Puffer

You don't say which of the several stretchers available you bought. But it will be interesting to know how you get on with it.

I have some limited experience of stretching shoes by various means: 1. Leather is generally stretchable, but mainly for width; length-stretching is limited by the shoe construction and leather grain. If one is very lucky, an increase of half a size in length is possible. 2. A shoe stretcher is certainly helpful (although I have never seen/tried one specifically for high heels) but one can also use wood forced in, or fill a poly bag with water and put it inside the shoe in the freezer overnight. 3. Stretching fluids (used in conjunction with a mechanical stretcher) are available for leather but (as one might expect) quite expensive. I believe they are basically iso-propyl alcohol with a little lanolin or similar soapy additive. It is difficult to buy the alcohol in the UK, but Maplin sells it for switch-cleaning etc at a fair price for a large can: http://www.maplin.co.uk/p/isopropyl-alcohol-1-litre-re71n. Mix this with an equal quanity of water and a dash of washing-up liquid and soak the leather (or brush it well in) before fitting stretcher. 4. Non-leather shoes are more of a problem. Fabric (e.g. faux suede) can be gently stretched with ice-bag etc but watch the seams! 'Plastic' shoes are hard to stretch unless the material is warmed gently (hair dryer) before inserting stretcher (or one's well-insulated foot!). 5. Some people suggest soaking leather/fabric shoes in water whilst wearing them (stand in bath?) and wear them wet (maybe with thick socks) until they dry out and mould to the foot. But not all material likes getting wet; water or stretching fluid can soften adhesive or stain uppers, so proceed with caution.

Freddy - I have just seen your correction in post #109 re 'iron' gas pipe. You are of course correct that the fittings are cast iron, either galvanised (essentially for outdoor/damp conditions) or 'black iron' finish, which is I think the result of a chemical process (oxidation?) during the casting process and gives a certain amount of natural corrosion protection. As to the pipe, it is not cast iron (at least in small supply pipe sizes) as this is far too brittle. Although often referred to as 'malleable iron' (meaning it can be bent), it is I think usually/normally drawn mild steel these days and is again in galvanised or black finish. Such suppliers as I have identified do say that it is steel. I don't think that corrosion is a real problem in iron/steel gas pipes/fittings, given their wall thickness. As you say, iron resists rusting better than steel. Interestingly, the only gas leak I have ever experienced was from a 'black steel' pipe inside my house. It had been installed only about 5 years earlier by British Gas to supply the meter, which was in the bottom of a cupboard but quite close to (damp) earth below the floor. I was not impressed and insisted on a repair FOC, using galvanised. In those days (1978), if not now, it was usual to run gas in steel pipe wherever this was not an eyesore (when copper was used). Better for resisting damage but not necessarily corrosion. A further thought regarding your re-plumb in copper. You may well find that your local scrap merchant sells brand-new copper pipe (and fittings) at a good discount. Mine certainly does. I don't know where it comes from - although obviously 'leftovers' from a job somewhere - and don't ask! Although the pipe is invariably straight, clean and undamaged, it is of course worth checking, especially if the bundle has been made up from different sources. The fittings (usually there by the bucket-load) are particularly cheap as sold by weight - a handful costs almost nothing. Until recently, I too would not touch plastic pipe. But I have since used it (although not for gas!) and am quite impressed - although I avoid joints in visible locations. One location where (white) plastic 15mm pipe is handy is in the upstands from below the floor into the rad valves - no painting necessary! If necessary, they are joined to the (horizontal) underfloor supply pipe with either a plastic or a brass compression elbow.

The noises you describe ('knocking') can also be caused within the boiler itself as key parts expand, although probably not so much in a combi which is of course designed to be 'off' except when heat is called for. Yes, pipe expansion/rubbing will also cause noise. And if the noise is not eliminated in a short time after firing-up (or comes back), the pump may be running at the wrong speed in a pumped system. I bought some felt pipe lagging (a sewn tube) a couple of years ago and it is still available. As you suggest, just the job for packing around a pipe which is running through notches or past rubbing obstructions. One can use ordinary loft insulation too - pushed into the gaps around pipe - or even stiff paper or polythene; anything to pad out the gap without adding to friction. I agree that too much 'float' is to be avoided; pipes should be well supported, even if it is a resilient support. Unless you exert too much pressure when using a pipe cutter, the pipe should not distort, although the internal burr is best removed with a suitable tool as this will reduce bore slightly and impede flow. A slight dent or ovality is of no importance; a properly cleaned end-feed soldered joint will seal adequately and the fitting will usually help to correct distortion. If using solder-ring fittings (which I generally avoid), some extra solder is advisable if any question of a loose fit arises. The key to a good joint is cleanliness/enough heat/adequate flux. And a 'wipe round' with a slightly damp rag after making the joint should help if any solder does not flow as it should. Take your time - correcting dry joints can be a bugger after water has been introduced!

1. I don't think you will find any 'cast iron' gas pipe in a house (although old mains may be) - the 'screwed iron' still very commonly used (where appearance is unimportant) is actually mild steel. I think that running a supply pipe outside is ridiculous - the possible gain in safety by keeping the supply in the open air is more than outweighed by the vulnerability of the pipe to damage and theft. It is not unknown for outside copper gas pipe to be simply cut and removed by thieves, posing an immediate escape and fire/explosion hazard. If it must be outside, screwed iron (cheaper than copper) in a ventilated enclosure would surely be the answer? 2. If my system boiler located at the top in a four-story house, with meter in the basement, can be fed properly by a 22mm pipe, I cannot really see why anything larger is needed for almost any domestic set-up. I doubt that an 'instant heat' combi uses more gas per minute - but that seems to be the implication. 3. No reason I can think of for you not to do all the work - running pipes and hanging boiler, fitting flue etc - APART FROM the final gas connections both ends and commissioning the boiler. That is exactly what I did with the seaside flat combi and my CH engineer (a family friend, but that didn't really make any difference except on price!) was perfectly happy to spend half a day commissioning and signing-off for Building Control. (I had actually made all the gas connections myself, including hob, but nothing was turned on or lit until its integrity was checked.) I'm sure you will be fine, and Mrs F will not be too inconvenienced.

Interesting points, Freddy. A brief response: 1. I entirely agree with 30kW to get the improved flow rate at minimal extra cost. More important for bath (my preference too) than shower, considering time taken to fill a bath and volume of water used. 2. I too was advised to run gas supply from meter in 28mm to boiler (about 40' run) if possible, bearing in mind that supply to hob branches about halfway. In fact, I continued beyond the branch in 22mm and of course the boiler itself has a 15mm connection (perverse?). No pressure problems experienced. I have never seen newbuild outside pipework in less than 28mm, but I suppose smaller may be OK depending on what is being run. And the meter includes a regulator which does reduce the pressure somewhat so needs the larger onward pipe. 3. The WB boiler should certainly be worth something and you may be pleasantly surprised if you eBay it. I have seen s/h boilers go for surprisingly high prices. One problem is that, unless Sedbuk A rated (is it?), it is not now strictly lawful to fit it - but who would know? 4. God luck with the plumbing - especially with the condensate. Have you decided how/where to run that yet? 5. I have an indirect pumped system at home, with CW cistern and HW cylinder. As it is a solid Victorian house, the potential for cracked ceilings does not really arise for me. My CW cistern (50 gallons) is on a solid platform a couple of feet above the ceiling joists, but they and the supporting legs are all pretty solid (min 4 x 2) so the weight (or variation in it) has little or no effect. Mind you - the old round cistern I replaced was simply seated on the joists and had a nicely corrugated bottom; amazing that it never gave way.

I don't know who suggested a Main boiler, Freddy, but it wasn't me. I did suggest the Pro Combi Exclusive 30, which is effectively a re-badged Ideal Logic. But your Logic+ sounds a good deal; the 7 year guarantee is helpful - although I think you must have an annual service (scarcely necessary) to continue to qualify - do check - and installation must be by 31.12.15. Good luck with it anyway. Some Ideal boilers (such as Isar) have a poor reputation - as many who had them under the free/subsidised 'Warmfront' scheme have found out - but the Logic and its clones appear to be in a different league. I agree about flue prices, when not included with the boiler. But they (and extensions/fittings if needed) can often be picked up cheaply on eBay. Used boilers are a mixed blessing as they can deteriorate when not used and before re-installation. But they can be sold (or at worst sold for scrap). What make/model/age is yours - not that I'm after one?

Freddy, your post #116 read with great interest. Some comments: 1. You imply (I think) that LSB made Cover Girl shoes. I'm sure that this is correct. CG used to advertise 6" heels (etc) quite regularly in the newspapers and I often wondered who actually bought them. I had a pair of black leather sandals made by (or for) CG in 1972 to my measurements (size 11UK) with a 5" heel (no platform). Although well made, and with a properly positioned stiletto heel, I have never found them easy to walk in and they are almost as new and I would be glad to sell them if anyone is interested (will post pic on request). I think part of the problem is the 'curviness' of the arch, much as you suggest. 2. It is very obvious to me from your helpful comparison pics that, quite apart from wearability,the Aldo shoe is much better styled and proportioned imho. The slender stiletto is in the right place, the toe box looks better (more pointed?) and the arch is flatter. That is a true classic stiletto! Interestingly, it looks to have a slightly lower heel - because there is less 'daylight' forward of the heel - although effectively the same (rear) height as the Schuh model. Is this why heels are often now found set back - to appear higher? (I despair of modern women - they have to have a set-back heel and/or a platform, usually with an effective rise of not more than 4.5", instead of mastering a true 5" Aldo-style heel - if they can find one.) 3. Again aside from wearability (and I'm not surprised that you find them difficult), the heel on the KG Cilla looks awful imho. It is not only too far back but has that strange curve to the rear - almost as if it is bending (which it may well do when worn). Why reinvent the (w)heel? 4. I quite often see references to 'Super Arch' heels from the US, typically with heels of around 6". These seem to be claimed as easier to wear, despite the curvy arch. Is that so; your findings would suggest otherwise?

I assume SNAD means 'size not as described'? Clearly, the box and the seller's description differ, so on that basis the shoes are 'not as described' and you should insist on your money back (inc carriage both ways etc). BUT - the seller could perhaps argue that the box is irrelevant (or doesn't even belong to these shoes) if the shoes themselves have no size marked - and his description was merely his best estimate of the size, which you say is wrong but he may not agree. Nevertheless, in my view the benefit of any doubt lies with you unless he can produce an expert witness who would agree that the shoes are indeed a UK9.5. Let us know how you get on.

I don't think it is quite that simple, Freddy. The seller ought to take care in his description to specify the size (as marked or as estimated), maybe with a suitable disclaimer. In other words, he can say 'Maker's marked size is UK8' and, if necesssary, add a comment such 'but runs small' or 'fits more like UK7'. Or, if size is not clearly marked or is dubious, something like 'Fits like UK8' would be helpful. And it may be necessary (and advisable), especially if the seller has no real way of checking the size (probably because it is not his usual size), to add a disclaimer such as 'Size shown is as marked but is not guaranteed correct'. OK, some buyers will be deterred but they can't say they haven't been warned.

I’m glad to hear your sink tap replacement went OK, Freddy. I really don’t know why taps in general have round flanges to fit in (usually) round basin/sink holes, when a square on both (to a standard size) would be much more logical. And the 4-lug variety – if you have it – often doesn’t help either; it can’t stop rotation in a round hole. I’ve not tried the Fix-a-Tap kit but it looks interesting – although at a cost which should be unnecessary. Another potential solution (at least with a steel sink top) is to fit the taps through a piece of rigid material (e.g. 6mm ply) underneath (which is highly desirable anyway as a stiffener – as you appear to recognise), drilled to be a tight fit on the thread – or given a square hole if there are lugs. Old-time plumbers often set the taps in glazier’s putty, which when set hard would hold the tap rigid. The modern equivalent (Plumbers’ Mate) or a good squirt of silicone can also help but is really too pliable. A cheapo 'top hat' plastic washer also helps to spread the load and help things tighten up, with the further advantage that it brings the backnut further away from the underside of the sink and thus easier to get the wrench on it. As to wrenches, one certainly needs a couple of special types for any under-sink work. The rigid cast iron one can be easier to use than the reversible pattern you pictured (which just loves to slip off the nuts) - but both have a tendency to fall into one's face when working upside down with a tired arm! I agree that anything which restricts the bore on a low pressure supply is better avoided, although for the short distance through a flexi connector it should make little difference – and your isolating valve is already a narrow bore. I doubt you gained any real advantage using a full-bore hose. Many taps (usually monobloc) come with copper tails that start as 10mm or 12mm copper and taper to 15mm, thus giving a built-in restriction. I usually connect these (shortened as necessary) with a normal flexi tap connector in reverse, i.e. compression end to the copper tail and 0.5” threaded connector onto the top of a standard isolating valve (replacing the union nut and olive). Done this many times with no problems.

I'm not sure whether that Stanley model (STHT1-77341; not readily available elsewhere) has distinct advantages over the 77340 (£49.99 Screwfix; also seen cheaper elsewhere) - worth doing a careful comparison, I think. I totally agree about having several power drills to hand to save bit changing etc. And an SDS is a MUST for any masonry work. Agree too about screwing floorboards down - but rarely find anything other than clearance hole in board is needed - no countersink required in softwood (as distinct from chipboard) and no pilot if using right screws (e.g. Quicksilver). An electric drill/driver helps too.

I'm not sure which model you have in mind but the 77340 (for example) can be bought for a lot less than £100: https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=stanley%20self-leveller I do have a laser level (not Stanley) and have used it just once in several years! Frankly, I have found the set-up/adjustment time more trouble than it was worth, compared with more traditional methods using a sprit level, string, a couple of slaves, a blunt pencil, bad language etc.

A pity that it is not as easy to correct the build of the shoes as easily as it is to photo-shop them! Nice work, Freddy; suggest you ask your wife to get you a laser level (or a theodolite) for Christmas!! The shoes are not my cup of tea (particularly with that platform) but I can see their appeal and they do deserve a better heel than they have at present. Without that, they are not only vulnerable but must be near-impossible to wear. Certainly not fit for purpose and the entitlement to a refund can scarcely be doubted.

Your friend with the boot collection sounds a bit weird, if I understand your appraisal correctly. Not so much because he liked to collect boots, but because he had acquired several pairs too small for him and apparently sold them for that reason. If he was a collector, why not keep them? If he was a wearer, why get so many that didn't fit? I don't expect you to know the answer; maybe he didn't either! Yes, those thigh boots look too wide; I don't really like baggy boots of any type, especially when shiny and showing the creases so much. The Office shoes are not nearly as nice in side view as they appeared to be from the earlier rear shot. That heel has no flare and is set too far back - and there seems to be a platform too. Sorry, not a classic stiletto court by any means - is that a style you like? The Lois court on the other hand is close to perfection; I wonder why they are no longer available?

You could be right about the seller's status - but would YOU get together a whole collection of expensive boots (apparently unworn) which did not fit or suit in some other way? Strange! One or two dud purchases, yes - but once bitten ...! Shame about the Office shoes - they looked rather good with a nicely shaped heel (what height?). Heels that are out of alignment seem quite common (and not just on cheap shoes) and there seems to be little effective correction; a quick twist can work briefly but it won't last.

I very much doubt if these boots will truly fit a real UK11 foot; with that heel an Eu45/USW13 would probably be close to UK10. I would need a true UK11 (possibly 12) so would not risk it, even if could afford them, could wear them comfortably and really wanted them. Some of the other boots are equally attractive (or not) - mostly Eu45 and all expensive (but prices are 'buy it now', not auction starters). I doubt seller is a collector/wearer; this looks like a business to me.

Very nice boots; pity they only go up to size 8. If the heel colour is not acceptable, it should respond to blackening with either shoe dye or a satin paint. You would likely lose the imitation 'stack' effect but that scarcely matters. I see they are also available with a grey upper (and same brownish heel); equally nice.

Quite right - his walk was as unbalanced and contrived as his article. Just an excuse to send-up hreels in general and anyone who wears them; totally counter-productive to anything this board aspires to.

I must practise more with the camera, Freddy, and maybe I will master both the taking and the processing of pics before too long. I'm glad you like the MJ boots, as I do. Yes, they fit very well and are comfortable, if a little awkward at times because my legs tend to bow outwards slightly as I walk - a slightly lower heel would reduce this but not be so much fun otherwise. I agree entirely regarding the style of the pointed toes and the heels. I have only worn them (briefly) in public under long/bootcut jeans (with much of the heel concealed) but perhaps I should be more daring and pair them with some shorter/narrower trousers, as they deserve. A similar boot with a stiletto heel is, as you suggest, what most of us would prefer to wear - but practicality and reticence have to rule - most of the time anyway.

Thanks again, Freddy - although I don't pretend to understand (yet) much of the technique you outline! I now see that, by clicking on the first image, it does indeed expand to a clear shot. But the second (created at the same session with the same camera, not a phone) does not! I shall investigate. The second pic does not really show the boots in any better respect than the first. What do you think of them, e.g. the heel and the toe shape?

Thanks a lot, Freddy. I had managed to add a pic to a post on similar forums but had forgotten how, and I think I have now managed it. These are my MJ boots: I hope the pic is reasonably clear; I ought to be able to make it larger (as the actress said to the bishop) and maybe I can - but some advice would help! I shall try to take some more pics (inc some of me wearing them) before long but my camera is not very sophisticated and nor am I with using it.

You must just having been browsing on the women's side of the shop, Freddy - men's pointed shoes were quite popular around five years ago and are still around. Either fully tapered or chisel toes. I bought a nice pair of slip-ons from Faith, some Chelsea boots from Topman and (within the last 15 months) two pairs of pointed cban-heeled boots from Atom Retro. I agree that (longish) pointed toes look good in that that they balance the foreshortening effect of a high heel and anyway, regardless of the heel, look sleek and avoid the clumpiness of so many shoes, platforms or otherwise. My 'MJ' boots were custom-made by Miguel Jones in Mexico (5" heel) and I described them here (which you must have forgotten): http://heels4men.net/topic/831-welcome-to-heels-for-men-puffer/ And I can upload my own pic of the actual boots if someone can please explain how to do it; I can't manage it at present!

Nice boots, Freddy, with a good side profile. I wouldn't call them 'very' pointed however, judging by the underside view - certainly not excessively elongated. (My MJ boots are more pointed, I think, and look fine.)

I dislike this advert; I find it embarrassing and pointless. What is it intended to achieve? I suppose the marketing men in their own distorted world consider that just being memorable is enough - in which case I suppose it succeeds. Any better ideas, anyone?