Puffer

People who say or write any of these:

'bored of' instead of 'bored with' [someone/something]

'debit from' instead of 'debit to' [an account]

'text' instead of 'texted' (as in 'I texted him the information')

'meet up; park up; moor up' etc, where 'up' is not needed

'hopefully' instead of 'let's hope that' (or similar)

'Good, good', where a single expression of pleasure would invariably suffice

'Excuse me for a minute' instead of 'It's my round'

Using superfluous capital letters, as in 'What's your Pet Hate?'

... and many other irritating phrases or constructions!

Restuarants do not require shoes for health code issues, but for liability reasons. They snuck it through the health code back door decades ago because there's a grain of truth to that. What they were really concerned about was getting sued when someone's open toe gets jammed on the door sill, or stepped on by someone else in line. Since most people respect health codes (who wants to get sick, right?) it carries more weight than a restuarant-only "right to refuse service" to barefoot individuals.

Are you (or anyone else) suggesting that, in the US, restaurants etc displaying a sign such as 'No shoes, no service' would refuse entrance, for purely safety reasons, to someone in open-toe sandals or shoes? If so, that must limit what many smart ladies wear on smart occasions.

I can see that a completely barefoot customer is a potential liability (quite apart from any issue of decorum, aside from a beach cafe or similar) but, if the rule is really 'No footwear, no service', why not say so?

This type of sign is sometimes seen in the UK but is rarely necessary as few people will go around with no shoes at all, except perhaps at the beach, pool or park. Common-sense and decency prevails, hippies aside! But some of the more picky places will refuse entry to men in sandals as well as those without a tie.

Winklepicker toes were the norm on women's shoes as soon as stilettos became really popular in the late 50s - and they outlasted stilettos because flat pointed shoes remained popular with some teenagers until the late 60s.

And men wore them too; they were an Italian innovation in the late 50s and popular until the mid-60s (especially when taken up by the Beatles and other pop stars, with or without cuban heels). A notable make in the UK was 'Denson', which offered several trendy styles.

The true winklepicker (for either sex) was a longish sharply pointed toe, perhaps slightly rounded at the tip. I do not recall anything quite as extreme as the current RoSa shoes, although I expect they did exist. The winklepicker became somewhat truncated and squared-off (especially on men's shoes) when the 'chisel' toe came in around 1962; there was less chance of tripping over the shorter toes!

Like most teenagers, I very much liked the pointed styles and had a couple of pairs of chisel toes (although they were not approved as part of school uniform - but since when did that matter?). I am pleased to see their recent revival for men and currently wear them as much as possible. The Faith Xinkle is a good example - and currently in the sales at £40: http://www.faith.co.uk/productdetails.aspx?pid=860700&language=en-GB&cid=mens_shoes

Am I right in thinking that Terry de H is re-introducing the Springolator? I think he was on TV recently showing a pair which were new rather than vintage. He has, presumably, bought the rights, although I would have expected any original patent to have expired by now. Do tell us how you get on with them, Cinnamon.

The classification of gender upon an object is arbitrary and subject to change. Now that we live in a global community where everyone has access to information from next door, next town, next providence, or from foreign soil, this change is harder to come by because more people can learn from the same source. If the information being sent out is that pink and stiletto heels are only for feminine wear then it more difficult to get people to think otherwise.

By the same token, surely modern global communications will help you, me and our friends here to convey our message, i.e. (in short) that heels etc are OK for men too? Propaganda can be our friend as well as our enemy.

Forgive these rantings of personal anger with myself. You may take what I have just written if you want to, but this was really directed at me.

Well, H-S, I don't think you have addressed my previous points directly but I think I can see yours. I was certainly intending no criticism of your appearance and way of life, which seems to suit you and will be envied by many here. You have the courage of your convictions - but many of us might be worried about convictions of another type if we copied you in full!!

Puffer, I don't know if you're old enough but back in the late 60s and 70s, women wore stretch knee high boots in the summer with mini skirts and hot pants (short-shorts) - and you didn't hear a peep out of them either that they were too hot!!

As I mentioned 1955 above, you can take it that I am almost too old to remember the period you mention! Yes, I certainly recall those boots - tight PVC and even sweatier than leather. The look was certainly hot in more ways than one but not as appealing to me as stiletto sandals and a pencil skirt.

By the way, BK, you win the prize for the most consistently PROMINENT postings. (I wear my welding goggles to read 'em!)

Frodo: Calm down, re-read what I have endeavoured to say to you (which was put together carefully and constructively) and you might see that your accusations are unfounded. I repeat from my last: 'Your discomfort with many things is obvious; I'm glad to hear that being on this board is not one of them.' And you responded: 'I have made it clear I am comfortable on this forum, you essentially say I am lying and that it is evident to you I am not comfortable.'

I could say a lot more but it clearly falls on stony ground. I now give up; I trust that you will now grow up.

My mother (89 and in good shape mentally) watches Countdown every day and does all the puzzles - good for her! When visiting her recently, I watched with her and agree that Rachel is quite appealing. I was inspired to record several shows to carry out further analysis! I can't say that Rachel's shoes are my favourite style; she seems to wear the same pair of black courts (with a heel around 5.5" and a hidden platform of perhaps 1") most of the time. She also seems a little 'leaden' in her shoes and moves rather awkwardly - but she isn't the only one to find that type of platform shoe a problem. Five inch stilettos (no platform) would be much better. I did find that there will be at least two occasions per programme to see Rachel full-length and moving in her shoes, usually at the beginning of each set of four 'word' puzzles, as she is asked for the first letter. Otherwise, she will usually be seen either close-up above the waist or in oblique long shot. I preferred Carol Vordermann, who I understand was known at university as 'Boots' because she often wore thigh-length types. Anyone got any pics of that?

Thanks, Tinkerbell - but isn't this posting in the wrong department?

I thought it was amusing and the best man was very professional - maybe he is a stand-up comedian in real life. But it was a little long-winded and, given that it had only one theme, not a traditional best man's speech.

It is always helpful to keep in mind that a speech (as distinct from a lecture) should be like a lady's dress: short enough to be interesting but long enough to cover all the essentials!

In case there is still any lingering doubt, jmc is quite right regarding his explanation of what is hardwood and what is softwood - a matter of botany and nothing to do with mechanical 'hardness'. Although it is generally true that 'softwoods' are not physically hard, some hardwoods are even softer - balsa, as mentioned, being the obvious one.

My hardwood parquet floor (basically mahogany) suffered unintended stiletto damage at the hands (feet?) of a female visitor a few years ago. The only ready remedy was to use filler, stain and a revarnish; I got a fair result but the floor wasn't perfect to start with - and had been sanded once already. I'm not convinced that there is any proprietary varnish or other coating that can be applied (at least by the home-owner) to a wooden floor to make it totally stiletto-proof. The pressure on a thin heel is such that it will penetrate the coating and almost certainly indent the wood, unless the wood is exceptionally hard (such as teak). Think about it - a thin sheet of brass (or even steel) has, in comparative terms, a surface 'as hard as nails' but will not withstandthe shock pressure of a hammer and punch (or a heel) of around 1cm diameter or less without indentation, or worse.

Some laminate flooring (not necessarily expensive) is very hard, as the coating is effectively a resin/plastic layer, perhaps with graining or other relief. I have such a floor too and some tests on an offcut suggest that penetration and indentation by a stiletto is unlikely. Just as well, as the middle of the floor 'sandwich' is a dense fibreboard, harder than normal MDF but still readily penetrated. However, if the pressure is great, a surface 'fissure' may be created - rather like digging a carbide tool into the surface of a ceramic tile, damaging the glazed surface but not penetrating or cracking the tile itself.

7.5 inches with no platform. I can only walk 2 to 3 city blocks in these without getting the shakes.... Obviously I don't get that many chances to wear them as a result!

To be honest they're not much fun because I can't wear them for normal wear.

Give me my other heels anyday.

Heel-Lover

Impressive, H-L! But they don't look nearly as high as 7.5" - what is your shoe size? Are you also saying that you can comfortably wear 7" outside - and do you?

... I see no difference between a 2inch black chunky heeled pump and a five inch pink stiletto slingback. Most of societies perception is that they are female attire, these two shoes are equally feminine in my mind and I will wear either. ...

I admire your own blatant but stylish overall look, H-L, and I respect your opinion. I suspect you exaggerate slightly to make your point but I cannot agree with it. A 2" black chunky heeled pump may well be of obvious feminine design, e.g. a low-cut court shoe, with or without embellishments. If so, it is likely to indicate femininity to the onlooker but unlikely to shout it too loudly and may well go unnoticed. But if it is more of a loafer style, it is really a man's shoe in concept and would be completely acceptable (if noticed at all) when worn by a man. On the other hand, a stiletto court (any height, style or colour) can scarcely be hidden completely nor viewed as anything other than overtly feminine, and therefore questionable when worn by a man.

Don't misunderstand me, please. I am all for freedom of choice and those who are less adventurous or confident than H-L should not be deterred by any fear that a more modest female shoe - or indeed a more adventurous male shoe - is bound to embarrass them in public, as a blatantly feminine style would likely do.

Women (of all ages) will wear sandals and flimsy shoes for any dressy occasion, regardless of the weather. And that may well include being outside for something more than just a walk from the carpark or taxi. It may defy logic and sometimes be foolhardy but it usually looks good!

The other side of the coin is when women wear long boots either for a lengthy period indoors (such as all day in a warm office) or outdoors in warm weather. OK, it's a fashion thing but, however smart or sexy the look, it always seems a little weird to me 'out of season', more so than sandals in the winter. (Perhaps my view is clouded by infants school memories (c1955) of the several poor children whose only footwear was a pair of wellies - cheap, weatherproof and hard wearing, but hardly smart, healthy or right for indoors. I truly felt sorry for them.)

Look, I don't need your support, my own words and beliefs stand by themselves for others to take seriously or set aside. But, to psychoanalyze them based on how I express myself in writing is absurd. You then assume I am uncomfortable being on this forum, don't be silly.

I don't attempt to psychoanalyse you, matey, but maybe some professional help of that sort would help you. Your discomfort with many things is obvious; I'm glad to hear that being on this board is not one of them.

But this forum exists, by definition, on the basis of written communication and the manner in which you 'express yourself in writing' (or fail to) is the only yardstick we have. I for one have some difficulty in understanding your thoughts as expressed here - and I guess I'm not alone in that. I thought you were being given a hard time at the beginning and that made me feel uncomfortable, hence my intervention. You say you don't need my support - fair enough; consider it withdrawn. And I doubt you will get much from others here if all you want to do is to to tell us what you believe in and why it troubles you, yet spurn any advice or dissenting views.

There is nothing more I can say to you - apart from 'good luck'.

You only have to see the current Virgin advert. There are several very attractive women wearing virgins uniform, all with the same red high heeled shoes. Some are more attractive than others.

A nice advert to watch - but what a shame that real Virgin air hostesses have never (officially) worn those shoes - or anything like them. Another of Branson's fetishes, I think. (He has more than once worn drag or something feminine as a publicity stunt.)

The Bank of England has today come in for some stick in the press for having a female staff meeting to advise on suitable work clothing. (Aside from the usual feminist/sexist outrage, the criticism was mostly about the perceived waste of money or staff time - although the meeting was apparently in the lunch break.) As far as footwear was concerned, the 'instruction' was to wear heels (but no higher than 2"), no white shoes, shoe colour to match skirt. The women were also told not to wear ankle chains ('professional, but not the one you want to be associated with') and to wear some make-up, if only lipstick. I can't see the point of wearing smart heels for work if they are only apologetic two-inchers. And, from personal observation in the City, there are many smartly-suited women looking entirely professional with their co-ordinating 3", 4" and higher heels.

CONE heel? I realise that is the seller's description, and can see why, but surely that is a flared heel (although it might have other names as well)? Quite a nice shape with reasonable delicacy and a broader tip which might be more stable for some wearers.

A true cone heel, as I recall, was fat at the top and tapered fairly evenly to a narrowish stiletto-like tip - in other words a 'fat stiletto' with none of the latter's curvy elegance. They are still seen, unfortunately.

This is by far and away the BEST source of Shoe Size Conversions I have found:

http://www.i18nguy.com/l10n/shoes.html

I would say that it is off two sizes too small in the US and UK as opposed to the Euro.

It seems pretty accurate to me, except that the usual distinction between UK male and female sizes numbered the same is that the 'standard' width (if there is indeed one) will be more generous in the men's styles. I've never found, for example, that a woman's shoe marked (say) 7 will be the same nominal length as a man's marked 7.5 - but it would help us a little if that were so!

For the record, my usual 11UK translates as Euro 45, USM11.5 and USW13 - which agrees with my practical experience.

Don't you mean bankruptcy?

Administration in the UK is - perhaps - kinda the same thing as Chapter 11 under US bankruptcy laws....ability to reorganize while remaining in business. Chapter 7 is bankrupt, isn't it?

Almost spot-on, Bubba. In the UK, the term 'bankruptcy' is reserved for an individual who has become formally insolvent and whose assets are seized to pay his debts, etc. A company that becomes formally insolvent would ultimately go into liquidation if it cannot be saved, and thus realise its assets and be wound-up. The usual preliminary is for an administrator to be appointed (typically at the instigation of a bank to which the company is indebted) to explore the possibilities of salvation; he acts much like the traditional receiver and manager.

Both individuals and companies can sometimes do a deal with creditors and avoid the ultimate sanction of bankruptcy or liquidation. That has happened with Stylo (the parent company of Barratt), which is intended to become subject to a 'Company Voluntary Arrangement', under which the controlling family will put more money into that company to allow its various subsidiaries to be refinanced and restructured. But that's enough of insolvency law and practice!

Meanwhile, the intention is to carry on trading and no doubt there will be further discounts and sales to raise cash. It is quite possible that some shops will close, with the inevitable redundancies. Another of the Stylo companies in administration is the Priceless Shoes chain; much of its stock is Barratts shoes (discontinued lines etc) at very low prices and it may well be worth a look. The website shows all sorts of goodies (inc large sizes) - but beware, many items are then shown as out of stock if a purchase is attempted.

I started a thread a few weeks ago on Barratts going into administration.

Thanks, Roz; I hadn't spotted the other thread when I posted above. I have now added a comment there as well.

I didn't intend to suggest that I knew Faith to be in (serious) trouble; only that there are rumours that its retail business may be threatened - as of course many businesses are in the present climate. The same is being said of others, e.g. Next, Debenhams, Topshop ... Enough said!

Hmmm. I tried to support you yesterday, frodo, because I thought you had been treated rather harshly. As Tech has said, this is a 'welcome' thread. I don't know what to make of your rather disjointed response to my last, and to those postings of others (even allowing for your condition) but grateful you ain't. Perhaps the original responses to your rather confused outpourings were more appropriate than I thought at the time. I suggest you think very carefully about your future here; your exchanges with Bubba aside, you are clearly uncomfortable and I fear that you will remain so. I hope, however, that I am wrong; if so, no doubt you will tell me in no uncertain terms.

On 26 Jan, the companies running the Barratts and Priceless Shoes retail operations were placed into administration, together with other subsidiaries of Stylo, the parent company. However, the family behind Stylo has said that it intends to restructure and refinance the companies so that they can continue trading.

I suspect that, regardless of the compnies' destiny, we shall see a continuing run of discounted sales to thin-out stocks and raise cash and it may be a good opportunity to buy. In any event, I understand that the Priceless Shoes chain regularly sells Barratts shoes (discontinued lines etc) at very low prices and it may well be worth a look. The website shows all sorts of goodies (inc large sizes) - but beware, many items are shown as out of stock if a purchase is attempted.

More worryingly, I have heard rumours that Faith is in trouble. Now that would be a disaster if it closed down

Thighboots 2 (Simon) and I have similar taste and, as usual, I agree with his comments above. I like this style of 'beatle boot' - see my avatar; I have that boot. Just as well, as there is not much choice in the UK for those wanting wearable heels that are not obviously feminine in sizes above UK10.

I wouldn't personally wear the Fluevog boots as I'm not keen on either the silver or the grained leather models. And $300 is far too much to pay when several UK sources do cuban-heeled 'beatle' boots for £60 - 70, in addition to the designer styles mentioned by Simon.

As Simon says: 'Higher heels of the block/cuban style up to 3" may not be mainstream, but could easily become so', to which I would add my hope that it would then be only a small step (no pun) to having slightly higher and slimmer heels - neither a full 4" nor stiletto - as an acceptable and available (and, one hopes, affordable) male fashion.

No real 'outings', a little walk through the garden to the shed in the dark (is not a 'real' outing) So mainly in the house/shed, done some housework for school, cleaning my bike, working on my Modelrailroad, etc. I had the feeling, i could ware them the hole day.

Oh, dear! Wearing high heels is of course perfectly normal male behaviour, but I really worry about people with hobbies like yours.

Don't worry, mate - you and me both, and an interest in model railways is both addictive and incurable!! [Now you all know one reason for my user name.]

After reading all the above (and Frodo's post of 17 Jan in particular), it seems to me that Frodo has been given rather a hard time here. He is a newcomer to this board, somewhat uncertain as to the preferences of those who frequent it and (it seems) both a little confused as to his own true feelings and wary of what to wear himself, at least in public. I have little doubt that almost all of us (me included) have shared those characteristics at some time, and certainly when we were ourselves newbies, either here or in the world of heels in general! Perhaps Frodo has expressed himself rather more bluntly than he really intended; I'm sure he meant no general indictment of other members or their particular tastes. My best advice to him is to stick around, read what others say right across the board and then decide whether he is comfortable or not. I'm sure that others will give him all the advice and encouragement he may need if he asks for it - he doesn't have to attend any heelmeets, but he might well enjoy meeting or corresponding with some individual like-minded members. And we shall be interested to share his views and experiences too.