Puffer

Something went wrong there - it should have read:

... at infants school, age 5 - 8, in the mid-1950s. ...

Whenever I see the 'traditional' women's or children's black wellies, I am immediately reminded of being at infants school (age 5 - in the mid-1950s. We all wore wellies to school on wet days and usually took a clothes peg to keep them together when we changed into plimsolls in the building.

But the more poignant memory was of the kids (probably 15% or more of the total number) who wore wellies almost every day, winter and summer, indoors and out, usually without socks. I couldn't understand why - but mum soon enlightened me. Wellies were very cheap, waterproof (obviously!) and quite hard wearing - so favoured by the poor/large families locally who could not afford a proper pair of shoes for each child. If bought large, wellies would last a couple of years on growing feet. And this, I might add, was in a fairly affluent Thames-side Middlesex suburb, not a deprived inner-city or industrial area. No-one looked on wellies as a fashion item then!

Wellies, you say - you had it easy! In my day, we had to make do with a scrap of oilskin tied round each foot with old string ...

Hi Guys i thought id share this,my friend is having a fancy dress party next week,and she decide it should be an erotic fancy dress, so me jokingly saod what like a french maid etc. so know i have to be a french maid for the party and she has choosen theese heels for me to wear

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=260534804111&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT

ive never worn heels that high for longer than 20mins let alone at a party

Unless I am very much mistaken, these boots are the same as those still available from Priceless (and other Stylo Barratt outlets) in most sizes at only £8.00 (down from £10.00 a week or so ago): http://www.pricelessshoes.co.uk/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Product1_11051_-1_124501_11051

It looks very much as though someone has acquired a significant stock (in larger sizes at least) and is offloading them through eBay at a handsome profit. Yes, we all know it happens but there is no need to buy elsewhere in a case like this.

Priceless is well worth keeping an eye on for interesting styles in larger sizes. I have these in 11UK and they are very comfortable and easy to walk in (3.5" heel) - perhaps a better bet for you at your party: http://www.pricelessshoes.co.uk/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Product1_11051_-1_114119_11051

Good luck anyway!

A few possible misunderstandings here: 1. In Benno's first post, he seemed to me to be disagreeing with, if not mocking, the dire warnings of driving in heels. But he now seems to endorse those warnings. Fair enough, and I apologise to him if I misunderstood his stance. 2. My own previous post might have implied that I thought the warnings were nonsense. I don't - there are clearly potential hazards in driviing in any footwear that limits or precludes adequate control. But, aside from the bias in the claims manager's piece, one must recognise that driving in heels etc is commonplace and that this is only one possible factor in causing a motor accident through lack of care or control. 3. I can see that an excessively thick sole can limit sensitivity of control - and so can driving barefoot or in very thin soles. Yes, the article surely meant '7mm' maximum and one can see sense in that. 4. Given that few vehicles (and certainly very few cars) nowadays have 'organ pedals', the area of contact with the foot is in fact very limited. Wearing a high heel makes very little difference to effective pedal contact - the danger is more that the heel will jam against the floor or pedal or that arching of the driver's feet will limit mobility and pressure. (Those who drive trucks etc in work boots will know the difference in driving position, feeling and technique in comparison with a car.)

Although there is clearly some truth in any warning about driving in unsuitable footwear, you can take most of that article with a pinch of salt. It doesn't reflect either the realities of life or the state of the art in driving ability. And, don't forget, those who are ambulance chasers have a vested interest in maximising all damages awards and anything that might possibly suggest any reduction is to be actively discouraged. As to the 7cm sole reference - I had to laugh when I read it. It does nothing for the adveriser's credibility.

Frankly, I don't think these shoes look good on a woman, let alone a man. Histiletto has it about right with his comments; there is little that is flattering or attractive in a style like these. I will go further and say that I would rather wear boring, flat men's shoes than any like the 1970s platforms shown in sscotty727's nostalgic clip - they have a raised heel (great!) but nothing else to commend them IMHO.

... There is a picture of the lady "banned" in just baggy trousers and Tshirt.

I'm sure we can certainly think of more inappropriate nightwear?...

... As long as the essentials are covered, you are not in any breach of the law..

this country is getting worse......

Yes, this country is getting worse, in that (a) people's conduct in public deteriorates all the time, with yobbish and often violent behaviour by both sexes (drink-fuelled or otherwise) on the increase; and ( the 'authorities' steadily clamp-down on normal conduct and traditional freedoms in the name of health and safety or simply to raise money (i.e. you can still do it if you pay for it).

But I for one can see that shopping in nightwear (or beachwear - also banned last summer by at least one supermarket) is potentially offensive to many shops and fellow customers because it may be indecent, unhygienic or dangerous. It is not a matter of being generally lawful to dress in such a way in public, it is a restriction imposed by a business as a condition of entry to its private premises.

Whilst a stunning girl in a skimpy bikini might be a great sight, a slobbish woman in shapeless nightwear (or jogging pants etc) most certainly is not. The simple solution, which I agree with, is to ban inappropriate clothing instore - but I certainly recognise that it may be difficult to determine what is or is not acceptable.

Sometimes, the opportunity to make a comment (preferably complimentary!) about a woman’s shoes can hardly be avoided – at least, without seeming to be rude.

A few weeks ago, I was looking at the women’s shoes in the sale at Next, trying to find a pair of very ordinary boots to suit my wife – somewhat of a daunting task! I did spot something suitable but in the wrong size, so asked an assistant to check the stockroom for others. I stood waiting by the shoe shelves, feigning a total lack of interest while a rather plain girl of around 20 tried on a pretty pair of silver stiletto sandals a yard or so away, encouraged by a couple of friends. When she stood up and walked a few steps in my direction, I could hardly ignore her and said (quite truthfully) that the sandals looked good on her. She smiled and said ‘thanks’ and seemed to glad to have my approval. I guess that many women get little unsolicited interest or encouragement from a husband or boyfriend when out shopping together and a compliment from a male stranger was all the more welcome because she realised it was genuine. (And I wasn’t an obvious perv either – although others here might not agree!)

In last Friday's Eastenders, there were several sequences with Shirley Carter (the tart with a heart, played by Linda Henry) trying on and then walking in some thighboots. The boots were tight black patent with a slender metal heel of at least 4.5". Maybe worth watching in the omnibus repeat today or online during the next few days.

Linda always seems to me to be a natural in her Shirley role and I wonder whether she likes the clothes (and particularly these boots) that she wears in the part - and indeed whether she would admit it!

With due respect to previous posters, we should ignore any platform - the implication in the question is consideration of the net heel height (or 'rise'). And foot/shoe size, although it will affect the wearability of high heels, is also hardly relevant. IMHO, what we are seeking here is some agreement on what would be considered a 'high' heel in terms of net rise when worn by a woman with an average sized foot (say 6 or 7UK).

And women will not only have significantly varying views on that - based on appearance, wearability, morality etc - but are also unlikely to have the same view as most men with any intelligent interest in the subject. My vote, for what it is worth, is that, on a non-platform shoe, 3.5" is still 'medium' but 4" or more is 'high' - the jury is out on 3.75"!

Whilst there are many shoes with heels higher than 5" currently to be seen (and a few of more than 6"), almost all of them have a platform, often of significant thickness. There are, alas, very few shoes sold in or seen on the high street with a net rise of more than 12cm or about 4.75" - or does anyone here know better?

... after a about 10 months of knowing a person ... i asked her out and she said [no,] although we spend all the itme we have spare together. continually meeting up for coffees movies meals dog walking nights out christmas shopping for each other, ive introduced her to my friends and they get along. Ive met her mum n dad and they like me been to hers for lunch which she prepared and we hug and br silly together all the time...

Is that a fair precis of your original statement, which was not an easy read?

I may be an old fart with little understanding of modern relationships or misused language, but haven't you just spent most of the last ten months 'going out with' this girl - who you say now refuses to 'go out with' you? From what you've said, you've done more with her than have many people who are in a permanent relationship! I guess you mean that you now want a close/intimate/permanent relationship to the exclusion of others; am I right?

For what it's worth, I think you are wasting your time if you truly want something more than casual friendship, however often you may do things together. I know a lovely couple (not young, but young at heart) who have great fun together and are clearly soul-mates - BUT she knows that she is selfish by nature and does not want to hurt him by 'failing' in the permanent relationship which he would like. So, they stay good friends but with separate lives and I can't help thinking that they both miss out.

Yes, a good clip, manoleat. These 1950s shoe fashions seem quite familiar, don't they - especially the heel-less mule which was seen again not so long ago.

How about this one with its implied criticism of early-60s shoe fashion:

http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=70122 Pity that there is no commentary but we can guess that stilettos and pointed toes were not being praised!

Maybe the comments are not published as they wouldn't want to sway the thinking instilled into thier readers minds by the original article.

Cheers---

Dawn HH

I very much doubt it; although the site is moderated, it often publishes comments that attack articles, contributors and other comments - quite a free-for-all at times! I now see a note saying 'We are no longer accepting comments on this article', to which should really have been added ' ... and have ignored those already submitted.

Another recent Daily Mail article (with a range of comments) suggests that low kitten heels are on the way in: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1244015/LIZ-JONES-FASHION-THERAPY-Meeow-Kitten-heels-prowl-just-catwalk.html

For those who do not know her, Liz Jones is a fashion journalist with some weird ideas and a mixed-up private life who comes in for a lot of flak. IMHO she hasn't much of a clue about anything - and I hope she is wrong this time too.

Perhaps the publication has a blog to which people can post their comments. Comments are more likely to appear more quickly on the blog than in the printed material, aren't they?

There is a range of 'debate' blogs but neither Health nor Femail area has nothing current in it that I can see relevant to the article (or otherwise to high heels etc). There are some historic heel-related blogs in Femail/Fashion but nothing too exciting.

Usually, comments directly attached to a Daily Mail online article appear within a very short time (allowing for vetting), often within minutes. Some articles do not allow comments to be added ('for legal reasons') but this is not one of them, yet no comments have been attached. Strange, that!

Ditto, I'm amazed nobody hear has bother to post a comment on that article.

...Anyway, I provided a lengthy but positive comment on the article and mentioned High Heel Place (without the link, as it's not permitted to do so); let's see if they review it and publish my comments.

There are, surprisingly, no comments yet shown. It seems that, although the article was only published in the paper on Sunday, any comments submitted are being ignored. I tried to post one last night and it was acknowledged but nothing further has happened.

All in all, I thought the podiastrist's views were sensible and realistic - and probably in line with what most of us have known and believed for years. If the shoe is comfortable - wear it! And a man with flat feet is in a good bargaining position, it seems.

Thanks, Tom. I thought I remembered a past reference to various film sources and will explore them further. (Sad, isn't it, when much of the material in these archives is younger than I am!)

I've posted at http://www.hhplace.org/vintage_fashions/15704-newsreel_film.html#post229086 about the wealth of shoe-related and other film material available online from the British Pathe archive. Well worth a good look!

British Pathe (which was a major newsreel producer for some 75 years up to the 1970s) has some 3,500 hours of footage available for free 'preview' online. It is perfectly watchable, albeit in smallish format - it gets a little grainy if blown up to full screen.

By way of example, this 1977 film deals with platform shoes in terms of fashion and wearability: http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=74056

If one searches the archive using suitable terms, all manner of interesting and historic shoe-related and other material can be seen. It helps not to be too specific as more stuff often appears in response to a general search such as 'fashion' or 'footwear'.

... The BBLC is a good start. ...

Thanks, and I take the point - but I have already explained that I do NOT have the third or fourth boots pictured and they are NOT available in my size, so my wearing BBLC is academic!

Stefan - the links given by jwhite 44 are to the four pics I attached to my first post, in the order they are shown! So just go back to that.

The third and fourth boots are not available above UK9, so no use to me.

Thank you, Nigel and Yozz, for your prompt and considered responses.

I have, however, caused you a little confusion: the Priceless boots I have (my A and are those in the first two pics. The third and fourth are other Priceless boots that I do not have (and are not available in UK11) but identified as potentially of male interest. My Evans boots © are not pictured but, as I described, are very similar to B (but brown, with decoration).

I don't think that this confusion changes your view that A and B are not for newbies (so my C would not be either), but the boots in my third pic would be a reasonable choice whilst those in the fourth are less suitable for other reasons. If I have it wrong, I'm sure you will tell me!

Alhough I quite like suede, I do rather agree that it can look tatty. I hadn't particularly thought of the heel colour-contrast (also true of the Evans Boots C) giving rise to a problem, as such a contrast was not at all uncommon on the men's 'stacked heel' boots/shoes of the mid-70s.

I also agree that cowboy styles have a special character, not necessarily appropriate when home on the range in the UK! We probably latch on to them because they are an acceptable heeled boot for men rather than because they are our ideal style - I think that is your message, Nigel.

Thanks again for your views - and I should be glad to have others.

From my sporadic postings, it will be reasonably apparent that I am primarily an ‘admirer’ but with some aspirations to wear heels myself. Like many members, my desires are constrained by the limits imposed by my personal courage, realistic wearing opportunities, family condemnation and shoe size (UK11). My public heeling has never gone beyond the lofty heights of the men’s cuban boots in my avatar; see http://www.hhplace.org/everybody/10499-cuban_adventure.html.

For some time, I have hankered after available and affordable footwear that is more daring but still essentially masculine and that could be acceptable in public. The opportunity to acquire something that might suit has now arisen and I have taken the plunge with not one but three boot purchases within a week.

The Priceless Shoes website shows a number of interesting boots and shoes, several of which are available up to UK11. Prices are modest (especially with sale discounts) and reviews are favourable. Although my preference is for a fairly plain ankle boot, there is nothing really suitable on the site at present but two pairs of knee boots looked interesting and seemed worth trying – they can be returned for a refund if unsuitable. So, I ordered the two pairs pictured below on 30 December and they arrived on 5 January, packed in large boxes inside a single poly bag (with only the word ‘Barratts’ on the laser-printed label to indicate the origin). Fortunately, my wife was out so no explanations were needed!

Both pairs are Chinese-made in soft black synthetic material with full-length zips and look quite well constructed and finished. The fit was excellent – the sizing is quite generous (length and width) and they felt more comfortable than many of my men’s shoes. They both have quite wide shafts 16” high and would easily fit someone with much larger calves than mine and in trousers.

The first boots ‘A’ (£20.25 net) have a very pointed chisel toe, a nicely-shaped ‘proper’ 3.5” stiletto heel and a flat asymmetric band around the instep with a small silver side buckle. The material has a slightly grained texture, quite attractive. To my mind, these are very smart but restrained boots – and would look great with narrow jeans and a leather jacket on someone relatively slim of either sex. But the shafts are a full 18” circumference (with a small elasticated gusset at the top) and require fairly wide trousers if to be concealed inside.

The second boots ‘B’ (£15.30 net) have a very round toe and a tapered ‘cone’ heel 3.5” high and with a base about 0.6” x 0.8”. Apart from the front seams, they are completely plain and smooth. Despite the narrow heel, they are quite discreet and not too obvious if worn inside longish trousers – which (as with A) must not be too narrow if the shafts (17” circumference) are to be concealed.

On New Year’s Eve, before the above boots had been delivered, I had to go out shopping locally. My wife asked me to try to buy her a pair of modest and inexpensive low-heeled boots for casual use. (I can’t think why – she knows that I HATE looking in shoe shops!) I accomplished that task easily enough, getting her some brown mock-croc knee-boots with a 2.5” block heel in the BHS sale – nothing exciting, although they would suit male heelers!. But it did give me the excuse to explore a bit more widely, including a foray into Evans. There were several items of footwear in the sale and a pair of size 10 knee boots caught my eye, reduced from £40 to £10. At the risk of my nose suddenly growing like Pinocchio’s, I bought them ‘for my visiting niece with big feet, ill at home’ (having established the refund policy) and tried them on at home. I cannot take or locate a picture at present; the boots are not on the Evans website and are presumably old stock.

Although my only previous Evans purchase (a pair of loafers) had proved too tight, the boots (‘C’) are an almost perfect fit on my size 11 feet and easy to walk in. They are made in Vietnam and very similar to B with a round toe but in a smooth chocolate-brown synthetic material. They have a 3.6” tapered stacked heel (in lighter brown, 0.9” x 0.9” at the base) and a decorative woven buckled band (1.5” wide) around the instep. The shaft is 16” high and 17” circumference with a generous elasticated gusset at the top – again needing wide trousers if worn inside them.

So, could I (and would I) wear any of these boots in male mode in public? I tried them all out with several different pairs of jeans and found that a slightly longer straight-legged pair went well and concealed the shaft and part of the heel. My initial thoughts on overall appearance and wearability are as follows:

v As indicated above, boots A are very much to my liking and close to my ideal style. I like the pointed toes and they do not worry me, whilst the strap decoration is flat and not too obvious. I just wish that I had the nerve to wear them, exposed or otherwise, but the stiletto heel is impossible to disguise and, alas, not yet acceptable for male wear in any everyday situation. JeffB (almost identical to me in height and build – but, alas, a little younger, better-looking and more suntanned!) and others here could certainly carry it off but I don’t yet have the guts to be a pioneer.

v Worn under suitable trousers, boots B are quite plain and inconspicuous although the cone heel is somewhat narrower and higher than any men’s Cuban heel and will still be noticeable. And, to my mind, the round toe makes them look more prominent than it would if more tapered; I never wear ‘bulbous’ toes and do like pointed styles. But yes, I might get away with them under long jeans.

v My views on B apply much the same to the Evans boots C as the styles are so similar. But, although the colour and slightly thicker heel of C are OK, the decorative band cannot be hidden completely and would be difficult to remove without some spoilage. I don’t think they will be practicable, nor do I really need both B and C, so I shall probably return C – but with regret.

So, where do I go from here? I like both pairs of Priceless boots but neither is ideal and I can find no others that are better. However, there are several on the Priceless website that might appeal to other members (including a high stiletto platform ankle boot up to UK11 at only £10), especially if not wanting anything bigger than UK9. The two cowboy styles also pictured below are a case in point – very acceptable for discreet male wear. Maybe Priceless (or someone similar doing bigger sizes) will bring out an affordable plain ankle boot with a semi-pointed toe and a straight slim block heel of around 3.5” – isn’t that what a lot of women wear for ‘smart casual’ and what most of us want too? Stilettos are great but they are certainly not the only way forward (or upwards)! Incidentally, I note that Evans intends to add to its very limited size 11 styles in future.

I really don’t know my ‘next step’ and I would welcome members’ opinions on the boots I have, their acceptability and how they should be worn. I have described the boots in some detail (as the website fails to give the heel heights etc) and hope that info may be of use to others considering a purchase. I’m sorry about the lack of personal pics; it may become possible for me to post some soon if I can borrow and master a digital camera.

... I do agree that the classic court, or pump, with a heel of at least 4 inches and an almond slightly pointed toe is deserving of the title of sexiest shoe ever. Thanks to Andre Perugia for elevating it to a deserving pedestal.

Assuming a properly-shaped and positioned stiletto heel, I suspect that most here would agree with you, Benno - with the only point of contention being the degree of pointedness in the toe. The original mid/late 50s 'classic courts' were very much as you describe and the toes then got progressively more pointed from around 1959 - in my opinion a sexier-looking shoe but not necessarily as stylish as the (more wearable) almond toe and in no way diminishing the charm of the latter.

Regardless of any heel, the 'winklepicker' toe (on a male or female shoe) is another classic style in its own right; they were very widely seen in the 1959 - 65 period. But the most extreme pointed toes (as now sold by RoSa shoes), although having their own charm, were never that common (let alone universal) in the early 60s and could scarcely be regarded as 'classic', merely a variant.

... Perhaps Benno's reference was to the shoe being an "instant" classic in the style for "concealed" platforms rather than as a pure "classic" example of a stiletto ? ...

Glad you found the comments of help. You may well be right in that the term 'classic' is often used to mean just 'important' or 'high quality' whereas it really carries the additional stamp of being traditionally accepted and long-established (i.e. not a new or recent development). The obvious question is then to determine how long something must be around before it can possibly become 'classic', whether a car, a piece of art or a shoe. But only Benno can tell us what was in his mind - and of course the shoe might be regarded as a true classic in years to come.

... We both found the Atlantic Citys to be almost impossible to wear due to the pointy toes playing havoc with the sizing choice.

I agree they are a true classic style.

As a matter of interest, Benno, how do you define 'classic style'? This is not an issue of personal taste; I am simply curious as to your reasons for applying the 'classic' label to any particular style. (I do realise that you are too young to have seen stilettos, for example, when they first appeared.)

I find it difficult to accept any stiletto/platform combination as being 'classic' as it was rarely seen until the mid-1970s and has only become really popular in the last few years. Platform soles and stiletto heels were essentially separate fashion elements (and IMHO should remain so). A single-sole stilleto court shoe with a pointed toe is a true classic (mid 50s - mid 60s) and will never die, thank goodness!

These Lois courts from Schuh caught my eye the other day - a very elegant style in my view but not a true 'classic stiletto' because the 12cm heel is positioned too far to the rear (and so lacks a curved back) and the toe is not quite pointed enough. The shoe can be seen from all angles at http://www.schuh.co.uk/womens-black-schuh-lois-point-court-patent/1119087040/?cid=P700