FastFreddy2

A man who likes to live dangerously....... Well, the boots look great! Maybe you'll just have to tip-toe around?

Might be worth asking again. I'm pretty sure some E/B messages don't get delivered, and they certainly don't get delivered promptly. If you suggested the 10M was a UK8, it may be he's taken your advice and altered the listing to show the correct(ed) size?

I've found older styles (4+ years) came up a bit big on me. Newer styles come up small. That'll doubtless be Chinese sized toe boxes....

Another pair seen on Ebay ..... Close, but still no prize ..... From Office, obviously. Listed as a 41 and UK 7-7½ I expect, because Office shoes do come up a bit on the small side.

Epilogue: >> Clinton got more votes than Trump << Al Gore suffered the same problem in 2000. >> One of four to win popular vote, but not the Presidency << When constituencies (electoral college) have different volumes of voters, some with extremely different sizes, it skews what we laughingly call 'democracy'. Everyone assumes, the person (or party) with the most votes will win. Nope. I don't like the 'first past the post' electoral system, which was devised for the benefit of a two party competition. To put that into perspective for British politics (on which the American system is loosely based) ..... UKIP polled 3.88M votes (12.6%) at the last general election and got 1 MP. The Lib Dems (I know, who?) Polled 2.41M votes (7.9%) and got 8 MP's. The SNP got just 1.45M votes (4.7%) and got 56 MP's. So UKIP got the same amount of the "popular vote" as did the SNP and Lib Dems combined for 1 MP, where the other two parties got 64 MP's between them. You begin to understand (only taken me 16 years) why George Bush was reputed to be the runner-up who got the Presidency, and why people are protesting across America, that "Trump didn't actually win" either. Seemingly, he too was the runner-up.

Well, who thought the Brexit (Leavers) were going to win either? Certainly been a year for political surprises. Tensions in the Middle East having been growing worse over the past months, with sabre rattling going on from both sides. Clinton is like her predecessors, an imperialist. Trump doesn't appear to be, and has a good personal relationship with Putin. If ever there looked to be a WWIII, I would back Trump to avoid it over Clinton. As an American taxi driver put it (and I paraphrase) "Over here, I have to drink dirt water, over there I have to drink dirt water also, wherever I look, dirty water". If the Democrats hadn't backed Clinton thinking she was practically 'gold plated' to win, and had put Bernie Sanders on the ticket instead, when Trump's past arrived for a public airing, Bernie Sanders could have stopped canvassing and still won. With her record of defending a rapist she knew to be a rapist, and keeping all her electronic correspondence away from governmental oversight (and security), the voting public decided Trump was less toxic than Clinton. I am shocked that Trump won, but .... Immigration and religious wars are as big an issue in America as they are in the UK (and Europe). If someone stands up and says they will keep your country looking and feeling like it always did, no-one should be surprised if that person subsequently gets a lot of votes. It's a shame the "Obamacare" package is going to be removed. More than once I have read about even (very) wealthy people in the US becoming destitute due to a serious illness in the family. I would have thought enough people benefited from that alone, to have ensured a Democrat win? Clinton was obviously, just not a popular candidate. >> Toxic Clintons << There is probably similar 'dirty water' around Trump. He's a multiple-bankrupt businessman, and I remember reading somewhere he was once bailed out by the US government because to not bail him out, would have had catastrophic consequences to the US economy. As I have written elsewhere, he's a narcissistic bully, who treats women as chattels. But the American voting public were inclined to chose him over the even more toxic Clinton.

I had hoped that would be obvious? Maybe not.

More fuel to the fire .... I found another two pairs of the red patent courts held in London stores. Some 70 further miles, £8 in fuel, £9 in refreshments and around 4 hours away from home, had the two pair back at Maison Freddy. Had a quick glance Sunday, with a full review today (Monday). Executive summary: All being returned. I had not tried on the first pair, wanting to return them in a pristine/unworn condition by way of evidence the heel damage was not due to them having been worn/damaged by me. Neither of the other two pairs had been tried on before I purchased them either. I shuffled one shoe to make two (apparently) perfect pairs. Lifted by a sense of joy not experienced for some time, I decided to try a pair to confirm fit, left shoe first. Picking it up, I noticed something odd about the cut, but thought nothing of it until I put the shoe on. This was followed by putting the right shoe on. The right shoe of both pairs fitted well and looked good. The left shoe, on all three pairs it turned out, seems to have been cut badly, producing an upward crease above my big toe. If this 'oddity' had been present on both left and right shoe, I would have lived with it, given the trouble I've been to in acquiring a pair of these, but they look a bit odd (unmatched) too. From the top, the crescent on the left shoe upper that shows some toe cleavage, is off-centre making it look like my foot is curled inside the shoe. I have given up with them, at least in red. I have ordered up a pair in black leather, in the hope they have a better but to them. More news to follow.

As brand-buyers increasingly use Chinese suppliers, I suspect this situation will occur more frequently across better known brands. I've mentioned before how brands are no-longer reliable for sizing, even amongst their own lines. Carvela/KG/Kurt Geiger being one that used to be reliable, and now isn't. 'Steve Madden' has changed too. Many of us understand these brands exist as businesses to make profits. I'm not sure how a company selling shoes online will exist for long when their products don't conform to their own sizing guides. Not only will/do returns handicap any pricing structure, repetitively having to return shoes due to sizing problems will 'switch off' buyers who are not naturally gamblers. Sellers simply have to sell the size their customer is expecting. ALDO have this 'size guide' routine on their site now, to help prospective buyers order up the right size. It works by asking which brands/which size fit best. I used this, and was told my ideal size would be their UK 9½. The only time I've tried this size, it fitted like a loose wellington boot. Consequently, I ordered up 2 pairs of boots in the UK8 I think I am. Both pairs fitted like the proverbial. I managed to mess up the discount order process on the cheaper pair and the OTK boots didn't fit my legs very well (see report elsewhere) so both pairs were returned. That said, should my size be available during a sale period, I might reorder the ankle/shoe boots at the better price which is typically half the starting money.

We are going to have to start referring to you as Sherlock .... Very good work sir.

They are a bit too outrageous for me, but thanks for the offer.

Hello?

Here's a better picture showing the zip detailing on the back of the boots shown above. This is a promo picture. Tonight, I drove 20 miles to buy the red patent Office shoes. (40 mile round trip, in nasty traffic.) I'm circa £55 poorer. Got them home, and waited until later in the evening for a good 'look see'. Condition suggests they've never had a foot in either of them. Box is in good nick too. I'm thinking the 18 month wait was worth it to get a 'perfect pair'. Right up until I spot what looks like a nail trying to come out of the heel. It isn't a nail, it's a tiny scratch, which looks to have been made at the factory. "Pissed off" goes no-where near where my frustration level is at the moment. Could I keep them? Maybe, but I buy as 'investment' in goods. If I choose to sell on (likely) I won't sell damaged shoes as easily as I might sell 'as perfect' shoes. Back on the phone tomorrow.

'Dead jealous'. Lovely boot. As you say; "Well found".

These were rather disappointing .... Though they felt great to wear. Ooops, forgot to mention. £13 from Primarni. Possibly, a bigger size might have worked better, but they felt comfortable and didn't need any help keeping them on my waist.

A funny thing happened ..... Tonight a pair of new/unused Office Essex boots, UK8/41 with 4½ inch heel went through the auction site. I did check when they got listed about a week ago, what the calf circumference was; sadly around the 15" mark. I was still tempted though, because these boots look to be so stout they might still keep their upright shape, rather than bag/sag around the lower leg. As a reminder, these were £160 new from Office, and the last pair I saw like this, went through at under £90. Copyright acknowledged. (This is not my image.) Reproduced for non-commercial purposes only. £295 !!

This is how useful duplicate words are..... Example from my English teacher (long since left this mortal coil) .... "The farmer is sowing seeds in the field. His wife is sewing his shirt in the farmhouse. They are both s_wing." I've just taken a good look at Wiki and it looks like a fair summary to me, but maybe a little to subtle for some .... Cross-dressing. This is given to mean the wearing of (typically - but not always) womens clothing by men. It's worn because 'they' (men) like to wear womens clothing. There is no indication as to minimum quantity, nor maximum quantity. They is no mention as to seeking to 'pass' as women. The notion/inference is this 'label' lacks any sexual or fetish attribution. Put succinctly, it's done for (personal) comfort and style. There is no indication that make-up, wigs, smooth skin or any other gender aligned attributes are involved. They may well be, but the accent is on "dressing" as I continue to claim. A direct quote - "Transvestism" from Wiki: "Though coined as late as the 1910s, the phenomenon is not new. It was referred to in the Hebrew Bible. The word has undergone several changes of meaning since it was first coined and is still used in a variety of senses. Today, the term transvestite is commonly considered outdated and derogatory." As I said .... The -apparently- medical term transvestite was originally used to describe something a bit further into the 'across' bit, into taking the full look of a woman, intending to "pass". Wigs, make-up, corsets, all part of (my translation) crossing over: The word "trans" in Latin can also mean "on the farther side". "Vestitus" can also mean "garb" or "clad". Using a second translation then, the transvestite is to mean 'clad' (disguised) as the other 'side' (man to woman, woman to man). This would not likely be possible with a completely bald head (men) or with a beard (men). Conversely, wouldn't work with buxom chest (woman) or bright lipstick (woman). The purpose of this "condition", is strongly associated with sexual or fetishistic needs. In this century, we fully appreciate the needs of those with body dysmorphia, and those who seek sexual gratification from being seen as a woman. (Lady-boys for example.) Historically, men and women with unusual (not-clergy-sanctified) sexual tastes, were seen as being "ill". Hence the creation of the name to describe the medical condition. I'm still happy there's a difference. Wiki (the world's open encyclopedia) tends to agree. at least as I read it. And since I've worn both labels, I feel well placed to make a decision in supporting the summary there.

Dunno, we couldn't find anyone who could tell the difference.

Not much has changed. Office have (finally) gone on promotion with some of their shoe styles, including their 'On to point' style which looks like a Jimmy Choo copy, though they've added £3 to the starting 'buy' price. No size 8's on-line in the red patent, so it's down to shop held stock, of which there is very little. They've already re-introduced the black leather version of the shoe again too. Chances are, if I get a wiggle on, I can get both pairs I want, but it'll cost me £109 to do it .... I thought I'd found some skin-tight thigh/OTK boots at ALDO. A bit pricey for me, but wearable. The boots have a stiff zip detail all the way down the back of the boot (not seen on these images) but that loose material makes it look like I have athletes calves. Nice heel though. Very wearable 4½ inches. They do a knee and ankle boot version. I might go back for the ankle boot.... Zip detail ... Check the calf "bulge". Think these were £100 before any promotional discounts.

I kept the phone. Not dual SIM as I'd read (G4 Plus for that I think) but the phone is a big improvement - as a telephone. Android 6 (Marshmallow) is not as nice as 5 (Lollipop) and many people have struggled to move data around. I still haven't managed to push images back onto the phone unless I remove the data card and store new images on that. Deletions are easy. Otherwise, the phone is very good. Tried doing some videoing at a music gig last week. Auto-focus struggled a bit with low lighting, and there was absolutely no base in the recording at all. I guess a iPhone would have performed better, but is £300-£500 more expensive depending on the model. I'm still happy with my £130 phone. If you like to have a lot of 'apps' on your phone, this one might be for you. 2gb+16gb storage on-board. Plus you can add data cards that Android 6 will map as integrated storage, and also encrypt the whole lot. Have added some more 'street' shots from early 2013. The past 6 months has been pretty disappointing, in that I've hardly seen anything of interest. In truth I suppose I may be spending less time in places where I'm used to finding heels being worn? Summer wasn't great. It was warm, but not so predictable it encouraged travel. My personal finances haven't been great either, so I've not spent much time 'window shopping'. Am I getting too old for self-indulgence?