If so, I do consider that mlroseplant's definition was a fair one, with the thickness, shape and proportions being the critical elements, whilst the height is irrelevant - a kitten heel of 2" or even less with the correct proportions can almost certainly be viewed as a 'low' stiletto heel.   The cross-section of the lower part of the heel can vary from the more traditional 'D' to something more square or rounded, but the overall width/diameter should really be no more than 10mm (3/8") and ideally less, albeit often then with a slightly flared tip (top piece).   The positioning of the heel (e.g. close to the back of the shoe, as so often found these days) does not in my view debar it from being a stiletto, provided that the seating and other proportions remain within bounds, although the purist would likely distinguish it on aesthetic (and wearability) grounds from the 'classic' stiletto.   

On that basis, I find it hard to accept that the 'tubular/rod/spike' heel (as ably illustrated by Isolathor) is truly a stiletto.   Yes, it is very thin but it totally lacks any significant shape in its shank and the seating is reduced.   The example then pictured by mlroseplant is even more extreme (with no discernible seating) and I cannot agree with him that this is a stiletto either.   (I'm sure that Roger Vivier et al would turn in their graves if it was suggested to them that either of these shoes had 'stiletto' heels.)   They are a high 'spike' heel, for want of a better name.   (I tend to regard them as close relatives of a 5" wire nail - and probably just as lethal!)

As to the Casadei blade heel, it is a little different in its proportions but is not nearly as extreme as the 'spike'.   Yes, it is somewhat set-back, has a squarish section and is largely metal, but none of those characteristics debar it and, even when considered together, it still seems to qualify.   And shoes of the 'Wild Pair' type (with a partially metal heel, usually round in section) certainly qualify too.

So, by all means choose and enjoy (or otherwise) the shoes and heels that you like, without worrying about labels.   But let us try to retain and reserve the much-respected 'stiletto' title for those heels that do conform to the original concept.

Some years ago, a potential juror asked the presiding judge at Lewes Crown Court (East Sussex) to excuse him on the grounds that his wife ‘was about to conceive’. The judge replied: ‘I think you mean that your wife is about to be confined* - but as you should be present in either situation, you are excused.’.

*a somewhat archaic term meaning about to give birth, although of course we still refer (in the UK at least) to a pregnant woman’s ‘confinement’.

On 12/31/2021 at 12:06 PM, mlroseplant said:

...

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.

..l

 

I see what you mean about 'near-stiletto'.   Too many 'unqualified' shoes are described these days as having 'stiletto heels' simply because the heel is relatively slim and high.   I think that much depends upon the shape of the heel and the waisting at the top, particularly to the rear.   If yours had heels that were a little straighter and accordingly had a more pronounced waist to the back of the shoe, I think they could be called stilettos, even without being narrower front-to-back - although that would also make a difference.

This may illustrate what I'm trying to say - the straight heel with the curving waist gives a different and more delicate silhouette :

I recall last summer seeing a girl wearing some shoes similar to those shown by Jeremy, with clear side panels.   It was a warm day and her bare feet were unsurprisingly sweaty.   The clear vinyl had misted-up and looked horrible; the whole effect was distinctly unappealing.   Clear heels are one thing - clear uppers quite another.   

I've just seen a reference in a TV programme to the belief that 'a baby born breech [i.e. feet or bottom first] would grow up to be a healer'.   I was a breech baby and have grown up to be a 'heeler' - does that count, or legitimise my activity?

4 hours ago, jeremy1986 said:

...

My wife picked these up from a thrift shop, for a few pounds. what a win! She never wears heels, but claims she will wear these to an appropriate event. Somehow, i think i might get more wear out of them.

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 ... 

11 hours ago, 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.

It still happens though through under investment, leaving public land having tree surgery cut to fund other things, meaning in you are on a street, it’s an act of god.

Our insurance companies are a bit more regulated as well, so can’t weasel out as much.

That tree falling like that is an act of god. Maybe cut it down or get some branches removed to get it to grow higher?

Please quote your sources.   There are many thousands of existing residential properties in England (at least) with trees of significant height close to them.   A nearby/tall tree can affect planning consent for a new property or result in additional insurance conditions as to regular inspection. 

20 hours ago, mlroseplant said:

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.

Without linking any legal qualification to you, Melrose, it is fair to say that few people who have a law degree will be experts in insurance law and practice (as Bubba implied), unless that is their specialism.   Conversely, those who are qualified in insurance will have studied several areas of law in depth in addition to insurance law, but will not have similarly deep knowledge of other areas with little or no relevance to insurance.

Obviously, the cover afforded by various types of insurance will vary and is often influenced by the law of the jurisdiction, as will be the relevant law of tort governing potential liability.   Household (home) insurance typically covers (a) damage to or loss of one's own property caused by specified perils (fire, storm, theft etc); and (b) liability to third parties arising from negligence etc in one's ownership or occupation of the property.   If a tree falls down and this is not immediately caused by e.g. negligent trimming or other work but results from adverse weather, damage to the house (but not the tree itself) is normally covered, because the 'fabric' of the house is so insured.   But if it damages a car, that damage would not normally be covered by the household insurance but should be covered by the relevant motor insurance, if comprehensive, as that insures the 'fabric' of the car.   In the absence of negligence, a falling tree would not impose legal liability on its owner for any resultant damage or injury.   In other words, damage/injury resulting from an 'Act of God' tree falling is usually only covered if whatever is damaged/injured is itself insured by a property (rather than liability) insurance against such damage or injury.   

Melrose: was your guest's car comprehensively insured by him?   If so, he surely should have been able to claim for its destruction?   Neither you nor your property insurer would be liable in the circumstances you outlined.

4 hours ago, Bubba136 said:

I seem to remember your saying, sometime back, that you had a law degree.   If you do, you should know enough about these cases to analyze them yourself.

To whom is that comment addressed, Bubba?

6 hours ago, Shyheels said:

If that is an Act of God then any unexpected happening or accident could also be considered an Act of God. So what is the point of insurance?

Not so; there is usually an identifiable (human) trigger for an accident, apart from weather/climate related events.   The latter are not generally excluded by insurance on the grounds of being an 'Act of God' or otherwise, but specific exclusions may apply, depending mainly on the type and scope of cover in question.   Damage resulting from a falling tree might be covered (or not) by either the property insurance or by insurance relating to the damaged thing (e.g. a car) or injured person.   In Melrose's case, I think his property insurer is refusing to pay for the damaged car, but his motor insurer normally would, if cover is comprehensive.

This is not really the place to go into great detail, especially not on Christmas Eve!    But I would caution Santa about entering chimneys and also caution the householder responsible for them.

Interesting material there, albeit incomplete.   I doesn't however agree totally with other references I have seen in relation to 'French' (and other) heel shapes, although as you suggest there is limited correlation between some of these historic designs and more modern footwear, including yours.   See below for one rather crude reference - you can see the difference between what are called there French, Louis and Spanish heels - with the French being most similar to yours imho, although I don't have the advantage of seeing your shoes in close-up detail .   

But, logically, the French (or Louis) heel ought to be of the type pictured in your article, with pronounced curves/flares, although I think that with higher heels that curvature is minimised.   I do agree that the Spanish heel pictured in your article is similar those on to your shoes, albeit lower.   At the end of the day, the name doesn't really matter - we know what we like to see or wear!

On 9/26/2021 at 2:46 AM, SF said:

The wife gets gel manis all the time... I will axe her.....   Maybe some day.....   sf