Puffer

A very interesting and nicely-produced film. And, unlike so many designers, CL comes across as articulate, straightforward and thoroughly normal.

... and not a Marx Brother in sight!

Slingfan: At the risk of sounding naiive, can you tell us whether the above accounts are fiction, or actually record your personal experiences (perhaps with a little embroidery)? I ask because, when questioned, you give the impression of telling us straightforwardly of your real-life activity. If these are essentially true accounts, were you dressed en femme or in (mostly) male clothes? You don't seem to have excited any comment about your overall appearance even though your shoes naturally drew people's attention. What is your normal mode of dress?

And I bet you had to hike 10 miles through drifting snow to get to school everyday, too

Indeed so, after a bowl of lukewarm gravel for breakfast and with a 3am start ...

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.