Puffer

... and so on, ad nauseam if not also ad infinitum.

hope u meet julius caeser..., e tu brute...

Salve, Designus Maximus, ita vero. (Et tu Brute, actually.)

Vale amicus, et salve Senatus Populusque Romanus!

Over here in the UK, there are a number of supermarkets that generally are associated with income levels, and less so with actual 'value-for-money'. I'm used to going to Tesco, which is easily the largest group over here, with (apparently) them getting one in every eight pounds spent by consumers.

"Below" them in the percieved 'pecking order' is ASDA, Morrison's, and further down, Lidl and Aldi.

With the odd exception, I've not seen very interesting footwear in any of these shops local to me. Yes I've seen exceptions, but maybe once to every 50 visits? 1:50

Up from Tesco, is Waitrose, and Sainsbury. These are normally sited close to communities that can tolerate their slightly higher prices, and generally, better quality goods. I've no experience of Waitrose, but I've been to a local Sainsbury a number of times recently. The 'hit-rate' for seeing stunning shoes is better than 1:1, in fact it's closer to 2:1 with some patent KG boots being seen just the other day. [My escort asked her where they came from, is how I know.]

I agree with your supermarket analysis, FF, and am pleased that you make it clear that the 'ranking' is one of perceived status (roughly corresponding with customer income) rather than quality of produce or price. With the squeeze biting here and people looking to save money, the so-called down-market supermarkets such as Aldi and Lidl are seeing a lot more business. And, imho, they deserve to as the quality of almost everything they sell is at least as good as that which one can buy in Waitrose or Sainsburys and the prices are much keener. It is snob-appeal that keeps Waitrose going rather than any overall special quality and it certainly ain't the place for saving money.

But, I digress. I can't say from my own experience that I agree with your suggestion that 'stunning shoes' go hand-in-hand (foot-in-foot??) with posh supermarkets. But it does depend on what you mean by stunning shoes - I assume smart, stylish and sexy rather than merely expensive/designer (and possibly boring). And the locality and the demographics are key factors, too. In a predominantly working-class area with lots of women who like to follow fashion and 'dress up' (albeit perhaps somewhat tartily), one is likely to find many stylish shoes (from Faith, Office and similar outlets, as well as from cheaper places) worn in Asda, Aldi, Lidl etc. And in a wealthier middle-class suburban area, the majority of the Waitrose/Sainsbury women seem to be dressed down (at least while shopping), either dully but expensively or in cheapish flip-flops, trainers, ballerinas etc.

It was good, too, to see the comments about Brighton. I lived there for 27 years until 2000 and love the place. (I miss it in some ways, but definitely not the traffic and the draconian parking regime now imposed.) One supermarket there that seemed to me to buck the trend was Asda at the Marina - a peculiar mix of customers from the nearby Whitehawk council estate and those from the marina itself or just off their yachts. I don't know whether the footwear seen there nowadays is stunning or tacky - probably an eclectic mixture; Benno may know.

lmfao

dont worry, its american textspeak that was lost to me for a while...

showing my age (heinz) by textspeak, just dont be thankful i dont go into cockney properly ( Cockney alphabet: a for 'orses, b for gravy, c for miles)

easily confused with basic illiiteracy on my part....

Sorry, I didn't understand much of that, especially because of your double negatives cancelling out (painful, I know). I have no problem with cockney rhyming slang or - gimme r for mo, guv'nor - the cockney alphabet, but when I have to struggle to read your postings I feel like giving you a sharp kick in the aris.

Must go now - got to mug up my Latin for a trip to Rome later this week.

So ! I've posted 1000 messages and I'm now a Gold Member !!

Apart from me shutting up now, what's youre advice !!

1/ fun

2/ serious

3/ cynical ( if u must )

Carry on posting but preferably in literate English rather than your usual 'textspeak' ! You usually have something worthwhile to say; it would be better imho if your mode of expression did the material justice. (No offence intended, squire, and I know I'm a boring old pedant!)

The sizing table on the archieeyebrows website is confusing. For example: UK8=EU43=US9.

While nothing is 100% certain I usually take UK8=EU42=US9.5 (this is US mens, US womens would be 10)

As you say, nothing is certain, but your conversion doesn't seem right to me. In my experience, men's US sizes are usually about a half-size smaller than the UK equivalent, certainly not more than a full size smaller. When you see 'international' branded shoes (such as trainers) in the box on the shelf, they are invariably labelled with the various countries' sizes and the US/UK conversion is much as I suggest. Given the huge numbers sold, I'm sure they wouldn't go on doing this if it was totally wrong. So, UK8 = US men's 8.5 or 9 = US women's 10.

Gwyneth Paltrow has had more than her share of press comment in the last week as a result of the shoes she has been wearing. If her aim was to secure personal publicity, it has certainly succeeded. If one Googles 'Gwyneth Paltrow shoe' or similar, many articles, photos and comments can be seen. Gwyneth is attractive enough without being an outstanding beauty and is clearly not cheap, immature or stupid. I am sure that many women can relate to her even though they cannot enjoy the same lifestyle. I wonder, however, whether she has done the high heels cause more harm than good? Whatever one thinks of the particular styles she has been wearing, the common factor has been that her heels were high (albeit usually with a platform and with the height invariably exaggerated by the journalists). We can appreciate the attention she has drawn to 'high' heels and the boost this may possibly give to supply and demand. But the press and public comment has been largely unfavourable, concentrating (rather predictably) on the usual issues of discomfort, heath and impracticability rather than the overall look or style (which have both also been attacked). There don't seem to have been many supporters out there. Maybe the erroneous belief that most of her heels were six or seven inches high has dampened enthusiasm amongst those women who could wear a five inch heel (without a platform) - or at least would be willing to try - and assume that Gwyneth's shoes provide a greater rise than that and are simply 'too extreme'. And, when the copies hit the high street shops, they may be ignored because of that association. I hope I'm wrong!

Have a look here:

http://www.hhplace.org/discuss/118998-post3.html

(found by using the "Search" feature of this site)

Thank you, Tom-NL - but I almost wish I'd never asked!!

I wonder why no-one has commented as Richie requested?

(And, yes, I did search before I asked - but thought that the instructions told the whole story.)

Yes, I found this concept a puzzle too - and I'm still not sure I understand, having looked at the instructions. The colour code is clear enough, but what is the significance of the number, and who decides which comment to add? There doesn't seem any obvious correlation with length of membership or number of posts. Surely, reputation must be earned in some way? Either it is implicitly 'good' unless proven bad (presumably on the basis of complaints made) or it is evaluated subjectively on the basis of the quality (rather than quantity) of posts - but how, and by whom? I think we should be told!

The answer can be found here!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/showbiz/showbiznews.html?in_article_id=561220&in_page_id=1773

Amazing heels!

The Daily Mail page was updated to show Gwyneth wearing flat sandals later today; I suppose she deserves a few hours off!

The Paccini shoes look hideous to me, and the heels are nothing like the 7" claimed - perhaps 5.5". And that includes at least 1" of clumpy platform.

The Zanotti nude courts look very nice, with commendably thin stilettos about 6" high. But they would look even better without that hidden platform, which makes them look top-heavy. High stilleto shoes or boots need no embellishment; they look much more elegant with a single sole and a tapered or pointed closed toe - and maybe a slingback or discreet bow or buckle. Keep open toes for strappy sandals, the more open and spindly the better!

When I left junior (mixed sex) school at age 11 in 1960, the rock’n’roll era was in full swing and the girls of my age were beginning to show a real interest in fashion, including of course stilettos. For most of them, limited funds were as much a problem as parental disapproval when choosing their clothes and both were rather tighter than they are today.

I used to see the girls I had been at school with around the town over the next few years and, on any occasion when they had any excuse to ‘dress up’, they would be in stilettos (most often around 3 - 3.5” but sometimes 4”+) with fairly tight tops and skirts and at least some make-up. They were in the 13 – 16 age range at this time and, in my humble opinion, looked far better dressed than young teenagers have ever looked again, at least until recently.

Around 1972, I went out a few times with one of my old classmates, Janet, a pleasant and quite vivacious girl of about 5’4”. Alas, the prevailing shoe fashions were low and clumpy and a chance remark about our height difference made it clear that she missed wearing stilettos. Janet told me that, from age 14 or so, she never went out of the house (except to school) unless she was in stilettos, the higher the better. At 15, she had bought some 5” heels which her mother (by no means a strict or unstylish woman) insisted she returned to the shop. Although Janet complied, she told me that it was not long before she bought another pair and just kept them hidden when necessary. I did recall seeing her around in nice heels at this time but never, alas, in the five-inchers. And, as I moved away in 1973, I have never seen her in later years when stilettos were again in fashion, and will always wonder if she wore them again, 5" or otherwise.

Nowadays, the girls around here do seem to grow up much sooner and ‘do their own thing’ regardless of parents etc. And, as more stylish clothes (including stilettos) seem popular again, even with picky teenagers, I have seen many girls of 11 or 12 trying and buying. My only complaint is that stilettos (or other proper high heels) are not – at least yet – the universal choice, even for dressy occasions. There are still too many trainers, flip flops and ballet flats around!

All of a sudden one of the boys yells out, "look at the old faggot in the high heels! Hey old man, why are you wearing high heels?"

If I had been in your shoes (!), roniheels, I think I would have been more upset by being called 'old' rather than because of my appearance or alleged sexuality! (And I'm a few years older than you, and also straight.)

One of the things I like about the state of Florida, incidently, is their 'concealed-carry' license......

Forgive my ignorance, fastfreddy2, but can you or someone else please explain what 'concealed carry' is all about, in Florida or otherwise?

After all of this discussion, I read my policy closely. There is nothing about high heels or unusual footwear hindering driving. However, there is a claus about driving barefooted, and in many states, is illegal, and in the event of an accident, subject to litigation.

A policy provision of this type is, in my experience, unknown in the UK. I should be interested to know what the relevant US clause actually says; could you quote it, please?

There is no specific UK statutory provision (i.e. in the Road Traffic Acts)relating to driving in unsuitable shoes or other clothing (or indeed without either) but it would always be open to a police officer to allege that the clothing or some other characteristic of the driver prevented him from having proper control of the vehicle, which is an offence. Intentionally vague, inevitably subjective but not necessarily difficult to establish in court. However, such an accident-related conviction is not in itself a bar to an insurance claim.

What does the US statute say about driving barefoot? It sounds as thought it might constitute a 'statutory tort', i.e. creating a specific wrong (independently of the law of negligence) which, if committed, gives any injured party the right to damages.

... There must be countless accidents involving women driving in heels and I've never ever seen one report in a newspaper about their insurance being invalidated because of that. I don't think this can happen unless there is a clause in the policy, and to my knowledge there isn't in policies. ...

I've only just read the original suggestion (by Dr Shoe) that wearing heels when driving might invalidate motor insurance and the various responses, including that above. Motor insurance is essentially in place (and invariably compulsory) to respond to the effects of driver negligence and provide the injured third party with an independent source of restitution. Any cover for damage to the insured vehicle and personal effects etc is incidental. As long as the vehicle and driver have been correctly identified to the insurer, the driver holds a valid licence and the vehicle is roadworthy and being used fior a permitted purpose, the results of negligent driving (or worse) will normally be covered, even if the manner of driving or use gave rise to a criminal offence.

The insurer is not normally concerned with imposing restrictions or exclusions of cover relating to specific 'behavioural' aspects of the otherwise permitted use, such as driving in high heels (or within the speed limit, or even with one's eyes open!). I am certainly not aware of any such limitation in the UK, nor would I expect it in the US or elsewhere, but if it was imposed, it would be the subject of a very specific term of the policy.

I suppose it is just possible (given our ever-interfering nanny state) that one might in the future require a licence to wear 'dangerous footwear' in public - which will no doubt be granted in return for a hefty fee. And then it would be open to an insurer to require a driver to be so licensed if to drive in high heels - no licence, no cover.

As an aside, it should be appreciated that the consequences of a breach of an insurance contract are not always the same. If a fundamental term (warranty) is breached (e.g. the insured vehicle not being properly identified), it is likely that the whole contract of insurance will be declared void - no cover at all. If the breach related to a subsidiary term (e.g. using the vehicle for a non-permitted purpose, such as racing), the insurance contract as a whole remains valid but there will be no indemnity for any claim arising from an accident relating to that breach. And, whenever a vehicle is used without valid insurance, a criminal offence is committed.

Have a look at this article (and comments) in today's Daily Mail (UK): http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=560370&in_page_id=1879&in_page_id=1879&expand=true#StartComments

I strongly suspect the usual journalistic exaggeraration of heel heights, etc. Are we really going to see many shoes with six or seven inch heels in our streets? And if you take away the platform (often ugly and topheavy), I doubt that many shoes will provide more than a rise of 4.5" or so.

Platform shoes, with or without stiletto heels, seem to be gaining ground at the expense of the much more elegant single-sole courts or sandals. I can only guess that the small amount of extra height that platform shoes provide is an attraction for some women - but (whatever the writer thinks), we all know that a 6" heel does not add as much as 6" to one's height.

Forget 6" or 7" platforms - dare I hope that we might once again see true 5" (or higher) stilettos in the high street?

No, don't tell me. Let me guess. The cost of living in the south is cheaper because it is warmer. Therefore, the cost of heating your home doesn't cost as much?

Although the prevailing temperature in the south of England is higher than in the north (and the climate is otherwise generally more favourable), the cost of living in the south is higher in most respects - but then so are most people's wages and other sources of income. Overall, although there is a north/south divide, every area of England (and the rest of the UK) has its advantages/disadvantages and its fans or critics. Diversity without too many extremes, and civil wars tend to be few.

According to today's Daily Mail (UK), amongst the things 'going down' in popularity are what it calls 'Stack heels for men'. The item reads:

'Sarkozy does it; this week interiors duo Colin or Justin (we're not sure which) also admitted to it; and last week Dior did one that was 2 1/2" high. But. like any form of overt male vanity, we're still not convinced they can be anything other than unattractive and wrong.'

For those who don't know, Colin and Justin are a bitchy and fragrant Scottish twosome who have a certain following in interior design matters but are hardly fashion leaders. I have failed to find any reference to either wearing any type of high heels and doubt that their alleged preferences will sway many men either way [there may be an innuendo or three in there if you look carefully] and I suggest we ignore them, and also what the Mail says (and ungrammatically, to boot ).

And why all these references to 'stack' heels (i.e. heels made with or simulating a stack of thinnish layers of leather) when neither what the short-arsed Frog was wearing nor the Diors are that type of shoe? True stack heels, high or not, don't currently seem very common anyway on men's shoes, or am I missing something?

Beatle boots had a round toe box. Those look like they're ready for sail.LOL No disrespect.

You're right, Johnie. I guess I didn't really notice how pointed the toes were in that picture. With those boots, you can squash bugs in every corner of your house. LOL.

In the UK, the true Beatle boots (as worn by four certain purveyors of popular music from Liverpool) came into fashion about 1962 and were seen quite often until the late 60s, although they have never totally disappeared. Most men's 'fashion' shoes in the early 60s had semi-pointed toes if not winklepickers or chisels and the original Beatle boots had tapered rather than truly rounded toes (and a centre seam), although more pointed styles were also popular and are still available from e.g. Underground (see my posts at http://www.hhplace.org/discuss/everybody/10499-cuban_adventure.html#post158965).

The Schuuh boots pictured by Rob are not very pointed and have somewhat lower and wider heels than the typical 60s UK Beatle boot. The Faith Xinkle style is similar but very pointed and with a side zip. Perhaps the so-called 'Beatle boots' commonly found in the US were more like the Schuuh boots than the Underground or Faith boots. It doesn't really matter - they are all a welcome step in the right direction!

In Schuh I also came across two different men’s heeled boots;

the Jeffrey West boots that you mention, and some cheaper "Cuban High" boots. As it was ten to five (10 mins to closing) I didn't have time to try either on. But, both had heels that looked a little higher than the Faith boots - maybe around 2 inches.

The heels on the cheaper 'Cuban high' boots at Schuh are, I think, no higher than those on the Faith Xinkles, about 1.75". The Jeffrey West boots are certainly at least 2" and may induce a nosebleed .

I can update, following further inspection of both boots at Schuh in Brighton yesterday. The Jeffrey Wests have heels of 55mm (a shade over 2.125") and the Cuban highs are 45mm (1.75"). Both have a similar tapered but not unduly pointed toe. Nice, smart but not extreme!

Nothing else of interest found in mainstream Brighton (but I guess one or two of the 'designer' shops there will have a cuban heel or two at higher prices). The tiny Faith shop does not stock men's styles - yet.

... I saw and actually tried on the Faith men’s Xinkle boot that you link to. I didn't like the pointedness of the toe - I didn't think they looked right sticking out from under my jeans. My lady thought the toe shape was OK, but didn't like the way the toes pointed up. ...

I agree that the very pointed toe on this boot is not to everyone's taste, but I like it - if only because I admired and occasionally wore similar styles in the early/mid-60s and it's great to see them back at last! The upward-curve in the toe is presumably to make them easier to walk in and looks less obvious when the boot is worn, whether standing or walking. I have a pair of rather similar Hudson boots which have this feature and I certainly don't find it a distraction or uncomfortable.

The heels on the cheaper 'Cuban high' boots at Schuh are, I think, no higher than those on the Faith Xinkles, about 1.75". The Jeffrey West boots are certainly at least 2" and may induce a nosebleed . Hard luck that you have to return to Bluewater, Rob; are you sure you can stand the excitement of two trips in a week or so?

... I'd like to be able to buy other shoes/boots with a range of heights from 1.5 to 2.5 at a more affordable price. ...

If anyone spots any of these new mens heels in the shops, please post here - ideally in the For Everyone forum where even the non-heelers will see the posts. ...

Rob is already aware of my posting re cuban heeled boots at http://www.hhplace.org/discuss/everybody/10499-cuban_adventure.html#post158965

In addition to the brands mentioned, quite a few retailers are advertising boots (and a few shoes) with a 'cuban heel' but the heels on many of these are really no higher or tapered than on a normal 'flat' men's shoe. Inspection recommended!

However, Faith has in stock some rather nice zip-sided ankle boots (black, white or pewter) rather similar to those in my avatar but with a very pointed toe and a lower cuban heel (about 1.75"). Very soft leather (although that may result in creasing at the toe etc), easy to get on and off and comfortable; I am very tempted! Go to http://www.faith.co.uk/productdetails.aspx?pid=860700&language=en-GB&cid=501 for details and, if ordering online, quote code FL0708 for a 15% discount.

Schuh has some cuban heeled boots too; I saw some there by (I think) Jeffrey West at about £110 that were very wearable; heel no more than 2".

comme nous disons...

plus ca change (i gave you five euros and you gave me change from 10 )

place de concorde (airport)

va te faire (go fk yourself)

alors, je vais dormir (zzzzzzzzz)

Oh, dear - I think you've started off something tangential:

chargez d'affaires = bus conductor

hors de combat = war horse

coup de grace = lawnmower

... these are just for starters (or hors d'ouvres if you prefer).

Thanks again, Simon.

As, apart from the zip, your boots are identical to mine, it is strange that there seems to be a few mm difference in the heel height - but I won't get jealous! I agree about the solid but resilient heel; quite comfortable and with just enough noise to be 'interesting yet discreet'. I'll have to see what happens when they need new heel rubbers - I hope the mender can shave off the minimum necessary and add a decent replacement, perhaps a little thicker (to give extra wear, although a little more height would be a bonus).

I agree too about the fit and that getting them on is not too easy. I was initially worried that the zip might pull away under stress; it is obviously more vulnerable than an elastic side. Why these boots cannot be re-sized to avoid the need to go up one (in most cases) is a puzzle, but not unique to these items.

If anyone is interested, I see today on eBay that an outlet in Ontario, Canada is selling off the Underground Fred boots in several sizes at about £33 (i.e. half UK price) and other footwear too; go to http://stores.ebay.co.uk/popcultureshuz_Underground-UK-Boots_W0QQcolZ4QQdirZ1QQfsubZ147591219QQftidZ2QQtZkm Shipping to UK probably not economic, though.

Glad you've found something that suits your style. I like to see other guys wearing the painfully few styles of shoes with heels out there that are marketed at guys dressed as guys.

I have banged on about this before to the point of boring the whole community 'cos I don't think my views quite coincide with theirs, but this is free speech, so I'll say it again.

. . .

I agree that heels in the 2"-3" range help when you have suffered from sciatica - been there too - as usually you improve your posture to maintain balance that has been compromised by the higher heel. Correct posture is the recognised way to resolve sciatica problems, and if a high heel helps you achieve good posture, then good for you.

Thank you, Tb2 (Simon). Yes, I am sure you are right that men eccentric enough to wear men's shoes (heeled or not) are almost a curiosity here. A form of inverted snobbery, perhaps!

I agree entirely about the sciatica relief. By standing more erect to counter the forward thrust of a higher heel, I am arching my back and thus mimicking the exercise I was advised would help. (Re-boarding a large ceiling at home had a similar effect but was not so pleasurable! Tiling a floor recently almost undid the good work and a couple of hours in heels was needed.)

Are your boots made by Underground? I'm curious whether there are other makes closely cloning the latter. Whether or not so, are the heels on yours in fact higher than the exact 2.5" of mine?

By the way, I sent you a short PM last night.

Regards,

Puffer

President Sarkozy of France has just visited HM the Queen. What's that got to do with high heels? I haven't seen any relevant pictures but radio commentators remarked that he was wearing stacked heels while his glamorous wife was wearing flats. She still looked taller than him.

Glamorous wife? Well, she may be a model (or ex-model) with a pleasant enough face but she has no figure to speak of (candid picture in Daily Mail) and looked awkward and unglamorous in those flat shoes.