Jump to content

The High Heeled Ruminations Of Melrose Plant


Recommended Posts


  • Replies 1.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

We are beginning in-person church services again for the first time in what seems like forever. I was debating whether to go to Palm Sunday services yesterday, but I'm glad I did, as my pre-recorded v

It has been mentioned several times that I do not provide enough photographic evidence of my fashion sensibilities, and I suppose there's a reason for that. I just don't feel it's very interesting. I

For those of you who complain that I never wear boots, here you go. It didn't kill me after all, though I didn't realize how scrunched up my jeans had gotten from getting in and out of the car several

Posted Images

9 hours ago, Bubba136 said:

Looking forward to hearing how you handle this wearing your clogs!

That depends entirely upon how much snow we get. We're 36 hours out, and they're saying a few inches Friday night. Which means either we'll get a little bit of nothing, or we'll get a foot.

In the meantime, it has been unseasonably warm the last couple of days, and should be again today before the snow hits, and speaking of clogs, I just got a new pair yesterday. I guess you could call them clogs, but really they're sandals with wooden bottoms. They appear to be a number of years old, and the heel tips not perhaps as pliable as they once were, though they are far from worn out. I went to the  grocery store with my boy last night very quickly for one item. I did what I never do, and wore the new sandals untried and untested. In the three minutes I was there, I thought of @chesterx and decided to test out the floor in a place I knew to historically be once of the slipperiest spots, since logic and observation told me that these heels ought to be slippery, but my body was telling me that they were just fine. So I put the heel down in a giant step, and WOAH! Yep, that's slick right there. I didn't fall, or even come close, but there was a slightly uncontrolled 1/4 second.

So I said to my son, "I guess these shoes are slippery after all." He said, "Nah, it's just slick right there. I can feel it even though I'm only wearing regular shoes." [his words, not mine] It did seem to be true, as long as I refrained from walking recklessly, it was just fine. Soon, I'll put the new shoes up in the New Shoes section.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I had the chance to visit my best friend, the tailor, and faithful shoe buddy, this past weekend. It was her daughter's 14th birthday, and I had bought the daughter a present. My friend presented me with a new mask, which she made a big deal about making especially for me. What do you think?

LouboutinMask.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a mystery of sorts. Yesterday, out on my deck, I discovered these footprints in the snow. I really should have taken a picture right when I noticed them, because the picture posted below shows the snow rather more melted, and the footprints are not so clear as when I first saw them.

The footprint in the lower part of the picture is mine. I can even identify which shoe it came from. However, the footprint in the upper part of the picture is from no shoe that I own. Who has been walking on my deck? I'm guessing they are female, wearing at least somewhat high heeled boots. Nothing has been disturbed. Not that anyone would want any of the old junk that's currently residing on my deck.

MysteryFootprint.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you sure that the upper print is not also yours?   It looks rather like the lower one, except that a little more snow has melted away from the edges, suggesting a larger shoe.   

Sherlock Holmes would surely have written a monograph, identifying more than 2,000 high-heeled boots from their prints!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Upon further reflection, it must have been me, even though I can't identify the boots or shoes that made the print. It must have melted in such a way to alter the appearance. The reasons I say it must have been me are 1) the chances of somebody besides me walking on my deck, given its location, are very small indeed, 2) now add to those already small odds that somebody was wearing heels, and 3) whoever was walking on my deck evidently knew to avoid the top step coming up from the back yard, as it has rotted, and is likely to give way at any time.

Perhaps I am too eager to find evidence of somebody else besides me wearing heels in ordinary, everyday life. Although I did see a lady at Costco on Saturday wearing heels, though it stretches my definition of heels. They were probably not quite 3 inches high, and were chunky/block heeled combat style boots. But it's better than nothing.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

That was my first thought, just a slightly different melt rate.  I also saw a pair of heels in Costco the other day, though like your sighting, they were relatively tame.  A pair of Michael Kors black patent leather loafers with about a 3.5" chunky heel, like these.  I recognize them as I have desired a pair for myself, but the size 11 runs rather small and were too tight on me, and that is the largest size.  Anyway, the lady wearing them had paired them with black leggings and sheer black nylons.  She looked quite nice in them.

MICHAEL Michael Kors Bayville Patent Leather Block Heel ...

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

RonC shows us an almost perfect example of a man's shoe that was stolen by women and embellished for their own selfish purposes - and we want them back!

Edited by Puffer
typo
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Puffer said:

RonC shows us an almost perfect example of a man's shoe that was stolen by women and embellished for their own selfish purposes - and we want them back!

I'm agree with you

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Puffer said:

RonC shows us an almost perfect example of a man's shoe that was stolen by women and embellished for their own selfish purposes - and we want them back!

We never really lost them. We just don't get the kind with the heels. Unless you have really small feet like me.

I do often wonder how much of this "stealing" is ordinary women, and how much of it is designers, who then influence celebrities. How do styles manage to catch on?

19 hours ago, RonC said:

That was my first thought, just a slightly different melt rate.  I also saw a pair of heels in Costco the other day, though like your sighting, they were relatively tame.  A pair of Michael Kors black patent leather loafers with about a 3.5" chunky heel, like these.  I recognize them as I have desired a pair for myself, but the size 11 runs rather small and were too tight on me, and that is the largest size.  Anyway, the lady wearing them had paired them with black leggings and sheer black nylons.  She looked quite nice in them.

MICHAEL Michael Kors Bayville Patent Leather Block Heel ...

Good choice, Ron! The heeled loafer is one of my favorite enclosed styles.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, mlroseplant said:

We never really lost them. We just don't get the kind with the heels. Unless you have really small feet like me.

I do often wonder how much of this "stealing" is ordinary women, and how much of it is designers, who then influence celebrities. How do styles manage to catch on?

Good choice, Ron! The heeled loafer is one of my favorite enclosed styles.

Yes, I agree that the basic loafer remains very much a male shoe (and a favourite of mine).   What I meant was that women 'borrowed' that style and often embellished it (with heels etc) to suit their purposes and we, in turn, should be able to steal them back in their embellished form, heels and all.   Loafers are (imho) one of the few styles that still look good with a thicker, often stacked, heel (and a small platform if present) - making them much more acceptable for male wear than, say, a stiletto court.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Puffer said:

Yes, I agree that the basic loafer remains very much a male shoe (and a favourite of mine).   What I meant was that women 'borrowed' that style and often embellished it (with heels etc) to suit their purposes and we, in turn, should be able to steal them back in their embellished form, heels and all.   Loafers are (imho) one of the few styles that still look good with a thicker, often stacked, heel (and a small platform if present) - making them much more acceptable for male wear than, say, a stiletto court.

I say the same thing about cowBOY boots too.  Higher heels don’t automatically make them cowgirl boots...

Edited by p1ng74
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

I do recall the girls wearing flat penny loafers back in the 1960's when I was in grade and high school.  It was very common wear for them.  Not sure which sex actually wore them first.  If I could find a pair that looked pretty much like the ones I posted but in flat black rather than patent leather I'd snap them up quickly if they fit.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember penny loafers as well. I don’t recall their being a girls shoe as such but rather a unisex one. I aspired to a pair of them, and a pair of go-go boots. One was achievable, the other was not 

Edited by Shyheels
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/21/2020 at 11:49 AM, RonC said:

That was my first thought, just a slightly different melt rate.  I also saw a pair of heels in Costco the other day, though like your sighting, they were relatively tame.  A pair of Michael Kors black patent leather loafers with about a 3.5" chunky heel, like these.  I recognize them as I have desired a pair for myself, but the size 11 runs rather small and were too tight on me, and that is the largest size.  Anyway, the lady wearing them had paired them with black leggings and sheer black nylons.  She looked quite nice in them.

MICHAEL Michael Kors Bayville Patent Leather Block Heel ...

I have several pair of this style.  One pair with 2” heels, a pair with 4” heels and a pair of brown suede with 5” heels.  The first two pairs are my “go to anywhere shoes and the 5” heels are worn on special occasions.

  • Like 1

Being mentally comfortable in your own mind is the key to wearing heels in public.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Shyheels said:

I remember penny loafers as well. I don’t recall their being a girls shoe as such but rather a unisex one. I aspired to a pair of them, and a pair of go-go boots. One was achievable, the other was not 

You are right - flat loafers were and still are definitely a unisex style, at least in the UK.   Worn by men as the more casual version of the slip-on shoe, by younger women ditto (when practical flat shoes are appropriate or necessary) and by older women as 'comfy' not-too-boring 'smart' footwear.   The main difference between the male and female versions seems to be that the women's are lighter, sometimes with a lower cut front and perhaps more embellished or colourful.   A man I know with rather small and narrow feet regularly wears women's flat loafers as they fit him better and look entirely appropriate - I don't know if he has any with heels!

Link to post
Share on other sites

With the receipt of my Prada platform mules, mentioned in the "New Shoes" thread, and because I have time on my hands, I got curious about how tall these shoes make me. Because believe me, it is a pretty big step up to slide into these shoes in the morning. But exactly how big? I got out my framing square, put the long side of it against the wall, then turned around and slid it down until the short side of it touched the top of my head, then held it fast against the wall so I could make a pencil mark on the wall, which I then could measure from the floor. I believe this method yields reasonably accurate measurements. So, the good news is, I haven't shrunk any more in height since the last time I did this, which was at least two years ago, maybe it has been longer. In bare feet, I am 65 1/8 inches, or 5' 5", or 165.4 cm. Not a tall guy. Historically, I was about 3/8 of an inch taller, or about 1 cm, but time has dragged me down a bit. So how tall was I in my new shoes with 5 7/8" heels with 1 5/8" platforms? Nearly 5' 10". 5' 9 3/4" to be exact, or just over 177 cm. This means that the heel steepness gave me an additional 3" of height, plus the platform, for a total of 4 5/8", or awfully close to 12 cm of additional height. No wonder it seemed a big step up to put on these shoes!

As an additional curiosity, I tried the same thing in my new Hey Si Mey mules, 5" heel, no platform. The results were telling, but not unexpected. The steep 5" heel gained me a mere 1/8" extra height compared to a 4 1/4" heel, for a total height increase of 3 1/8", or just under 8 cm. Geometry is fun!

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes it's difficult to think of something to write, because there is really a limited subject matter to begin with. I mean, how much innovative and interesting prose is it possible to write on the subject of wearing high heels? However, a new idea was presented to me just the other day, in the form of a video one of my friends sent me. It was one of those fashion Dos and Don'ts videos. My friend wanted to know what I thought about some of these rules. I will not specifically enumerate every rule, and one of her rules was not a rule at all, but rather the rolling back of a traditional proscription. She said it was ok to mix brown with black. Jeff B, wherever he is, is appalled I am sure.

Most of these things are just common sense, but I'll list two of my favorites. "Don't wear white to a wedding." I agree with this wholeheartedly, and would go even further and say that one shouldn't wear white anywhere, ever. Because you'll just end up spilling red pasta sauce on it anyhow. Only one out of the ten rules did I disagree violently with, and that was, "Don't wear open toed shoes in the winter." Though she did not specifically say it, I believe what she objects to is when girls wear flip flops or Birkenstocks to run errands, while also wearing winter coats and hats. I am not sure whether she would object to the types of sandals I typically wear.

In light of all this, I wore my new Prada mules to the grocery store, which are brown, with a black trench coat, mainly teal colored sweater, red hat, and a gray mask. Perhaps this is going too far, I don't know. I didn't really get any stares, other than one woman asking me, "Aren't your feet cold?" I answered, "No, not really, and besides, some self-appointed fashion guru on YouTube told me I couldn't wear this, so.  .  . well, here I am!" Which at least got a laugh.

PradaTrench.jpg

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, as a largely colorblind person, the mix of colors doesn't bother me at all...lol.  I have to say that those shoes look pretty good on you, which surprises me as they are not a style I generally like.  That said, I'm still not in the market for a pair :giggle:.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, RonC said:

Well, as a largely colorblind person, the mix of colors doesn't bother me at all...lol.  I have to say that those shoes look pretty good on you, which surprises me as they are not a style I generally like.  That said, I'm still not in the market for a pair :giggle:.

I thought very much the same thing when I saw them, that they are like, HUGE and clunky looking. The only reason I bought them, the ONLY reason, is that they were dirt cheap, and they were Prada. However, now that they're actually here and I have worn them a bit, they've grown on me. I think they do look a lot better on than they do sitting on a display shelf. Since you usually look at a person's shoes with a downward facing angle, maybe it takes some of the clunkiness away?

_________________________

I see that there are definitely two factions, with very little in-between. Pro-white and anti-white. When I say one should never wear white, I'm actually saying that for humorous effect, with a touch of truth to it. Also, when I say "white," I'm generally thinking of white pants or a white sport coat. Of course, I wear white shirts on a regular, though not frequent, basis. @bluejay, @Cali, I'm trying my best to imagine me wearing anything externally white in the winter. Unfortunately, what I imagine is me trying to get anything out of the trunk of my car, or even out of the back seat. It always ends badly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, mlroseplant said:

I think they do look a lot better on than they do sitting on a display shelf. Since you usually look at a person's shoes with a downward facing angle, maybe it takes some of the clunkiness away?

Not sure either, but I'm still not in the market for a pair...lol.  You look good in them.  I guess maybe there is a certain masculine bent to the heaviness of them.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Posted (edited)

I have completed a Full and Fair shoe inventory for the first time in over two years, so it's time for some statistics! I have done some cursory counts since that time, but this is the first full cataloguing since 11/22/18. At that time, I owned 56 pairs of heels. I am now up to 80. Most of this increase is due to two splurges, one about a year ago, and one fairly recently. The one thing I do not keep track of is the date I bought the shoes. Not that it really matters, but it is kind of interesting to note how long I've had certain pairs of shoes. It is also interesting to note that I have worn two different pairs of shoes outside very recently that I purchased more than 8 years ago. I guess I knew what I was doing at least some of the time back then. So here are the numbers!

Total            80

Pumps          13    16.3%
Sandals         43    53.8%
Mules            45    56.3%
Stilettos        29    36.3%
Wedges         13    16.3%
Boots              5      6.3%

Heel heights:

≤ 4”                      7      8.8%
>4” - 4 1/2”        10    12.5%
>4 1/2” - 5”        33    41.2%
>5”                      30    37.5%

Heel steepness (subtracting platform from total heel height):

<4”            24    30.0%
≥4”            56    70.0%

Interestingly, if you make this small change in category, the numbers change significantly:

≤4"           41    51.25%

>4"           39   48.75%

 

Evidently, I like shoes that are right around 4" of steepness. In fact, I was curious, so I went back through and counted 43 out of 80 that have a steepness of between 3 3/4" and 4 1/4", or 53.75% of my shoes. Just keeping going here, having too much fun, 22 have steepness greater than 4 1/4", or 27.5%, and 15 are less than 3 3/4", or 18.75%.

There has not been a radical change in percentages compared to years past, so at least as far as heel height, steepness, and style, I have remained consistent in my tastes for at least two years. I feel like I have bought a lot more shoes right around the 4 1/2"+ range without platform than what I used to have, but it's just a feeling. I have no statistical evidence to back that up.

Edited by mlroseplant
Accidentally posted before finishing
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow.  I bet there are very few people in the world that own 80 pairs of shoes of any kind.  Wonder what your total investment was?  Also, just looking at the numbers, I assume that there is some carry over between mules and sandals?  Otherwise, things don't add up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using High Heel Place, you agree to our Terms of Use.