Leaderboard

I have just returned from a week's holiday in southern Turkey. In the hotel foyer, next to the small souvenir shop, there was the pictured archway with a sign displayed each side. I initially thought that this led to other shops (for tobacco and shoes) but it proved to be the entrance to the men's and women's WCs. As a reformed pipe-smoker who has a modest interest in stiletto heels, I found it difficult to decide which WC I should use! All guests adopted casual dress throughout the day and evening, in the hotel or outside. Shorts and flip-flops (or equivalents) were almost universal everywhere, with just a few low wedges in evidence. I reckon that, if Turkey imposed a 'Tourist Flip-flop Tax' of 10 lira (about £1.20 or $1.60), its economic woes would be solved within a month or two!

Just have your wife to take som pics of you wearing heels and dont check her facebook albums...! Yesterday I checked my wifes facebook photoalbums...and I found a picture of myself wearing my 5" heeled boots... JIPPI!!!.. I think.. Anyone have a good explanation I can use if anyone ask WHY?

I think it more to do with boredom. I was a very active member of another board for several years. Every month, a new member would ask the same questions "is this better or the other one better"? "Should I do this, or do that?" These basic questions literally got asked so frequently, a FAQ section was created that fully explored the 'rights and wrongs' of any point possible in a debate prior to a purchase. Did the FAQ section stop the question being asked? Nope. Did pointing people at the FAQ section stop the same questions being asked, the same points on either side of any given debate being put forward? Nope. Responding, became an act of futility. This site needs at least 3 (to 5) regular respondents. I've been unusually busy these past months and haven't had the time I used to have for contributions. I expect to have more time in the new year, if my work position goes the way I expect it to. I'm happy to make contributions as I know Puffer is, but there needs to be others able and willing to contribute.

I'm not sure that 'PU' implies any leather base, as distinct from a wholly-synthetic material. The construction you identify is usually (or should be) described as 'coated leather' or similar. Like you, I prefer real leather for footwear (specifically the uppers) and have misgivings about many 'synthetic' products. Especially the type where a plastic coating is applied to some form of textile base and tends to crack-off quite quickly (e.g. when a boot shaft is folded or creased). Often, synthetics are very obvious from the lingering smell! So many shoes and boots these days (especially women's) have a synthetic upper, regardless of price, and it can be quite hard to find affordable leather. One type that does have merit, however, is 'faux suede', which can look very convincing and, whilst not necessarily hard-wearing, may require less maintenance than true (leather) suede. There appears to be a potential trap when a shoe upper is described as 'patent'. True 'patent leather' is indeed leather, but most 'patent' footwear these days seems to be PU - looks good and is easy to make, but not 'leather'!

Haha! So now find me some elegant block heels if you can't come up with wedges! These are the only others I have, but my wife doesn't like these either. The heels are 4 inches, but you can see they're narrower.

Similar but not same: Faith Gina courts. These were worn during the evening regularly, some 25 years ago by my current walking companion, when her feet could easily tolerate a high heel. (These days, bunions prevent any slim shoe being worn, and if the bunions didn't prevent them being worn - two duff hips would prevent walking in them anyway.) This pair is still owned by her... There are pictures of these being worn by her, with the model also wearing a very short skirt to further enhance the length of her legs. Even without a heel, I think she was an inch taller than me. That sort of outfit wasn't that unusual back then, but her legs got noticed everywhere we went. I remember people we worked with being shocked at her evening wear. She worked in a finance department, and was better known for her more conservative dress style. Sadly, "prudence" once again compels me to keep the images away from the site, since there are no longer any viewing restrictions. They were great times.

I think I have seen this seller on an auction site. At the time, he/she was selling some Loubies with 130mm heels. I might have kept a picture of them, though I can't remember the name of the style. I also remember the price being in the £600 range too. I thought they would never sell, but I think they did, maybe off auction perhaps? I have tried the Pigalle in a 41.5 before the 'designer' brands got their own caves at Selfridges. (I might have mentioned it on HHp). I had watched someone walk along and video the shoes there, and thought, 'no-one cares', so I just walked over and slipped the shoe on. To my surprise, my foot fitted the shoe-ish. When I went to move my foot, the shoe fell off! Not that there was much room in the toe box for toes .... Looking for the image above, I find I was mistaken about the price, it was £800. The style is called Hot Chick. The shoes in the picture are supposed to be an EU40. I would have put them at higher than 130mm, unless this is a stock photo of a smaller size? They look to be almost impossible to walk in, and certainly unlikely of anyone over say ... 28 years, 30 at a push? Past that, you'd have to be a gymnast or ballerina to be supple enough to walk in them. If you like pink .....

Looking over the images of your boots, and trying to be as analytical and dispassionate as possible, I honestly can't see why they could be construed as feminine other than via, as I have said before, the blinkered response that tall boots must be feminine - just because. The slender shafts do not strike me as intrinsically feminine, just decently fitting. I believe we noted in another thread that most tall boots (nearly all of which are found on the distaff side of the shop) have rather large calves/shafts. It could therefore be argued that ones with bigger, looser shafts are feminine by virtue of their numerical superiority. The toes are pointy and the foot shape elongated, but there again not intrinsically feminine. As they say about pointy toed (masculine) cowboy boots in Texas: "They're for killing cockroaches in the corners." Nor are the heels too tall for cowboy boots. Worn under jeans there is no way on earth anybody would notice them. Worn over jeans, yes, they'd be noticed but only because hardly any guys wear their boots that way (because hardly any guys dare wear tall boots - however much they may like the idea) I agree with Puffer - that is the only unusual aspect to them: wearing over jeans. But why not? They are nice looking boots. I recall wearing a pair of very tall 16" L.L. Bean duck boots (mentioned in another thread) when I was in Antarctica. Some of the women on the ship marvelled that I did not wear them over my jeans when we made landings, to show them off. In that particular instance it was wisest not to! Zodiac landings in Antarctica can be quite wet and having trousers over your boot tops is a great idea, if you don't want to get water in your boots. They women on board soon joined me in the male style of wearing boots under trousers! Outside of that though - I think tall boots look best over jeans. I am not into leggings myself, other than for cycling, but boots and jeans seen a decent look! I agree too that one regularly sees guys wearing all kinds of (to me) objectionable get-ups - tattoos, piercings, baggy trousers with the crotch down to the knees, ludicrous board shorts, hoodies, and ludicrous hair styles with nobody giving them a second glance. Yet wearing a nice tall pair of boots (regardless of whetheror not they had heels) over jeans would raise eyebrows and call into question your masculinity. What a weird and up-tight world.