How high is high?

[dr1819]

There have been several polls asking people what their definition of a "high" heel should be. This poll is asking you how you think the definition should be determined, not only for high heels, but for low and mid heels, as well. Please take a moment to vote, then explain why you voted the way you did. Thanks for participating!

[dr1819]

I chose standard propotion, as it meets several needs: 1. Easy to calculate: (Heel Height - Plat Height ) / Equivalent Foot Length For example - if you're a size 11, your equivalent foot length is 10-11/16 inches. For a 4 inch heel with a 1 inch plat, that produces a standard proportion of .28. The higher the proportion, the higher the heel. 2. It's very easily calculation to standardize online searches, as most online retailers have both the size and the heel height in numeric fields. It would be a simple matter to add the plat height, too. 3. It would allow users a multitude of search options, including overlapping ranges: - From -- 0 -- .1 -- .2 -- .3 -- .4 -- .5 - To -- 0 -- .1 -- .2 -- .3 -- .4 -- .5 -- .6 -- > .6 By the way, a standard proportion of .5 in size 11 is 5.34 Similarly, if you know your most comfortable standard proportion, you could search for shoes with a standard proption of, say, .33, and you could specify +/- .1 around that, so the search would return all heels ranging between around 2-3/4" to 5" 4. It just makes sense. Comparing a 3-1/2 heel on a size 8 to the same on a size 11 is like comparing apples and oranges. But if someone said, "I enjoy SPs between .3 and .4," it makes sense for all sizes, as it's a reflect of the angle of the ankle, which at any given SP, is the same throughout all size ranges.

[Shafted]

I like the standard height method with a high heel beginning at 3". This makes high heels accessable to anyone, even with a small foot size.

[Wolfgang]

excluding fetish heels.. low would be like 1-1.5 in mid is above 1.5 - 2.5 in high is above 2.5 - 5 and then that becomes the realm of fetish

[jmc]

I (would) like a standard proportion system because that would allow meaningful comparisons between styles and manufacturers. But then I think we all would like a standardized sizing system too and the lack of that has been the subject of much discussion hereabouts. Dream on!

[dr1819]

excluding fetish heels..

low would be like 1-1.5 in

mid is above 1.5 - 2.5 in

high is above 2.5 - 5 and then that becomes the realm of fetish

That's probably a good guide for your size 9, but what about a size 6, or a size 13?

I hardly notice a 2.5 inch heel, even though a four inch heel seems quite high under normal circumstances.

In fact, my favorite boot is a leather side-zip ankle boot with a 2.5 inch block rubber heel. I like it because it makes no noise, it doesn't look like I'm walking in heels, and even if someone were to get a glimpse, they never assume it's a man's boot. I've had several guys ask me where I bought the boot, and I always reply, "Italy." At that point, they give a knowing nod, and usually comment, "I'd like a pair like that" or "they look like what the Beatles wore."

I'm just funny, I guess!

[dr1819]

I (would) like a standard proportion system because that would allow meaningful comparisons between styles and manufacturers. But then I think we all would like a standardized sizing system too and the lack of that has been the subject of much discussion hereabouts. Dream on!

I think the simplest standard would be to use actual foot length measurements, preferrably expressed in centimeters, followed by a width standard that reflected the population as a whole, with the median width getting a rating of B, followed by appropriate changes in width with respect to length as determined by a similar ratio as the standard ratio.

Scrap the US/UK/EU systems, as they're both arbitrary, and I've ordered size 44 shoes which were way too large, and size 46 shoes which were too small! I've had the same luck with the US system, and once had to eat a pair of shoes that I hould have been able to wear with thick socks, but couldn't even fit into them comfortable with kneehighs (the garment, not the person... ) Sorry, dude - couldn't resist.

ANYway...

Yes, there's got to be a better way, including measuring arch and instep circumference. You know, it stands to reason that large-scale manufacturers would (as have a few small shops) have been able to figure out how to increase their sales tremendously by combining modern technology with CAD/CAM (computer aided design/computer aided machining). A few simple instructions, and five minutes later, the computer has a perfect idea of a person's foot. At first there may be some errors, but when combined with the appropriate feedback (unconditional returns if you fill out this form), the process can be adjusted so that it results in a 98% perfect fit every time.

Personally, I don't think any manufacturer would go for this. They have neither the inclination, the desire, the expertise, nor the vision.

But Zappos did something really radical - it threw all the manufacturers' wares into a database, combined them with a series of required and heavily standardized photos, and is doing a fantastic business. They'd be the ones to to push the next step to the manufacturers, charging a premium, say, $30, for a pair of custom-made shoes for any manufacturers desiring to participate. For those that would, with certain shoe choices, they'd simply add a field that would display a "Custom" button. If you're a regular Zappos customer, just click the button, log in, and it will pull up your measurements. If you're not, you'd have to register, enter your measurements, then it would allow you to custom order.

This would be a tremendous incentive for manufacturers to standardize on sizing and size quality control. It would also be a tremendous boon, as it may allow some folks (like me) to request sizes beyond what's normally offered by that manufacturer.

I can see it now: "You mean to tell me that more than 70% of all our custom heel orders for boots are between size 11 and 13?"

Duh...

At the very least, this measure, if adopted, would truly leverage the power of the PC, launch us into our current century (novel idea), serve the customer, reduce manufacturing costs, significantly reduce the costs of returns, reduce prices overall, increase profits overall, increase customer satisfaction overall, increase the proliferation of styles throughout all size ranges...

So why doesn't anyone else share my vision?

To he/she who gives me a million to realize this dream, I'll make them a ten millionaire (less than half in jest...)

[Guy N. Heels]

I think we should stick with the standard heel height (height from the floor to the highest part of the insole of the shoe) because it is far simpler and speaks most directly to the actual heel height. I will readily admit that there is something to be said for the proportion method discussed. However, to my mind, this speaks more particularly to a comfort level than an actual heel height, i.e. a size 5 foot might need a 3" heel but a size 10 might require a 4" heel to acheive the same effect. So there is indeed something to this. But if we are merely concerned with the actual height of the heel then the proportion method is is really unnecessary.

[dr1819]

I will readily admit that there is something to be said for the proportion method discussed.

Thank you. If you can understand it, so can most Please help ensure this heads towards an international standard.

Thank you!

[new_look]

this is an interesting topic indeed while we normally use heel height to describe physical height, i feel the proportion method would be better. someone for example my like girlfriend with a size 4UK, on her 4in heels her feet seem to take a great steep angle, where my 4inch heel on my 9UK foot almost looks medium height in comparison. I feel almost defeated as her heels are effectively higher i would like to see an accurate comparison as to where say a size 5 on a 3.5 inch heel is like a 4 in heel to a 8 foot etc etc.

[booty lover]

standard, i would put low heels from 1 to 2 inch, medium from 2 inch to 3 inch and high from 3 inch upwards. the highest i've ever worn is 4 and a 1/4 inch and i consider them to be very high.

[Trolldeg]

I chose standard propotion, as it meets several needs:

1. Easy to calculate: (Heel Height - Plat Height ) / Equivalent Foot Length

For example - if you're a size 11, your equivalent foot length is 10-11/16 inches. For a 4 inch heel with a 1 inch plat, that produces a standard proportion of .28. The higher the proportion, the higher the heel.

2. It's very easily calculation to standardize online searches, as most online retailers have both the size and the heel height in numeric fields. It would be a simple matter to add the plat height, too.

3. It would allow users a multitude of search options, including overlapping ranges:

- From

-- 0

-- .1

-- .2

-- .3

-- .4

-- .5

- To

-- 0

-- .1

-- .2

-- .3

-- .4

-- .5

-- .6

-- > .6

By the way, a standard proportion of .5 in size 11 is 5.34

Similarly, if you know your most comfortable standard proportion, you could search for shoes with a standard proption of, say, .33, and you could specify +/- .1 around that, so the search would return all heels ranging between around 2-3/4" to 5"

4. It just makes sense. Comparing a 3-1/2 heel on a size 8 to the same on a size 11 is like comparing apples and oranges. But if someone said, "I enjoy SPs between .3 and .4," it makes sense for all sizes, as it's a reflect of the angle of the ankle, which at any given SP, is the same throughout all size ranges.

And what about those of us that measure in centimeters?

[Guy N. Heels]

... It just makes sense. Comparing a 3-1/2 heel on a size 8 to the same on a size 11 is like comparing apples and oranges. But if someone said, "I enjoy SPs between .3 and .4," it makes sense for all sizes, as it's a reflect of the angle of the ankle, which at any given SP, is the same throughout all size ranges.

I could be mistaken but I believe the so-called SP is really the trigonometric function called secant. This will work also for centimeters provided that all measurements are converted to centimeters.

In any case, one major drawback to this argument of SPs is that shoe manufacturers don't usually put out a particular style of shoe with a wide variety of heel heights. So if you absolutely gotta have a particular style of shoe that caught your eye, you will most likely have exactly one choice in a heel height. That means that if the heel height does not correspond to your ideal SP of, say .35 then yer outta luck. For this kind of logic to prevail we would need shoe manufacturers to make shoes with some sort of adjustable heels that the wearer could set to his/her ideal SP. I seriously doubt that this will happen any time soon.

[Mickey S.]

Hi! I voted for "Via a standard proportion (height / foot length - produces consistant angles)" because I think it's the actual angle that affects the wearer of high heeled shoe. For a size UK4 a heel height of 10cm (4") might be the absolute maximum. However, for a size UK13 shoes like this are probably not even considered to have 'heels' at all, feeling like wearing flats to someone with large feet sized like that. CU! -Mike

[dr1819]

And what about those of us that measure in centimeters?

That's the beauty of it, as it would be exactly the same. Whether you're dividing a 4 inch heel by an 11 inch foot length, or a 10 cm heel by a 30 cm foot length, the ratio is the same: about .35.

[new_look]

dr1819 while i see the logic in your method somehow it dest really work still using your figures, it would show that my uk9 foot on a 4.5in heel is not far off the same as my girlfiends uk4 in a 4in heel, but from simply looking at the heels etc, i would say it would be closer to me on uk9 wearing 5inch heels to be the same as her 4inch ones we need a different calculator i think

[dr1819]

For it to work, you have to divide by the actual length of your foot, not your shoe size. It's also important to ensure you use the same units of measure (if the length is in cm, then the heel height should be in cm).

[lorriette]

wouldn't it be easier to rate high as 1cm higher than your comfortable at ?.

[Guy N. Heels]

wouldn't it be easier to rate high as 1cm higher than your comfortable at ?.

I don't think this lot wants "easier". It seems to me that they want math and trig. But at the end of the day we'll all have to put up with what the manufacturers and the rest of the world are doing - measuring the heel height.

[dr1819]

True, it does involve middle-school math, but I think the result is worth it. One thing I've come to dislike on some of the larger sized shoes I've purchased, particular the cheapies (I'll always buy real shoes from now on), is that they use heels made for a shoe two sizes smaller. On a larger show, it makes the heel cant forward towards the toes, so that walking on the heels is extremely unstable. Not fun. And it's because they fail to consider proportionality. On my currently favorite sandals, a pair of RSVPs with a toe loop and an instep strap, the heel is more of a modified, one-piece cutout wedge. As such it's very sturdy, which makes walking in them a breeze and a lot of fun!

[dr1819]

Come to think of it, the proportionality factor would work for width and circumferance of the instep, as well, making ordering custom shoes very easy: Here's the original measurements followed by the ratios: Inches Length 10.00 Width 3.56 Instep 9.11 Heel 3.50 Ratio Length 1.00 Width 0.36 Instep 0.91 Heel 0.35 Thus, we could do away with shoe sizes altogether. If you wanted to standardize by using metric, the measurements would change, but the ratios would remain the same: cm Length 25.40 Width 9.03 Instep 23.14 Heel 8.89 Ratio Length 1.00 Width 0.36 Instep 0.91 Heel 0.35 Thus, if you were to custom order a pair of shoes or boots, the measurement would look like this: Length 25.40 Width 0.36 Instep 0.91 Heel 0.35 Additional ratios might include ankle circumference (across ankle bone), calf height (just below the knee) and calf width. With today's CAD/CAM capability and the vast integration of computers, there's no reason why every pair of shoes shouldn't be custom designed. That way, you could get a perfect fit, every time. It would sure be a boon to manufacturers, who would only make just enough shoes to sell.