Puffer

I am sure you are right in principle, Skirted, but there were obviously many variations around the country. It should not be thought that 'London' (which is a pretty large and amorphous area) was the only place to see the more adventurous fashion styles (including high stilettos), at least in the earlier years. But I would agree that in, say, 1960, one was likely to see 4" heels readily in Westminster but rarely in Warminster! From contemporary photos, films and the like, it is very clear that high fashion (and that certainly included high stilettos) was avidly followed in all the major cities apart from London, e.g. Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow. There may have been a modest time lag whilst the fashion spread, but that did not stop it being taken up, even out in the sticks. Such personal memories as I have bear this out, together with knowledge that girls in the north (and Scotland) tended to favour higher heels than many of their southern sisters - and still do. Without (I hope) sounding perjorative, it has something to do with class: there are more working class girls north of Watford and their idea of fashion is often considered tarty by the more refined 'gels' inhabiting the home counties (Essex excluded, of course!). Many other lifestyle aspects are subject to much the same considerations but the gaps have narrowed in the last 20 years or so. I am not a sociologist nor a fashion historian but I am sure that there is a wealth of material that would support these general comments and provide us with some interesting statistics. Step forward, Professor Brantano?

Those in the UK may be aware of a fairly light-hearted but informative BBC2 programme researching the meaning of words to assist the Oxford English Dictionary to update its entries. Balderdash & Piffle is presented by the rather comely (and invariably stiletto-clad) Victoria Coren. On Fri 6 July at 10.00pm, she will be looking at the world of fashion, including exploring the origins of 'trainer' (ugh!), 'flip-flop' (hmm!) and 'stiletto' (gasp!).

Might be worth watching. If you miss it tomorrow, it is repeated next Monday. I will endeavour to post an account of any profound conclusions in due course.

And what about the plot of land sold for development as an optician's business? It was truly a site (sight) for sore eyes!

The question has been asked whether removing items from a skip (dumpster) or similar in the UK is illegal. There can be no absolutely universal answer but the short one is ‘yes’ as it is likely to constitute theft. Section 1, Theft Act 1968 states that a person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates the property of another with the intention of permanently depriving that other of it. (The key words are underlined.)

If something is dumped or abandoned, to whom does it belong, if anyone? Possibly the original owner – the skip contents may be for resale as scrap or landfill. If not, to the person who has contracted to remove it and who may or may not lose out if some is taken from him, depending upon its intrinsic value. Dishonest intent will be established if, on the facts, the taker had no demonstrable right to remove or use the item, i.e. he knew or should have known that it was not his property. Likewise, permanent deprivation will be proven when it is clear that the item was not merely borrowed – which is why ‘taking and driving away’ a motor vehicle is a special type of theft offence as it is committed even when (as is common) a ‘joyrider’ merely borrows a car briefly and then abandons it.

So, although it is common to remove items from skips in the street, such as builders’ leftovers or old furniture, on the basis that, if asked, the dumper would usually be glad to let it go to a new home, the appropriation is not without legal dangers. And more so if the skip or dump is on private property – as the dumper could always argue that he was merely storing it on his own land until using it later. There should be a very clear indication of abandonment to the world before specific dumped property is treated as a free-for-all; the ‘public domain’ argument apparently applicable in the US does not seem to have an exact parallel in the UK.

Many thanks, TBG, for a straightforward and honest reply. You are obviously comfortable with your preferences but sensitive to the feelings of others. So, I can see that this prompts you to mention your attire to strangers, for the primary reason of breaking the ice or putting them at ease, as distinct from seeking compliments. As you say, your accounts would be less interesting if there was little or no exchange of views to report - and the generally neutral or favourable responses you get (even allowing for strangers' politeness) must be an encouragement to all who might aspire to follow in your booted footsteps. More power to your ankle, I say! As for suggesting that you may be 'a little nuts', I have no doubt that you are - but so am I and pretty well all who belong here, and the world would be much duller if that were not so!

Perhaps this has been asked before, Thighbootguy, and if so I apologise but should be interested in your candid answer. A common thread in your accounts is your query when using a store, restaurant, hotel etc whilst wearing your boots as to whether your appearance is 'acceptable'. I can understand you wishing to establish, as a matter of your personal comfort and safety (if not also as a courtesy), whether your boots or other clothing might be too extreme for the establishment or locality. But do I detect your wish also to 'be noticed' and establish whether those you meet approve of or like your appearance? In other words, are you deliberately prompting people to look at you and seeking their reassurance that you look good, and not merely that you are unlikely to cause a riot in the locality? You are clearly an intelligent man with sufficient strength of character and courage to 'do your own thing' in public and you have my great respect for that. But, deep down, do you have a nagging fear of rejection, ridicule or worse and need to re-establish your acceptability wherever you may be? Forgive the directness of my question, which is not intended to put you on the spot. I doubt that anyone here would criticise you even if you were an out-and-out exhibitionist or narcissist (which clearly you are not) when relatively few of us would have the balls to appear openly as you do. And most of us would like to copy you too!

Properly and skilfully applied, Artex can look very attractive although it is obviously not to everyone's taste. I remember staying at a guest house in Weston-super-Mare which had fancy Artex swirls on the ceiling of every rooms (and on most walls too) - studying the pattern in the bedroom was not always condusive to a good night's sleep!

If the Artex and underlying surface is sound, it is often easiest to disguise it by skimming over with plaster (e.g. Thistle Multi-finish) if one has the skill. Products such as Polycell Smoothover are aimed at the amateur and are OK but a lot more expensive and not really any easier to use.

The easiest way to remove Artex is by soaking with warm water (or using a steam wallpaper stripper) and scraping - messy but straightforward. Chemical strippers are a waste of money. It is quite likely that the underlying surface (e.g. plaster) will be damaged or removed if it is in poor condition - but then it will need repair anyway, if not replastering. After any repair, all stripped surfaces will need priming before repainting; diluted PVA (about 1 part PVA to 4 of water) is ideal although thinned emulsion paint or acrylic primer/undercoat can be used.

Although Artex did indeed contain some asbestos until about 30 years ago and care should be taken if sanding/scraping it dry (as with any dust-producing task), it is not a major hazard as the other ingredients will tend to keep the asbestos bound. Removing it with steam or water more or less eliminates any such hazards.

Decorating and DIY problems can often be answered by reference to the Srewfix Forum, where both professionals and informed amateurs exchange ideas (and not a few jokes and insults too!). Go to: http://www.screwfix.com/talk/index.jspa?forumTab=forums&ts=91152

There's more on this subject at: http://www.hhplace.org/discuss/general_non_shoe_fashion_discussion/7769-ankle_bracelets.html

Should these threads not be merged?

Ankel chains used to be worn by women to advertise the fact that they were prostitutues. :-(

That was certainly true in the UK in the late 50s/early 60s but then seemed to have died out along with proper stockings and stilettos - I don't know why. Unfortunately, the memory lingered on and many young (and not so young) women have rejected ankle chains in recent years as suggesting a status that was not appropriate to them.

As to male wearers - why not? I saw a couple (mid-30s) out at a car boot sale early last summer both wearing shorts, sandals and thin gold ankle chains. The chains carried what appeared to be small identical charms (heart-shaped or similar) and I thought it quite an appropriate but discreet way of showing togetherness, loyalty, solidarity or whatever term best applies. I saw the same man by himself at the same place on other occasions wearing gold or dark blue toenail varnish and silver toe rings with his sandals (flat Birkenstock type) but as he was in long trousers I couldn't see the ankle chain.

Clearly, this man has some freestyle ideas and his SO's support. People at car boot sales spend quite a lot of time looking down at items displayed on the ground, so feet are fairly prominent but (apart from me) no-one seemed to take any special interest in him and he was perfectly conventional in every other respect.

It sounds as though a good time was had by all and I found the individual accounts interesting. No doubt there will be some more pictures to see shortly. May I congratulate admirer5577 on his detailed account of the weekend, all expressed in excellent English. I liked his comment about Camden Town being '... an area I loved from the first moment I sat my foot there.'. Not quite the correct idiom (better to say 'set foot there' or 'set foot in it') but we certainly get the picture! [i'm rather reminded of the remote part of Africa described by an explorer as being a place 'where the hand of man has never set foot.' Quite!]

Regarding PC language, I agree with you Puffer - but who know's my boss might be reading this! You can't be too careful you know.

I'm sure you are joking, Fog; I certainly hope so! Otherwise, the 'nanny state' you and I are discussing at http://www.hhplace.org/discuss/hhplace_cafe_general_chit_chat/7488-legal_harassment-4.html will prove even more big-brotherish than I fear. Interesting to speculate on whether you fear your boss's reaction to what you say rather than what you wear. Neither should be fettered (unless you like locking shoes, that is!).

Hmm! Fog is from America? Wow, I'm fooled. All this time I thought he was from the UK.

(have to agree with you about the state of American's speaking British english. However, if you think the people from the USA posting here are bad, you should walk through some of the less affluent areas of some of our larger cities to get a good flavor of what "bad American english" really is.

Not sure where you get the idea that Fog is from America, JNR - it seems pretty clear that he is from Horsham, sunny West Sussex, UK.

And, before anyone thinks that I am castigating all American posters here, I am certainly not suggesting that they all express themselves in poor English all of the time. A significant number do use recognisably 'American English' - which is noticeably 'different' to that normal in the UK, sometimes confusing or irritating but not by any means always 'poor' (according to whatever definition one respects). I hope I have 'gotten' [now that is a helpful American usage] my point across fairly.

You may be right about the actual dimensions of the heels. A huge part of what I was basing my statement upon were the heels displayed in Hollywood films. ...

But you are correct in stating that the female aircrew were often required to wear heels. I can only suppose that was before they had their floors damaged.

Don't forget that Marylin and her contemporaries made many memorable films before about 1958 when I agree that stilettos were generally thicker. In the UK at least, the thinner heel was the norm in the shops after that, and stayed the fashion until stilettos went off the menu around 1965.

As to aircrew, there may have been an initial stiletto ban before the problem was engineered-out, as this thread has indicated. They remained the norm for some years until changing fashion (and perhaps comfort/safety) made stilettos less popular for aircrew dress.

You may be right about the actual dimensions of the heels. A huge part of what I was basing my statement upon were the heels displayed in Hollywood films.

But you are correct in stating that the female aircrew were often required to wear heels. I can only suppose that was before they had their floors damaged.

Don't forget that Marylyn

Also, I was looking at the fact that the really skinny stilettoes (in the 1/4 inch range) generally weren't available until after the Comet was taken out of service (I think in the 1980's). Up until then most of the heels were usually in the .5" range.

From memory, Guy, there was much more consistency in the shape of stilettos from around 1958-59 when what I would call the classic thin, curvy stiletto became almost universal, regardless of height. Their tips would certainly fit into a square of less than 0.5" and I suggest that 0.3 - 0.4 was the norm, with 0.25" also seen. The revived stilettos of the mid-70s onwards have been much less consistent in shape and slimness and (apart from some very slender, usually steel, heels) by no means always as thin as 0.25" or so, more's the pity.

My suggestion therefore is that the peril posed to aircraft by heels was at its maximum in the late 50s when stilettos were (a) a totally new threat to the floor, not yet always allowed for by the designers; ( a very common everyday fashion - and compulsory for many stewardesses! © of a consistent and slender profile allowing excellent penetration under pressure.

I'm not sure what to say, there certainly wasn't any intent, either to be PC - or to take the piss out of PC terminology. Obviously in work I have to watch my language. I can't talk about somwhere being "manned" when it's "staffed", probably a lot of this does rub off. So, sorry to offend.

Thanks, Fog. I understand your position and certainly took no personal offence, nor intended any. I assume you work in the public sector where language-use is more sensitive. But it's unfortunate when words like 'manned' are proscribed because of an incorrect assumption that they relate to the male gender rather than to the concept of mankind, i.e. all human beings. As Neil Armstrong (who got it wrong anyway) would presumably now be required to say when landing on the moon: 'One small step for a person; a giant leap for humankind'. Yuk!

Geeze Puffer, can't you find anything less segificant [sic :academic: ] to complain about?

Yes mate - the appalling quality of American English in general (as used on this board and elsewhere) - so don't tempt me!

An update per two comments on Mail on Sunday website today:

Nice to know I'm ahead of the fashion! I've been wearing shoes with two-inch cuban heels for years - I like wearing them, I also find them much more comfortable than flat shoes, and they don't make any difference to the way I walk. I don't wear them for extra height, I just like 'em! Let's see three and even four inches - why should the women have all the fun?

- Mike, Brighton, England

Cuban heels are cool. But why stop at 2.5 inches? If you're going to take off, then do it right and offer male heels in all heights. As you said, "There’s a long tradition of men wearing high heels," so bring it on back. While you're talking celebrities, add Nicholas Cage. I seen a picture of him in cuban heels.

If you want it to catch on, you might want to lose the term "dandy" and replace it with something cool, like, cool.

It's all good.

- Inscapable, Ramstein, Germany

I wonder if these correspondents are members here - they seem our type!

... Well it was a bloke. He had large male facial features, strong jaw and nose. ... I hope it's not one of our members and I've offended them - and if they had put up their picture and asked for opinions I would not have replied ...

As a matter of interest rather than rebuke, Fog, as you are clearly referring to a male, why do you then refer to him as 'them' and 'they'? Personally, I find the use of plural pronouns (rather than 'him' etc - or even 'her'!) to refer to a singular person rather irritating , although I fully understand that some people do so to avoid being regarded as 'sexist' or 'non-PC. But, in this case, it was an unnecessary precaution - force of habit, perhaps?

I am reminded of a disaster reconstruction on telly where a lone woman (clearly shown and identified as such) was trapped in water and drowning. The narrator said something like 'They struggled to free themselves until eventually they got free ...' which sounded ridiculous, even ignoring the plural implication and the confusion that might produce in the listener's mind.

Long may the male continue to embrace the female, in grammar as well as in real life! Let women wear male pronouns whilst men are wearing female shoes!

BTW mine is me - it's a bit of an odd photo, but I just like that veiw of the heel. Shame about the chair leg.

What chair leg? Looks like one of your more ostentatious heels to me - or are you an amputee?

Hi every one, just joined this wonderful forum any one from the UK?

i draw cartoons for a living (its a job isn't it?) he he he, love women in high heels, especially the thin spiked heels that were in vogue during the late 1950's to the mid 60's..

love to hear from people in the UK, specially mature women into high heels .. the higher the better

Chris!.

Welcome, Chris, and I think you'll find quite a few of us in the UK (and elsewhere) of a similar vintage who share your interests and memories. Frustrating, ain't it?

Interesting job you have. At least drawing cartoons is better than drawing unemployment benefit (not that I do).

According to a well-balanced article in yesterday's Mail on Sunday magazine, the UK is starting to experience a cuban heel revival. The prediction is that cuban heels will be commonplace on men's shoes by the end of this year. The magazine article included pictures of such shoes from Dior, Patrick Cox and others with heels of up to 2.5"; the text (but not the pics) can be seen at http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/live/articles/live/live.html?in_article_id=431625&in_page_id=1889

I well remember when 'Beatle boots' and similar cuban heeled men's shoes were popular in the UK in the early-mid 60s and they have never completely died out since then. It will be interesting to see whether this fashion revival does indeed reach (if not saturate) most high streets - my guess is that it will, as we are already seeing (to my eyes) lighter and more elegant male footwear with pointed toes. I wonder if there will also be a renaissance of the true winklepicker, with or without a higher heel? Many of the popular ladies' boot styles with a semi-pointed or very pointed toe are very similar to what men used to wear and look eminently suitable for current male street wear, especially given the excuse that cuban heels are 'in' again. It isn't that much of a leap for men from a 1.5" block heel to a 2.5" cuban, and from there to something more slender (perhaps stiletto) of 3" or so.

I imagine we will welcome anything that narrows the gap between shoe styles intended for (if not always worn by) one sex. Maybe in a year or two we will be wondering what all the fuss about men-in-heels was?

The good Dr. is of course refering to clothing sizes (womans 12/14), not shoe sizes.

Are you sure, Euchrid - it could be hat sizes instead?

Interesting comments, Guy, and you may be right to suggest that poor translation could be confusing the issue.

However, as Wikipedia stated that 'Stiletto heels were invented in Italy and became very popular in the 1950s' (which statement I think we all accept as true, or at least not totally false), I cannot accept that such a heel could be confused with some other fairly slim and high heel that may have been worn by men in another period and/or country. The entry seems clearly to be written with what we all know and love as the stiletto heel (i.e. the 1950s invention) firmly in mind and it is that specific heel style that is being (unjustifiably) said to have been a contemporaneous male fashion too. Where did that idea come from?????

No, this is not a court of law - but I rest my case anyway. It is not Guy I take issue with but the author of the Wikipedia entry.

Gosh, Doc - what big feet you (UK14) and your daughter (UK12) have! And surely it must be rare for an adult's feet to get bigger so you can no longer get into 12s?

Well, for one thing men have worn stilettoes over the last 500 years or so. For another thing, the definition of stilettoes has changed considerably from what we know today. In years past heels were much thicker. What we might call chunky heels today were known as stilettoes.

Sorry, Guy, I don't understand your comments. Where is your evidence that men have ever worn heels that could conceivably be called 'stilettos' (i.e. thin as well as high) regularly and in public, apart from in TV, fetish or fancy dress contexts? The true stiletto heels of the late 50s-mid 60s period were almost always of the same slender profile, flat and straight at the front edge, more rounded and curving in from the back and not set too far back on the shoe. The first (mid-50s) stilettos were a little thicker, before manufacturing techniques (if not also style) facilitated and encouraged narrowing. Many so-called stilettos seen within the last 20 years or so have been distinctly thicker (chunkier if you wish) and/or set further back on the shoe - but heels like that that have not been a male fashion either at any period, have they?

I can still find no basis for accepting the Wikipedia comment as correct, however generously we interpret its sweeping assertion and however much we wish it were the case. Some editing called for, I think!