Puffer

10 hours ago, Russ in boots said:

Those toes are almost exactly like the ones on the boots I was mentioning. They remind me of a policeman's question once to someone wearing winklepickers: 'Do your toes go right to the tip of your shoes?' The answer: 'Does your head go right to the top of your helmet?'

I remember that exchange too - and I'm sure I've posted it here.   My copyright!

The toes are not particularly long or very sharply pointed.  The whole appearance is well-balanced; they would look totally wrong imho if they had a stubby or rounded toe, quite apart from the foreshortening effect.   

My Miguel Jones boots have a high 5" heel and their pointed toes are longer - perhaps a little too long (and I like pointed toes!) - but again the overall look is balanced: 

5 hours ago, Russ in boots said:

I suppose the cuban heels are a start. At least it's some sort of heel to get people used to them. Awesome pictures of heels here, though. It makes me jealous that they can wear them regularly!

True about the men's Cuban heels, which are traditional for Latin dances.   Indeed, the 'Beatle boot' (of happy memory) was derived from a flamenco dancer's boot but with a more pointed toe.   I have two pairs of these Madcap zip-sided boots, with 2.7" heel and neat centre-seam on the pointed toe, the tan leather (as shown) and black suede :      

They are good to wear, although I've not (yet) tried dancing in them.   My wife doesn't like them - she thinks the heels are effeminate (not so) and that I don't need to be taller (true) whilst the pointed toes are 'old fashioned' (nonsense!).

.

Well, this 'skirt' ain't PVC but does look like rubber, albeit actually leather:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-5020257/Balenciaga-ridiculed-1-700-car-mat-skirt.html

Not at all up my street - but possibly up yours (If you'll pardon the expression).

Yet again my carefully-worded statements are misinterpreted.   You should not assume that my interest in (or knowledge of) 'fashion' extends no further than the items I personally might wear, or like to wear.   Like you, I have been an interested 'observer' since childhood; unlike you I have however not studied fashion in depth nor become involved in fetish wear.   

I willingly accept that PVC became an important fashion item from the mid-60s - but not imho (from observation) the major development of that vibrant decade or at any other time.   It was certainly not the principal fashion innovation in the 60s or worn almost universally by women of all persuasions.   The subsequent widespread use of PVC (or PU etc) for a variety of fashion or household purposes has no bearing on the original assertion of PVC's '1960s landmark status'.

9 hours ago, FastFreddy2 said:

Given the social changes of the 1960's (actually around 1962 to 1973/4) I would suggest PVC in the great scheme of things played a minor part. In the context of this thread, which almost completely avoids mentioning the vast social changes, I'm surprised you would think I might "suggest" the only thing of any importance during that time was PVC? Not the case.

It may be that the women I know/have known possess similar style interests as mine, and that may well have crystallised my views on fashion regarding that period when shared with them. (Meaning we all liked the same styles - excluding others.)  But as the article makes plain - the 60's and the advent of PVC as a fashion item - synonymous to many of us. My intent, was to do nothing more.

What makes you now say that I inferred that you might suggest that PVC was all-important, at some time in the 1960s or otherwise?  You merely said that many people would associate the 1960s with PVC.   Maybe so, but the 1960s as a whole was a very varied decade in fashion terms (and of course otherwise) and the advent of PVC but one fashion 'landmark', and then largely in the latter half.   There were many other notable and popular fashion developments in the 60s - with the mini-skirt a strong contender for that with the biggest impact.   

Let's leave it there.   You clearly have more enthusiasm and regard for PVC than I do.   Your choice!

10 hours ago, FastFreddy2 said:

No-one said or inferred the 60's were the PVC era, but ask anyone (else) about the 60's, and The Beatles, Mary Quant, Biba, Vidal Sassoon, mini-skirts, Twiggy and PVC will come up in the conversation. Fortunately I have (and had) women friends who were also around at the time. Whenever PVC is mentioned, so is the 60's. 

I've been interested in fashion since I was about 14. I used to hang around with people who studied at the London College of Fashion. I used to go to fashion shows of their graduates. In the mind of anyone passingly interested in fashion, they will (or should) treat PVC and the late 60's in the same way most people perceive a horse and cart, bread and jam, Bill and Ben.   

...

You originally wrote:   'If a large group of people were collected together, and they could mention one thing that made them think of the 60's, I would expect a great many would suggest PVC clothing. Yes, haircut would be in there, winkle-picker and or Chelsea boots, but many would proffer PVC.'

The 1960s was very much a game of two roughly equal halves, as I well remember.   You rather implied it was all one era.   Winkle-pickers, Chelsea boots (and stilettos) gave way mid-decade to Mary Quant, mini skirts and (I agree) PVC.   That was quite a divide as hair got longer, skirts got shorter and heels got lower.   I know which half I preferred!

19 hours ago, FastFreddy2 said:

Being cynical, it might be true to look at any style during the last 5 years or so, and conclude there was/is always some 'retro' vibe being pushed somewhere. Always it seems to me, the 60's retro has an undertone somewhere, be it length, colour, and often a slight nod in style.

It would be true to say I missed most of the 1960's being ever-so-slightly young to realise what ground-breaking changes were happening (I'd nothing to compare it to), so it pretty much passed me by. If ever anyone wanted to point at the greatest time of social mobility, the 1960's would be the era that should be mentioned before any other.

The post-war, post austerity period saw expansion and curiosity not seen since the glory days of Prince Albert in the 19th Century. As the song went in the 60's, "the times they are a changing" and indeed they did.

 

If a large group of people were collected together, and they could mention one thing that made them think of the 60's, I would expect a great many would suggest PVC clothing. Yes, haircut would be in there, winkle-picker and or Chelsea boots, but many would proffer PVC.

...

Having the advantage (?) of age, the 1960s are perhaps more deeply etched in my memory and certainly remain very vivid.   I started grammar school in 1960 and travelled daily into and around West London so saw for myself how fashion was developing.   What I observed in the first half of that decade (before flower power and hippies spoiled everything) was imho a golden era and has influenced me ever since.   If only I had been (say) 10 years older and truly able to participate in everything typical of that period and not merely to observe it!   [Offers of a time machine set to, say, 1962 gratefully considered.]

I don't think of the 60s as notably a 'PVC era', although I agree that it emerged as a component of everyday fashion, particularly during the latter part of the decade.   Yes, shiny PVC jackets and coats were seen in the early 60s, complementing beehives, stilettos, pencil skirts and fishnets - a sort of 'French Tart' look (which was not appreciated by everyone, obviously), but it was only when mini skirts had become mainstream that I recall PVC becoming a more general fashion material, notably including the 'go go' knee-length boots.    My impression is that PVC (and certainly shiny PVC) has usually been seen as a cheap (in both senses) substitute for leather and, unlike leather, is not really a mainstream fashion item, even now, and certainly not for men.   But maybe I will be proved wrong ...

9 hours ago, Shyheels said:

For what it is worth, “Speedy” appears to be the little mouse’s first name. He has no other. 

Hi cousin is named Slowpoke 

Unless further confusion has entered the arena, the discussions have been relating to the Pat Boone song 'Speedy Gonzales', rather than any subsequent cartoon characters.   Predictably (and sadly), the song is now regarded as a racist slur - no further comment needed. 

21 hours ago, FastFreddy2 said:

Yep.

Gonzales is his name, "Speedy" isn't his Christian name.

Sadly, I can't remember the term where I thought I might get away with using an adjective as a preposition.  and 'speedy' certainly isn't on the 150 term (full) list.  Ho-hum!

I think you need a better textbook on logic.   One that doesn't also suggest, for example, that (a) All policemen have big feet; (b) I have big feet, so I must be a policeman.

Evening all!

8 hours ago, Shyheels said:

Yeah, it’s all very well to play at being offbeat and espousing noble causes, but this sort of thing is not part of their brief - they are being paid to espouse causes or take  stands on social issues or make nice. They are police officers and should save that sort of thing for off-duty hours.

Indeed so.   And I'll wager that anyone making a critical comment to or about any copper wearing heels or nail varnish will get his (or her) collar felt for an alleged 'hate crime'.

11 hours ago, Russ in boots said:

I have similar ones I've bought off Ebay - up to nearly 2 inches. Fine in boots but there's a limit to the height you can wear in shoes as obviously they start to look like mules!

Understood - they obviously won't work in any footwear that is not at least 'bootee' height.   I've never tried them but I find it hard to understand that they could be practicable (or comfortable) except in a very well-fitting (tightly laced or zipped?) high ankle boot.

11 hours ago, FastFreddy2 said:

Happy to:

From >> here <<

 

 

You are surely not suggesting either that (a) 'speedy' is in any event a preposition; or (b) because the 'Gonzales' in 'Speedy Gonzales'  is a (proper) noun, the word preceding it must be (per your quoted 'authority' above) a preposition?

If there is some other logical explanation for what you are suggesting, please let me have it; I am completely flummoxed so far.

10 hours ago, FastFreddy2 said:

Anyone fool enough to use the phrase "speedy computer" to me, would be getting the the response' "Yeah? Where are the wheels?" 

I'm familiar with the term 'speedy recovery', but I personally feel 'quick recovery' is a more accurate wish of good will.  Even fast recovery seems more apt. I guess I've been programmed to associate speed with motion. 

Of course it works as a preposition, as Mr Gonzales rightly suggests.  

Something described as 'speedy' has the properties of being effected promptly or within a short period of time, not necessarily at a fast pace.   I would tend to agree that a 'speedy computer' is a peculiar beast, although the processor in it could well be described as speedy, indeed extremely so.   (By the way, you will find the computer's wheels inside it, driving the fan or the disc drive.)

So, the concept of a speedy recovery is one that is effective within a short period, regardless of the rate of recovery.   ('I hope you will get better as soon as possible.')  Not quite the same as a quick, fast, swift or rapid recovery, all of which imply something that takes place during a short period of time but does not necessarily start immediately, or at least promptly.   Subtle distinctions, but valid ones.   Some good illustrations here:   http://sentence.yourdictionary.com/speedy

Please enlighten me as to use of 'speedy' as a preposition (by Mr Gonzales or otherwise)?   A preposition indicates a relationship in time or place; 'speed' however describes a rate of change of place with time.

Reference to 'recovery' reminds me of the very common announcement on radio's traffic news, e.g.'The accident at Junction 5 is now being recovered ...'   No, it is not!   It is the hardware involved in the accident (damaged vehicles, debris) that is being recovered (or at least removed from the road).   Colloquial, yes; logical, no.

11 hours ago, FastFreddy2 said:

I think you are on dodgily ground with "speedy".  

Why?   Mr Gonzales would certainly approve.   See for example:   http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/speedy

8 hours ago, FastFreddy2 said:

There hasn't been a grammar checker designed, that won't allow unique/new additions. "Users" understanding how it is done, not so common.

As to correcting (joke or otherwise), I very much doubt there could be an adverb "trashily", because I fink trash is a noun. And.... anyway .... "dress (or act) trashy" is a colloquial term and as such, grammar checkers don't apply. 

 

'Trash' is a noun; 'trashy' the adjective derived therefrom; 'trashily' likewise the adverb (= in a trashy manner).   So, one can wear clothes that are trash, and therefore look trashy, and the wearer therefore dresses trashily.   'Trashily' (adverb) most certainly exists in UK English; it is the American trend to use adjectives as adverbs that gives the impression that adverbs are either non-existent or at best redundant.   Colloquial maybe, but not in our manor.

Yes, sometimes a distinct adverbial form does not exist and the adjectival form is used, perhaps a little awkwardly, e.g. 'daily,' 'fast'.   But do you doubt, for example, the existence of 'speed/speedy/speedily' or 'care/careful/carefully'?

I can see a detention (or 100 lines) in the offing ...

46 minutes ago, Shyheels said:

You may request it, but action will depend on whether or not the auto-correct on my iPad will permit such a thing.

Are you saying that your iPad defaults to that erroneous usage and cannot be altered, or manually corrected?   (I don't own an iPad, so am unfamiliar with it.)

Russ (and others) may possibly be interested in these 'height enhancers' that I've come across by chance:   https://www.wish.com/search/men high heel shoes?hide_login_modal=true&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIlI3YxeL61gIVVUAbCh0gFASbEAAYASAAEgLD0PD_BwE#cid=589ba816384ac26de873a667   Not too expensive for an experiment, I suggest?

The same site has other inserts, insoles and other items, all apparently from China, and generally very cheap.   These, for example:   https://www.wish.com/search/men high heel shoes?hide_login_modal=true&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIlI3YxeL61gIVVUAbCh0gFASbEAAYASAAEgLD0PD_BwE#cid=577728fca3c82e7837486371

6 hours ago, Shyheels said:

Not a good look at all. Again, I am blissfully ignorant of who she, or her father is/was.

PVC really shoukdn’t Be considered a license to dress (or act) trashy.

Les Dawson was a much-loved northern comedian, known for his gurning, deliberately mangled piano playing and deadpan delivery of mother-in-law jokes and the like.   I knew he had a daughter but have no knowledge of her activities or whatever talent she may (perhaps) possess.

And may I request that we endeavour to use an adverb in future!   

Yes, I understand why old wine can appreciate in value and why a collector will regard that missing vintage as a 'must have', regardless of price.   (The concept is of course not unique to wine as many antiques, stamps, coins, books etc will also fall into that category.)   But, potential investment appreciation aside, my central point remains:  WHY sink money into something that cannot be enjoyed in any tangible sense, which is how this discussion started?

I can understand the perceived beauty of some object that is not, perhaps, a conventional one for display and admiration (or indeed gloating).   Freddy's bicycle frame is a case in point - it is attractive in its way (and doesn't need a 'frame' to display it!).   After all, people like Tracey Emin have made fame and fortune from turning mundane and even rubbish items into so-called art.   (In Herne Bay, as I write, there is an abandoned shop full of junk and jumble, plainly visible in the window and behind.   Some wag has added a sticker inside which proclaims 'Window display by Tracey Emin'!)

9 hours ago, FastFreddy2 said:

"Spare cash" need not be lying around, it might be invested. It's still 'spare', (ie ISA) as indeed might liquid assets sat in a bank account. Conversely, cash lying around, could be lying there waiting to be used to pay a bill/debt. (And for most people usually is.) The condition of the money I mentioned, is both. It is money with no requirement or need to be spent, save what I choose to use it for. And it is literally lying there. £460 on my bedroom floor, £100 on the kitchen table and a four figure sum in a cupboard. There is a five figure sum, "spare" but not lying there, languishing in a bank account. I wasn't talking about spare liquid assets sat in a bank account. The nuance in my original prose was made using inverted commas, indicating cash lying around is; 'spare': as in having no debt, or bill, or likely imminent need demanding its use.  If I chose to, I could quite literally walk into a camera shop tomorrow and buy any of the 2-3k cameras mentioned without making a dent or ripple in any financial plan I might or might not have. ...

I don't know that I've ever gloated over anything, much less an object. I thought many of those buying mega-expensive wines were treating them as investments? My problem is the reluctance to spoil something that looks perfect. (Brand new.) I even bought a used bicycle in the hope it would get me out on a bike more. So far, it hasn't worked. I am working on resolving that though. (My resolution might be slightly thwarted by my having listed the bike on an auction site, that produced more interest than I was expecting .... Ho-hum.)

 

I won't comment further on the distinctions you drew about cash resources and have now somewhat clarified.   But I am concerned to hear that you have such a large amount of cash 'lying around' at home (and not, apparently, just overnight) which is neither secure nor working for you.   The best instant-access online account pays 1.3% at present and, whilst still very low compared with historic rates, is better than nothing and removes the risk element.   I hope at least the further funds in your bank account are earning interest.

As to admiring rather than gloating, the distinction is likely to be a fine one - but I didn't suggest that you 'gloated', although many others might.   I agree that (so-called) 'fine wine' is generally bought as an investment.   My point was that wine is a costly purchase which (unlike a painting, a state-of-the-art camera or a pair of designer shoes) has almost zero intrinsive visual appeal and cannot be 'enjoyed' in any meaningful sense without being destroyed - leaving little to do apart from gloating.    I wonder how often such collections are ever sold-on (at a profit, after storage costs etc) or indeed drunk with real pleasure?   It seems to me that the value and its growth are almost entirely illusory, and that can be true of many antiques and jewellery items too, but at least they are usually nice to look at, if not locked away in a vault.

I don't think it was her - but I wouldn't object to laying her on the floor in lieu of the lost DPM.   

8 hours ago, FastFreddy2 said:

There is of course a big difference between your needs (working pro) and mine (VERY part time enthusiast). The handicap I have, is 'spare' cash lying around doing nothing. I get to do a lot of window shopping. And even when I buy, I tend to avoid using because I get so much pleasure looking at my purchase. 

I should become an art dealer .... 

I assume you mean:  'The handicap I have is no 'spare' cash lying around doing nothing.'?   (And, if you think about it, that is a double tautology: spare cash = cash lying around = cash doing nothing!   I once met a man who told me that he 'imported foreign goods from other countries abroad', i.e. he was 'an importer'.)

It is a truism that money can't buy happiness - but then again it can make being miserable a lot more comfortable!

As to merely admiring (gloating over?) prized purchases, the extreme must surely be those who pay a huge sum for a bottle of vintage wine, which sits undrunk gathering dust in a cellar for years and is just occasionally looked at.   Hardly an object of beauty or even erotica.

I mislaid a roll of black damp-proof membrane recently.   Has anyone seen it?

13 hours ago, Shyheels said:

There are expectations that women seem obliged to live up to - certainly if they are in the public eye. I thought it was revealing that, after they left the White House, Michelle Obama said that her husband wore the same dinner suit for eight years at state functions and formal dinners and nobody noticed (and frankly wouldn't have given a damn if they had) while she was obliged to showcase new looks and colours and fashion designers at every turn.  Obviously the Obamas can afford it, but the point is valid right across the board. Women are expected to be peacocks to some extent, while men are expected to be the plain but dignified backdrop that allows their wives or partners to shine.  

Indeed so, and isn't it ironic that in fact the 'peacock' is the gaudy male bird whilst his mate, the peahen, is positively drab!