Puffer

I don't know if these leggings/jeggings (shiny or otherwise) from Lidl, from Thurs 21st, are of any interest; at least the price is reasonable! (But I doubt that the Esmara shoes will excite too much interest here!)

Yes, it would be good to see the shoes 'in action'! I agree that the Just Fab 'membership' is potentially problematic, and I would not be too happy at leaving a credit balance in the hands of a business that might not be around for long enough to use it up. Caution needed.

Interesting 1969 research, Freddy. For what it's worth, my opinion on the shoes shown (in order): 1. An elegant shoe made ugly. That turned-up platform makes it look so clumpy and the shape and position of the heel worsens it further. Yuk! 2. Basically, a very elegant (6"?) stiletto. I like the long pointed toe but have to agree that it would not make for easy walking - even though Sarah of Rosa can manage hers! 3. Fine - apart from that set-back heel. 4. Fine again - but would be improved if the heel was just a tad more forward and the toebox was longer. (The high heel and short toebox together make the foot appear rather too short - and I suspect one's toes are going to be somewhat compressed.) If you do get these, Freddy - make sure you review them for us all.

I only mentioned 'sideways tipping' to emphasise the application of the c-o-g 'plumbline'; I agree that it is not directly relevant to our current considerations - although it is not something to be totally ignored when standing or walking - in heels and sober or otherwise! I won't comment further on hypotheses or experiments as I believe we are both essentially saying the same thing, albeit reaching it by slightly different routes.

I think that our respective understandings are beginning to deviate, more through miscommunication than lack of mechanical knowledge. I haven't suggested that you are wrong about the fore-and-aft tipping point. The plumbline suspended from the c-o-g is merely indicating the vertical that you rightly identify - but which lies between the legs/feet, not within either of them. And that imaginary plumbline also governs the propensity for sideways tipping. In short, anything that causes the 'plumbline' to fall outside the support of the foot (which is essentially the span between the ball and the heel) will result in instability and toppling. But the 'span' can be varied if the subject is wearing shoes that alter the rigidity or shape of the foot - e.g. a heel of a height and/or shape which shifts the rearward ground contact of the foot (which will reduce the span) or an inflexible sole and/or an extended toe (which will increase the span). An extreme example of the latter is the music hall or circus performer who can lean well forward without toppling because he is wearing shoes with very long and rigid toes. Although the diagrams are not too clear, the principles are explained here: http://chestofbooks.com/health/anatomy/Human-Body-Construction/The-Attachment-Of-The-Lower-Extremities-To-The-Trunk.html As to your 'experiment', I think you have over-complicated it. You are in essence describing someone balancing whilst standing on a seesaw. The simplest gadget would be a plank and log, much as you suggest, but with the plank screwed to the log so that it is in equilibrium when unloaded, and with a datum line drawn above the fulcrum (thus removing the need for any marking of those items on each test). If the person then stands on the board (in various footwear) such that it remains in equilibrium (level) and the centre of the ball of his foot and the back of the shoe heel tip are both marked, one can see whether and to what extent the shoes alter his balance: the span (ball-heel tip) will vary slightly according to the foreshortening effect of the shoes but the ratio between the two distances ball-datum and datum-heel will remain the same if your theory is correct. (Note that using the toe-tips as a marker will not be accurate as the extra distance (toe-datum, rather than ball-datum) will upset the required ratio.) But I do have my doubts - two shoes of identical heel-height but with the heel in slightly different positions must surely alter the ratio, as the overall span will be shorter for the 'forward' heel. But our concern is not really with balance, but with ease of walking when heel position varies but height does not. That's quite enough applied mechanics for now, I must go for a lie-down on a truly horizontal bed - but doubtless will be kept awake by speculating on the effect of pillows of differing heights.

Freddy: 1. Your revised comments on the '1969' brand are interesting, if understandably inconclusive - for now. It may be that the town in which these sellers are located is a centre of shoe-making, and/or that skilled artisans either flit between rival and neighbouring businesses or set up in opposition to them. Equally, as you suggest, there may be some sort of a business or family relationship between the businesses, past or present. Italy has clamped down on tax evasion in recent years (albeit mostly at a petty level - insisting in theory that an invoice is given for e.g. the purchase of an ice cream cornet!), but possibly a fragmented or divided business has (or had) some merit in avoiding or evading taxes or reducing financial exposure. The main thing is that the '1969' shoes (wherever obtained) appear to be well thought of by some recent purchasers, regardless of cost. One US customer (male and bearded) seems to have bought the 5.25" courts in a whole range of colours - and wears them outside in the company of his wife. Good luck to him! 2. If you think about it, an imaginary plumbline suspended from one's centre-of-gravity will not pass through the ankle(s) (or any other part of the legs/feet), however close together they are, but will lie on a vertical plane that passes through them. And the 'plumbline' will shift a little in relation to ankles/feet whenever one's (a) c-o-g changes slightly because one gains or loses weight (diet or becoming pregnant); or (b) 'upright stance' varies slightly, as no-one stands erect in a perfect and unchanging manner. But none of this really matters; we know when falling-over is likely and that shoe heels in different positions and/or of different heights will influence this.

Good detective work, Freddy! And, if it is relevant to your re-write: the recommendation in HHP to '1969' shoes was just that - and it may well be that the supplier is not (quite) the 'italiaboutique' outfit that I identified through a quick Google. Maybe the label is shared or copied by others. As to the centre of gravity, I don't think that the HHP poster was meaning that the heel directly influenced this. He probably just meant (as we believe) that a more-forward heel takes the weight better and is more stable, i.e. it is closer to the c-o-g. I'm not convinced that the c-o-g is exactly as you surmise (as body shape and weight, stance etc will have an influence) but that doesn't matter - it is the relative positions of c-o-g and heel, ball etc that govern stability and gait.

I was aware of JFK's reluctant wearing of an inauguration topper. My reference (as I think you realise) was to his avoidance of a hat (fedora; trilby?) with everyday dress both before and after election - and good for him. I agree that men's hats were going out of fashion before that, in both the US and the UK. But, from memory, although 'everyday' formal hats apparently lasted longer in the US, diehard hat-wearers (such as the 'city gent' with bowler and the workman with flat cap) have probably lingered longer in the UK. (I discount the baseball cap, seemingly universal in most spheres of US life and (regrettably - especially with peak behind) becoming so in much of the UK. But I find one useful as a light protector when painting, plastering, etc, or holidaying in hot sun - but not for everyday wear.)

Legal statement: For the avoidance of doubt, I referred to SWMBO as 'my present wife' purely in order to distinguish her from any predecessors in title (of which there was merely one, with whom my relationship ceased before either the aforementioned girlfriend or SWMBO came along ). I did not intend to imply that 'my present wife' was likely to lose that exalted status in the imminent future - although I do not pretend that our relationship is necessarily ever-lasting, especially as, inter alia, our views on and liking for high heels are, sadly, far apart. Commercial statement: I was aware of Freddy's shoe size, but his potential interest in surplus footwear has been noted. He will be kept informed accordingly.

I've never heard of the balding actor, Denis O'Hare, and I'm not sure that his overall look is 'right' - but it does show how heels could be assimilated into conventional male attire. From the wear apparent on the soles, he hasn't just worn them in and around the ceremony, either - red carpet or not. (I have an almost identical jacket and trousers, but not the sandals - too clumpy and ornate for my taste. And they are not 'wedges' but merely a sandal with a thick platform and heel.) As to the 'candidate', I simply do not understand why so much has been made of his footwear; I suppose it is simply an excuse for the (adverse) comment, so typical in any US political arena. The shoes (boots?) themselves are quite plain and unexceptional. The heels are not 'high' in any accepted sense, and certainly lower than a man would have on common-or-garden Cuban or cowboy boots. I presume that no US politician is taken seriously if he strays one iota outside accepted, conventional dress norms - but that didn't stop JFK from getting elected despite the fact that he had refused to wear a hat with his suit. I have little time for Nicola Sturgeon (although I admire her guts), but she usually appears well-dressed and often in very acceptable stilettos. She used to dress much more drably, and would probably be given some criticism if she still did in her Fuhrer position, but would the height of her heels (or lack of it) make her a prime target for widespread public denigration? Angela Merkel gets away with it!

Some recent posts on HHP are relevant to the above discussion on heel height and position. One newish male member who apparently favours 5"+ stilettos (even when doing building work etc!) comments as follows: I would say my Skyscraper shoes are comfortable......well as comfy as any 5.5" heel can be! The classic heel shape puts the centre of gravity nicely under your leg, so easier to walk in, and can be worn all day if you have the stamina. For anything higher I personally prefer something with a super arch such as Peter Chu/6 Inch Heels Forever. He has recently bought shoes and boots from http://www.sky-scrapers.co.uk/index.php/ , which I note is offering a significant discount until end of January. Another member recommends http://stores.ebay.co.uk/1969italiaboutique/ as a source of high (5.25") and slender stilettos (although with the heel sometimes placed a little more rearwards) that are very wearable, albeit expensive (unless a low-start auction item is secured). I emphasise my usual disclaimer as to quality, wearability and transactional ease in both cases.

I totally agree about 'girlfriend qualifications'. The girl I referred to was very pleasing in that sense (and others - including suspenders and stockings) and, when she finished with me (in a very unfair and selfish way), I was initially devastated. But, in retrospect, I too am doubtful that any really lasting (and trusting) relationship would have endured. Given your stated head location, I doubt that your eye would have seen much (or at least much that was pleasant), however much it roved. (Rather reminds me of the man who went to the doctor to explain that he had swallowed his glass eye. The doctor examined him, culminating in peering up his backside, and proclaimed that he couldn't see anything - to which the man responded that he could see the doctor perfectly!) Yes, they are very similar but with lower heel. Barratts had a shoe almost identical to the Faith 'Tina' (and I think also named Tina, or Gina), quite possibly from the same factory - both being elegant courts like the Gina but with 110mm heel. The were discontinued about 16-17 years ago by both retailers, whereupon I bought a pair of black suede from Faith and black leather from Barratts for my present wife (not long before we were married). She said that she liked them and wore them both on a couple of occasions, but never again - she has refused to wear 'proper heels' for years now; a great disappointment to me, especially given her professed liking of such footwear (etc) during our early relationship. Both pairs are in very good condition and are size 8 ... not that I know anyone who would be interested in owning them ...

The arches on those CL shoes do look very steep - unless the heel is indeed higher than 130mm (surely not?). It is also set back too much for real elegance (imho), although the sheer height does make it a pretty attractive shoe. As to walkability, the girl in the video seems to manage quite well and is probably 'practised' rather than 'professional'. Obviously, some people (regardless of sex, age, weight etc) find 5"+ heels quite easy to wear; others have difficulty. Some 20 years ago, I had a girlfriend who was very willing to wear high heels when with me; she was about 42/43, not petite, size 7UK feet, and neither an athlete nor a dancer (actually a nursing assistant). Although she liked heels, I doubt that she was used to anything higher than about 3.5" when I met her. She was soon wearing 4.5" stilettos regularly (notably the neat Faith 'Tina' courts) and, to my surprise and pleasure, was both willing and able to go higher, not that much was then readily available. We went shoe-shopping in London for her birthday and she liked the patent slingbacks with a full 5.5" heel that I bought her from Honour at Waterloo, and found them quite easy to walk in after just a little practice - but avoiding steep slopes etc as one would expect! Her heels were noticed when we went out - the typical reactions (usually unspoken) being 'how on earth ...?' or 'slut' - the latter being very unfair as her appearance otherwise was always neat and fairly conservative. Alas, the relationship did not last and I have never had one with a 'real heel' wearer since.

1. Obviously, it may be more convenient and cheaper to receive/return by post etc rather than visiting outlet in person. A value judgement each time. 2. Adding a small item to qualify for free/reduced delivery charges is a common and perfectly legit tactic. I think that there is a website linked to Amazon which can identify suitable trivial 'make-weight' items. 3. I thought you disliked dealing with Amazon - or perhaps you are content with its Marketplace sellers? 4. Although I have found some purchases cheaper on eBay/Amazon, as compared with direct from seller's own site (probably to be competitive with 50 other sellers), the reverse is often also true. And sometimes a call to the outlet can secure a better price than that offered through an intermediary; my good friend bought a combi boiler (advertised at a very competitive eBay price) with an extra £20 off by phoning the dealer. Martin Lewis would be proud!

You will now have to be careful not to exceed the new Government drinking guidelines - 14 units per week for all sexes. That's roughly 7 pints of lager or 14 single spirit measures. To coin a slogan: 'Drinka-pinta-beera-day - max.' I've been taking medication for a frozen shoulder etc for the last couple of months and am supposed not to drink alcohol. Although only a very modest drinker anyway, I have abstained for at least half the days, and on the 'drinking' days (including Xmas Day etc) had no more than 2 units. Frankly, I haven't missed alcohol at all; there are plenty of pleasant substitutes. Mussht go now ... sheein' double ... hic!

I looked briefly into the local (small) branch of Office a couple of days ago. Reputed 'sale' in full swing but, as its shoes are expensive to start with, no worthwhile bargains apparent. I did examine the red patent court (but not sure if leather or PVC). The heel in size 7 was exactly 4.75", which is encouraging. I didn't see any in size 8.

Understood re ASOS, Freddy - thanks. I have misgivings about some of these 'doorway' operations. It does seem that, quite often, the price and/or shipping charge is inflated if not going direct, and the product info is not always complete or fully accurate. It usually pays to use the supplier's own site - unless (as you found) there is a possibility of acquiring an out-of-stock item elsewhere, but of course not all the 'agents' hold stock. I see that Tesco is about to introduce a (delivery) charge for 'click and collect' orders under £30. A pity; I have bought a few items that way - convenient and economical - but unlikely now to be so competitive/attractive. (Mind you, I've noticed that a carrier has been used to deliver order to Tesco branch, which must cost nearly as much as sending item to customer's address.) I like internet shopping - but only if the shipping charge is reasonable.

A shame they didn't fit, Freddy, after your frustrating wait. If they were returns, maybe they have been 'doing the rounds' (and will continue to do so) amongst those who are a size 8 and, reasonably enough, expect something labelled 8 to fit. What is the connection between New Look and ASOS? Are these boots also stocked by New Look (shops)?

I only raised the issue of a far-forward heel to show that my 'formula' was not foolproof - one cannot increase the distance (between heel tip and wearer's heel) without limit. Sorry if this misled you. And I really only homed-in on the back of the wearer's heel as a datum because this can be established quite easily, whilst the back of the shoe or the 'ball' of the foot could not be. I'm not suggesting the Zanotti would be difficult to walk in (compared with a more conventionally placed high heel). I am pointing out the obvious - that if the (raised) heel is so far forward that it causes the foot to tip backwards, then walking is more or less impossible. This would (I hope) never arise in practice as, aesthetics aside, such a design would be pointless - although nearly flat 'negative heel' footwear does apparently exist. If one thinks of the foot as a potential see-saw, the fulcrum (heel) must be far enough back for the wearer not to fall backwards; his (or indeed her!) centre of gravity must remain in front of the fulcrum. I think the 'heel-less' shoes (which look hazardous but are, I gather, not hard to walk in) demonstrate this - unless one leans backwards and the centre of gravity becomes shifted behind the heel tip. I can now see your point about the relevance of the 'ball' - or, rather, the point at which the shoe sole parts company with the ground, as you now put it. That makes sense and I think you are right to identify (as we now do) that the key obstacles to walking in a high-heeled shoe are related closely to the point of impact of (a) the heel tip on the ground; followed by (b) the sole on the ground; with (a) and (b) then repeated. And these repetitive actions are themselves influenced by (i) the height of the heel (as it changes the geometry of the foot and thus the potential points of impact); (ii) the positioning of the heel (as it also changes the point of heel impact, regardless of the foot length) and (iii) to a lesser extent, the length of the toe of the shoe (as it effectively lengthens the foot and thus the potential 'take off point' for the next step).

I am flattered by the reference to my 'eloquent narrative'. But eloquence is one thing; erudition is another - and hands up who thought that 'erudite' was an epoxy adhesive? Upon mature reflection, I see a flaw in my 'formula', which Freddy has indirectly spotted: if the back of the shoe heel is excessively far forward - in advance of the wearer's normal 'tipping point' - then walking will be almost impossible (despite the claims made for some rather weird exercise sandals that have a negative heel height). Clearly, there do have to be limits. I'm not sure about the alternative of considering the ball of the foot, as (a) its true position is not so easy to determine (which part of the ball?); and (b) if the shoe is reasonably rigid (surely a characteristic of high heels in particular?), the ball is scarcely acting as a fulcrum in normal walking, so can it really be a critical component? In the mathematical sense (as used above), proportion and ratio are effectively the same: two things that maintain the same relative size as they get larger or smaller are always 'in proportion', or their sizes are 'in ratio'. In other senses, the two terms do not necessarily mean the same but can have a relationship. For example, if 30% of the population are smokers, it is often said that 'the proportion of smokers is 30%' (or '3 in 10') but the corresponding ratio is one of 3:7 (smokers:non-smokers); both holding good regardless of the absolute size of the population in question.

Well, I'm glad we all now seem to understand and agree on something! As I see it, in narrative formulaic form: In respect of a high-heeled shoe standing on a flat plane surface at zero elevation, ease of walking is proportional to the horizontal distance between: (i) the point at which the rearmost extremity of the heel of that shoe touches that plane; and (ii) a vertical line through the rearmost point on the wearer's heel whilst standing in that shoe. (I doubt that the ease is directly proportional - i.e. that doubling the distance doubles the ease of walking - so we probably have to introduce a factor and a constant into the true formula. But that must await some empirical research - any offers?) Early stiletto heels were often placed further forward than what I regard as the 'classic' position (per Devious 420 above) and, although they might have made walking easier, gave the shoe a somewhat unbalanced (rear-heavy) look imho, which the horrible Zanotti takes to extreme. Men's (cowboy/Beatle) boots with 'underslung' heels achieve a similar effect; my Underground 'Fred' boots are easy to walk in and one is less conscious of the heel hitting the ground than in boots with a similar height of heel that has its more vertical rear a little further back.

The Anouk is a nice-looking shoe, Freddy, with a heel of almost the optimum shape and position (imho). It seems to be variously described as 4.7" or 5" high - maybe size-sensitive. A quick look online suggests that some colours at least are discounted at Jimmy Choo; I rather like this one: http://www.jimmychoo.com/en/sale/women-sale/shoes/anouk/blackberry-suede-pointy-toe-pumps-ANOUKSUE050212.html?gclid=COy49I33j8oCFQTjGwodR_UMRw&cm_mmc=GoogleUK-_-Shopping-_-Shopping-_-j000051096345&geoip=geoip&updatePreLocale=true Still expensive though; hardly worth a kidney.

Freddy: Although describing the position of the shoe and foot requires an element of geometry, we are concerned here mainly with movement (walking) and stress (force) and that is essentially a question of mechanics (levers; moments of a force etc), which is a branch of physics. (My A-levels were chemistry, physics, maths (pure and applied), applied mechanics and technical drawing - cunningly chosen because the latter four had a number of overlaps and could be studied for the price of about 2.5 separate subjects. Alas, my results in the first three were not good - but I did well in the other two - and so abandoned thoughts of university and a career in (chemical) engineering. Perhaps I should have become a draughtsman - now a job mostly done by computers - but that didn't happen either, fortunately.) I had forgotten your excellent description of heel shapes etc last summer and commend it to the house. It was very clear from the pictures then included that the 'set back' heel looks higher because there is indeed much less breast to the heel and thus more daylight under the shoe, making the already slender heel look high on its front as well as at the back. That, presumably, is the main reason for its common use - despite it looking less elegant and being less comfortable. One may well ask: 'Why, when 50+ years ago it was easy to get single-sole heels 4.5" - 5" or even higher (and see them worn with reasonable facility), do few shoes nowadays have an effective rise of much more than 4"?' I don't believe that women are now less agile than they were (although they might be less fit!) - and they are certainly more daring in their fashion choices - but perhaps they are simply lazy or have never had the opportunity to try a 'proper' (5") stiletto, unencumbered by a usually ugly platform? You also say in an earlier post that 'A larger foot wouldn't help, as it didn't change the ratio's of the arc much, if at all.' I'm not sure I understand your point here; surely, if a foot is larger, a higher heel can be worn without changing the geometry or ratios - every linear measurement increases in proportion but angles remain fixed. That is patently the case with many shoes where the heel is higher in the larger sizes, the 'silhouette' of the shoe remaining the same. (In theory, I could wear a 6" heel in UK11 with the same facility as someone wearing a 5" heel in UK5 - my foot being about 20% longer and my heel 20% higher. I say 'in theory' because I doubt that I could actually manage it!) On a totally separate point, how does one convert what is often a lengthy link into a simple word such as 'clicky' or 'here'?

Freddy - I am digesting your 'physics homework' (or is it 'applied mechanics'? I'm not yet sure, although I took both at A-level!) and, if I can comment meaningfully later, will do so. Russ's opinion of the set-back heel's apparent height is interesting; not sure I agree on that but his view on walking sounds right to me.

I like the expression too! But I doubt that many residents of northern England or the Scottish lowlands are currently enthused with water sports. (And I am totally sympathetic to their plight and very grateful that I live in an area where flooding is unlikely - although it has happened badly a few miles away in the past. An excuse to wear thigh boots ...?)