Selling Shoes And Boots

[FastFreddy2 282]

I've guilty of spending too much time reading Daily Mail OnLine. While it would seem to be an English (speaking/owned) publication, it is edited and run by Americans. 

 

You have the better of me regarding the "tautology", other than a duplicate reference to losses on shoes and jeans.

 

 

This was missed though; "I haven't yet have to give anything away" 

 

Which SHOULD have read "I haven't yet had to give anything away" ....     

 

 

Dunno if that scores worse as bad grammar or a typo?   

Edited February 27, 2015 by FastFreddy2

[Puffer 258]

I forgave you the have/had confusion as it was clearly a typo and you are allowed ONE mistake, but appreciate you owning up.

 

The tautology was the 'got[ten] round to getting'.

 

I read the Daily Mail too (printed and online) but I'm not sure about any direct American 'policy' influence.   But it does increasingly display poor English usage by (British) journalists who should know better - and to the extent that dubious Americanisms creep in regularly, I suppose you are right.   Two recent examples:   'A substituted B' (rather than 'A replaced B') and 'They protested his appointment' (rather than 'protested against/protested about').  I do wonder whether its sub-editors (if they have any) ever 'gotten' a sound education at school?

Edited February 27, 2015 by Puffer

[FastFreddy2 282]

The tautology was the 'got[ten] round to getting'.

 

 

 

Ooooh. Bit harsh?     

 

 

The grammar and spelling found at DMOL is legend. I doubt there are many articles that don't carry blunders of both types. 

 

The general feeling is that it's a Brit run paper. Recently, it was brought to the readerships attention, that it's run from America. I've not idea if it's absolutely true, but it has a good fit. Mindful it is making headway into Australia, it may be there's an editorial team for each country, and I might tend to pick a lot of the US stories due to my basic interest in (i) attractive women (ii) women's clothing/dress/style, and of course (iii) heels. (Listed in reverse order, of course.  )

 

Americanism's are rife, as is questionable spelling. Bit like my writing I suppose .... Difference is, these journo's are expected to have a good English degree to get a job there. Often I read comments suggesting the articles are written by 14 year olds with no background research having been done before publishing. 

[Puffer 258]

I am overlooking the extraneous apostrophe in 'Americanism's' and 'journo's', Freddy - although the inclusion in the latter to aid clarity is understandable!    But (If you will forgive me) that is an example of the type of elementary error that these so-called journos often make (along with 'debit from', 'bored of', 'different than' ........)  

 

Yes, a lot of material is written as if from a 14-year old (or, for those of my school era, 11-year olds) trying to be trendy.   I don't think that having an English degree (specifically) is a requirement but, in any event, studying English beyond GCSE/O-level in this country is mostly about literature, not language, and whilst it should improve style, it will in theory add little or nothing to the fundamental (and essential) grammatical and syntactic skills.   I had no university education (although my two professional qualifications, obtained by correspondence course, are each the equivalent of an honours degree) but both depend on effective communication, i.e. writing literately in 'good English' - the result of a good education at school (from teachers who were themselves literate) up to a good pass in O-level English Language.   And continuing care in one's practical work, of course.

 

Sorry, I'm beginning to preach!   But I'm not ashamed to love the English language and to dislike seeing its abuse.

[FastFreddy2 282]

Back to sales .....   

 

 

Truth stranger than fiction ....

 

7 years ago when I got into heel wearing again, I bought 4 pairs of PU ankle boots from New Look. I wore one pair to death and got quite fit off the back of all the walking. I must of re-tipped those shoes at least 4 times and I think many more times. 

 

They didn't feel that high and they weren't 'going out in daylight' shoes either, which left me with 3 pairs....

 

Although I didn't know it, one pair sent to me was the wrong size, but they sold quickly anyway. [uK7.]

 

Third pair (UK8) wouldn't sell, even at £5, so I reduced them to £2-99. Second week (I think) they went on a single bid, at the £2-99 price. Once dispatched, I relisted the last pair at £2-99. Days later, three bidders took the final price up to £10-50.   

 

 

 

It confirms there is no predicting an auction.      

Edited March 3, 2015 by FastFreddy2

[FastFreddy2 282]

Just had a little count up of my shoes/boots sold on an auction site .... Over 70 pairs so far ... mind you, it seems I've been selling them off for at least 4 years....   

 

I've only bought 3 pairs this year, (all the same style). Must mean I'm winning the battle surely?  

 

 

 

The new "Mars Bar" boots. (Work, rest and play, in them.)

 

 

 

The heel is a sensible 4½ inches, and fairly quiet. Got them in a sale (long story), so a bargain.

 

They have a very pointed toe, which gets looked at from time to time, but I really like them. 

Edited March 26, 2015 by FastFreddy2

[hh4evr1 18]

I like those. How come you bought so many pairs the same. Had you worn them out from wearing them so often?

[FastFreddy2 282]

I like those. How come you bought so many pairs the same. Had you worn them out from wearing them so often?

 

No.

 

In fact I may have only 2 pairs thinking about it, I may have sold a pair on the auction site .... (I'll check later).

 

When I like a shoe, I really like it. Sometimes, how much I like a shoe gets me spending money because i think I'll never wear another shoe.

 

First example of that was the "wear everywhere" Nine West wedge. Fully rubber sole/heel so very quiet in use. Reasonably high, so nice to wear. I bought at least 4 pairs at £42 a pop. Why? I thought I would never need/want another style. At the time, they seemed "perfect".

 

 

Then along came a high thin stiletto boot from ALDO. Even better. Higher, more style .... I bought two pairs. Soon after, I found a (more disposable) version in PU. Dead ringer for the style, and a quarter of the price. In total, I think I have 7 pairs. 2 leather, 5 in PU. Yet I've only worn one pair of the PU version, two or three times. Mostly because I fear instantly wrecking the boot with a heel going into a crack in the pavement, or down a drain ....

 

 

Then came another style, Carvela Menzies ..... four pairs. High, nice to wear, but "girlie".

 

 

Then the surprisingly high ones shown in my avatar .... 3 pairs..... (I'll never need anything higher.)

 

 

 

 

 

 Start to get a flavour of my buying techniques? 

Edited March 28, 2015 by FastFreddy2

[hh4evr1 18]

Each style has it's good points. Stilettos for special occasions/outings and wedges for general wer etc.

[Puffer 258]

Just had a little count up of my shoes/boots sold on an auction site .... Over 70 pairs so far ... mind you, it seems I've been selling them off for at least 4 years....   

 

I've only bought 3 pairs this year, (all the same style). Must mean I'm winning the battle surely?  

 

 

 

The new "Mars Bar" boots. (Work, rest and play, in them.)

 

M+s - 1a.jpgM+s - 3.jpgM+s - 4.jpg

 

 

The heel is a sensible 4½ inches, and fairly quiet. Got them in a sale (long story), so a bargain.

 

They have a very pointed toe, which gets looked at from time to time, but I really like them. 

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.)

[FastFreddy2 282]

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.)

 

Not seen any like it for men since about 1962 .....     

 

Not elongated, quite the opposite. Short - and pointed for a man's shoe. In fact thinking about it, a longer look to the shoe might make it seem less like I was wearing a heel?

 

I'd be interested to see a piccy of your pointed boots, not least because I've no idea what "MJ" boots might be, or look like?  I did a search, and mostly came up with M Jackson .....   

[Puffer 258]

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!

Edited March 29, 2015 by Puffer

[FastFreddy2 282]

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 cuban-heeled boots from Atom Retro.

 

 

You have that absolutely right as I don't browse mens shoes. I have two pairs of (mens) shoes that were originally quite expensive (to me) that came from M+S that I had stumbled across during sales periods, could be respectively 3 and 5 years ago. Never been on my feet. In fact one pair has never been out of the M+S bag I was given to get them home in. The other pair are covered in brick dust because I hadn't realised just how far the dust could travel. (10ft to the other end of the room was easy- seemingly.)

 

 

 

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!

 

 

I was never going to remember the name, and to be honest I thought it might be the Canadian fella (who's name I can't remember either). I read recently on a Facebook page, "It's great being 50, I learn something new everyday. And forget 5 others." That would be me too.   

 

 

To add a picture ..... (which I'm sure is an egg-sucking exercise really) ....

 

 

You will first need to know the location of the picture you want to include. 

 

Windows typically wants you to keep your pictures in a location that's tied to your computer log-on user name (account name), like this:

 

c:\documents and settings\username\my pictures\picture.jpg

 

Where "c:" is the first (physical or logical) hard drive on your computer. Often a 'data' drive (one that doesn't get over-written with an OS install) will be a d: drive or e: drive.

 

"documents and settings" is the generic data area on a windows computer.

 

"username" will be the log-on name if you have more than one account (Mrs Puffer might be another account).

 

"My Pictures" is one of the default Windows sub-directories. My Music, My Video's are also Windows defaults.

 

"picture.jpg" would be the picture you want to upload.

 

 

If you are loading from a USB stick, always a sensible place to keep personal photo's, the 'target' for the upload might simply be;

 

e:\picture.jpg or,

 

f:\picture.jpg

 

largely dependant on what drive letter your OS had assigned to the USB stick when you plugged it in.

 

There is also a file size limitation of 512k, which is quite small really. I tend to use a cheap/free picture editor for cropping and sizing before inclusion here.

 

 

The hard part, is getting it on here - possibly.....

 

 

When you use the 'quick' editor on here, the option to include picture isn't visible. You have to select "More Reply Options".

 

 

With the new options visible, select "Attach files"

 

 

This is where knowing the location of the file you want to upload, is important. I can't show it here as my hard drive/directory structure will be unique to my computer. At this point you are offered the opportunity to 'Browse' your computer file system for the image(s) you want to include.

 

When the file is uploaded (should be quick), place your cursor where you want the picture to appear

 

Your screen should look something like this:

 

 

While the photo has been uploaded (stored by H4M) it hasn't been included into the post, so you have to "add" it to the post.

 

 

Initially, it will just look like you've added a file name.

 

 

Use the preview option to see if it has worked as you expected.

 

 

And review.

 

 

 

 

If all is good, carry on as normal.

 

If the newly added picture is in the wrong place, delete the file reference in the post, re-position the cursor, and then "Add" the picture again in the right place (hopefully).

 

If you have added the wrong picture (the one with the naked girl in heels) delete the file reference in the post as before, and use the "Delete" option which is right next to the "Add" option, to completely remove the file (picture) from being stored too.

 

As you will know, you can only edit posts for 24 hours. That means any included pictures are here forever, after the 24 hour editing period concludes. 

 

 

Hopefully, I haven't missed anything out. Been 15/18 years since I've written a proper manual. 

Edited March 29, 2015 by FastFreddy2

[Puffer 258]

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.

[FastFreddy2 282]

Well done sir! 

 

 

The first picture is perfect and large enough to see detail. The second picture is a tad small at 24k. (Small even for my clock-work phone.    )

 

There are circumstances where you can make a picture 'grow', but in reality you would just be stretching the same amount of detail over a larger surface. Not really worthwhile, unless printing to a hardcopy.

 

Ordinarily/usually, you start off with a picture that's as large as you ever might want it, and then reduce it down to the size you want to present it. Fortunately, small-ish images, look reasonably big 'on screen'. There are pictures in my Albums from the time when the only images I presented were from my clockwork phone. The quality (pixel count, contrast/colour saturation) is crepe, but you get the flavour of the image which I considered more important than no pictures at top quality.

 

Even the most basic camera phone will have a 2 mb camera which might produce an image too large to post here. The usual problem then, is reducing the image size. Worst case, you can show the image on your computer screen and use the Windows "Snipping Tool", found in the Accessories. [start - All Programs - Accessories - Snipping tool.] This assumes you (or anyone) has a hardwire/Bluetooth connection to their phone for viewing images, or media you (or anyone) can use as removable storage (USB/SD card) from a camera or other 'donor'.

 

This will allow you to create [File - Save- Select .jpg from the filename extension options - Filename.jpg] an edited screenshot. These are small in size, but usually provide enough detail to illustrate whatever you (or anyone) is trying to show. Most of my pictures showing shoe brand styles, use a similar method by taking a screen shot.

 

You can do a similar thing with "PrtScrn" and Paint, but it's a little more involved.

 

Once you've done any of this once or twice, it'll become second nature. While experimenting, you may even find better/faster methods that'll let you show the rest of us how to do it more easily. I know that hh4evr1 has trouble posting images here, because of the file size. (Too big.) No excuse now though.....   

Edited March 29, 2015 by FastFreddy2

[Puffer 258]

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?   

[FastFreddy2 282]

Regarding image sizes, same camera, same session .....

 

"Some" cameras will change the image size (actually the pixel count) automatically if there's too little light, or a close focus option is used. (Often a 'close focus' setting reduces the amount of light getting to the sensor, so it is then treated as a low-light image.)

 

For the shoes .... Since they have been made for your feet, I might rightly assume they fit very well. As for the style, I would consider it 'optimum', if not perfect. I LOVE a pointed toe, always have done, no-matter men/womens style, 'pointed' does it for me. Possibly going back to imprinting, from my formative years? 

 

I suppose we'd all prefer a thin heel, but experience suggests they don't last long used in the big outside world, (pavement damage) and wear quickly. They are more noticeable when 'caught' sight of by others (they stand out as anomalous if spotted), so a block/cuban style heel is more practical and less obvious. I have thinner heeled shoe boots I like to wear, but my 'go to' footwear has thicker/safer, less prone to wear and damage heels. Just like these.

 

Very good choice. 

Edited March 30, 2015 by FastFreddy2

[Puffer 258]

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.

[FastFreddy2 282]

Given your other abilities, I doubt there's much you can't turn your hand to, time allowing.   

 

 

I've noticed the 'bowing leg' effect in my own walk, and ever so slightly in another - possibly even more experienced high heel wearing man, who I have met several times. I'm not sure what causes this, though I'm aware ladies on the catwalk over-step their gait. (Their feet don't walk along a single straight line, but either side of the line crossing right over left, and left foot over right.) The over-stepping seems to create the illusion of cone shaped legs, removing the 'bowed' effect?

 

Us men do seem to suffer a bit with 'bowed' legs. I've seen it reported of children who have been encouraged to walk too early, their under-formed bones curving with their body weight. I've also noticed veteran football players have extremely 'bowed' legs, almost like they've spent a lifetime riding horses.....   

 

Looser trousers needed, obviously. 

[FastFreddy2 282]

 

I've only bought 3 pairs this year, (all the same style). Must mean I'm winning the battle surely?  

 

 

 

 

 

 

In fact I may have only 2 pairs thinking about it, I may have sold a pair on the auction site .... (I'll check later).

 

 

 

 

Looks like I bought 4 pairs and sold one pair off..... So I have 3 pairs ..... I might have to sell another pair ..... 

[FastFreddy2 282]

I don't know how many men here have a UK11 sized foot, but someone on one of the more popular auction sites is obviously deducing his collection. They have a number of very very very high boots for sale. I haven't looked at every one, just the one I wish was offered in my size....

 

 

Item #271815537097. New, with start price of £150.

 

 

To be shipped from Spain, but carriage is a very reasonable £10-50.

[Puffer 258]

I don't know how many men here have a UK11 sized foot, but someone on one of the more popular auction sites is obviously deducing his collection. They have a number of very very very high boots for sale. I haven't looked at every one, just the one I wish was offered in my size....

 

 

Mori stretch patent boot.JPG Item #271815537097. New, with start price of £150.

 

 

To be shipped from Spain, but carriage is a very reasonable £10-50.

 

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.

[FastFreddy2 282]

 I doubt seller is a collector/wearer; this looks like a business to me.

 

I did think the same initially, but selling mostly UK11's? (One UK5 which is a bit odd.)

 

It may be, that he like me, has found a wide variation in sizing? Meaning a UK11 can be anything from a 10 to a 12 and he's selling the boots that don't fit. He's identified as a business seller, but I suspect that's to do with the bike spares. 

 

I like business footwear sellers, means I can send poor quality/badly sized items back. Bought some Office courts the other day. Had a bit of a quandary as they fitted very well, which I wasn't expecting. Walking around, I twice had my left ankle tilt. Turns out, the left heel wasn't attached quite vertically, but a couple of degrees off. They went back, with all costs covered and my curiosity satisfied.    

 

Edited April 16, 2015 by FastFreddy2

[Puffer 258]

I did think the same initially, but selling mostly UK11's? (One UK5 which is a bit odd.)

 

It may be, that he like me, has found a wide variation in sizing? Meaning a UK11 can be anything from a 10 to a 12 and he's selling the boots that don't fit. He's identified as a business seller, but I suspect that's to do with the bike spares. 

 

I like business footwear sellers, means I can send poor quality/badly sized items back. Bought some Office courts the other day. Had a bit of a quandary as they fitted very well, which I wasn't expecting. Walking around, I twice had my left ankle tilt. Turns out, the left heel wasn't attached quite vertically, but a couple of degrees off. They went back, with all costs covered and my curiosity satisfied.    

 

P4070074a.jpg

 

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.

[FastFreddy2 282]

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 ...!

 

 

 

I have met such a person. (Might be mentioned somewhere here).

 

Nice man, meaning honest/sincere etc with no obvious vices, save an interest in VERY high heels. Not poor, without obvious constraints on budget, save space for storage. He gave me some of the boots he had bought that didn't fit (as suggested above) and sadly I had to sell them on as they didn't fit me either. One pair, thigh high and patent, was quite liked by Mrs Freddy (on her), but were 3 or 4 sizes too big for her too. Leg part of the boot fitted her better than they fitted me. They looked like waders on me, due to my 'beanstalk' legs....

 

Shown here ...

 

 

If I remember, he was a size 10, and the pairs of boots he gave me went from a generous 9 to around 9½, but the larger size might have had a fairly slim fit to the toes, so weren't comfortable enough to wear even for short (ahemm) periods? He didn't want to have to reveal his address to any buyer, so couldn't/wouldn't sell them himself. I was quite disappointed at least one pair didn't fit, but I don't like 'sloppy' shoes or boots. I find wearing a heel in lumpy terrain (UK pavements) hard enough without the additional challenge of doing it wearing a heeled shoe that doesn't fit properly.   

 

 

The shoes that went back to Office had about 130mm heel with 15mm platform. This isn't them, as the ones I bought were plain leather, but this is the same style. (Rocco).

 

 

They were bought with some shoe display marks declared, but I couldn't see them easily enough to be worried about them. The crooked heel though .... 

 

You are right about higher heels not always being vertical. Two of the four pairs of Schuh heels I had bought (to keep) had the same problem, and I practically gave them away after I discovered the fault. Fortunately, I didn't pay too much for them, so it wasn't too bad. But I had bought the 'set' with a view to keeping and wearing, consequently it was REALLY disappointing to find on close inspection half of the suite had slightly wonky heels.  And it's not like they were easy to walk in either....

 

 

 

And the cause might have been an unseen fault in the what I believe is called the (upper) shank?

 

 

 

Not that this was a problem to me while wearing. I put this particular pair on my feet 3 times, 'swearing' I would spend time practicing in them, but just didn't. Plan B, to keep them as an investment then? So when the fault in two pairs was noticed, the investment idea founded too. So they all went.

 

Fortunately, I got a bit more for one pair than expected, so it all worked out in the end, but it was a lesson I hope to be mindful of in the future. ie. Check the heels for position.   

Edited April 16, 2015 by FastFreddy2