Making heels look higher than they are

[heelshhboy]

Ok I feel a little bad creating a new post for my tiny argument but sometimes I feel a little cheated by the high heels on the red carpet.

I think high heels are fantastic and the higher the heel the better to me.

BUT

Although this is difficult to explain I will try, below is a link to a close up shot of Jennifer Lopez's feet in a remarkable pair of 4.5 to 5 inch pumps in a strange fishnet/paisley pattern as shown

for full size click http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=285612401&size=l

The heel is the problem, I like the look of it but it seems to run straight down almost vertically from the back of the shoe thus creating a much higher heel.

The heel in the nex pic

http://us.st11.yimg.com/us.st.yimg.com/I/pierresilber_1918_455303977

Shows the type of heel I (and many other I presume) know and love, which curves slightly toward the arch before sloping downward.

Heels with the 'vertical' heel look so much taller but not as 'sexy' to me and I was wondering what other peoples views were, maybe there is a name for this type of heel and I just don't know it.

Am I right or just too observant?

[I Tried]

That first link doent show any shoes .

[Tech]

Sorry to jump in all, but this thread is way off topic for this forum so I shall move it to the "Rant" forum.... Cheers

[Guy N. Heels]

That first link doent show any shoes .

Not only are there no shoes visible, but also, this topic might be better presented as a poll.

[shrimper]

I can see the pictures and I don't have a problem with any of them. That heel shape in the first picture is almost a trademark for Christian Luboutin. There's plenty of room here for all preferences. What one likes another doesn't and vice versa.

[heelshhboy]

**The links above have been corrected**

[dr1819]

Ok I feel a little bad creating a new post for my tiny argument but sometimes I feel a little cheated by the high heels on the red carpet.

I think high heels are fantastic and the higher the heel the better to me.

BUT

Although this is difficult to explain I will try, below is a link to a close up shot of Jennifer Lopez's feet in a remarkable pair of 4.5 to 5 inch pumps in a strange fishnet/paisley pattern as shown

The heel is the problem, I like the look of it but it seems to run straight down almost vertically from the back of the shoe thus creating a much higher heel.

The heel in the nex pic

Shows the type of heel I (and many other I presume) know and love, which curves slightly toward the arch before sloping downward.

Heels with the 'vertical' heel look so much taller but not as 'sexy' to me and I was wondering what other peoples views were, maybe there is a name for this type of heel and I just don't know it.

Am I right or just too observant?

I think the more rearward heels do look taller, but J-Lo's heels really are angled more than the black example.

I think the black example is sexier due to the curves. It's certainly better for your ankles, ergonomically, as there's less forward torque on your ankle each step you take.

Here's a pair I'm wearing right now. Notice how forward the heel is. Even though they've a full 4 inches, they're much easier to walk in than other pair of 4 inch heels I own.

The heel doesn't look very high, but it really is, and the shoe is very sturdy. I've walked more than two miles in this shoe with no issues.

[Dr. Shoe]

On my feet the JLo shoes would be 6" but the black ones would only be 5". You are right though, setting the heel further back does make the heel look higher. It's simple geometry after all.

[polyya]

Ummm Those heels are so high, but the photographer point of view is amazing

[WICKETS]

In my opinion, 'sexiness' of a pair of heels isn't only about how-high the heel is, but also about over-all shape, namely, how steep the arch is (which is probably related to heel-height, but not-always ):

case-in-point -

Shown-above are what I consider to be BERNADETTE's 2 sexiest pair of heels:

at-Left are Bright Pink 5.5"-heels from LESLIE'S (#7114 ), and at Right are Hot Pink 6"-heels from ELLIE (#8260 ).

Although the shoes at Left are shorter heel-height, they are also 'shorter', from heel-tip to toe-tip, too, causing the arch to take-on an extreme angle between the heel and ball of the foot, much-steeper than the sole of the 6" pump:

I believe this probably causes more 'arch-cleavage', too, which is a whole-'nother subject!

While she can wear neither heel for walking due to her very small/short feet, they are sexy-as-Hell.

[Trolldeg]

I think it's genreally referred to as a "set back" heel. I don't like them, they make the foot look bigger because they increase the overall length from the tip of the toe to where the heel touches the ground. If the heel is curved inwards the impression is that of a smaller foot.

[higheeluv]

J-Lo is one heck of a woman..... Marc Anthony is a REAL lucky man..... In my opinion she has one of the best pairs of legs out there and coupled with incredible heels makes one sexy package in my eyes. That being said once I read all the other post about this topic I was VERY happy to see WICKETS add his 2 cents and even bless us with some even sexier pictures of his woman's heels and legs. I have to certainly agree with him that those two pairs of heels have to be the sexiest ones I have seen on BERNADETTE. (to be clear I have not seen her in person, just pictures here he has uploaded) On her feet the lighter pink heels actually look higher even though they are listed at 5.5" heels. Even in the photograph of her sitting on the table they look higher than the 6" ones. Ether one of these heels makes me get all tingly inside especially when a very sexy woman such as BERNADETTE is modeling them for us...... If I babbled on to much it's the trans I am in due to the stunning heels and legs. WICKETS........more please MORE!!!!!!

[chris100575]

I think that inward curving heels are sexier too, it's what I think of as the classic stiletto heel. Chris

[new_look]

i have to say it depends on the overall shape of the shoe you can get a cheap shoe with a set in heel that looks pants, or an expensive pair that looks fantastic, however i cannot fault the christian luboutin style, and the heel looks fantastic, and on feet as small as say j-lo's which im guessing must be size 4 or 5 uk the foot length is never going to be a problem and the shoe will always look good. i have to say i like the look of shoes that look higher nl

[Dr. Shoe]

Yes indeed. The "recurve heel" is more likely to be found on fetish footwear whereas the column heel is more fashionable. The lighter colour shoes in the picture give a much better arch to the instep and look as sexy as heck but start to hurt after an hour or so...

[dr1819]

In my opinion, 'sexiness' of a pair of heels isn't only about how-high the heel is, but also about over-all shape, namely, how steep the arch is (which is probably related to heel-height, but not-always ):

case-in-point -

Shown-above are what I consider to be BERNADETTE's 2 sexiest pair of heels:

at-Left are Bright Pink 5.5"-heels from LESLIE'S (#7114 ), and at Right are Hot Pink 6"-heels from ELLIE (#8260 ).

Although the shoes at Left are shorter heel-height, they are also 'shorter', from heel-tip to toe-tip, too, causing the arch to take-on an extreme angle between the heel and ball of the foot, much-steeper than the sole of the 6" pump:

I believe this probably causes more 'arch-cleavage', too, which is a whole-'nother subject!

While she can wear neither heel for walking due to her very small/short feet, they are sexy-as-Hell.

I think the curves on the vamp only add to the effect!

[Dr. Shoe]

Indeed, the designer certainly knew what he was doing. (At least they look like they were designed by a man).

[Griez]

3rd photo from whicts... yeah sexy, but it dont seem like shee can walk whit them;) i got erection allready:D

[Griez]

2nd, 3rd photo from wickets... yeah sexy, but it dont seem like shee can walk whit them;) i got erection allready:D

[chris100575]

i got erection allready:D

Dude, we didn't need to know that.

Chris

[dr1819]

I think it's genreally referred to as a "set back" heel. I don't like them, they make the foot look bigger because they increase the overall length from the tip of the toe to where the heel touches the ground. If the heel is curved inwards the impression is that of a smaller foot.

I agree, Trolldeg. A forward-set heel looks a lot better (and walks a lot better) than a rear-set heel.

[RPMindy]

all that needed to be said has been said!

[Guy N. Heels]

I think that inward curving heels are sexier too, it's what I think of as the classic stiletto heel.

Chris

Having read all of the posts on this thread, I'd like to add my 2 cents' worth.

First of all, the "set-back heels are highly reminisent of the kind of heels generally worn in the thirties and forties, albeit, much thinner. While those old style heels did get the gals up to a higher level, they left little in the way of eye-appeal. Perhaps that's why the introduction of the stiletto in the fifties was such a hit. After all, the stiletto held out all manner of promise that the earlier heels really didn't have. But as I recall, it was sometime in the late sixties or early seventies that a recurved heel that resembled a stemmed wine glass was introduced. In fact, I seem to recall Baker's specifically heralding their wineglass heel. Needless to say, not only was the wineglass heel an instant success, it is still with us in large measure today. There is indeed something about it that has instant eye-appeal, and the fact that it moves the overall balance and strike of the foot forward doesn't hurt matters any either. But one other thing was sure to make it an instant success - it's ability to make the foot look smaller. Indeed, the ability to disguise the actual size of the foot seems to be a major requirement for women's footwear deigners. So how could the wineglass heel miss?

IMO, the wineglass heel has become something of a classic and will be with us for many years to come. :academic: