Leaderboard

Actually the feminine traditions for boots do not even go back that far. Since I permitted myself to indulge in this I have done a bit of research on the topic of fashion, footwear, men in heels and boots. It's a very interesting story really. As to boots - the fashion I feel that I am (or was) missing out on, that dates back only 50 years or so to some designers in the early 1960s going for a masculine Three Musketeers look for their lines and using cuissards to round out the look. Add Nancy Sinatra's hit song Boots in 1966 and there it was. And as we know, once a thing has gone feminine, it never really comes back. I would wear my suede boots out in public, over heads, without a second's hesitation but I do not live in a vacuum. My wife is extremely tolerant but I want to be very careful not to embarrass her in any way. For now, that might do it. I decided to buy and wear these only last year. At any rate I am fortunate enough to work from home, except when I am travelling, and so OTK boots are de rigueur in my office (my official dress code) and the places I travel to for work are not places one would wear nice suede boots anyway. So in truth I miss out only on wearing them to Tescos. A very happy compromise. But, as I say, were I on my own, they would certainly be worn out to do the shopping! I have not the least shame or embarrassment in owning or wearing them.

To be alliterative you could wear your cuissardes to the cafe to consume croissants and coffee

Aah - all is now apparent, mon petit ami! I was confused before and thought 'cuissard(e)s' were a breakfast pastry, the excessive consumption of which would certainly round everything out. Obviously, I was thinking of croissants or some such comestible.

And likely to cause sleepless nights .... Nope, I'm not going to 'uncant' it, but I like that W/M valve you pointed me at, and utilising one might prevent the next washing machine installer doing something I wouldn't like them to do .... I know for sure, the current fitting does not have and directional flow restriction.

Yes, Freddy - it is either remaining hairline or savings that is in inverse proportion to DIY experience amassed. The Hep2O flexis are a good idea in your situation. As you say, flow might improve with reversal of feeds - but won't C and H then be reversed at tap levers and maybe confusing to occupant? The box spanners are very helpful - I wouldn't be without mine when lying on my back under a sink! (I have Monument set bought years ago - a little cheaper currently at TS than yours and seemingly identical.) The fixing stud (and maybe nut) usually brass, so should not corrode and stick; if it shears (unlikely) no harm done. I expect the condemned taps are solid brass and probably worth a couple of quid in scrap. I wouldn't worry about the canted pipe - it does its job, cant or not, and is out of sight. But of course you KNOW it is there!

I think your wife has been speaking to mine, Freddy - exactly the same cutting and totally exaggerated remarks have been heard regularly here! (But more than one recent household project has benefitted, physically and financially, from the ready availability of items squirelled away for a couple of eons, just in case ...)

I was lucky in finding a perfect pair. No need to collect. Although by a fortuitous string of events I have subsequently acquired a pair of flat heeled brown suede OTK boots which I like equally well and which look great with jeans. Not at all feminine, except by means of society's broad and prejudcial association with women and tall boots. Looked at in any neutral framework, there is nothing intrinsically feminine about them. As a cyclist with an interest in history, I find interesting parallels with the golden age of the bicycle when newly liberated women were taking to their bicycles and adopting - at some considerable social risk - trousers. It was the bicycle that launched the shift towards trousers for women.

I know what you mean. In a perfect world I would have oodles of space indoors for presenting my bikes as the works of art they are, but alas. One of my tourers has more miles on it than many cars do. I am hoping one day when my ship comes in - presuming same ship is not a garbage scow - to have it stripped down, the rusting old drop-outs replaced with new stainless steel ones, and then resprayed. It is a bicycle that deserves that attention and money, given where all it's taken me. It is very personal bit of mobile art! My other two are 5 and 7 years old. Not as high mileage but well used and loved. Glad to her you're riding again though!

I am finding as that 'qualification' draws ever closer, my hair line seems to be disappearing at a like-for-like rate. And I'm starting to think I should be sub-contracting out the sourcing for my plumbing parts list .... While I appreciate the tips on the tap connections, they are a no-go. I suspect the original taps were fitted up immediately prior to the sink installation, (many moons ago) and before the waste was added. The current tail for the hot supply is hard against the side of the left-hand unit - and I mean 'hard'. The cold tail is touching the hot. I did look at taking out the sink, but decided against as it seemed unlikely it would come out undamaged. "Flexi's" are the way to go given the room. The slightly frustrating thing about the outside tap .... I'm fairly sure it doesn't get used, but suggesting £50/£70's worth of plumbing work should be undone -probably- wouldn't be well received... Today I bought Hep2O M12 flexi 'tails' with push-fit connections for the supplies. I opted for the push fit because I read that sometimes, the hot/cold mix can be less disproportionate in a mono, if the supplies are reversed. The easy dismounting system makes that an easy option. Also, the makers claim these tails have a 10mm bore. Spent around £9 in Toolstation on 3 valves. 1 x double-check, 1 x full bore isolation vale (for weak hot supply) and 1 x Mini Lever quarter turn ball valve, to replace the nasty stop-cock. I'm hoping the 'mini' is shorter than the stop-cock, and will be less intrusive anyway. Since the monobloc retaining bolt is up inside a nasty little cramped recess, I also treated myself to a set of long box spanners. The retaining plate on the worn out taps is very rusty. I'm hoping the long nut will still loosen, or the threaded stud will wind out. I'm abdicating from involving myself in anything to do with the washing machine supply. "Apparently", what looks like a perfectly serviceable washing machine is to be replaced. It seems to me the reason that pipe could be canted, is that the previous washing machine supplier added a junction without shortening any pipe. That being the case, that canted pipe wants me to leave it 'well alone', in case I disturb the compression joint at the stop-cock. I'll know more when I start "fixing" the new taps. I might just stop off at Toolstation and get one of those WM non-return valves though, just in case.

There was an elderly eccentric fella called Mr Trebus (now sadly passed) on a TV show called Life of Grime (a favourite of mine), who collected, almost anything - but mostly old bits of wood and newspaper. He was and still is, known for being a 'benchmark' (someone against everyone else is compared) collector. Mrs Freddy makes mention of Mr Trebus from time to time .... making a disfavourable comparison between him and another member of our household. I take it on the chin of course ...

Even more of a bugger's muddle all round, ain't it, Freddy? Nice photos though. I suspect the 'canted' pipe is thus to allow the formed bend; even if the vertical pipe was shortened by a good inch there would still need to be a slope up. If the vertical pipe above the check valve goes to a tap, I agree that the check valve is not doing its job properly. As you surmise, check valve (doubles now, I think - yours may not be) are there to stop backflow or siphoning of dirty water. This does not often happen but may arise (with unpleasant results) if a hose connected to a tap or shower can trail into bathwater or an outdoor puddle (with nasty garden chemicals in it?) - with the risk of drinking water being contaminated at another tap. In your case, it would be simpler to leave the checkvalve alone and fit a new outside bibtap incorporating an integral double check valve, e.g. http://www.toolstation.com/shop/p54792?table=no (I have a feeling that these taps are no longer accepted by some water authorities, who insist on an 'in line' double check valve instead. However, they are quite effective - and bye-law inspectors are rarely if ever found snooping about these days.) Washing machines etc invariably have an integral check valve so do not need another in the external feed. But WM valves with an integral valve are available for them wot likes 'belt and braces': http://www.toolstation.com/shop/p96215?table=no Rather than fitting flexi tails and isol valves to the new taps (unless limited room for manipulation makes that essential), one dodge is to use a 15mm-0.5" flexi with the compression end fitted to the (shortened) copper tap tail and the female threaded end fitted direct to the isol valve in place of its union nut. Or do it in reverse, with valve upstream of flexi., which may well allow flexi to poke through back panel, and rest of supply pipe is therefore hiddden away. Either is neat and saves another joint and bit of pipe. And, if water pressure is a problem, use full bore flexis and valves if possible; it can make a difference. Your NVQ in domestic installation work draws ever nearer ...!

Interesting thoughts about leg length and shoe size, Freddy. I think it quite logical that feet are (or normally are) in proportion to build and height, but not so sure that putting on weight will necessarily result in 'fatter' feet, aside from some possible temporary bloating through water retention. Foot size (and height) do tend to shink a little with age, but I guess that foot size does not effectively reduce because stiffness, bunions and other ailments will tend to make feet less flexible and therefore more needful of a comfy/roomy shoe (as most wives, at least, demonstrate). I think you have forgotten that I do have a pair of custom-made 'Miguel Jones' boots from Mexico - pictures posted previously. They cost about £110 shipped and fit very well. They are comfortable enough to wear (given the 5" heel) but my slightly bow-legged gait does not help. Under longish bootcut trousers they are quite discreet (although the long pointed toes are very apparent - which doesn't bother me) but they really deserve to be shown-off under normal length fairly narrow straight jeans - which would doubtless frighten any foreign woman, inquisitive child or horse within spotting range. One day, I might have the courage ... Last Thursday, whilst in another town, I saw a women walking around whose look was one I wish men could aspire to with impunity. She was tall and of medium build (which meant she was of an overall size/outline comparable to many mid-sized men) and wearing a longish black jacket, wide-legged trousers and fully-visible black suede ankle boots with a straight heel about 4" high. She looked very smart-casual and comfortable and I really wished I could have been 'in her body'. The boots were the most obviously feminine thing she wore but seemed to me to be eminently suitable for a man as part of a comparable overall look - if only the (perceived) barrier to male heel wearing did not exist. And I already have rather similar boots:

Could be a clone of the Alexander McQueen boot? At £104-09 >> here <<