Jump to content

Shoe hates


redandwhite

Recommended Posts

I have managed to get hold of what might be legitimately considered a "stiletto" wedge. Which, despite being a contradictory terms, sounds nicer than "meat cleaver" wedge. I will probably continue with the meat cleaver terminology, as it makes me chuckle, and that's important.

I bought these supposedly vintage Bakers mules for a very reasonable price, and as it turns out, they beat the above contestants for thinness of the wedge by a noticeable amount. The thinnest part of the wedge narrows to a mere 3/8", or <10 mm, which is indeed true stiletto territory. Even the heel cap itself widens to only 7/16", which is stiletto gray area. See a comparison between the new narrow Bakers and the Bruno Magli wedges I posted before.

It is a little bit strange to be writing this in "Shoe Hates," but that's where the discussion started, and I don't think it merits a whole nuther thread.

BakersBrunoMagliCompare.jpg

BakersWedgesSide.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Nice mules, and I like the narrow back of the wedge heel.   But (as previously stated), it should not be called a 'stiletto wedge' as, proportions aside, anything resembling a stiletto has to have a slim 'spike' appearance and a wedge heel, which has a continguous sole from front to back, cannot be likened to a spike/dagger/stiletto.   A meat cleaver, or maybe a machette, seems apt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'Stiletto Wedges' was a stlye in the 2000's. Marketing would never let them be called meat cleaver nor stiletto 'ice picks'.

Proud owner of a Victoria's Secret 'stiletto wedges'.😁

Edited by Cali
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, I totally agree that "meat cleaver' is never going to be a winner as far as marketing imagery goes! I don't blame whoever is marketing these for coming up with the term "stiletto wedges", but beyond this applied term I can't see them as stilettos.  

Edited by Shyheels
Link to comment
Share on other sites

'Marketing' is to blame for a lot that is wrong in society.   My definition: 'The dishonest misrepresentation of goods and services that people rarely want or need'.

That said, would a 'cleaver wedge' or a 'chopper wedge' be any less acceptable to the marketeers than a 'stiletto wedge'?   We already have a 'scoop wedge' and doubtless others.

 

Edited by Puffer
typo
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

I have been getting this persistent advertisement in my social media feed for the last couple of weeks. It is a 30-something woman telling me that the staple of my shoe collection should be kitten heels. Every so often, it seems to happen that somebody, somewhere, thinks that the kitten heel is the greatest compromise ever, and that the fashion vs. function problem has finally been solved once and for all.

Luckily, hardly anybody falls for this nonsense. I submit that the kitten heel is the worst of the worst. Not because they are actually the worst looking style ever, but because they pretend to be something that they are not. Yes, Crocs look way worse on an absolute scale, but at least they have no pretense of being anything other than what they are. A 2 inch spike heel has no place in this world. If you need to wear a 2 inch heel, get shoes with block heels, pretty please!

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree 100%.

There is no balance to the shape. Anything under 3 inches should be blockier. The heel tips must wear very fast. Higher heels carry a lower percentage of weight on the tips. Walking heel to toe the shoe is already level before all the weight is transferred from the other foot.

Another pet peave, people who say more than 100%. There is no such thing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Jkrenzer said:

I agree 100%.

There is no balance to the shape. Anything under 3 inches should be blockier. The heel tips must wear very fast. Higher heels carry a lower percentage of weight on the tips. Walking heel to toe the shoe is already level before all the weight is transferred from the other foot.

Another pet peave, people who say more than 100%. There is no such thing. 

"I agree with you 1,000%." I had a guy at work who would say this on a fairly regular basis. I pointed out to him several times that this was impossible. I think he understood on some level, but continues to this day to say 1,000%. I think he just likes saying it.

It was very much in style to say "give 110%" a few years ago, at least in the U.S.  Although this is also theoretically impossible, as an industrial electrician, I can make this one work, and teach a valuable old man lesson at the same time. Most industrial facilities are heavily based on electric motors. Of course, the customer always wants to use the smallest motor possible that will still do the job. Unlike internal combustion engines, most electric motors are designed to run at 100% of their rated capacity continuously. This is why you can replace a 5 hp rated Briggs & Stratton small gasoline engine with a 3 hp electric motor, and whatever it is will probably work better with the "reduced" power.

However, electric motors are always rated with something called a "service factor", or "SF" on the nameplate. This is a rating which tells you whether a motor can be pushed beyond its rated capacity briefly. A typical service factor for an industrial motor is 1.2, meaning that for a short period of time, you can overload this motor by 20% without damaging it. Put another way, it can give 120% for short periods of time, e.g., on startup, when the loads are temporarily higher than they are at full running speed.

I believe that we humans have a Service Factor also. We can, in fact, give 110% (SF of 1.1) for short periods of time when necessary. However, if we are asked to give 110% on a regular basis, guess what? Just like that electric motor that is overloaded too often, we're going to burn out, and we will have to be rebuilt or replaced. Hopefully not after going down in flames.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I can agree that saying (for example) 'Give 110%' is wrong, albeit frequently misused.   If someone is working or producing something at a certain level or pace that is considered to be the acceptable standard (so '100%'), then asking him to do a little more (say, to 'give 110%') is neither an impossible concept nor illogical, even if it is unreasonable or unrealistic.   No different from the 'motor' example, really.   Unless one can be sure that a particular measurement can never be bettered or exceeded (e.g. the speed of light, or absolute zero), it must be possible (in theory anyway) to vary it, up or down, by some stated percentage.

Link to comment
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.