"high Heels Are Fine For Men" - Itv

[fastfreddy2]

Posted on another thread .....

I've listened to your anecdotal experience and preferences, and that of several others who have contributed to the thread. And guess what? I'm gonna give it a go. In fact I mentioned it to herself this evening, and didn't get an adverse response!

A potential convert ..... For "everywhere" footwear anyway.

I feel like I've got my arm up my back, but I'm gonna give it a go.

...

....

[Puffer]

In Schuh I also came across two different men’s heeled boots;

the Jeffrey West boots that you mention, and some cheaper "Cuban High" boots. As it was ten to five (10 mins to closing) I didn't have time to try either on. But, both had heels that looked a little higher than the Faith boots - maybe around 2 inches.

The heels on the cheaper 'Cuban high' boots at Schuh are, I think, no higher than those on the Faith Xinkles, about 1.75". The Jeffrey West boots are certainly at least 2" and may induce a nosebleed .

I can update, following further inspection of both boots at Schuh in Brighton yesterday. The Jeffrey Wests have heels of 55mm (a shade over 2.125") and the Cuban highs are 45mm (1.75"). Both have a similar tapered but not unduly pointed toe. Nice, smart but not extreme!

Nothing else of interest found in mainstream Brighton (but I guess one or two of the 'designer' shops there will have a cuban heel or two at higher prices). The tiny Faith shop does not stock men's styles - yet.

[Rob]

The tiny Faith shop

Faith in Brighton used to be my ex-wife’s favourite haunt. Your right, it is tiny - it must be their smallest branch!

So, we were back at Bluewater today:

In Schuh I tried on both of the two mens heeled Chelsea boots that they have in stock. The Jeffrey West boots are the higher, and have a very casual, almost tatty look with various creases around the toe area, and a slight crumpled, "misshapen" look. (They have also sold out of some sizes, including the size 8 black, and won't get any more until late may.)

The lower "Cuban High" boots were much smarter looking with their plain flat toe area, which I preferred, so I brought them.

(And my lady also brought these which look much better on than in the pictures.)

Measuring the heel back home, it is 42mm / one and two thirds inches, on the UK size 8 I wear, and doesn't feel noticeably higher than any of my normal flat shoes (but then I am used to wearing my 68mm YSL Johnny boots most weekends). Also the toes don't look anywhere near as curved upwards as in the picture.

So in summery, a nice boot, but probably not something that the majority here would get excited about, but if we support these styles and they sell well, they will introduce more (and possibly higher).

I urge everyone here to try on either of these styles and buy them if you like them.

[roniheels]

Those look so much like a pair of "Beattle" boots I owned when I was younger. And they were comfortable.

[johnieheel]

Beatle boots had a round toe box. Those look like they're ready for sail.LOL No disrespect.

[roniheels]

Beatle boots had a round toe box. Those look like they're ready for sail.LOL No disrespect.

You're right, Johnie. I guess I didn't really notice how pointed the toes were in that picture. With those boots, you can squash bugs in every corner of your house. LOL.

[Puffer]

Beatle boots had a round toe box. Those look like they're ready for sail.LOL No disrespect.

You're right, Johnie. I guess I didn't really notice how pointed the toes were in that picture. With those boots, you can squash bugs in every corner of your house. LOL.

In the UK, the true Beatle boots (as worn by four certain purveyors of popular music from Liverpool) came into fashion about 1962 and were seen quite often until the late 60s, although they have never totally disappeared. Most men's 'fashion' shoes in the early 60s had semi-pointed toes if not winklepickers or chisels and the original Beatle boots had tapered rather than truly rounded toes (and a centre seam), although more pointed styles were also popular and are still available from e.g. Underground (see my posts at http://www.hhplace.org/discuss/everybody/10499-cuban_adventure.html#post158965).

The Schuuh boots pictured by Rob are not very pointed and have somewhat lower and wider heels than the typical 60s UK Beatle boot. The Faith Xinkle style is similar but very pointed and with a side zip. Perhaps the so-called 'Beatle boots' commonly found in the US were more like the Schuuh boots than the Underground or Faith boots. It doesn't really matter - they are all a welcome step in the right direction!

[roniheels]

"It doesn't really matter - they are all a welcome step in the right direction!" Puffer... You are absoutely correct with that statement. That is the bottom line.

[Puffer]

According to today's Daily Mail (UK), amongst the things 'going down' in popularity are what it calls 'Stack heels for men'. The item reads:

'Sarkozy does it; this week interiors duo Colin or Justin (we're not sure which) also admitted to it; and last week Dior did one that was 2 1/2" high. But. like any form of overt male vanity, we're still not convinced they can be anything other than unattractive and wrong.'

For those who don't know, Colin and Justin are a bitchy and fragrant Scottish twosome who have a certain following in interior design matters but are hardly fashion leaders. I have failed to find any reference to either wearing any type of high heels and doubt that their alleged preferences will sway many men either way [there may be an innuendo or three in there if you look carefully] and I suggest we ignore them, and also what the Mail says (and ungrammatically, to boot ).

And why all these references to 'stack' heels (i.e. heels made with or simulating a stack of thinnish layers of leather) when neither what the short-arsed Frog was wearing nor the Diors are that type of shoe? True stack heels, high or not, don't currently seem very common anyway on men's shoes, or am I missing something?