FastFreddy2

I must have taken almost 200 photo's during the test. Initially I had no success because I had believed the camera was fast enough to 'freeze' motion, but I was wrong about this. I then tried to limit my activity to stationary subjects. Even this wasn't easy, because of my own hand movement. The best I could manage (on first attempt): Links ....... Party of clubbers crossing road. [Highlights on legs are from a stationary bus in a queue of traffic.] Same place, x4 magnification. Same place, less mag. [subjects are static, additional light from bus - as above.] Blue dress 1 of 2. Blue dress 2 of 2. Queue with moving subjects too. [shows the difference a little movement can make.] Walker in front. Darker lane. Another queue. Outside pub. Where are we? Waiting to cross road. Two girls walking. [Light levels here must have been high enough to allow movement to be frozen.] I think the subject matter speaks for itself?

Initial try with camera came with mixed results, some of which, was down to my aiming skills. Second conclusion (after the need to aim the camera correctly) is that trying to capture anything moving is going to be impossible. Though recording video seems to be much easier. [if the camera can stay focussed, that is.] Thirdly, the image size on the faster ISO settings is abysmal with only 3mb available. So not much better than my fairly inadequate phone camera. As some of the images are too large to include here, I'll have to upload them to another location. Having spent two hours editing them (and I have things to do) I'll have to upload them, and provide links, later on.

It occurs to me, the ambiguity is intentional. "Lets go and see our boyfriends, in high heels." The innocent version..... "Lets go and see, our boyfriends in high heels." How it reads with a comma placed as shown, or without any comma at all .... [As in the display.]

As mentioned before, I tend to wear a "bootcut" style jean/trouser. This tends to be (by my choice) a higher waisted style, fitted (not loose, but not 'tight' either) to around the knee, where a slight flare continues down to the bottom of the leg. Often, the slight flare is almost inperceptable. It allows me to wear a trouser or jean that makes the most of my slim legs, and include the boot heel, to make (through visual deception) my legs look longer. The inseam measurement of my jeans is 33". I have a couple of pairs with 34" that I would wear with shoes that have just about a 5" heel. With a single exception I'm aware of [New Look "Tall" range with jeans to 36" inseam], the 33/34 length is about as long a leg as you can get in womens jeans on the high street. When I'm wearing a higher/thinner heel, I'm not looking to be noticed. If I am noticed, I'm not looking to help confirm my shoe style if I can avoid it either. The bootcut jean is a very attractive style IMO, and one that suits my body shape/leg length with heels. While I do my bit (for myself mostly) in wearing heels in public, I'm not looking for any bravery awards by becoming a martyr to the cause. Last night I walked past well over 2000 people in the course of my evening. [Or they walked past me.] The only person who spotted me in heels was a female door-person on the outside of a hotel, who was there -primarily- to get a glimpse of the fireworks in Hyde Park. Had she not been there watching me walk past her (twice), I'd have had the benefit of a night out in heels, with no-one but me and my wife being aware. Which we are very happy about.

I think the volume driver, will be market demand from women with larger/longer feet. When I was young, it was unusual to see people over 6ft in height. Not unknown, and plenty of 5'10" and maybe even 5'11", though I almost never saw women of this height. Now, 6ft is common, and a fair proportion of them women. While I was working in a bar, I was always surprised at how tall the 20-30 year old customers were, and the proportion of them having this height. My best mate has 3 lads. He's the same height as me [around 5'7"] as is his wife. All of his boys are 6ft or over. I think in the US, younger people are even (generally) taller. This is a large market for higher priced shoes, and may even be the largest market for them. [ie. Largest shoe consumer for $50+ shoes, than even China where most of them will have been made.] Taller people have larger feet. At least two women in my extended family take a UK8/US10, and they are the same height as me. [Though both a little heavier.] A 6ft woman, I would think might need a US12 at least? My personal experience suggests Afro-Caribbeans (for the same given height) take even larger sizes. These two components will I'm sure, have provided a major shift in the market. Conversely, if I look around auction sites and large discount chains like TK Maxx, there are always plenty of attractive styles at give away prices if you are a UK3 or UK4. It begins to look like ladies with smaller feet, is very unusual. In fact I've only ever known one girlfriend with UK5, the rest have had a UK6. (Or slightly larger, if they were honest. ) With larger ladies shoe sizes available, I'm sure it'll allow men to buy nicer/cheaper styles (the benefits of increasing volumes) and that too, will help ramp up sales making it even more attractive for manufacturers to get involved in making larger sizes. But I think the driver for this change is the female buying market. It's certainly about time some of the UK's volume high street brands woke up to the opportunity of selling shoes to girls with larger feet. "Dune" and "Topshop" are the two worst. Possibly no loss to me with Dune, as their product is starting to look over-priced. Topshop have nice styles from time to time, but their sizing regime is terrible. Major (quality) brands Next/Marks and Spencer call an EU42 a UK8. Not Topshop, that's a UK9 to them (as with Dune too actually). Neither Topshop nor Dune cater for an EU42 (true UK8), though Topshop is starting to include this size in some of its shoe range, but still refer to it as UK9. All this analysis aside, larger sizes = more choice for us men. This is very good news.

We are agreed. He's a lot braver than me too, as I would never show off my heels in public, much less in daylight.

That's the very style I'm getting more used to seeing. I had thought there was suddenly, a very strong interest in Mary Jane style shoes, and also thought it odd because I hadn't noticed an upsurge in them being available. The pink 'girlie' style shoe (above) is confirmation the 'band' is now an acceptable way of keeping owners feet in court shoes.

Seen on an auction site: Notice the 'flower' detail? It's a removable 'comfort' band that keeps the shoe in place. I struggle (as does Mrs Freddy) to keep court style shoes on, because shoe makers no longer shape the back of the heel as tightly as they used to. ie. years ago, court shoes MUST have had a tighter curve on the heel of their shoes, to keep them on the wearer's foot. [As mentioned elsewhere on the internet, the basis for retaining the foot, is that it's effectively wedged into the shoe.] People suffering with heel blisters, seems to have changed that basic design? I seldom see these blisters, though they used to be quite frequent with new shoes, 30+ years ago. I guess, owner comfort became a selling requirement? Anyway, recently I've noticed more and more of these 'bands' being used by girls wearing court shoes, with the bands keeping the heel of the wearer inside the shoe while walking. This Kurt Geiger style, making a feature of that comfort band, and allowing the choice of it being worn, to be completely discretionary. Two styles, one shoe purchase!

Might be popping out to some TK Maxx stores today. A style of French Connection boots I bought (twice) and returned (twice) might have appeared in some of their stores. I'm not hopeful, but these are a style I seriously regret giving up. Didn't ever think I'd wear them out, but now know I would. Will be taking camera too, for a 'dry run'. Piccy of boots from auction site:

Difficult question for me. With those jeans, 'the look' seems to be better with jeans turned up. I suspect because they are a fairly slim fit and can't lay past your ankles (as with most drain-pipe styles), a turn up (as we would call it here) would be fairly normal. You'd have a turn up, otherwise with the jeans usually a tad long, they'd gather a bit around the ankle and just look baggy. [You'd have to buy them long because few people are stupid enough to buy them short.] A slim jean looks better without 'gather' wrinkles around the ankle in most circumstances, so the cuff up [bottom 'turned up'] does look better? That said ..... Most girls here wouldn't usually wear a jean showing off all the shoe, and especially not all the heel. They (and I) would tend to cover the heel, using a style with a longer leg. In your case, a jean with a longer leg by at least another 4 inches. Why? Well, to make their legs look longer, (so more attractive) and probably make them look slimmer too. [Also making them -and their legs- more attractive overall.] For this reason, I have 2 sets of jeans, regular 'boy' shoe length jean/trousers, and longer 'girl' shoe jeans. I have at least three times as many 'girl' length jeans and trousers .... Not sure why. If I had a working camera with me, a visit to Zara the other day would have illustrated my point very well. I think the photo I tried to take with my phone, didn't work out. I was in there in the store getting Mrs Freddy to try some styles, knowing full well there was little chance she'd buy some, but she was good camouflage for me to try a pair (or two) while others were they trying on shoes too. While we were there, a very petite lady was also shopping with her taller husband/SO. She had on very very high heels, given she was shopping, and she was not much younger than me. [Older women generally wear heels less as they get older, seems to me.] She had jeans on that practically covered her heel, and it might have been her legs were so short the jeans had to be worn that way anyway. It made her legs look like a regular length either way. My preference would have been a slightly wider bottom [flared - we call "bootcut" here] so the line of the trouser flowed over the ankle. Unsurprisingly called 'bootcut' for wearing with a high heeled boot (or high heel). Because these jeans were a bit tight, they gave away the outline of the shoe, and actually showed where her leg stopped. So did not look as good as it could have. I use a stretch jean with either a bootcut style, or a straight leg stretch jean with enough give to effortlessly cover a heel without defining the outline of of heel. [As you might have seen with the lady I describe.] Conclusion: Cuff up, but would have looked more 'trendy' with bootcut jean hiding the heel and making you look taller/leaner. Not that you don't look lean enough. P.S. I DID get a picture! (And it's confirmed .... I'm going senile. ) While being a less than perfect image, hopefully the shape of the shoe can be seen through the (too tight) jeans. If she had been wearing a bootcut jean, no-one would have known (or noticed) she was wearing platform shoes with 6 inch heels. ......

Camera is here. Charged, with 8GB fast SD card. I is ready to rock and roll.

Forgot to mention one of the window displays at Selfridges. Looking like it was sponsored by Louis Vuitton and their Yayoi Kusama collection .... It reads: "Lets go and see our boyfriends in high heels". .......... Got my vote.

Doesn't always work, but when you convert US$ to UK£ on arrival (meaning, add VAT and Import Duties), $295 is likely to become £295. That's not such a huge jump? Conversely, I'm pretty sure KG or Carvela do a shoe VERY similar to the U.N. style already. (Found it.) If I was in the market for a court shoe, I would wait for 'the sales' and buy with discount. If I couldn't buy with discount (out of stock) I'd just have to go without. (Again.) If this G.Z style becomes available in a leather ankle boot, I may be finding myself outside the doors of Selfridges on Boxing Day, queuing to get my size at a better price. From time to time I will do stupid things, and buying a pair of G.Z. boots would certainly qualify.

Didn't take long to find, though I should be ashamed I hadn't remembered the designer .... (Only my fav...... Giuseppe Zanotti ) As I've remarked before, really like United Nude .... but G. Z. in a whole 'nother league. ........

Bone ugly, I'm sorry to have to suggest.... Love metal heels, but not that style. I've seen a nicer version this week (Selfridges last night). Will try to find a link.

Despite extremely heavy traffic close to the venue, the meeting took place, f-a-i-r-l-y close to the arranged time. Coffee and chat, with walk (both in heels) along Oxford Street. No drama's, no finger pointing, and pretty much no-one looking. The single exception, a fella in Debenhams who saw our heels while we sat drinking coffee. We saw girls in very high heels out shopping. Me having left Mrs Freddy's camera at home preventing me including piccies here. Even walking back to the car, me and my escort practically followed for about 50 yards, a man with girlfriend/wife wearing 6 inch heels with platforms. Her holding his arm tightly, helping to keep her balance. ...

The price of the 820 has fluctuated a little, and my preferred seller currently has it at £229 delivered with a 2 year warranty included. As far as I can work out, the second year is only offered by them. Finally placed an order, with delivery expected tomorrow. I have 14 days to make up my mind whether to keep it. If it performs in low light, I'm sure I won't want to return it. I hope it can work in lower (shop and evening) light levels.

No need to add anything extra, see on-line newspaper link >> Clicky << Love the heels, and some boots in the same style would be very attractive to me.

London's Oxford Street tonight. Am meeting another 'man wearing heels', (who coincidently is still waiting for approval to contribute here), together with my walking out (girl) friend who some of you have met. Won't be a long meeting as he's on a time limit, but it'll be pleasant to meet another heel wearing fella, who I already know has a similar interest in heeling as myself. Meaning the wearing of discreet heels with 4-4½" heel out and about. Anyone available to join us, would be very welcome.

Great report! I'd suggest you may be a little harsh on yourself with regard to the 5" heels. I wore them regularly circa 25 years ago, when I had young flexible ankles and knees. More recently, I've struggled in a way I know I never used to, despite needing a size larger/longer. [Courtesy of being 3 stone heavier no doubt.] I'd say it takes A LOT of practice to wear a higher heel, and that might mean wearing that sort of heel every day, and for a couple of hours, every day. Mrs Freddy [high heel expert] would say you get a better heel [more comfortable heel and footbed] with spending more money on a brand your foot likes. While I usually buy a less expensive shoe, most won't even go on her feet. Others have a rise that causes discomfort, others come without suitable padding in the footbed. Me, I can just about wear anything I can get my foot into. Of course a dense [thick and resistant] footbed with a seamless leather upper, offers the best in comfort, but may also be too expensive for a part-time heel wearer like myself. Love4heels has the perfect solution. Any style/any heel height, custom made to fit his feet at a very modest price. I would think any crotchboot coming in under £200/$250 would be for bedroom/photographic use, rather than street wear. I hear Jimmy Choo's are the same. Look stunning, but not made for the rigours of walking on uneven or textured pavements. 1" [red] pile carpet, or marble floors only. Shame about the photo's. I had looked forward to seeing them. Maybe next time?

Tut .. tut .... 178 photo's on your phone? Maybe time to have a rethink?

I may not be the only person here, needing a camera to carry with them? Panasonic Lumix S1 while there is still stock .... Mrs Freddy bought an S3 for her holiday, and it's a great camera.

Was it not possible to turn the flash off? [Or hold your finger over it?] I guess the light was so low, you wouldn't have any sort of picture? I'm never a fan of platforms, but those red shoes look good. I suspect they might be from Leatherworks [aka Little Shoe Box]. If ever there was a time it was an appropriate thing to say, it's now: "Better to have tried and failed, than to have not tried at all." You've managed to convey the shoes and venue very well. Well done sir!

As you are aware, even if they try to join H4M, it's not as simple as just applying? I've recently applied to two other places for entry to Forums like this one. Not only did I get into both within 12 hours, one practically had an entrance exam, which obviously I must have passed. The second site, was mentioned to me by one of the active members here, during a two hour 'chat' conversation last night. Not only did I find an email welcome this morning, but it included a link to a personal board message from one of the site helpers. I had another 'chat' with the helper ("greeter" I think was her official title) when I logged on. She kept the 'chat' going for as long as I needed it. Not sure why there is such a delay here? Not long ago, it seemed we were criticised for not working hard enough to swell the board numbers?

Well reminded, and great report. Piccies always increase interest, even ones that are not perfect. My struggles with images in 'challenging' circumstances are well documented here. I'm painfully aware how hard yours would have been to get, so I'm very pleased you've included them.