FastFreddy2

Please tell me you complained ....

I rest my case .... Their reputation has been earned over many many years. I flew with them once to Paris, was okay though. A puddle hop really, so no time for anyone to get frustrated about anything.

Ah, na sicher.

You are the sort of person BA should have/would like as a passenger. The fact you don't fly with them, speaks volumes....

There has never been a time in my life, I could consume these amounts. As Mrs Freddy is developing a taste for a wine spritzer, I am developing a taste for Corona shandy. That's 165ml of Corona (half a bottle) with around 200ml of (diet) lemonade added, and always wrapped around a meal. The beer helps put a taste into the otherwise dull lemonade. The Sloe Gin/Dubonnet comes out when I do a significant amount of food prep/cooking. I model my style on that of Graham Kerr, who promoted drinking wines (possibly of his sponsors) as he cooked. An honourable mention should also go to Keith Floyd (go to 1:15 in the link) though he eventually got more (and more) interested in the sauces than the food. At least once I saw him presenting while somewhat the worse for his liquid ingredients. While I do have the occasional top up while busy in the kitchen, this is almost always more lemonade and ice. I can't remember the last time I had a drink that didn't come with a meal, but it must be years ago, 4 or 5 at least. Obviously, I'm outing myself as a bit of a 'party animal'.

I think I have seen this seller on an auction site. At the time, he/she was selling some Loubies with 130mm heels. I might have kept a picture of them, though I can't remember the name of the style. I also remember the price being in the £600 range too. I thought they would never sell, but I think they did, maybe off auction perhaps? I have tried the Pigalle in a 41.5 before the 'designer' brands got their own caves at Selfridges. (I might have mentioned it on HHp). I had watched someone walk along and video the shoes there, and thought, 'no-one cares', so I just walked over and slipped the shoe on. To my surprise, my foot fitted the shoe-ish. When I went to move my foot, the shoe fell off! Not that there was much room in the toe box for toes .... Looking for the image above, I find I was mistaken about the price, it was £800. The style is called Hot Chick. The shoes in the picture are supposed to be an EU40. I would have put them at higher than 130mm, unless this is a stock photo of a smaller size? They look to be almost impossible to walk in, and certainly unlikely of anyone over say ... 28 years, 30 at a push? Past that, you'd have to be a gymnast or ballerina to be supple enough to walk in them. If you like pink .....

A. I do dislike dealing with Amazon, but once or twice there's only been Hobson's choice. B. I've yet to see it, but I'm sure it is there. Twice I've rung, and been told 'the price is the price, we are making nothing on it as it is'. Something I've told many prospective buyers myself. In those circumstances, I have had to refer to "A" above.

I found a pair in the sales at £15-99. Report to follow.

Over the Christmas period, the last of that bottle of Sloe Gin was consumed. During the three month period the bottle was open, I confess to drinking more spirit than during tat period than the previous 35-40 years combined. I am still unsure whether that is an achievement to be announced or kept secret, or what type of achievement it is? (The abstinence or the consumption.) I take it as a long sweet drink with (diet) lemonade, and 3 or 4 chunks of ice. It is very refreshing (for the first couple of sips). It seem to work well as an aperitif, with or without the Dubonnet. The only debilitating effect, seems to be my unwillingness to do much after I've finished my drink. (I never have more than one.) We had some red plums over the period, and I usually separate the juice from any fruit I might have as an after dinner sweet. This time it made an excellent mixer the following day, with a shot of the Sloe Gin. Yummy.

The 'best' bargains seem to be on-line. I don't believe I've ever seem these in-store anywhere. The pair I have here, maybe the last UK8's they had, were bought for £12 plus delivery. The shoe has a 415/16 inch (125mm) heel, and is a bugger to get on care of the rear zipper. But those straps ensure the shoe won't be falling off while in use. Not sure if they are keepers yet (or if all those straps are staying) but a cheap high heeled shoe either way. My £70 patent courts with 5¼" heel, now at £22, but OBVIOUSLY, no size 8's available. Plenty of 7's though. I have only seen this style in one Office store recently, and that was a 'flagship' concession in the West End. The red On Tops bought yesterday, have a 4¾" (123mm) heel, just as those you saw in a size 7. There is no stock on line of the the PU version in an 8 either. A red court in patent, isn't going to be an overly popular shoe I wouldn't have thought, so they are out of stock because they didn't buy many in. The Office On Top(s) range(s), has been as good to Office, as the Atlantic was for ALDO, 5, 6, or 7 years ago. As for costs, price up Dune shoes, or some of KG shoes.... Most knocking on the door of £200.

John Lewis has done the same. I suspect the charge doesn't actually cover the costs of delivery, but the (indirect) costs of returns. Just recently I have been paying either a small delivery charge, or a small return charge on the goods I've ordered on-line for trying intending/hoping to keep. As my reports reveal, much has been returned, although I can't think of one item I wanted and fitted, that I haven't kept. One of the pairs of Office shoes I had to return (not mentioned anywhere) would have cost me £2-50 to return by post. It would cost me at least £5 in fuel and around £1-20 in parking to do the same thing in person. The £2-50 charge is reasonable when looked at when that sort of comparison is made. As it happens, I had to go to one of their stores anyway, so this time it cost me nothing (extra.) Not very virtuous of me, but I have several times bumped up my order with some clothing/shoe retailers, to qualify for 'free delivery'. This has also proved beneficial in working out which item from a group of items I might prefer - assuming one of the group proved suitable. Has limited uses with blister-packed small electrical items obviously .... Like you I prefer to deal with the original brand, rather than an intermediary. However, Amazon have a no nonsense 30 day return policy, that can be very useful with 'borderline' issues. John Lewis has a very very very good returns policy for unused items, that far surpasses anyone else's returns policy. Something I haven't quite worked out ... Ebay charges retailers for selling, be it on auction or fixed priced items. When paying by PayPal, Ebay (or PayPal which I believe is still owned by Ebay but ring-fenced) also takes its cut. So one might be forgiven for thinking the retailer would be charging LESS on its own web site because it had no third party to look after? Not the case as far as I can see. In fact I did once find it cheaper on Ebay than the retailers web site. I can only assume 'edits' are easier on Ebay so the pricing might be more topical?

KLM? Never heard of them. Been a while since I've seen a reference to the airline. I honestly couldn't remember whether they were German or Dutch. I certainly didn't know they were the Royal Dutch Airline. Perhaps you should send her (by mail or email) a small set of information about the airline by way of educating/enlightening her? I would see it as an act of charity.

While drinking a cup of hot chocolate in Costa, the other side of a 40 mile car journey with 15 miles of it cutting through West London during rush hour to buy some red courts, I rang the ENO to check on the performance. The person in the Booking Office was almost offended when I asked what language the opera was to be performed in. Sensing my surprise at the answer, his reply went something like; "We are the English National Opera..." The concept of a night watching Madam Butterfly at the Coliseum, all but died at that very moment... Desperate for some compromise, I visited their web site tonight, and listened to a short example of the singing. Might as well have been in Italian for clarity of the lyrics, English or otherwise. Jury is back out.

In the (what is nearly always) futile attempt to save myself a wad of money, I chased up Office for a pair of the leather patent shoes in London or the Home Counties. To my surprise, a pair was found, but some 40 miles from my home. I waited two days to decide what I would do, but went and bought them tonight. £65, in red leather patent. Slow drive home via Westfield. 80 mile round trip, taking the better part of 6 hours all in, but some walking time involved at the mall. While I wasn't going to look at them until the morning, I had a brief look tonight. The euphoria had lasted a couple of hours, but it's not great news. The right shoe, while not being wrecked, has not been made as well as the left shoe, and there are minor marks of the toe cover. While I may have never really expected to keep these, (where would I wear them), owning them would have kept my errant/wistful/fanciful mind away from the JC Anouks. With the added bonus of keeping me £335 less poor. Putting that into perspective, for one pair of Anouks, I can buy 6 pairs of the Office shoes. Maybe I need to look at the PU version?

ASOS is trying to carve a niche for itself as a clothing version of Amazon (as is Tesco on small electricals). These groups have a logistics network, (as does Argos) the idea is these larger groups (ASOS/Tesco) use their branding and web sites as a doorway to other commerce. You will know that Ocado does this for Morrisons, Amazon does it for just about everyone, Tesco is trying for mobile phones etc. ASOS had a little go with Primark, and some shoe brands (if I remember correctly). Further up the thread, I did a screen shot of the New Look web site showing they were out of stock, and might be why ASOS were also. I've known ASOS to have residual stock, when the main brand didn't, so I was hopeful the first time around. Just checking links, I found a pair in stock so I didn't hang about ordering them. Lot of good it did me.

Got my hands on a pair of these this week. ASOS must have had a pair returned. Looked good, with 5 inch heel (almost) ..... But getting them on? Had the same problem with these, as the Office thigh highs. A part of my foot (bridge might it be called?) Made getting these on almost impossible. No pictures, as they were returned about 2 hours after arrival. First New Look shoes in size 8 I've ever tried that felt like a 7. The NL sticker said UK8/EU42, but inside the shoe the sewn in label said EU41, which in Europe often means UK7. And the shoes were made in Spain ..... You don't know until you try ...

I'm afraid that will need further explanation, for my benefit at least. Are you suggesting the Zanotti heels shown would be difficult if not almost impossible to walk in? The heel (tip) is always the pivot. The 'landing' part, or the bottom of the rise/incline should be considered "the ball". The relationship we have so far considered, is that between the back of the (foot) heel and the position underneath it of the heel tip. Heel tips being directly underneath a heel being less useful for the purposes of walking. What I'm struggling with, is the 'felt' difference that moving that heel tip backwards a few mm seems to make, an almost a disproportionate difference. While my own recent experience (so different to when I had much younger ankles), is that 5 or 6 mm in height can made a big difference to comfort over a period, it makes very little difference initially. Heel tip position makes a difference, immediately. Why? While standing still, pretty much every heel tip is backward to the heel wearers ankle, but when walking? So far I have suggested the arc described by the landing foot with the heel tip as the pivot, as being the critical movement, not least because it is the obvious one. But to an ankle, a part of the mechanism that allows fluid rotation for the landing foot to describe that arc, is a back-set heel tip like rotating on top of a shoe class speed bump? What I'm trying to propose, is there another part of the mechanics that is the arbiter of a fluid movement? Is the important part of the arc, where the ankle moves, rather than downstream where the (ball of the) foot lands? And possibly as important, as the wearer strides forward, a set back heel is going to keep the wearers (foot) heel as far off the ground as possible. A forward set heel allows a shallower angle of approach for the ankle, effectively creating the same 'felt' height of a shoe with a lower heel? (And maybe why the cowboy boots shown earlier have such a strong forward set heel?) Agreed, but ratio's are often fully defined and are then more convenient for the purposes or multiplication. In a general discussion I would usually reference proportion, if looking to affect that (change it) in any way, I'd be using a ratio.

And without wishing to ruin this eloquent narrative (so typical of the author ) I'm now wondering if the correct relationship IS the back of the heel and could be more the ball of the foot? I looked at the picture above with the vertical lines - for some considerable time, trying to figure out pertinent relationships. The reason being Puffer's primer regarding 'proportion', which I see as a ratio. For example, a 45' degree rise might be the worst angle for this 'felt' difficulty. It probably isn't, but a 'theoretical' vertical foot would not experience a problem with a set-back heel, nor would a horizontal foot. Proximity close to either of those extremes might not be considered an issue either, leaving the real problem area in the middle to upper middle ground possibly? Were I to try to explain that, it might be along the lines of: A 45-60' incline (rise) in the attitude of a foot caused by wearing a high heel, handicaps a normal gait by limiting the usually free movement of the ankle and hip combination. (Which we all know.) A set-back heel, exacerbates that handicap. The steeper that incline is, the greater the potential effect of the set back heel, to a point. For example, past a point (x) every 3mm upward 'feels the same' as a 1mm set back on the heel. I can't see this ratio being fixed either. At 80 degrees ANY set back will have almost no significance at all, and may even be mandatory to maximise the balance of the shoe. Is the reverse also true, that moving the heel (pivot) forwards (toward the toe) reduces the 'felt' height of the shoe making it slightly less demanding to wear? Returning to my longing gaze seeking inspiration ..... The difference in the two examples styles shown, didn't appear to be so great there was a significant change. The KG Cilla I have here shares a similar heel location to the Sexy 20. While the 420 is higher, it is easier to walk in. Harder on the calf muscles of course, so long walks are never likely from me, but that shoe is easier to walk in than the Cilla (Sexy 20). Is it because the set back heel puts the pivot behind or underneath the ankle while walking, which could be a more difficult change to accommodate, than a higher heel? While there is some agreement from personal experience that a set back heel makes walking disproportionately more difficult - as no extra heel height is involved - is there a critical point (y)? Where, just as Russ says, the heel position "imbalances" the potential for walking comfortably on what might otherwise be a reasonably high heel? Any ideas?

The 'mystery' pair ..... Imported from the US, with all duties paid (as usual). Sold to me as a UK8 but are closer to a UK7 (At Next, Marks, New Look and many more.) Might be considered a UK8 if Dune, Office or Topshop were doing the sizing. I can get my feet in them, and being leather they may give a little, but they have a 5" heel, so need to be comfortable really. They are going on sale for a month or two, and if they don't sell I'll be wearing them. If the return carriage wasn't prohibitive, they'd have been returned. I do like them, but at the moment I feel like I'd have preferred a larger size.

You're not allowed .....

They don't fit, and look horrible. (As the revue indicates surely?) Yesterday (3rd Jan) I was looking to trawl several Office outlets, specifically for versions of their court shoes. Ideally, a second pair like these: But no luck finding an 8.

Seen in Office shop during 2015/2016 Winter sale on 3rd Jan 2106 .... Still no purchase though .....

Exactly so. I have tried to explain it the distance your foot travels in an arc. When the heel is landed, it becomes a pivot, over which the whole of your foot has to rotate. The longer that arc, the more ungainly your (my) stride will be, because it takes time and effort to get that sole landed on the ground. Shorter arcs, are easier to walk in. This looks like an extreme, (though expensive) solution: Zanotti likes a very high, short shoe. (Steep rise.) I'd like to think this is fairly easy to walk in, though at £350 on an auction site, I'm never going to know.

So you find the same? If the heel is placed as far backwards on the shoe as it will go, it is harder to walk in?

Are we referring to 'set-back' as the same thing? Set-back, is meant (as far as I understand it) to mean the heel is at it's most rearward position possible, like this: I would have said (subject to consensus), the set-back heel would be the one considered "perpendicular' to the rear of the heel? While semantics weren't discussed as such, the term was referred to several times previously with no disparity I'm aware of. My experience suggests retailers don't actually measure the heels on the footwear they sell. I've mentioned before, nearly every (high) heel sold in America has a 4" heel, even when it plainly doesn't. (This might be a minute exaggeration for the pedants amongst you.) But the concept is there. Even UK retailers will claim 5" heel, (P/D boots) when in fact they are not. Thanks for the link, but I had trawled JC and most of the internet before posting, and I did mention the colour/materials I preferred. As Mrs Freddy tells me all too often: "If I'm going to be spending a lot of money on something, it'll be on the item I want." No possession on the planet is worth one of my kidneys. It was meant as a euphemism for having to sell something to finance the purchase. Not that I (honestly) expect to ever buy a shoe that expensive anyway. And it's starting to look like the affordable Office version may be out of reach too. "He who hesitates ..." Innit.