Puffer

Very nice boots, NEH.   In relation to having a wide range of footwear to choose from, your small feet will be a blessing.   I'm assuming that the rest of you is in proportion! 😆

10 hours ago, mlroseplant said:

My point is that the usual footwear with very formal dresses is sandals, not pumps. The irony of this is that extreme formal situations (white or black tie events) always call for a floor length gown, and therefore who cares what you've got on your feet? Nobody can see your feet.

...

Thanks for the clarification, but it was your earlier assertion that 'you never see single sole pumps' that surprised me.   A strong word is 'never', and I don't accept it (or even your alternative of 'usual') as true here.   Look at pics of formal functions (particularly those involving celebrities) and, where the footwear is visible, you will indeed see many women wearing sandals, almost always barefoot.   But not all will be so shod; courts/pumps (with or without open toes) and even boots can be seen, not to speak of any of these styles also having a platform.   

Although women have often worn sandals with some form of 'evening dress' or other formal outfit for a century or so, sandals, especially if of a fully-open nature and worn barefoot, were until around 50 years ago considered by many in Western society as too casual and informal for most truly formal functions.   A noteworthy example of changing times, with the arguably ultra-casual item of apparel now being the common preference for the ultra-formal activity - and which may perhaps be contrasted with the inexplicable desire of many young women to don heavy 'work boots' to complement a floaty dress for casual activity on a hot summer's day.   I applaud the first scenario as much as I deprecate the second!

12 hours ago, mlroseplant said:

... Oddly enough, at the extreme dressy end of the (usually) female spectrum, you never see single sole pumps, do you?

Not sure I understand your point here.   What footwear are you suggesting that a woman would wear in 'extreme dressy' mode?   Single sole pumps or sandals (usually with highish stiletto heels) seem to be current/recent favourites, surely? 

I think, upon reflection, that we have failed somewhat in these comments to distinguish 'casual activity' from 'casual dress'.   They ought to correspond (within sensible limits), but often don't - especially with the growing trend of people wearing casual (and sometimes sloppy) outfits for activity of a formal or semi-formal nature.   We can all think of examples, and not just the torn jeans and flip-flops at the dinner party.   

The trend to dress 'up' in a casual setting, if at all, is alas becoming rarer.   This is one reason why I don't go out so much these days (to socialise or otherwise) as there is no longer either any encouragement or much incentive to 'make an effort' after a day spent in 'retirement casual wear' - especially as my wife is reluctant to bother to look 'different', even though she would have good reason, or excuse, to explore her wardrobe.

On 10/27/2023 at 10:53 AM, mlroseplant said:

For once, you have me stumped. You must be using a different definition of "casual" from what I intended, and I can't figure out what definition that might be. What I meant by "casual" is that which is worn in non-formal situations in one's leisure time. To be sure, the popular definition of "formal" has shifted a lot during my lifetime, but I am talking about situations like grocery shopping or sightseeing, where one is highly unlikely to be wearing a jacket and a tie (or some floor length, flowing dress). The platforms go better with the casual look than with more formal, dressier looks.

I too find it hard to reconcile these concepts.   Yes, casual = non-formal, which surely implies some simplicity and utilitarianism in style and look, with minimal embellishment?   Since when has a shoe or boot with an intentionally built-up platform sole (as distinct from a cleated sole for grip) been other than embellished for effect rather than need?   (One might thus argue that any 'high heel' cannot be casual, but a modest cuban/block/wedge heel at least could be considered as an integral part of many otherwise plain/casual shoe styles.)   If I saw someone in high(ish) platform shoes - or indeed modest single-sole stilettos - out shopping for groceries, I would hesitate to call their dress 'casual', even if the activity is clearly both 'casual' and 'informal'.    That all said, I can accept that concepts have changed over the years.   In the early 1960s, a woman would be as likely to wear a pair of mid-heeled stilettos as she would a pair of slip-on flats for almost any informal activity, but nowadays the heels (with or without a platform) would (alas) be mostly kept for what little remains of formal/dressy activity.

11 hours ago, mlroseplant said:

... For dressier occasions the single sole pump looks, well, just better somehow. The platform looks more casual, which is fine, because I happen to wear heels in casual situations.

I agree that a plain(ish) single-sole stiletto court/pump with a pointed toe is the classic 'dressy' shoe for most occasions - simple but effective.   But I find it hard to equate a platform shoe with a 'more casual' look; its intentionally heavier/chunkier appearance suggests the opposite, surely?   And even more so the increasingly common 'work boot' styles with thick cleated soles and bulbous toes - casual only in the sense of being the opposite of elegant.   It seems to me that truly casual footwear has to be something like a ballet flat, a canvas plimsoll (sneaker) or a rubber flip-flop.   

Interesting to compare the Bellafina and Klory shoes, with a similar rise.   The look of the Bellafina, with its platform, heel shape and rounded toe is simply not in the same league as the Klory, imho.   The Bellafina simply lacks (in one word) 'elegance' and, if it was a human, I might struggle to give it the right pronoun!   

21 hours ago, Cali said:

I had a pair of older heels brake when I got out of the car at work two weeks ago.  I had to wear my running shoes.  I got so many questions of "are you all right?" "Why no heels?". It like I am expected to be in heels.

If the car was still moving when you alighted, I imagine your older shoes did have to brake.   Have the running shoes got brakes too - 'brake shoes'?   

On 9/26/2023 at 10:58 AM, mlroseplant said:

This week's church outfit is almost a repeat from about two months ago, but it's not an exact repeat--the shirt is different. I wanted to wear my red patent Via Spiga sandals again, and these red items of other clothing were readily available.

...

12 hours ago, ohnoberty said:

Apart from good story, I cannot applaud you enough on your strength and conviction in being able to be this open and direct. I wish I had this level of convistion too. 👏

I can't recall you ever commenting specifically on the reaction you get, or have had, from your church congregation (whom I assume are nearly all 'regulars') to your 'unconventional' footwear.   I'm sure they are (almost) all decent and polite people and probably would not be critical or worse, at least to your face, and of course they are by now well-used to seeing you thus shod.   But surely there were some raised eyebrows and questions, at least 'in the beginning' (as the good book puts it)?

7 hours ago, Jkrenzer said:

Protection js protection, PVC is PVC so just use whatever as long as you mark the pipe so the next guy knows what you did.

Most U.S. states require a "certified" electrician to do all work. Melrose does high end jobs but most house wiring is super simple. It's the old, bull shit, union rules that got legislated in that you need to be aware of. I have rewired multiple homes (not 100% just sections), as long as it isn't overly obvious most home inspectors will never know the difference. Most of those guys are failed contractors who weaseled there way into a well paying position requiring no actual output.

The English situation (since 2005) is that most domestic electrical work is supposed to be carried out by a qualified electrician, who will then notify the local authority of its satisfactory completion for recording under Part P of the Building Regulations.   There are a number of exceptions, e.g. like-for-like replacement of defective fittings and simple extensions of an existing circuit, which do not require 'professional' action or notification.   But e.g. adding a new circuit or replacing a consumer unit ('fuseboard') are notifiable.   In practice, much can be done without a 'professional' as detection is unlikely, and will only then possibly cause a problem - assuming it has not been carried out dangerously! - upon formal inspection at the time of a property sale.   And anything started before 2005 can be finished ...   (Some houseowners are slow workers!).

I rebuilt a derelict property over four years and did all the electrical work myself, other than the initial connection of the consumer unit to the incoming mains, which requires a sealed fuse to be tampered with.   As the entire property refurbishment was subject to Building Regulations, I had to get the electrics signed-off and some electricians are authorised to do 'third party' inspections and certifications.   I found one and he did the necessary and was complimentary about my standard of work and adherence to the (progressively more stringent) regulations.

My earlier comments were relating to essentially UK domestic applications.   As at9 says, larger conduit is available and there is a wide range of trunking (mostly square/rectangular) available.

The uPVC electrical conduit can be bent, using a bending machine or an internal spring (as with copper plumbing pipe) but is more often solvent-joined with elbows, although larger radious pre-formed bends are available.   The galvanised steel conduit that is widely used in more challenging locations is certainly formed or bent using heavier equipment, and of course screwed likewise.

Although, in domestic situations at least, ordinary insulated and sheathed cable can be run outside (say to supply a shed/garage) in uPVC or metal trunking - fixed above ground in a suitably protected location - it is preferable to use an SWA (stranded wire armoured) cable, with suitable glands each end; the cable is often buried.   The steel wire armouring can be used as the earth (ground), so avoiding need of a third copper conductor.   I assume similar in the US.

Yes, 'solvent weld' is the usual term here for the process to join uPVC and/or ABS pipework (including electrical conduit, which comes in 20mm and 25mm o/d sizes).   As you say, the smell is quite distinctive - and potentially addictive - and the solvent should be used with care as it has some anaesthetic qualities, as do most chlorinated organic solvents such as chloroform, carbon tetrachloride, trichloroethylene etc that are widely used for cleaning/degreasing as well as being common plastic solvents.

I can't see too clearly from your pics but I'm guessing that the threaded plastic parts are the unscrewable elements of the trap and what appears to be an air admittance valve.   Threads in uPVC components can give trouble if they are mot put together squarely (i.e. crossthreaded) and thereby get damaged or stripped.

1 hour ago, at9 said:

BSP is widely used in countries other than the UK. I think the USA has its own set of screwed pipe threads. I remember once having to fit an adaptor between a bit of US made kit and UK pipework. It wasn't easy to find that adaptor. UK push-fit waste pipe is slightly smaller diameter than solvent weld of the same nominal size. Both will work in compression fittings.

And in other news, we are wearing heels....

Yes, I have seen or used BSP fittings from much of Europe and Asia.   Woe betide the 'installer' who attempts to fit solvent-weld waste into push-fit fittings; the slight pipe-size difference is to stop someone trying to solvent-weld push-fit pipe.

11 hours ago, mlroseplant said:

Yes, we should absolutely start a pipe thread! The irony being that my new pipe is not threaded, as it is PVC.

What threads do you use in the US on e.g. tap tails and other screwed brass or iron items?   Despite metrication, we continue with BSP (British Standard Pipe) threads in the UK, generally 0.5", 0.75" and 1.0" for domestic supplies but several larger sizes are also used.   Gone are the days when household hot and cold supplies (and central heating) were run in screwed iron (let alone in lead) but of course such pipework and fittings still exist.   Copper pipes (now in metric sizes: mostly 15mm, 22mm and 28mm o/d) with either compression or soldered joints are the norm, but push-fit plastic is increasingly found too.   Waste plumbing (1.25" = 32mm or 1.5" = 40mm) is invariably uPVC or ABS, with solvent-weld, push fit or compression joints.   DIY plumbing is a rewarding exercise!

11 hours ago, mlroseplant said:

...

The famous pipe that @Puffer admires, featured in many of my past photos of shoes, may undergo some changes today! At least I hope it's today.

...

I await developments with great interest, and not a little concern.   Maybe we should have a 'Who has installed a new pipe?' thread.   

It was not my intention to stir up any hornets nests or to quibble over semantics.   My apologies to anyone who has felt misled, obstructed or offended.   I agree that, in many dictionaries and in common parlance, a sandal is regarded as a light shoe - but we (as comparative experts) can and do distinguish a shoe (generally of wholly or largely closed construction) from a sandal (generally of largely open or perforated construction).

My sole point (no pun intended for once) that someone looking at the 'New Sandals' thread would not find Peeptoe's latest and attractive purchase there, as one would rightly expect.   No big deal, but we have that thread for a reason.

9 minutes ago, mlroseplant said:

It seems as though a good percentage of our posts involve quibbling over the little things. I'm going to spin this one, and say that's a good thing, because otherwise this site might have died a slow and lonesome death from lack of posting.

I agree.   We are all, in our different ways, seekers of truth as well as pleasure and ought not to dilute our postings with vague or innaccurate references when we know better.   We might not all agree on a precise 'sandal' definition (or whatever) but we surely know one - and what is not one - when we see one.

4 hours ago, Peeptoe said:

Oh... So you're one of those.....

Well let's see then. 

Technically, a sandal is a specific type of shoe. The title of this thread does not specify a type of shoe. So I ,technically, didn't post in the wrong thread. 

I can't agree.   Informally, one might use the term 'shoes' in substitution for what is generically 'footwear'.   And the most obvious and distinct sub-divisions of footwear are shoes, boots and sandals - for which this board provides separate topics, as I'm sure you have noticed.   (There are arguably some other sub-divisions too, and a degree of overlap, but that is not the issue here.)  What you bought would be correctly described as 'sandals' and really belong in 'Who Has Bought Some New SANDALS?',   But let's not lose any further sleep over it. 

On 8/23/2023 at 4:59 AM, Peeptoe said:

Seems that I'm a sucker for a Dillard's clearance sale. After going back and forth due to the "non returnable" status that the deep discounts come attached with, I settled on a couple pairs and saved a little over $100.  I have these in another color that's a lot bolder and not easily styled. So I patiently waited for the staple colors to go on sale. 

...

 

I like these but would call them sandals, not shoes, so technically you are posting in the wrong thread!   As to platforms, these are as thick as I would ever consider acceptable; anything more just looks clumpy - especially with any sandal or open shoe.

11 hours ago, pebblesf said:

Beautiful, I am so envious

"Daydreamy" describes me as well in my school days.  Surely was fixating on my fourth grade teacher's black knee highs, along with one of my classmates.  

So, were both you and a classmate fixating on your teacher - or were you fixating on both your teacher and your classmate?   We really need to get this straight (if that is not the wrong word)!

Now I know what disturbed my nap here!   Kindly desist.

I don't know what you have to pay your cobbler for re-heeling but I doubt it is trivial.   Have you tried doing it yourself - an easy task with the wider/wooden heels?   You can buy a sheet of hard-wearing composition material and cut out heel pieces, which are easy to stick on with a nail (or two) added for security.   With stilettos, new top lifts in various sizes (pin and width) are readily available and fitting usually requires nothing more than a pair of pliers.

Those shoes with a wider, blocky, heel (if you have any) often have a plastic top lift with protruding pegs that fit into holes in the moulded shoe heel.   Not easy to replace like-for-like but my solution is to force some wooden dowel into the holes and cut off flush, with new top pieces cut from sheet material and glued into place, with a panel pin driven through into each dowel.   Or you can fill the 'void' in a moulded heel with some shaped wood and nail into that.

1 hour ago, mlroseplant said:

In this particular case, a Band-Aid (sticking plaster) would do the trick just fine, I just don't want it to necessarily show, and they always do, a little bit, if they are to be effective. I have had it happen that by wearing the shoes with a Band-Aid, it eventually brings them out of their cantankerous state, but then I've also had it happen, like @Jkrenzer fears, that it just stays that way forever. Since this leather is so soft, I do have some hope that it will be the former.

Have you tried applying a little petroleum jelly to the inside of the strap?   Usually effective to stop rubbing, especially if the material is 'real' leather.

2 hours ago, Shyheels said:

I can see your point about wearing heels to walk the dog - and I can see hers as well. For most people heels, especially higher heels, are dress shoes, big occasion shoes, not for everyday. Which is of course why they are widely perceived to be uncomfortable since, to be comfortable in heels, one needs to be wearing them regularly. And few people do that.

It’s kind of an endless loop - people don’t wear heels because they are perceived to be uncomfortable, and because they are perceived uncomfortable people don’t wear them regularly. A difficult cycle to break. We happen to like wearing heels and so we put in the efforts.

...

All too true, alas, in current and recent times.   Turn the clock back to the early '60s and most UK women (almost regardless of age/occupation) were wearing modest stilettos (3 - 3.5") for everyday activity - work, shopping, socialising - and very often around the house too.   They not only were used to such heels but had little difficulty in transitioning to the higher (4"+) heels that were frequently worn for 'dressier' occasions.

I've only just caught up with this thread, the recent tenor of which appears to be 'intolerance'.   At the risk of repeating what others have said already, I feel obliged to comment.

Spikesmike is on very rocky ground when he suggests that anything less than a fetishy stiletto heel is required for active participation on this board and, despite his obvious and extreme preferences, I am surprised as well as saddened that he should try to make the point and thereby potentially to alienate a significant number of members, me included.   Whatever individual aspirations might be - such as wearing a 5"+ stiletto heel openly in public (and without discomfort) - the majority of members will rarely if ever do so, and will be content with something more modest - and practical.   The boots pictured and worn by Peterborough in April are surely perfectly acceptable for male public wear, and by anybody's definition they have a 'high' heel.   Exactly what one might expect for initial and cautious expeditions, quite possibly leading to greater adventure in due course.   And I have little doubt that Spikesmike started somewhere similar on the heeling scale before aspiring to his usual lofty and disdainful heights.

As to the anti-heeling attitude of a close relative, I have to consider my admitted dislike of tattoos and the businesses that provide them.   It seems to me that someone closely involved in that field is in no position to sit in judgement on a man who likes to wear modest heels in public.   I know which 'look' would be considered the less acceptable or more threatening to my grandchildren, and their parents.

20 hours ago, ohnoberty said:

If we're focussing solely on the heel, then I don't think they would be my first choice as they don't have that harmony with the rest of the shoe, they seem a bit alien, although I wouldn't turn them away if given a pair.

On the other hand, as a package I think the height and the rest of the shoe makes enough of a visual impact that it's not obvious or a problem. Could easily make it in to my closet.

Yes, a sound analysis.   And Joe might agree that the shoe design and construction is what one might expect from an engineer who had been told 'Make a pair of shoes with very high and thin heels.'.