Jump to content

Puffer

Members
  • Content Count

    818
  • Donations

    0.00 GBP 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    126

Puffer last won the day on February 4

Puffer had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

236 Excellent

3 Followers

About Puffer

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Sex
    Male
  • Country
    UK
  • Occupation
    Retired

Recent Profile Visitors

5,238 profile views
  1. Puffer

    "Sky high heels"

    I entirely agree about the hyperbole that seems to attach to any press mention of 'high' heels. Although the Daily Mail, for example, gives fair coverage of heel-related fashion and stories, it does seem incapable of mentioning heels without attaching trite and unnecessary qualifiers. Enough to send my blood pressure 'sky-high'!
  2. Puffer

    Something special

    Please don't be cryptic! Are you agreeing with my view, disagreeing with it or have another opinion?
  3. Puffer

    Something special

    Please explain!
  4. Puffer

    Something special

    I will leave it to other members of this board to determine whether: 1. there is a place on what is intended as a 'Heels for men' forum for a topic featuring general female fashion, in all its extremes, selected by the poster on the grounds of being 'special' in some way; 2. if such material is posted, it should be open to comment and criticism on aesthetic or other grounds. In considering the above, it should be remembered that (a) anything posted on H4M is open to comment by others - that is why H4M exists as a forum; (b) public figures in particular invite public comment when they wear or do something; (c) few if any of us here are within the allegedly large bunch of sycophantic followers who hang on to so-called celebrities' every word and deed; (d) there is a difference between fair comment (however critical) and that which is malicious or destructive. I fail to see why these recent exchanges have ruffled feathers in the way they apparently have. Freddy chose some pics of 'fashion' which he considered 'special'; I thought the outfits worn by VB and CD were risible. We are both entitled to our opposing views. And, when I challenged VB's outfit, Freddy agreed that he disliked the boot style and the way her skirt and sweater were being worn, so how was it 'special' apart from being worn by Her Holiness? Moreover, although Freddy says he posts pics of women who 'wear higher heels, or higher than you'd expect to see in everyday life (given age or status)', CD's bootees were very tame in comparison with others has worn so, given the rest of her strange outfit, I could not understand its appeal or relevance to us. I make no claims of expertise in the theory of fashion (as distinct from being a shrewd observer) so, when I ask what is so 'special' about something, it is because I am trying to understand (and perhaps appreciate) some subtlety that I may have missed. So, go on posting what appeals to you by all means, but don't expect it to pass without comment, favourable or not. (And, for the record, I did like the pics of both Kate B and Helen M, both of whom 'filled Freddy's bill' in terms of heels and overall elegance.)
  5. Puffer

    ALDO knee/calf boots A/W 2018/2019

    Nice boots - if you will permit me to say so! I agree that a longer shaft and a heel higher than the advertised 4.25" would be an improvement.
  6. Puffer

    Something special

    Oh dear, Freddy! And me thinking that a topic entitled 'Something Special' would be showing just that and inviting response. (Perhaps the topic should be called 'Seen in Public' or some-such.) You are perfectly entitled to post whatever eccentricities you like (and I don't intend to ignore them) but I see nothing in the rules to preclude criticism, however the topic is labelled. My complaint was about what you (in good faith) shared with us on this occasion, with some sort of implied endorsement, not that you posted it. Your valued support of this board (which I do my best to emulate) does not exempt you from comment on your posts, whether or not this conflicts with your own views. I'm sorry if you think otherwise or that your efforts go unappreciated.
  7. Puffer

    Something special

    I agree that the boot emphasis may have been on shorter or taller boots of late, but knee-highs have never disappeared and are probably the most popular style where durability and warmth is required. Hence the folly of any boots with 'openings'. And I had read the Mail article too. I'm still not sure why you posted the picture - what was attractive about any aspect of Victoria or her outfit? And the same goes for Celine in that particular pic. Miss Mirren, however, shows what can be done ...
  8. Puffer

    Something special

    I don't doubt that knee boots are fashionable - have they ever been otherwise? But (long) boots with open toes look stupid. I don't dislike Celine and she often wears stylish outfits and sexy shoes. But I wouldn't want her on my arm looking as gaunt as she now does, and certainly not in such an eccentric outfit.
  9. Puffer

    Something special

    Hideous boots and skirt on Victoria. And as for Celine's outfit and 'overall' (sic) appearance ...
  10. Puffer

    Wedge loafers

    Here? Where?
  11. Puffer

    Zara

    Interesting, Freddy, and certainly illustrating the growing advantages of online shopping. I find myself buying 'over the counter' (of almost anything apart from food) quite rarely these days as the speed, convenience and greater certainty of buying online wins hands-down, quite aside from any potential 'return' requirement. The halfway-house is ordering (and maybe paying) online for collection at a local shop, with the likely advantages of speed, not missing a courier and minimising delivery charges. The sealant I wanted on Monday from Screwfix was in stock locally when I checked late on Sunday evening - but only one tube. So, a few minutes online secured it before someone else bought it and I had no wasted journey.
  12. Puffer

    Zara

    Are you going to lodge a strong (written) complaint with Zara over the all-round time-wasting you experienced, and especially the protracted returns system? I think you should - in your usual eloquent style. I don't often buy clothing (or anything else) that needs to be returned (particularly in-store), but my rare recent experiences were all positive. First, there were the two pairs of boots from ASOS that didn't fit (curses!), readily returned FOC by courier and refunded within days. Then, there was a man's jacket from Amazon (poor quality and fit) which was refunded even before it had arrived back at Amazon. Finally, there was another man's jacket (one of two identical: one being too small, the other just right) ordered for store delivery at Next and returned to store, refunded almost before I got home. Of course, paying online by credit card makes the whole thing a lot easier, before and after any return becomes necessary.
  13. Puffer

    Close encounters - with Mr Reaper.

    Ah - nostalgia ain't what it used to be! Yes, the country has gone steadily downhill (and its pace is accelerating as I write) but I think the rot set in prior to decimalisation in 1971. I have heard that the death of Grace Archer (of 'The Archers' radio soap) in 1955 marked the turning point, but my estimation is about 10 years later than that - when stilettos, winklepickers, stockings and pencil skirts were on the way out and The Beatles (although good in their way) had usurped proper singers with proper orchestral backing. Oh, to turn the clock back 60 years - and preferably be around 10 years older than I actually was - and remain in the pre-1970 era. But motor bikes, fast or souped-up cars (or women, ditto), drugs and loud music were never my scene, so it was the tamer but equally pleasurable, and largely innocent, activities that appealed, then and now. (Excuse me, I have some flowers to arrange ...)
  14. Puffer

    Close encounters - with Mr Reaper.

    I enjoyed the M40 story - but didn't award a HaHa to the post as the second part was anything but funny - you were lucky there, if rather foolhardy. Perhaps we should have a thread about 'the long bum of the law'?
  15. Puffer

    Close encounters - with Mr Reaper.

    ... and which reminds me of a Plod encounter too: Some 35 years ago, I was travelling into deepest Lincolnshire on an unfamiliar road and had just come over the brow of a hill with a long slope down to the junction where I needed to turn right. A police car was parked across the major road at the junction and a copper with his back to me was bending down, speaking to its driver. There was obviously some problem or road closure so I gently coasted down the hill until I almost reached the copper, who only then turned round and walked the few paces to my open driver's window. Despite the fact that there were no signs out, he had not given any prior signal and I had pulled-up quite correctly, he enquired why I had failed to stop earlier 'as directed'. I pointed out to him, politely, that waving his arse in my general direction did not constitute any road traffic instruction known to the Highway Code. After a penetrating stare, he told me that there had been an accident in the major road ahead but I was OK to take the right turn I wanted. I proceeded accordingly and he resumed his arse waving.
×