FastFreddy2

Had to read this 4 times before I understood it .... My defence is; working late last night, eating later still, (hence my grammatical faux pas on the original comment), followed by a slow morning. (In the 'mental agility' sense. ) I've remedied my grammatical error, with a different word (care of a Thesaurus) that is more appropriate on about 3 levels I can think of, despite my suffering from a dose of the 'morning after the night before', without the dubious benefit of the 'night before'.

And here is our "celebrity" mannequin, modelling the River Island shoes for us ...

There is no way that is a 4½ inch heel. I'm going to be very surprised if it isn't greater than 5 inches (my money is on 5½), but I'm literally going to be shocked if it's under 5. I flatter myself in being able to size-by-eye most heels, and tend to be a little pessimistic. We'll see soon enough though. I hope they fit and you like them. A very attractive shoe.

Good for you. Please do let us know about 'actual' heights.

He (or she) who hesitates, is lost. Part I. He (or she) who hesitates, is lost. Part II. The Daisy Street leggings look(ed) spectacular.

Another 'silly height' sandal, this time from River Island. Has a claimed 6 inch heel, and I don't doubt that it is. Image shown here from ASOS. River Island had them on offer at size 9, and on sale at £30. Sold out. ASOS have them to size 8, at the original £60 price.

Update: The Zara thigh highs are off the 'agenda' as they don't seem to exist. The Office thigh highs were nice, but a poor fit. The Carvela (suede) thigh highs have a hidden platform and purple sole. Not for me. I've enough high heeled ankle boots to literally last someone's lifetime of heel wearing. At least one pair for each year, that's 3-4 pairs for each year of my remaining life assuming I've got more than a couple left. A recent addition to the AW2015 'they look nice nice' list (that is already too long) is a surprise pair by New Look. Not seen any in stores, but here they are at ASOS: And why are they not in New Look stores? So £48 from ASOS (20% off for Black Friday). Similar styles from Office (£90) and River Island (£75) are currently non-contenders compared to these. I've had a lot more luck with court shoes, unfortunately. I don't get to wear them out really, and have done only twice in public during recent times. (I don't include wearing them during my earlier years at fetish clubs in that count.) My current court shoe collection looks like: Primarni (£14) in PU that are quite wearable. Unworn. Some Zara leather courts (£79) with a 5 inch heel. Unworn (by me). P.S. These are going. Kurt Geiger Cilla (£240) with 130mm heel and no platform. Unworn (and never will.) Keepers. Forever21 hidden platform court (£25) with ankle strap and 5½" heel. Worn once. Heel less black suede platform court from Primarni (£12) with 6 inch heel. Unworn. (Likely to be sold on.) 2 pairs (beige and black) platform wedge sandals (£10) from Matalan with 6 inch heels. Unworn and on sale already. Black PU 'barely there' PU sandal with 5 inch heel (£25) from Truffle. Unworn, boxed and on sale already. Office black leather courts (£65) with almost a 5 inch heel. Unworn. Keepers. Having found myself ordering up two pairs from Office that have come up a little tighter fit than the Office courts I already own, they look and feel great on my feet - much to my chagrin. I had hoped they would be a disappointment (much like the thigh boots) and could go back. Nope. The courts are a bit narrow, but otherwise a good fit. The higher (Achilles) heel cover, may one day allow an ankle strap to be fitted to help keep a looser fitting shoe on my foot. Where would I wear them? Everywhere given the opportunity. These shoes have an almost 5 inch heel, but are easy to walk in. The second pair are the patent shoes, with elastic cross-over to keep the foot firmly in the shoe. These, like the KG Cilla are over 5 inches with no platform. Harder to walk in, they are a stunning shoe. They come up as a 7 though, not the claimed 8. Mindful the Pleaser range come in at less money, have a range of styles with the same height heel, including two with ankle straps, why keep these? I've another week or two to decide whether to keep or return either or both pairs.

Of interest, thank you, but nearest store is getting on for 10 miles away.

I rather fancy he's like most of us. Get the money he's owed, and let the rest of the world get on with whatever it wants to do. The companies he has had contact with, seem to be large well organised businesses. As he said to me, many of their customers will be very pleased with the work carried out. What they don't know, is that they've been overcharged. What doesn't help, is that British Gas are amongst the worst for over-charging, so the bench-mark price is quite high. Nor do BG use the best products on the market, though they are amongst the most expensive suppliers. Also, many people in London are more concerned about service, than cost. A millionaire living in his own home, or had concerns about a second or third property let out somewhere, will want work done quickly and done well. Cost is a secondary concern, or even less of a hurdle if their heating packs up completely in winter. One couple mentioned, had a £600 repair bill involving temporary removal of a boiler. Rather than pay that, they opted for an upmarket replacement boiler, installed with 10 year guarantee for circa £2700. For "peace of mind". The boiler was going to cost £1400, but the company who got the introduction for the £600 job (that was sold after a call-out charge of £45) said my mate should have given them a £500 boiler and charged them £2700. (The £600 job was the one that involved the boiler removal and new expensive parts, the call-out charge of £45 is just to get the engineer to the door, and 30 minutes labour.) My mate wants to make a living, not 'scalp' customers..

Such a gift you have for understatement. Did Mr Ewbank not fancy himself as a 'dandy' and a gentleman? What led me to believe we might not be speaking of the same style, was the reference to the heel, 'cuban' for example. There is still the issue of legwear.... I have seen in Selfridges (while shopping for Office boots) and TopShop (while shopping for Office shoes) a tall boot style that might be appropriate. It's a take on the mid 19th century high buttoned boot seen on Army infantry. Another 'manly' style Nothing I can think of, would persuade me to spend £100+ on a Dune anything BTW. The boot I saw in Selfridges isn't on their web site. The only things I remember about them are; the fairly solid leather shaft, the buttons down the side of the shaft, and the completely unbelievable price. Could have been £1060 or something close. Another time perhaps...

My first day in what yoof call High School these days, (senior school in my day) I was saddled with a form teacher who had 3 interests in life. Chess, Golf, and anything Gilbert and Sullivan. This fella was undoubtedly born in the 1800's, and may well have seen Queen Victoria in the flesh. It's not that I went to school THAT long ago, but he was very very old. While I have held a golf 'stick' twice, played for my House in Chess, I am still disappointingly familiar with the Pirates, and the Mikado. That man has a lot to answer for. As for the shoes .... I am always 'amused' (aka disappointed) when reviewing American web sites for shoes. EVERY shoe or boot has a 4 inch heel. I agree the rise on this particular shoe doesn't seem to fit the given description. I have my doubts it has a 1 inch platform, my guess would be half that. 13mm is fairly common, it certainly doesn't look like an inch. The heel, given the claimed 5" height, just can't be, even if the platform was an inch. I would put the heel at closer to 6 inches. The rise looks to be circa 5 inches? It may be that shoe is a smaller size of course, but the declared platform height would seem even less accurate if this a smaller size. No-one going to 'take one for the team'?

While on the subject of media cards .... Had a long chat today, with a fella who I know through his trade (heating engineer) and him being one of one men in my actual social circle that knows I wear a heel. Hadn't talked for a bit, so we were on the phone for quite a while. Seems he now records every business and customer conversation he has. He doesn't always keep copies (most of it is inconsequential) but he does keep some. One he did keep, was of an employer who sub-contacts out (genuine) engineers to people looking to employ one, often at short notice. By all accounts this company will surely be seen on the BBC Watchdog programme, some time in the future. The M.O. is this; 'We get you into the customer on the cheap. After that, what you find as a problem, is up to you. We recommend any dirty water in the central heating system means they need a (£600-£1200) power flush. Don't sell them a quality boiler at a quality boiler price, sell them a cheap boiler at a quality boiler price." He lasted a week. He went to a similar company looking for work, and was shown another sub-contractor's invoices for three one week periods. These were invoices for pay, not invoices for work. Averaged £3,000 per week. While people who can afford to be 'over-charged' might not even notice the overcharge, nor maybe even care, that won't be true of every customer. Mrs Freddy thinks everyone is innocent ..... and I think just the opposite - as far as most tradesmen are concerned. So my mate is owed £1000 for the week he worked. He imagines he'll struggle to get paid. His 'ace in the hole'? Every conversation he had with the company, including the one where they spent almost an hour chewing him out for not fitting a cheap boiler at a quality boiler price, all recorded. Mostly thanks to cheap storage media. It's allowing a lot of social injustice to be recorded and reported.

My favourite place. I like being around people, but as a watcher really, rather than participator. I'm happy to mix, and be quite the joker come party animal, but I prefer to an observer. It's hard to observe when you are participating, as so much gets missed. When Mrs Freddy, myself and out grandson go out, I will say to either "did you notice ...... ?" "did you see ....?" "do you not think ...... was a bit odd?" Neither of them notice anything. It's so bad, I sometimes accuse Mrs Freddy of needing a white stick. I don't have to say anything these days, just say; "tap tap tap..." The world is a wonderful place, it's the people in it that are not always so wonderful ...

Mrs Freddy has 3 pairs of long boots (as far as I can tell). Her Mars-bar (work/rest/play) boots that have been re-heeled at least once and each boot repaired at least once, from Principles (now gone). A pair she bought as a treat, some Kurt Geiger OTK leather boots at several hundred pounds that very nearly had the upper from a toe-box ripped off one boot, care of a Tesco shopping trolley on their first outing .... And some suede KG OTK boots that get worn when it's bitterly cold outside, because they are so toasty warm, they make her too warm otherwise. Suede would seem a good choice for cooler weather then? So you do wear your boots over jeans, when out and about? Do you get 'looks'?

That really would be cruel of them.... but completely in keeping with my previous experiences. It was bad enough see her at all. Slim, moderately tall. A girlie girl, wearing OTK boots with shiny leggings. If I was 30 years younger ....

@Heels: Having (almost) re-read every post post on the thread, I'm not entirely sure this is the right place to mention it but ... I remember you being interested in some high peep-toe courts? Not sure you ever got them, and I'm also aware you have decided not to increase your collection of courts, but I thought these worth a mention. They come in a 9, and look, very very high. £30 from >> here <<

The web site no longer offers the opportunity to have an email notification when the "EU41" (allegedly UK8) might be available from on-line stock, which suggests they've had all the stock they're going to have this year. You are right in that I may have been the second of two people after the one pair. The on-line 'check store stock' indicates two London Stores have them, and I have been to one claiming to have stock, and I only saw the 7's, no 8's. I know I could ring up and enquire, having done the same with some PU flared trousers the other day (photo to be added to the leggings thread when there's enough light to get a picture.) I'm not in London again for a couple of days, so no point in chasing it yet. I am resigned to not even getting to try them on, much less keeping them. And a cruel twist of fate ..... As I've made mention to several times, I almost always carry a camera. I had hoped that owning a smart phone might make that unnecessary, but I've spent £300-£400 less than I needed to for that, so should still carry my camera too. (And usually do.) However, picking someone up, with me not even leaving the car, should mean photo opportunities don't exist. Wrong. As I approached the collection point, I saw a young-ish girl (which is someone under 40 to me) walking along the roadway wearing what could be the Zara boots, and me with no camera, only cheapie phone. She didn't walk very well in them, but I see that as a good thing as it means they are being worn for style, not comfort. While the image is really poor, I can tell you all she is wearing shiny leggings with those boots. The irony.

We may be at 'cross purposes' here. Where I mention wearing a long boot, and how ~ outside leg coverings, I mean a long boot that would be considered a manly/masculine style, not with a heel, and likely not with a pointed toe. Though the two two biker styles I offered as examples, do look a bit 'theatrical' in the "Y.M.C.A." sense of playing 'dress up'. This: We have all been conditioned, from when we first understood pink for girls, blue for boys .... Dresses for girls, shorts for boys. Close fitting clothing doesn't provide advantage in cooler climes. 'Thermal barriers' are usually made of air pockets filled with fibre or air gaps. A tight fitting legging, or tight fitting trouser offers almost no thermal protection at all, as far as my legs are concerned. When it gets really cold, I will wear hold-ups underneath thermal leggings, underneath loose fitting jeans. Layers, are the way to stay warm. A long boot (or thigh boot in the case of the Y.M.C.A. inspired biker boot) would undoubtedly keep the covered part warmer, because leather and PU are pretty wind proof, even if PU isn't a particularly good insulator. It's the bit above the long (tall) boot that I question. My thinking is, a long (tall) boot might be acceptable for thermal reasons. I'm talking about in winter where a long/tall boot would make sense from the snow or wet or just plain cold, avoidance. No wet trousers or jeans if wearing a long boot. But what to cover the rest of the leg? Tight leggings or treggings/jeggings don't seem like appropriate winter wear, unless you are 18 years old and living in Newcastle? In this respect, jodhpurs don't seem like such a silly suggestion. I would think a man wearing a high riding boot (leather or rubber) and cream/dark coloured jodhpurs would turn very few heads?

After speaking to Office, these were returned on Monday. I have to say .... While Yodel have as useless as their reputation suggests they might be, Office having been blindingly good about the whole thing. They provided a free returns label, and have said they would cancel the transaction as soon as the boots were posted. Not only helpful, but sympathetic too. "Recommended". If only their shoes came in 'true' sizes ....

In principle, I agree everything, though snakes aren't the only low-level wild-life we all need to care with .... There was a pair of jack-boots seen in From Russia With Love, that had an accessory I would like to see offered in a speciality boot somewhere. If only? In reality (horrible place) how would you wear a man's knee boot? I'm not just asking to be a little 'testy', (devils advocate) but ask because I might consider wearing such a device if I could think of a way for it to be indulged. It's why I suggested 'fashion' (since this can lead to all sorts of abstract ensembles,) including OTK boots with open toes? And I'm not enough of a showman to do it for theatrical reasons. Though maybe when I'm a tad more senile? To wear leg coverings inside a boot, they've got to be fairly close fitting. Quite trendy to wear this style at the moment with treggings/jeggings/leggings being the 'must have' item, so available everywhere. But doesn't wearing them, then remove the prospect of any thermal advantage at a time when a long boot might be justifiable for practical reasons, like keeping warm? I still have some rubber riding boots (leather was too expensive) from the days I used to go to fetish clubs. I could wear those out in the real world, but what with? Jodhpurs? Fairly wearable. There have been times when I would have been very pleased to be wearing the top pair. Around Switzerland/Italy/France in a very wet summer, early 80's.

I'm fully understanding all of this -I think- but ..... As far as I can see (at my level of understanding) the only thing that seems to be a stopper to men wearing a long boot, is the wearing of them outside of any leg covering? A long boot under jeans or a trouser would be completely hidden, so wearable? A very high heeled item would be a slightly different challenge, but the main criteria for the long boot, is length, not heel height? So, is the thinking a long boot outside of any leg covering would be desirable? That being the case, what would be the leg covering, and where would it end? At this time, I am thinking 'jeggings', leggings, and not breeches (which I take to be something that ends at the knee). If the long boots had to be worn outside any leg covering, then maybe 'theatre' might be the right word, or it would have to be high-fashion because I can't see any practical reason for a long boot outside leg covering. That said, I am putting no small amount of effort into finding a long boot ....

I would say an "engineer" (and I mean engineer in old school parlance - not someone who has little real world experience though a degree probably achieved with hard academic study), will always assume there will be maintenance work at some stage, and therefore not permanently fix anything that removal involves destruction. I would like to include myself under that umbrella term. There are very few times when I do anything I expect to be permanent, though Mrs Freddy insists the house will fall down before any of my work fails. (Bless her). I'm also a great believer in "re-use better than recycle", and re-using something in the way you plan to, would be the very apex of re-use since some emotion will be involved. Well done sir.

A funny thing happened early this afternoon..... After 3 days of seeing a package languishing in their home, the 'good-hearted-but-not-very-bright-neighbour' finally realised the courier may not have left a note to say a delivery attempt had been made at the delivery address. (Not that it had, since I was home at the time.) The lady who took the package in, doesn't even live in my street ..... Worse, the boots look to have been worn. The soles are not scuffed, but are dirty, the heel tips have minor wear, and both shafts are marked - with something. Mrs Freddy was persuaded to model this time .... Notice the baggy/sagging ankles (again) ... There was no way to tie the thigh laces so they didn't bulge either. An elastic gusset might have worked better? These boots certainly needed a zip from the lower calf to the instep to work....

Every man has to understand his limitations ... Some things are literally, impossible. One of the two electricians lined up will only use his own 'supplied' CU, because he's used to them. (We've had a conversation about this some 2 or 3 years ago.) That said, the unit on offer at Screwfix does look a very attractive buy, and I've book marked it in the hope sparky no.2 will agree to install it. (If he ever picks up the phone and replies to the calls from 'landlord' mate.... ) You will know as well as I do, how onerous yanking fuse holders can be, so changing to a circuit breaker technology is very attractive. I'm not jealous of your kitchen re-use plan, though it's both commendable from the 'green' aspect of reuse, and the commercial benefit. You will be using equipment fitted better than the kitchens I had to work around yesterday afternoon/evening. Both installed by fitters 'recommended' by friends of the owners. Neither will be getting work from me. Having almost forgotten to cut a small slot for the washing machine power cable in some new backing material on a sink carcass, I tried to connect the plug to socket without pulling the cable. Not possible. The original fitter had taken the cable which leaves the top of the w/machine UNDER the carcass and back upwards to just under the sink. Sadly, having cut the slot, I found taking the power cable UPWARDS through the same hole the w/m waste pipe uses, was a significantly shorter route. How was that not obvious to an experienced fitter?

I would say that from the 'shiny'point of view, the M+S leggings are currently the winner. (More on that to follow). The reason why they look better on the photo's shown, is the pose. You will notice the right leg is outstretched? It produced a better effect, as did a rear ¾ view with the 'model' leaning forward. At the moment I am completely baffled about some missing leggings I'm sure I bought from New Look a couple of years ago. They were shiny, and black with little bits of silver fleck in them. I just can't find them? Most of the current range of 'shiny' is described as faux leather, and more a very dark grey than black... So, the M+S leggings .... The previous pairs tried, were 12L and 14L with the 12 producing a better fit. If the pair shown look a little short, it's because they had been turned up. They were actually a good inch longer. A 12R was then purchased, thinking that a slightly shorter leg would remove the surplus length and sharpen the look. 12 Regular: They look nice, but felt tighter than the previous two pairs purchased. That makes sense because a Long size might be a little more generous all over, not just the legs? (But not enough to change the fit to the next size up.) Marks has a discount weekend, so a 12R and a 14R were purchased at £20 each, in the expectation at least one pair would be kept. HA! Firstly, both (newer) pairs seemed slightly darker than the 12R already bought at the £25 price, both seemed to have more stretch, and more shine? When trying on the two newer pairs, a familiar problem raised it's head. While pulling the leg of the garment up (so tight garment up skinny leg) the threads started to 'pop' on the leg seams as they had done on the waist of the original 12L. This time, the threads popped on both pairs. Rather annoying, since the 14R was a 'perfect' fit, and the 12R deliciously tight. Interim conclusion.... There must be at least two material types used in this style; 1: An ultra stretchy version that may be too stretchy for the thread used in making them; 2: A lighter in colour, more leather look shade of black, that is less stretchy and doesn't suffer from the thread snapping problem. The ultra stretchy type came up an inch longer too. At the moment, I'm hoping to find a 14R in the less stretchy material, that won't come with the thread snapping problem. My thinking is that a 14 will come with a slightly longer leg as they do with M+S jeans, and they'll feel more fitted because there'll be less stretch? I had mentioned River Island previously. I thought I would try their current offering at £30.. Notice how the position of the right leg, affects the cheek crease on the leggings. This style from RI come with a rear zip. They are very well made and were a comfortable fit. I might have kept them but for that zip as it wasn't a locking zip, and could undo itself if it wanted. Otherwise, very nice to wear. P.S. In all these photographs, the legs of the model seem to be fairly 'normal' in proportion, to even a little 'stout'? This may be because the camera is so close to the subject. As a reference, those heels are 5½ inches high, but don't look it.