Puffer

With a couple of hours spare yesterday to explore a modest west country town, my attention was drawn by a branch of New Look, clearly more spacious and inviting than most I had seen. Entering out of curiosity, I saw that it sold men's shoes and decided to peruse same. On sale at £7 (reduced from £28) were some rather natty tan leather slip-ons and I tried them in my usual size 11.

As I did so, a pleasant-looking middle-aged woman (with husband) sat down next to me and proceeded to try on a pair of men's flat loafers (7s, I think) which she announced as being 'very comfortable – just the thing to wear at work’ and decided to buy them. Needless to say, her very public action in selecting, putting on, walking about in and confirming her decision to buy some men’s shoes (albeit of a plain unisex design) passed without comment from anyone. I have no problem at all with her actions but was tempted to say something, although I doubt that she (or hubby) would have understood my drift. I just wonder what the reaction from anyone nearby would have been if hubby (who looked as if an 8 would fit him) had gone over to the women’s section and started to try on some flat loafers or similar, however discreetly?

Meanwhile, finding my 11s to be fairly roomy (possibly to allow for a slightly tapered toebox), I decided to try some 10s. Strange – the pair on the shelf, although clearly stamped ‘10’ inside, just would not go on. Comparing them with the 11s, it was clear that the 10s were no bigger than a 9 and useless. I searched again and found one other apparent pair of 10s, which inspection showed to be a good British compromise: one a size 10 and the other a 9! I tried the single 10 out of curiosity – not roomy enough. So, it was the original 11s or nothing and a further try-on satisfied me that they would do. When I paid for the shoes, I told the cashier about the mismarked and mismatched pairs and she was most concerned, inspecting them for herself and promising appropriate action, although I have no idea what that might be – a reduction to £6 maybe? So, full marks to New Look for value and customer relations but none for the manufacturer’s quality control. Caveat emptor, I suggest.

I suppose that it’s too much to hope that New Look’s supplier might have wrongly made some stylish women’s shoes in large sizes and they can be found somewhere, unsold (and therefore dirt cheap), pretending to be 8s?

Interesting, jmc. We don't have the sense of falseness or even of being misleading in 'balderdash' in the UK, but I can see how that might develop. The original meaning of balderdash was froth, or later a jumbled mixture of liquids or drinks (such as wine and beer), from which the idea of a senseless jumble of words developed. So, whilst most of the politicians on both sides of the pond utter balderdash, ours at least are not necessarily being dishonest when they are talking nonsense and yours may well be totally comprehensible when they are being economical with the truth. (Safest bet is to ignore all of them - I do!)

There have been some very interesting and sensible comments above on the use and acceptability of so-called 'swear-words'. Although we are all using English (of a sort!) there are naturally differences between the US and the UK, and indeed within the UK - as BB will be aware of words and usages that mean nothing to those like me in the south of England. Confusion (and amusement) so often arises when people on opposite sides of the Atlantic use words like 'fanny', 'ass', 'tramp', 'fag', 'bum' with their very different meanings (not all of which are in some measure offensive). All part of life's rich tapestry, I suppose, but it can get in the way of effective communication. Interestingly, there is a BBC TV programme at present called 'Balderdash and Piffle' which explores and explains the origin of various words and phrases - the object being to get input to help the Oxford English Dictionary update its entries, particularly where an earlier known usage can be verified by written evidence. This week, the feminist Germaine Greer spoke at length on the dreaded word 'c**t', using it quite openly and explaining its (perfectly respectable) ancient origins. She asked why it couldn't be more accepted in ordinary use, given that there is in fact no true (and acceptable) conversational/medical term for the female sex organ as an 'entity' and most people have to use a simple and innocuous euphemism (e.g. 'down below' or 'bottom') or an inaccurate medical term (e.g. vagina). Personally, I think she has a good point: c**t may well be offensive when used - indeed misused - as an expletive but that should not stop its use in the right place. We men don't have the same trouble - 'penis' is the correct contemporary term for the male appendage as a whole, despite its original meaning of 'tail'. In passing, I wonder whether 'balderdash' and 'piffle' are meaningless in the US (or elsewhere outside the UK)? For those who don't know, they describe words or speech that is senseless, muddled or nonsense.

Only just caught up with board postings; sorry to hear of your problem Barney15c. My quick comments are:

1. Its easy to take a small claims action (especially if done on line - go to www.moneyclaim.gov.uk/csmco/index.jsp) but be aware that issue fee is £80 and probably not worth risking for a smallish debt that you may not actually recover (even if you do get judgment). You can add this fee, your out-of-pocket costs and interest until judgment to your claim. You may find that a letter to buyer (hand-delivered or sent recorded delivery), threatening such action if full payment not received within 14 days and couched in suitably stern terms which show you know the procedure, will do the trick.

2. Be very wary about confrontations, public accusations or making reports to other sellers (outside ebay) as an action for harassment is a possibility and so is one for defamation unless it is absolutely clear that the debtor has no effective defence. (I doubt the buyer will be aware of his possible rights in detail but you really don't want any type of repercussion or counter-attack, given sensitivities here.)

3. Early action via ebay is probably the best bet but my own experience recently (book bought for stepson and never received - seller eventually responded confirming despatch, suggesting lost in post and promising refund, but of course no more heard) got me nowhere as all ebay does is to pass on messages and request response, closing its file if nothing happens. But you have nothing to lose by trying!

Good luck!

Puffer

The BBC Radio 4 programme referred to by Emma above ('Engineering my Sole') no longer appears to be available on a 'listen again' basis. If you click on the link she gave it mentions the prog but tries to connect you to a short story about rats! Is there any way of hearing this now - or can someone provide a synopsis of what was broadcast?

Interestingly, by searching 'shoe', I found other archive progs on the BBC website that may be of interest and are still available, for example:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/womanshour/2002_37_thu_03.shtml (2002 prog about high heel wearing)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/hometruths/20040628_shoe_box.shtml (an interview with the proprietor of The Little Shoe Box in London)

Puffer

I agree that it is certainly inconsiderate and selfish for someone to wear shoes that are likely to damage a floor surface, indoors or out (such as on garden decking or of course on a boat). In the case I reported above, I had no reason to believe that the wearer was being cavalier or even careless and I'm sure that an unforeseen and undetected missing heel tip was to blame. Any of the two or three possible culprits would have been mortified if she had realised what was happening and I can scarcely pursue the matter - much as the potential for carrying out detailed investigation and inspection appeals to me for other reasons! But I do now have a valid reason for a polite enquiry and scrutiny as and when suitably-clad ladies make a future visit.

Last Sunday, it was the usual pre-Christmas ‘open house’ for a buffet lunch and drinks chez Puffer, with a record 70-odd friends and neighbours dropping in. After they departed and clearing-up was in hand, I found that the parquet flooring in my dining room and adjoining kitchen bore a series of very distinct impressions – small circles of about 4mm diameter and around 0.5 – 0.7mm deep. Although the parquet is not new (and had already been sanded to resurface it), it will need significant attention in at least two main areas to remove these marks, and probably without complete success. Only two or three of the ladies present wore stilettos (and nothing very exciting at that) but one of them was undoubtedly to blame for ‘dropping in’ to a greater extent than invited! The size and shape of the marks suggests that it was not a narrow metal heel tip that caused them but almost certainly the head of the nail that secured the tip and which remained protruding after the tip broke away. I expect the lady in question has now discovered to her dismay the loss of a tip (and possibly damage to her heel) but is quite unaware of the trail it left behind. As you can imagine, I have mixed emotions. I would scarcely wish to discourage any visitor from wearing stilettos to my house or in it (and I dislike seeing visitors walking around without shoes when they are otherwise smartly attired) but I don’t want to suffer this type of damage every time a lady of taste graces me with her presence. Perhaps the answer is to inspect every likely pair of shoes on arrival and at regular intervals thereafter – as if I needed that excuse – but not everyone will appreciate such close attention, I fear. Seriously folks, spare a thought for those whose floors you might damage when enjoying your socialising this Christmas (or at any other time) but do not – repeat not – refrain from sexy footwear for this or any other spurious reason, such as comfort, fashion, image, or allegedly provocative behaviour. Seasonal greetings to all. Now, where’s my angle grinder …?

I appreciate Slingfan’s last comments; to me, the only really unattractive slipped slingback scenario is when the wearer is totally clumsy as a result and seems incapable of doing anything about it. Some might find this attractive; others (perhaps including the wearer) might find it embarrassing, as they would if a shoe was coming apart. I would also suggest that two slipped slingbacks might be either accidental or intentional but one is unlikely to be anything other than accidental – assuming that people do not normally like to go around lop-sided! I can cite a recent observation on this. Late last summer on a very hot and sunny day, I went to a free big-band concert at my town’s bandstand. There was a singer (about 45) wearing elegant narrow-strapped slingback sandals with about a 4.5 inch stiletto heel. Both before and after the concert started, she walked on and off the bandstand several times with one slingback caught round her shoe heel and not doing its job, but she clearly didn’t notice because her sandals also had a strap across her instep in front of the ankle which precluded any extra slop – maybe a disappointment to some observers. Offstage, she was sitting with friends and I’m sure one of them told her about her misbehaving slingback as she adjusted it accordingly after about 15 minutes. She was probably embarrassed as it had made her look unprofessional. To me, she looked attractive regardless of her mistake – the more so as her sandals were entirely appropriate and she pranced around in them very capably. She sang well too – a useful bonus! The mistake must have been noticed by most of the audience and I wondered at the time what their various male or female thoughts were!

These views on slingbacks, slipping or not, are interesting and I can add my own two pennyworth (currently converting to almost 4 cents).

As a male who much appreciates the sight of a woman in any feminine and elegant shoe, I have always felt that slingbacks are the ideal compromise between sexiness and formality – not as boring as many plain courts can be or as flimsy and unstable as the most open styles of sandal. Indeed, Slingfan’s avatar shows exactly my long-time favourite (and currently fashionable) style: longish pointed toe, cut-away top and sides, long thin buckled slingback and a properly-shaped and positioned slender stiletto. Whilst the avatar’s heel looks to be no more than 4 inches (and I certainly like to see higher stilettos, ideally 4.5 – 5.5 inches for ‘normal’ wear), the shoe is no less elegant and attractive on that score. Provided that the shoe is not too enclosed and the heel not too thick, even a 2 – 3 inch slingback style can look good, probably because it will usually be more delicate (and daring) than its court equivalent and less casual than a true sandal.

I’m sure that most women would broadly agree with me on the question of stylishness – certainly, the slingback has never really been out of fashion. And men like them too because, heel type and height aside, they not only look good but need a little more effort to wear and walk in properly – the probability is that some extra wiggle, wobble and ‘heel-click’will be apparent (and much appreciated), even when the slingback is correctly positioned and effective. So, it is hardly surprising that a woman coping competently when her slingbacks are ignored or have slipped or failed can appear even more attractive – but the reverse is true when she is all over the place and merely looks sloppy or cumbersome.

So much for the male observer’s view. My guess is that many women like a slipped slingback because it gives them, in effect, a mule that is more ‘slappy’ than they could normally find – and they like mules (open styles or otherwise) because they are cool and comfortable to wear in warmer weather and/or allow them to show-off their feet. And, if they are honest, they realise that they can look good and be admired and envied by both sexes when they succeed in walking skilfully in a loose, almost dangerous, shoe – scoring extra points when it also has a high, slender heel. A fine balance, perhaps, between being provocative, inventive or practical – rather like a woman proudly showing-off her cleavage in a deliberately unbuttoned blouse and at the same time being more comfortable because she is less covered-up or restrained.

From what others are saying, it seems the general view is that the ineffective slingback is in itself an untidy and (literally) slipshod habit, if not an abuse of a smart pair of shoes. At the same time, it is often at least tolerated, if not encouraged, by both wearers and observers as being a slightly provocative and daring way of making the wearer’s appearance and behaviour seem more attractive, casual or comfortable. But then I don’t like to see someone intentionally wearing a waistcoat undone, a tie loosened or a pair of shoes unlaced, whilst others may feel that is the way to go.

Gosh, Lucy - stiletto wearers will be needing a degree in applied mechanics next before they are allowed to venture out! (My 1966 A-level in that subject seems totally inadequate now.) I suppose the mechanics doesn't matter too much except to the academics; it's the result that counts. And I'm sure you're right, based on your extensive practical experience, about the weight distribution and impact. Could be a different result though with an inexperienced wearer, not placing the foot as smoothly and elegantly as you do, which suggests that the floor damage so rife in the stiletto hayday was more the fault of amateurs than those with practice and poise - but you all got blamed for it and sometimes banned. Love, Puffer

1. Hi, Lucy and thanks for your correction; you are quite right. I think that the stiletto was introduced about 1952 (as contemporary fashion adverts/articles seem to show) but didn't fully catch on until rather later, as you explain. My memory suggests that the earlier stilettos were typically a little thicker and not so high as those most usually available in the UK in the late 50's, when the true winklepicker also became the prevailing toe shape. Hence my suggestion of ‘1957’ as a start date, as I think it was the overall shoe style (heel, toe etc) that the earlier posts were referring to as being perpetuated (or not) into the 80’s. So I think that we are all saying much the same thing – stilettos started in the early 50’s, caught on in the UK by about 1955 (in much the style suggested by Skirted-UK), developed into the typically higher and more pointed style by 1960 (which High 10 seems to have had in mind and which are now seen as the ‘classic court’ style), went out of style in the mid-60’s and were seen again, with variations, from the mid-70’s onwards. (I well recall a Daily Mail article in 1974 announcing the return of the stiletto court, from Biba amongst others, but it was a year or two before they literally hit the high street, mostly with more rounded toes and small platforms.) In retrospect, it is scarcely surprising that the stiletto era and the rock-and-roll era so closely coincided – an unbeatable combination! 2. Firefox is also quite right about the physics of heel pressure and resultant damage. If the weight is more on the toes with a higher heel, the damage caused when standing still will be reduced. But, when walking, if the heel goes down first, the wearer’s weight must be wholly on the heel until the sole makes contact, so does the heel height have any relevance at all to ‘walking damage’ (which is the main concern for those whose floors are at risk)? This is a 25 mark question; you may begin now.

My apologies for not responding to this thread before, only just noticed. Although slightly younger than Skirted-UK, I was like him an ‘interested observer’ during the first stiletto era but my own memories are somewhat different. I think we would agree that the era was roughly 1957 – 1965, with stilettos at the peak of their popularity from, say, 1959 to 1963. At that time, they were undoubtedly the prevailing fashion and worn whenever possible by the majority of women of all ages (say 14 – 60, but not ignored by those either younger or older). That is not to say that all women wore them all the time but, unless there was a sound practical or other objection, they were the style of choice. A ‘proper’ stiletto heel was (then and now) at least 3” and most women wanted and wore them at least that high. Yes, a 3” heel was perhaps ‘high’ in fifties contemporary terms but was certainly not a new concept, although the stiletto shape was. Those (such as tall women and schoolgirls) who could not go as high as 3” would settle for a lower but equally slender ‘kitten’ heel. But, from memory, the shops were full of 3.5” – 4.5” heels which were widely worn – happily by many for work and other daytime activity as well for ‘smart’ occasions such as dances and parties. Isn’t this exactly what Lucy has been telling us in her long-running saga? Heels higher than about 4.5” were by no means unavailable, and they were worn in most everyday situations, sometimes perhaps foolishly. I agree that they were less common – and not everyone who liked them could wear them – but they were around and did not seem to attract the same stigma as in later eras. Here again, Lucy’s experiences bear me out. I can’t see any particular correlation between shoe size or dance-floor damage and heel height. A true stiletto heel of any height will cause damage to floors and the like. Women with smaller feet seemed to have little difficulty in coping with very high heels; indeed, shorter women (with feet in proportion) loved the height gain and were often the most enthusiastic wearers of the higher stilettos. I agree that a UK size 7 or 7.5 was the largest normally available for women, but not many then needed anything larger – and a 5” heel is perfectly manageable by a determined size 5, 6 or 7 woman. As to the eighties (and later periods), it is unfortunately true that stilettos have never enjoyed the same universal appeal as in their original era. But those women who wore them after the sixties generally did so because they liked a high slender heel, so usually chose 4” – 4.5” rather than anything lower. It is only in the last few years that the kitten heel (below 3”) has returned with any real support. The trend seems increasingly to be one of greater contrasts and shorter periods of anything being ‘in fashion’. The greater variety in the profile and positioning of what are generically regarded these days as ‘stiletto’ heels also evidences this; the true sixties stiletto was revived in the late seventies and eighties but is not so often seen nowadays, more’s the pity. In the fifties and sixties, we were glad to get anything new and, when we had something that worked, we kept it as long as we could.

Sabrina and Jayne Mansfield were each involved in a similar amusing ‘confrontation’ on stage in around 1958-60 which made the most of their impressive figures and was probably aided by the extra height of the stilettos they doubtless wore. The original clips are still sometimes shown on British television.

Sabrina was a regular on the British variety show hosted by Arthur Askey - a witty, bespectacled comedian of about 5ft 3in. When engaged in a ‘face-to-face’ conversation with her during a sketch, his head became buried in her ample cleavage and he made some remark about his glasses steaming up. Quite risque for the time!

Jayne Mansfield had almost the same experience with diminutive Mickey Rooney during a live awards ceremony. He said very little – his expressions told the whole story and he milked the situation (no pun intended) for all it was worth. Although Jayne looked initially bemused (it was probably an unrehearsed incident), she was no fool and soon realised why the audience was delighted.

Does anyone remember Kathy Kirby (born 1940), a popular English singer of the early 60s but a virtual recluse since her career waned? She was a pretty blonde, well-known for her glossy lipstick and always elegantly dressed, invariably with high stilettos. It would be good to see some full-length pictures or clips of her (perhaps from her own TV show) but all I could find from a brief search was this: www.npg.org.uk/live/search/portrait.asp?LinkID=mp10179&rNo=0&role=sit

Happy memories – and happy hunting!

Hmmm! I wonder if my problem is related? More to the point, any ideas to solve would be very welcome. I run XP Pro with (I think) all updates inc SP2. Before going broadband 3 weeks ago, I had no real problems with Internet Explorer but now find that I cannot view any of my internet history offline, nor see favourites or homepage offline (although all pages are listed correctly in history etc). As far as I can tell, no critical settings are wrong but I may have upset something. I have McAfee, Spybot and Ad-aware installed. I can only conclude that a combination of broadband + recent updates + ancillary progs have combined to prevent me from working offline. (Yes, it does matter; my broadband usage is subject to a quota and in any case it is quicker/easier to view history offline than to reload.) Maybe a different browser would be better - I hear good things about the Firefox package. I'm about to instal a simple wireless network to enable other PCs in house to access internet, if this makes a difference. Any views, anyone?

There's another angle on the potential for embarassment when men buy women's shoes. Many men like to buy shoes for their wife or GF (when she isn't present) and, in my experience, it doesn't cause a problem in the shop - but may be a risk if returns are not possible because the style or fit is wrong. But I can see a difficulty if the woman's shoe is in a size that would be appropriate to the male purchaser; the seller may believe that they are for the man to wear, whatever he says! For once, those with large male feet are at an advantage: I have sometimes read the shop assistant's thoughts, e.g. 'These obviously won't fit him; must be a present for the GF'. (Exit happy customer, but wishing he could wear them too.)

Thank you Lucy and Dawn HH for your welcome. I don't have time to come to this forum too often but I shall keep in touch and post when I have something worthwhile (imho) to say. As Bob Monkhouse once stated: 'I'm a hard man to ignore - but it's well worth the effort.' Bye for now, Puffer

As a newcomer, I’ve only just seen this query but I can give some further info as I lived in Brighton until 2000 and was aware of the Adams business: 1. The North Street shop was open (from memory) about 1990-92 only, when the business closed completely. I think the Adamses had previously carried on the business from the Southwick address (as in Xaphod’s catalogue in ‘Heels and advertising’ topic) which was probably their home at that time. 2. I did visit the shop and have a catalogue (undated) with black and white retouched photos of only a few shoes (being worn) and somewhat exaggerated artist’s impressions of the large (claimed) range. The heels were said to be 5.25 – 5.75″ (depending on shoe size, 3 – and the price range was £70 – 85, which seems a lot for that time. The catalogue was rather disappointing and suggestive of a small stockholding with most items made to order, although there was a reasonable selection displayed in the shop and its window – always a pleasant distraction when I drove past! As Xaphod suggests, a number of similarities to other ranges indicating a common manufacturer. 3. After closure, the Adamses lived for a time in Hove and traded in second-hand shoes. I happened to meet them there around 1994 (responding to an ad in the local paper, trying to buy something for a GF) and, recognising who they were, asked why the business had closed. They said it was due to quality control problems with complaints from (I think) a German customer (presumably a retailer) and I recall they also blamed a shift from street fashion to fetish, which presumably reduced demand. Sarah was clearly a high stiletto fan herself and a friend who knew her later told me she wore them regularly when out and about. 4. I don’t know where the Adamses are now living or what they are doing. I hope this helps. Puffer