Puffer

Hi all the reason I joined is because I used to work In Regent Shoe Shop Wardour Street Soho London 1965 - 1968 there was a ladies and mens department and a lot of show people used to come in Cliff Richard, Ike and Tina Turner, Everly Brothers, Christine Keeler, Sabrina 'to name just a few, the Flamingo Club was next door. They were happy times I shall never forget

Very interesting, James. I well remember Regent Shoes - always good to look in the window (albeit a little furtively!) when passing. One of the few places to still offer a good range of stilettos in the late 60s when they were (allegedly) out of fashion.

Another member here, Heelfan, worked there too (perhaps a lttle earlier than you) and has told us of his experiences. It would be good if you could do so too - how about it?

... in one man's opinion "stripper heels" as some call them are the clear plexi-glass sandal-types with ankle strap that do not seem to appear anywhere else in fashion or fun EXCEPT in stripper bars-

Quite right, JSpike. And the sandals (or mules) that you describe should STAY in stripper bars - where decent 'only-one-dance-and-my-wallet's-empty' folk like me will never venture!

By chance, I came across the website of Yesstyle.com, which is a Hong Kong business but ships worldwide (free of charge on orders of more than $150). It lists a range of men's shoes called 'Deepstyle' which appear to come from Korea; see http://www.yesstyle.com/en/deepstyle-mens-shoes/list.html/bcc.11537_bpt.299_bid.311493 The size range is rather erratic; some but not all are available up to 300mm (approx equivalent to UK11 or USM12). Prices are mostly on the high side but some styles are currently discounted.

Several of the styles shown are quite 'dressy' and feature modest high (cuban) heels. One style, called 'Handmade boots' (sizes to 300mm), features a 100mm block heel and a platform sole of around 25mm - rather chunky in my view but indicative that high heels for men are being offered as normal wear. Are they more commonly worn by men in Korea or elsewhere in Asia than in the US or Europe?

The range is available elsewhere on the web and may interest some members.

The boots Rob mentions are all eminently wearable and certainly not boring. As he says, the problem is the price and I agree with him that we need more stylish men's shoes that are not only readily available but more affordable.

The Paolo Vandini range is worth looking at. I have these boots:

http://www.vandinishoes.com/17,8,paolo_vandini_veer_collection.Veer_4_Mens_Leather_Boot_Winklepicker_Black.html#

- very comfortable soft leather and with a 1.75" heel; they are favourites of mine (and were bought on eBay in first class condition for about £30!). This is a similar boot with (I think) a centre seam:

http://www.vandinishoes.com/17,109,paolo_vandini_veer_collection.Lazarus_Mens_Winklepicker_Boot_Leather_Black.html#

These boots have a more obvious and higher cuban heel (height not specified but probably about 2.25") and would be worth looking at:

http://www.vandinishoes.com/29,166,just_arrived_.Vandini_Veer_12_Winklepicker_Boot_Black_Leather.html#

A cuban heel looks much better to me on a boot (or possibly a slip-on shoe) than on a lace-up - but then I don't much like lace-ups. And it must have some narrowness and taper in the back and sides ( i.e. not be too 'blocky') if the shoe is not to appear too clumpy. For the same reason, at least a semi-pointed toe is a must, imho.

... All afternoon, we were reminded that the CAUSE of most accidents on the roads are a) Lack of concentration and anticipation...and Excess speed.

A driver's inability to control the vehicle after the accident has begun is a secondary factor - which can be avoided if you strictly observe speed limits and thus allow yourself more reaction time . At least, that's what the Police Officer and Driving Instructors told us.

I guess they were wrong then.

Pussy: this is not the place for a detailed exposition on the legal doctrine of causation - nor do you want one! What you were told (and said yourself before) is essentially correct in lay terms but it is not the full story. (And, given the purpose of the course, you might well expect some embellishment or exaggeration to take place to pursuade everyone to mend their ways.)

Yes, most accidents will have poor concentration/reaction or speed as an indirect contributory factor but neither is the direct cause of an accident. Think about it: you can drive safely for miles at excessive speed or with a wandering mind (as many do!) but there will only be a problem when adequate control of the vehicle is lost - for that or some other reason, e.g. a burst tyre or black ice. It is that loss of control (for whatever reason) which is the direct cause of the accident.

You go on to talk of loss of control 'after the accident has begun'. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that - presumably a failure to react correctly when a collision or other dangerous situation has become obvious - but not yet inevitable. Yes, that is a secondary matter; it is not the same as the failure to control the vehicle which led to the danger in the first place.

If we go back to my example, one may drive at excessive speed for miles without a problem. Suddenly, an obstacle is seen in the driver's path. He reacts swiftly and surely and stops or steers round the obstacle. He has not lost control and there is no accident. Alternatively, he fails to see the obstruction in time or fails to react properly when he does (or both); his vehicle is then not under proper control and some sort of accident takes place - the cause being that lack of control (but not his speed or slow response as such).

OK - this is something of a semantic argument and I accept that speed etc can be viewed simplistically as the 'cause' of many accidents although in reality it is nothing more than a scene-setter or influencing factor, however crucial. I would be hard pressed to convince you that jumping off a high building was not the 'cause' of death in the street below - but the true cause is the failure of the human body to withstand the impact on landing. The jump itself was neither fatal nor particularly unpleasant; the arrival at ground level was however both!

... It is a published fact, that ... 75% of all road traffic accidents in this Country are caused by.....excess speed. Police figures show this time and time again. ... If a high heeled shoe causes you to drive at excess speed, or interrupts your concentration, then it could be cited as a contributory factor, but that is all. ...

I hesitate to criticise, Pussy, as your comments are well-meant and correct in essence. But a little more precision is needed to put things in perspective.

Accidents are not caused by speeding or by wearing a particular type of shoe (or no shoes at all) or by e.g. eating a sandwich or doing some other act. They are caused by a failure to control a vehicle correctly - to which end any of the other acts may be a contributory factor but not a cause as such. The various offences arise from such a failure to control or to drive in accordance with arbitrary legal restrictions (speed limits, signs, alcohol limits etc) or for using a vehicle that is not in a safe condition. Any of those failings will be cited if a prosecution is brought but the essential wrongdoing is one of not controlling the vehicle properly, having regard to all the prevailing circumstances that every driver is obliged to take into account as soon as he gets behind the wheel.

I neither condone nor condemn driving in heels or in any other manner that might interfere with necessary control. It is the driver's judgement and, alas, an error may be made. But, if there is no accident, there is unlikely to be any related offence (or, at least, any detected and actionable offence). As you say, merely wearing heels is not (yet) considered a specific offence - contrast with being presecuted for being 'under the influence' even if there has been no movement of the vehicle, let alone any accident.

What does worry me is the reported trend of prosecuting for alleged lack of control when e.g. eating an apple at the wheel in stationary traffic. Doing something that might, if continued, contribute to poor control is not the same as actually losing control and (unlike DUI or using a phone) has not yet been made the subject of a specific offence.

Mind how you go!

A very interesting, intelligent and literate account of yourself and your activities, Confused. You are, by your own description, something of an enigma - or perhaps maverick is a better word - in that your appearance, interests and pursuits do not make the most obvious of matches! Unconventional - probably; well-balanced - almost certainly. I don't think you need to be concerned about your emerging feelings for heels. Most of us here have experienced them too - but maybe so long ago that they are simply history and nothing more than marking the first hesitant step along a road that is now increasingly trodden with growing confidence and pleasure. (Forgive the flowery prose - but it does fit ) Your GF is clearly sympathetic - that is one major hurdle which you seem to be clearing with greater ease than many here and a big bonus. You have been given some good supportive advice above. And you are so lucky to have a foot size that can be satisfied in any high street! You will be spoiled for choice when shopping but don't go overboard at first, especially if you plan to street-heel in male mode - and I doubt that you would find it easy to adopt a more feminine persona, even if you wished to. It was suggested above that you check heel heights carefully when browsing; more good advice. A small tape measure or a 6" ruler (easier to use) is certainly useful - or you could mark the side of your thumb in ballpoint at (say) 5" from the tip so that, when you lay your thumb discreetly along a heel, you have a pretty good indication of its true height - I often use that trick. Whatever happens, good luck to you - and let us all know how you get on.

If anybody calls me "Cherie", I'll bust his/her nose! That would be offensive and derogatory.

Why is that term offensive in some way, either generally or just to you? It simply equates to 'luv', 'dear', 'sweetheart' or similar mild title of affection.

Is it because that spelling is to be used in addressing a female - otherwise 'cheri' for a male? But in speaking, they sound the same and I fail to see your problem.

You said that there is no asexual word of address in French. I am no linguist (cunning or otherwise! ) but I gave you an example. Please explain what is wrong with it.

I often attend 1940s events dressed in the fashion, and love looking the part, with my hubby dressed as a Spiv, selling stocking etc from his case.

Have made some really good friends at these events, so if you know of any please drop me a line, come and see a real 1940 model

That sort of event is quite commonly organised in conjunction with vintage transport and/or wartime re-enactments. Most of the preserved railways hold such events annually and they can indeed be great fun. Some years ago, I went to one at the tramway museum in Crich, Derbyshire and it was really enjoyable, with people in 1940s outfits or uniforms and demonstrations of the Lindy Hop etc.

It is a different way of having a fancy dress party or dance too and can appeal to all ages. A novelty for the young and nostalgic for the old. It is surprising what vintage costumes are found in the attic and given a new airing!

I think that the 'Goodwood Revival' (mentioned above) is really all about cars and fashions of c1960 (stilettos included, naturally). A different era but equally enjoyable.

I have no idea about the age or source of those boots but they are certainly not a style that was worn in the UK in public in the 1930s (or indeed at any time in the 20th century, apart from perhaps in the first or last decades). They look very Victorian to me and scarcely street wear even then. My guess is that they were worn by (or intended for) showgirls, actresses, models (e.g. Bettie Page) or other 'ladies' of more shadowy occupation. They are however quite attractive.

Maybe someone can be more specific about their pedigree.

Some good suggestions above regarding 'acceptable' but more exciting men's shoes. Apart from those in my avatar, I have these cowboy boots: http://www.hhplace.org/attachments/guys/11290d1289676294-who_has_bought_some_new_shoes-cowboy_2.jpg and these loafers: http://www.hhplace.org/attachments/shoe_repair_modifications/103d1188336601-more_stretching_needed-evans_1.jpg, both with very similar 2.75" heels and readily wearable (although the loafers (10UK) don't fit me and are for disposal if anyone is interested).

The Shark's loafers are OK for male wear but are rather too heavy (especially the soles) for my liking. The Oxfords are also acceptable (if the narrower heel is tolerated) although not a style I would wear.

(Note: Why cannot I post the pics direct from my files? I get a message saying that they have been uploaded before so I had to link to earlier posting. Why is repeating a previously used pic unacceptable?

... I'm usually addressed as "Luv', Dear, Hon, Sweetie ... But there isn't such words in French. ...

Cherie??

There is a product called Goo Gone which is available in most grocery and big box stores in the cleaning supplies section. It dissolves the residue, it isn't dangerous or flammable, and it has a nice citrus smell. Best thing to use.

Steve

Goo Gone probably not available in the UK - and, if it is, it will be ten times the price of one of the common solvents I suggested. Granny's remedies are invariably simple, economical and worth trying first.

Any ides for getting off those particularly sticky labels which always disintegreate when you try to peel them?

It's just more frustrating to have bits of label left on the shoe.

Ian G

A little gentle heat (hair dryer) used with caution will often work. But lighter fuel (or petrol), white spirit or meths - in that order of preference - rubbed into the label will generally take it off in combination with a thumbnail. (No smoking or naked lights, of course, and be wary of sole colouring also being removed.)

damn,i thought new zealand was a kewl place...maybe not,eh

Not a kewl place - but certainly a kiwi place!

Whatever next - the UK increasing the VAT rate on high heels? (You read it here first.)

Well worth watching, even if one has no Swedish! As Awtucs says, quite a lot of dialogue is in English. A minor irritation in this and other films with subtitles is that they invariably appear at the bottom of the picture - just right to obscure many of the shoes on view!

Leaving the stickers on is not only sloppy but can be embarrassing. Some years ago, I was in church for a wedding. When we knelt down to pray, I got a good view of the shoes of the woman in front of me (which were totally unexciting, as was she!). On one shoe sole was a prominent sticker clearly marked 'Shopsoiled: £3 to clear'. Enough said!

We are of a similar mind, Histiletto. It's interesting that you have felt obliged to wear men's shoe styles that you dislike 'to satisfy social expectations' - which I assume to mean 'to conform'. You are certainly not alone - in the UK we can still see the archetypal 'city gent' whose clothes and shoes have changed little in nearly 100 years and who might well face ridicule if he departed markedly from his expected uniform. There are other examples too, at work and otherwise.

As a teenager and young adult, I was never truly rebellious or even particularly fashion conscious and largely conformed to what was expected of a schoolboy (in uniform) and then a trainee and subsequently qualified professional, working in and around London. But I never wore lace-up shoes with round toes (the Oxford - or 'beetle-crusher') or any other similarly stuffy, formal footwear, for work or otherwise. Slip-on shoes, Chelsea boots and the like were my normal footwear - with pointed toes when they were in vogue (and if they remained undetected at school!) - and they still are. Yes, I suspect that a few contemporaries and figures of authority considered my footwear to be too informal but I doubt that I lost anything as a result. I could never pluck up courage to wear 1960s cuban heeled Beatle boots (although I do now!) and I detested the clumpy 1970s platform shoes (and most of the other fashions of that era), the near-universal adoption of trainers from the 1980s and the more recent adoption of 'work boots' for supposedly smart casual wear.

I suppose I have been stuck in a time-warp for about 50 years (and I'm scarcely unique in that) but have invariably tried to put a slight edge on my otherwise fairly conservative male appearance by wearing shoes that are just a tad more exciting than those normally worn by men in formal mode, or even casually. I think the main ingredients have to be lightness (no thick soles), no very rounded toes or toecaps, a minimum of laces (if any) and a little discreet embellishment such as a buckle, snaffle or strap. Even a plain black shoe can be smartened in this way; another colour may be a bonus if the outfit calls for it. A slighter higher and narrower heel than normal is fine if the shoe or boot will take it without looking contrived. The loafer is a good example - it has been borrowed from us by the ladies and given a higher heel and it's about time we took it back in that form! Ditto the Chelsea boot.

Men's shoes are not always boring - even if their wearers may be.

I wish I'd read this a few days ago; I might well have been inspired to follow Morpho's example! We've had heavy snow since Tuesday in SE England (with much disruption) and it is only melting away today. I would perhaps have been able to venture out one evening in local streets wearing (synthetic) HH boots, fairly safe in the knowledge that: (a) few people were around to see me; ( the boots would be largely hidden anyway by the depth of snow; © heel noise would be minimal. I suspect too that a heel would have been better for grip than a flattish smooth sole. I won't pray for a further white-out but, when it comes, a small experiment is quite likely.

I have to agree that, overall, there is relatively little variety in men's shoes - but that is not quite the same as saying that all men's shoes are boring. Obviously, it is a question of personal taste and we should all like to have more exciting, daring, fancy, 'prettier' shoes to buy and wear openly - regardless of the heel style or height.

I rarely wear lace-up shoes/boots/trainers (outside a purely functional/safety context) and almost always buy slip-on shoes or zip/elastic-sided ankle boots. There is quite a variety in these styles and they are certainly more exciting than an ugly Oxford, Derby or brogue lace-up clodhopper. Cuban heels (usually around 2") are sometimes found on both styles, particularly boots.

Slip-ons can be in several styles (e.g. moccasin, loafer or more formal) with metal or leather snaffles, cross-straps or ties, textured panels, pointed or more rounded toes and a fair variety of colours (including white, grey, burgundy, blue and patents).

Boots are generally plainer but the shaft height can vary and they may have decorative straps and pointed or chisel toes. Longer boots worn outside trousers remain elusive, except for wellies and when horse-riding etc.

Even men's sandals are getting lighter, more open and less clumsy, with several unisex styles 'borrowed' from women being worn as a matter of course with casual clothes. (But a men's dress sandal with, perhaps, a higher heel remains to be seen.)

A shoe without a proper heel is not automatically 'boring' (even if not very exciting to wear). And vice versa - there are quite a few (women's) shoes with heels that I consider boring and unflattering, e.g. Oxfords, Mary Janes, boots with big platforms, wedge bootees.

In rather more than 50 years of 'street observation' of shoes in general, I have seen very few men in heels going about their normal business in public, ignoring the many men who wore cuban heeled boots or clumpy platform shoes when they were normal men's fashions in the 1960s/1970s and a few over the years in fairly tame cowboy boots or the recent cuban styles. Perhaps half a dozen crossdressers of varying fidelity, only one of whom (circa 1964, outside my school of all places!) impressed me with his choice of high stilettos. And, perhaps another half dozen in male mode but wearing high-heeled footwear that was almost certainly marketed as women's - and half of them were fellow HHP members. The most extreme was Xaphod wearing 4" blade heeled boots, sharing my Underground train. I don't frequent clubs so I can't comment on what might be worn there, either on normal nights or for Halloween or other fancy dress occasions. I have been to a few pubs with drag shows etc but, aside from the performers, cannot recall any sightings amongst the clientele. Strange really - I would have expected to see more. But maybe they are simply discreet to the point of being invisible - as I should prefer to be.

Although I'm somewhat late in reading this, one point not made before is, I think, relevant. In his thoughtful and sympathetic account of meeting Janice, Roniheels carefully referred to 'this person' and subsequently used male pronouns to describe Janice. As was perfectly clear from the account, Janice was (then) a biological male and could only be be described in male terms (at least, without sounding patronising or causing possible confusion).

There is a big difference between giving a factual description of a male wearing female clothing and the form of address one would use in conversation with one. Roniheels was right to use male descriptors because his account was wholly about frank discussions with a man who was quite openly wearing female clothes and said he was intending to become a female. That is not the same thing as having a casual conversation with a man en femme who wants to be accepted as a female and (understandably) addressed accordingly.

To write or say something along the lines of 'I met a man wearing women's clothes who told me that she intended to become a female' is contradictory and, at best, confusing.

Just had to throw this in there.

Speaking of Carol Vorderman, love her overall jeans and boots look in this short clip:

That reminds me: Carol was apparently known as 'Boots' Vorderman in her student days as she regularly wore boots, including thigh boots. I wonder if any pics exist?

I agree with you, Benno, that Countdown is a shadow of its former self. Rachel is a lightweight and Jeff Stelling is often cringe-making - he should stick to sports reporting (where I would be sure to avoid seeing him). Richard Whitely was excellent but I thought that both Des O'Connor and Des Lynam were noble successors. Still, Countdown keeps my mum (91 and a regular viewer) mentally active, so I should be grateful for that. It's always good to see Carol V; she has looks and brains and a personality too (albeit sometimes a little conceited).

Yes and no, Bubba. I’m sure that most presenters get help with choosing clothes (whether they want it or not!) but I don’t think they are denied significant input, let alone forced to wear something they dislike. Some (such as newsreaders) generally get an allowance towards their overall clothing budget. They wear their own clothes, with the expectation that they will look smart and keep up appearances. And those presenters whose clothes are bought for them will often buy (or steal!) their favourite cast-off TV outfits and keep them for personal wear later, if suitable.

This article in the Daily Mail reveals a little of Rachel’s background: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1314363/Rachel-Riley-I-good-figures-Im-rubbish-making-wardrobe-add-up.html?ito=feeds-newsxml#ixzz10WKxvJBe

If you cannot download it, these two statements are of interest:

‘With a lot of help from the show's stylist, I now stick to smart, simple and feminine dresses. About twice a year, the stylist and I go shopping on Regent Street, as I get a clothing allowance for Countdown.’

‘I have about 20 pairs of my own [shoes] and 20 in my Countdown wardrobe, and my rule is never to buy anything that I can’t walk in. I love shoes with a quirky edge and heels for work. I really like Kurt Geiger and Zara shoes, and I’ve just bought a great pair of patent animal print heels from Russell & Bromley.’

Personally, I think that Rachel can look very attractive but her skirts can be too short and some of her shoes are somewhat clumpy. She has said (as above and elsewhere) that she likes high heels and has no problems wearing them on set. However, she does sometimes look a little unbalanced – but possibly that is because she does not do much other than stand or move a couple of paces whilst presenting. She may well be more graceful if walking around normally, which we don’t really get to see (a pity!).

Rachel’s predecessor, Carol Vordermann, was pictured recently with her pretty daughter at a function. Both were in glamorous outfits and shoes and looked great.