Ebay And Shopping.

[FastFreddy2]

Although I don't need further distractions, I have been asked to "sort out" a friends computer that has decided to stop running YouTube videos without excess buffering. (More on that later.**) I have found out during the course of my research into speeding up his computer (which is Part III of the 'solution') I found his AMD processor has never worked as well as it should from Day 1. (Well documented error with the processor.) When he first bought his system, I was a bit jealous because it had a 4 core processor, and what was then (to me) a substantial hard disk. I now know that since the processor is handicapped, and it's a comparatively slow AMD processor, I have been lucky to escape working on an 'upgrade' for as long as I have...

Of course Part I and II of the initial recovery programme was to clear off anything that I could (redundant software) and do a complete malware/virus scan. The back end of this, did not produce a satisfactory result. There is still plenty there I consider superfluous, but he wants what he wants so some of it has to stay.  ** I am struggling with trying to explain how one day the PC does what it's supposed to, the next - no good. He isn't accepting the 'one last straw' concept. In his mind, it was working, what has changed to stop it? He wants me to point at the cause, which of course I can't. 5+ years of accumulated detritus in his (creaking) operating system has taken it's toll. The fact he's not had me re-install the operating system for so long, (it used to be a 3-6 monthly event) is something I consider a success even if he doesn't. Anyone any ideas on how to explain it?

What isn't helping, is the operating system is Vista, and nothing (Chrome, M/S, etc) supports it, and some programs won't run unless the latest versions are installed. I used one of my spare hard disks and loaded up WIn 7 Pro (a firm favourite in Maison Freddy) and You Tube works fine. Though it's a clean install .... But for AVG, and Chrome.

By way of getting some value out of the clean install, I thought to upgrade the processor and memory. Win 7 would enjoy more than 3Gb currently installed and a faster processor wouldn't hurt. But the motherboard doesn't like better processors, and a newer board takes different memory.... At this point, I' was asked if a new computer is in order (or completely different platform. (Apple.)

 

Searching for motherboard upgrades (and with it processors and memory) has kept me very busy on Ebay during the past week. My watch list is now full of used AMD boards (some with processors) some used Intel boards, and some 'recycled' PC's that qualify as better machines. Today, as is usually the case when I price up shoes, I got distracted and missed a suitable board/processor/memory combo that would have been a perfect fit... The combo would have cost the princely sum of £20 delivered.  I just couldn't keep myself focused for the last 90 minutes of the listing. Of course I "assume" I would have bid enough to secure the item.

The research (me revising stuff I had forgotten - and delving into AMD processors which is completely unfamiliar ground) has had me discovering a number of things. There are processors out there, completely under valued and under appreciated for their performance. Some discontinued motherboards continue to attract as much money used, as they did when new. My own board, discontinued some years ago, gets more money now, than I paid for it...  Shame the same thing can't be said of the processor.... Now worth about a third of what I paid for it, and mine with all of about 10 hours use.

As an aside.... About 5 years ago, maybe 4, I built a PC to end all PC's - for me at least. I've always bought products when on the wane, to make use of discounts. I bought my first quad core processor, and 8Gb of 'quick' ram. Not liking the performance, I added an SSD drive, and used a couple of SATA III drives RAID'd for data storage. Two years later, I added another 8Gb of ram. It's quick. If I added a half-decent video card, I could play pretty good games on it ... Despite that, it has had about 10 hours use. Although I have what was promised to be a 'silent' aftermarket CPU fan, it isn't. I really should do something about that .... And get some use out of my little baby.

 

So at the moment I'm in a bit of a quandary. Do I 'upgrade' with used bits, uprating his current 'box', or push toward a completely new mini tower with either a PC platform or Apple? A new PC at around £350, the Apple equivalent at nearly £700. (He can afford either.) Perhaps I should sell him my super-duper box? So many choices.  

Finding suitable equipment on Ebay has been more entertaining than watching TV though. Discovering new stuff about hardware certainly had me excited..... Can't wait until I can afford a motherboard that will take an NVMe bootable drive, and have the money to own a suitable drive too.   Has reading this sent anyone to sleep? 

 

[Tacchi Alti]

Zzzzzzz ;-) Vista.... Total horror. I endured it for a few days, finding it impossible to do what once had been simple things with XP, and then relaced it with good old XP, which is still my OS of choice. Actually, I have to run XP on one computer as an essential program we use was written in Access 97, and it simply will not run in anything later. Microsoft's own program will not work in its XP emulator on later OSs.

I won a pair of Fly wedge sandals on Ebay and am wearing them right now. Not the height of style but discreet and quiet. Four inch heels, one inch platforms.

I had a bit of a run-in with my wife about all the heels I have, and she asked again how many of them I'd be prepared to wear with close friends/ family around... A bit of difficulty answering that! However, she says she's happy for me to wear men's shoes with built-up heels (elevator shoes), as it's a question with me not just of liking heels but of finding them beneficial to my back. Horrible styleless things, but maybe the way forward to keep erindors happy with my heel wearing, even if I get just one pair. I've told her they're expensive, but she said probably no more expensive than me keeping on buying more shoes that I wouldn't wear with family and friends around. She has a point there, and at least it gets over the 'women's shoes' sticking point with her.

Any recommendations in that line? Doing an internet search I was actually quite surprised how many companies sell them.

[FastFreddy2]

On 24/07/2017 at 9:44 AM, Russ in boots said:

Zzzzzzz ;-) Vista.... Total horror. I endured it for a few days, finding it impossible to do what once had been simple things with XP, and then relaced it with good old XP, which is still my OS of choice. Actually, I have to run XP on one computer as an essential program we use was written in Access 97, and it simply will not run in anything later. Microsoft's own program will not work in its XP emulator on later OSs.

I've read a lot of bad press about Vista, but didn't have the same experience myself. Had a laptop with it on, and I liked it. Still do. However, Win 7 is the one I'm most familiar with.

 

As to the shoes ..... I think Mrs Russ is one smart woman.  Not sure I'd be trying to win an argument with anyone that astute .... 

[FastFreddy2]

On 30/11/2015 at 11:25 AM, FastFreddy2 said:

Those shoes from River Island are popular ....

 

More images of the same girl >> here <<

I have no idea why 'she' (Jasmin Walia) appears so often in the newspaper, and to be perfectly frank, I'm not interested enough to find out. Suffice to say, she ticks a lot of 'eye-candy' boxes. Since she obviously enjoys being 'papped', her evening attire seldom fails to be entertaining to a limited sector of male interest. (Limited to those with a workable testosterone level. )

A look at the other pictures linked, might further explain the media interest.

 

Took me over an hour to find this .... Not least because my first attempt at using the search function on "Jasmin" didn't seem to find this post. Anyway .....

Mindful of the "shiny leggings" thread (not skirts), Jasmin and her taste for heels and shiny skirts, I thought I might add this to keep folk aware she hasn't disappeared. She reminds us in her own way ...  

 

 

 

When I get around to doing the 2017 A/W shoe/fashion parade, you'll doubtless conclude PVC is VERY big this year. VERY big.

 

Edited October 14, 2017 by FastFreddy2

[Shyheels]

Well that’s always nice news.

i must say she looks like she is trying to be cast in a remake of I Dream of Jeannie

[Heels]

I think I bought about 4 pairs of heels since I last posted on this thread.  I haven,t worn any heels for at least 3 months. I did wear a pair last night and I,m wearing a pair of boots now. I not sure if I will get back into wearing heels again 

[FastFreddy2]

13 hours ago, Heels said:

I think I bought about 4 pairs of heels since I last posted on this thread.  I haven,t worn any heels for at least 3 months. I did wear a pair last night and I,m wearing a pair of boots now. I not sure if I will get back into wearing heels again 

Is there a reason you stopped?

[Heels]

Not sure why I stopped wearing heels. I seem to remember I was having a lot of pain in my right foot after only a very short while wearing heels. I might of injured my foot at some point and didnt know about. I didnt have any problems last week whist wearing them so I might be better now.

[FastFreddy2]

On 16/11/2017 at 7:21 PM, Heels said:

I seem to remember I was having a lot of pain in my right foot after only a very short while wearing heels.

Ahhh. Think that's your foot telling you that you might be getting older.   

I've said many times, the reason why young women wear high heels, is because they can. Older women don't wear high heels, because they can't.  The older women I know (well) who have damaged feet, would still wear a heel if they could. Once you've experienced pleasure wearing a heel, I doubt that association ever really wanes **.

If I live long enough, I plan to be the oldest person in the care home in a heel. What will I care? Will I even know/remember they are supposed to be for women only?   

 

P.S.

** Just for the record, I don't necessarily mean pleasure through sex, as that certainly isn't the case for me. I think I can count the times I've 'done the deed' wearing a heel, on two fingers.

Edited November 19, 2017 by FastFreddy2
Additional note added.

[Heels]

I think these are the last pair I bought. Nine West

                                                                                             

 

[FastFreddy2]

While I have not been able to sell any shoes on Evilbay for some time, but I've had some extraordinary good luck with selling other things. A bike (I didn't really want to sell), a camera, and now a lens.

Sounds odd but .... 

The bike was listed as a 'dummy' to reserve a cheap listing for another bike I did want to sell. Oddly, the bike I hadn't intended to sell, got sold! 

The camera was intended to sell (I have a replacement) but I wasn't expecting to get as much money as I did. Yay!

Lastly, I placed a listing for a new 'kit' lens, and before I had time to complete the listing (add my own pictures) ... It had sold within 7 hours.

 

It's unfortunate I can't move on shoes so quickly.  I suppose if I were selling high heeled OTK boots in mens sizes UK 9/10/11  it would be no problem, but they aren't. In fact one pair are a (womans) UK 6. Got a 5½ inch heel though.... 

[Tacchi Alti]

On 07/03/2016 at 6:49 PM, FastFreddy2 said:

I have in PU (from £10), almond shaped toe. Marked UK7 but come up big. I fit them and I'm an 8 too. I have a pair in an 8 that have been worn once (with socks) to Westfield, so almost no sign of wear. At least a 4½ heel. (Picture is of the UK8's.)

 

 

I've exactly the same style in leather, again new and made by ALDO in UK8. These would be £40.

A different style, not such a slim heel and close to 5 inches: New, leather, from ALDO again, generous UK8 with discreet toe shape, £30. 

 

Post to be added, at around £3 or £4 if a signature is required. Bit more for next day (1st class) carriage. Thursday isn't a problem. All come with original boxes.

 

 

Do you still have the Aldo boots. I'm lusting after them, particularly as one of the heels on the others I had from you seems to have bent sideways, so they're not stable. No discredit to you, and I have no idea how it happened. I was just aware of my left foot wanting to go over sideways the last time I wore them.

[FastFreddy2]

19 minutes ago, Tacchi Alti said:

Do you still have the Aldo boots. I'm lusting after them, particularly as one of the heels on the others I had from you seems to have bent sideways, so they're not stable. No discredit to you, and I have no idea how it happened. I was just aware of my left foot wanting to go over sideways the last time I wore them.

I do, and am happy to sell them on at a very favourable price, but I fear they may be too big for your tiny little feet.  

I've got to be a bit busy today, but I can do a photo of a small selection you might be interested in, all likely wearable everywhere (one or two pairs maybe not) and for the most part they come with leather uppers.

 

I also have the same boot you have already in a smaller size. The thing about these boots (mindful of their price of course) is that they were not designed and made with a 5'8" man wearing them as the wearer. As is the basis for the "Kinky Boots" stage production and film, us men need slightly more sturdy footwear or need to 'tread lightly'. I'm not in any way suggesting you are lardy or heavy footed, but inexpensive dainty shoes don't have a long life.

The chap who does the minor repairs to mine and Mrs Freddy's shoes has told me (several times) that shoes made today for the fashion market "are crap". He advises me to buy and wear ASAP as they will likely fall apart without any help from me (or her) wearing them. "Buy them, wear them, throw them." So far that has only been the case with one particular style, but they were sitting in a box for well over ten years untouched before I discovered a heel had changed it's position while stored. 

 

[Tacchi Alti]

The 8 in those boots was fine. 7 would have been too small.

[FastFreddy2]

8 minutes ago, Tacchi Alti said:

The 8 in those boots was fine. 7 would have been too small.

Okay. (I only have more 7's.) It could mean a couple of the pairs I have in mind would be too small....

(This list is an aide memoire for me)

ASOS block heel boots (7)

ALDO block heel boots 8 (but fit as 7)

Nine West (stylish) block heel 7½. (very expensive shoe)

Carvela (stylish) block heel 8 (very expensive shoe)

Steve Madden stiletto 8. (These seem very strong.)

? New Look 'hi-tops' wedge 8. (Ninja grade silent walking)

 

I'll do the pictures, and you can let me know if any are of interest. But yes, the ALDO leather ones are still here.  

 

 

 

[Tacchi Alti]

I have enough block heels. I'm after either wedges  or stilettos.

[FastFreddy2]

Okay:

Steve Madden leather ankle boot. 130mm heel, with hidden 10/12mm platform.

 

 

New Look wedge suede ankle boot.

4 inch heel, and absolutely silent (ninja) when walking. 

 

 

 

[FastFreddy2]

On 30/11/2016 at 11:49 PM, FastFreddy2 said:

It has been a while since I have had an Ebay 'disaster', but looks like one has arrived. (Was I due one?)

The problem is a pair of Office courts - despite me owning 4 pairs already (two styles with duplicates - of course). I went for another style at what looked like a good price. They would have been at a good price too, if they weren't worn out. Office shoes usually come with spare tips, and these had none. I suspect they were sold before the second set of tips were worn out. In a PM they were described as "hardly worn". The right shoe has been worn so much, it fell off my foot on the third stride. Usually, I have to lever these on..... 

 

On 05/12/2016 at 10:43 PM, FastFreddy2 said:

 

Well ..... Despite my best intentions, this has all gone a bit pear shaped.

The shoes were received back this morning. The seller informed me I would get a refund on the 8th (so three days away) and I queried this, especially after being told the seller had until the 13th to refund if they followed Ebay rules. I was told my query was: rude, and aggressive. The seller then asked Ebay to intervene (so no further contact). I was shocked, and a little upset (insulted) given how well I thought I had responded. (Not getting angry/annoyed/abusive when the item I bought was so obviously unfit for sale.)

In response, I left the negative feedback that was deserved (that I never intended to leave), and contacted Ebay directly myself. I got the assistant I discussed this situation with, to read through my messages. I was told my messages were not rude nor aggressive. (Why would they be?) Further, I was told if the seller did not repay, Ebay would step in and repay for them anyway.

Mrs Freddy has said I must stop buying "used" items from Ebay, too many 'troubled' people there unwilling to understand what 'negotiation' looks like. To be honest, this is only the third time in something like 8 years I've had a poor experience in possibly something like 500 transactions. That's quite a good batting average otherwise.  

 

Over a year later, I've had another problem ...

Though someone in South London will have had a nasty surprise when they logged into their Ebay account this morning ...... 

 

I've done as suggested, and not bought any used shoes or boots. Sadly, a designer pair I bought at a shockingly cheap price in "new" condition, were delivered in a used condition. I approached the private seller about a  return, and  explained why. By way of mitigating their unwanted return, I had (generously I thought) offered to pay return carriage. Nope, the seller would not accept a return claiming they were unworn. I even sent a link to an identical pair offered for sale as 'worn twice',  that were in better/less worn condition than those sent me as 'new'. Still, the seller would not agree a return!!??

 

The problem got escalated to Ebay to sort out. My pictures clearly showed the shoes needed work doing (repaired) before they could be used. Consequently Ebay decided in my favour and sent me a pre-paid returns label this morning. Not only will I get a full refund from Ebay, but now the seller will get charged by them for the return carriage costs, and have a strike on their seller record. Where does 'reluctant' turn into 'stubborn', or worse still, 'stupid'? 

 

[Shyheels]

No shortage of stupidity in this world - or dishonesty, either. Glad it worked out for you...

[FastFreddy2]

2 hours ago, Shyheels said:

No shortage of stupidity in this world - or dishonesty, either.

Does seem to be the case. 

[FastFreddy2]

Well, that was straightforward. (Makes a change.)

Used the Ebay provided "Returns" label, which gave me something of a 'moment' when the tracking number failed to show on RM Tracking (resolved the day after), but the package got delivered this morning as confirmed by RM Tracking with full refund about an hour later.

 

While I could be here thinking "good for me", I'm not feeling as satisfied about the whole thing as I should. Firstly, I didn't get what I expected, so I'm a bit disappointed about that. I'm not (now) at all bothered about the argy-bargy with the seller, about sending it back. In taht respect, I got what I wanted.

What I am perhaps a bit miffed at, is should I have tried to negotiate a reduction in purchase price to cover a repair, or contribution to a repair? The boots fitted perfectly. They felt high despite having a small hidden platform. (Honestly, you would not know it was there.) Or am I mourning the loss of another pair of ankle boots I might never wear out?  Probably. 

My only consolation is that while packing the boots for the return journey, I found a cut in the upper I hadn't noticed before, and a blemish that had been professionally covered. While the boots were offered as new, they were plainly used. I might concede I got them at a used price, but I didn't want to buy used.

 

[FastFreddy2]

For the first time in what could be a year (or blinking long time) I sold some footwear on Ebay recently. Not my size, but a pair of ankle boots I bought for Mrs Freddy years and years ago, that never got worn. Sadly for us both, a number of foot injuries have meant she is not able to wear very high heels, at least for a good while longer, though I don't really expect a recovery from the latest 'disaster'. Not that a 5½ inch heel in a UK6 was ever going to be a shopping shoe.  

Another part of my past, lost forever .... <insert crying emoticon here>

[FastFreddy2]

I thought it (hoped it) a temporary glitch, but it looks like Ebay has stopped using shoe size as an option in the Search function. Colour/location/heel height is still there, but size isn't. If they think I'm going to browse 2-9000 pairs in the hope I'll find some in my size, they are mistaken. At one level I saw a header for UK3, UK4 UK5, but not always UK8?? Plus, my historic searches have included 7/7½/8/8½/9 as different brands come up with different sizes despite their numbering system. For example, a Primarni 7 is very similar to a Topshop 9. I get in both.

Where I used to browse/buy with a single search, even if I can find the size headers, I now have to do 3 searches instead of the one - which I'm disinclined to do. Consequence? I don't buy shoes off Ebay any longer. They are saving me a fortune. 

[Puffer]

I see what you mean, Freddy, and it is absurd to limit searches in this way - size must be potentially the most critical filtering factor when buying any footwear.   I do see that a small selection of size options comes up at the top, and clicking on one then leads to the possibility of further size-searching at the left, but the 'system' does not seem to be reliable.   Get your act together, eBay!

Over the years, I have been amazed at how often newspaper/magazine small ads omit the essentials, or miss-spell or garble them (probably due to morons on the phone).   If you want a 'shays lounge' or a 'louvrey door' or a 'dinning table', you will find a large selection (I kid you not!).   With footwear, ads such 'Pair of ladies shoes, good condition, £2.00' is as informative as it could possibly be - I don't think.   But my all-time local favourite (appearing every week for a couple of months) was 'Bag of sand 50p - no time wasters'.   (I didn't check, but maybe the seller's location was miles away.)

[FastFreddy2]

14 hours ago, Puffer said:

Over the years, I have been amazed at how often newspaper/magazine small ads omit the essentials, or miss-spell or garble them (probably due to morons on the phone). 

I wish I had a £1 for every (Ebay) bicycle ad I read, that didn't have any sizing information in the listing. 

There was a time I would point this out, often producing a return message with that information but 9 out of 10 times, that information was STILL omitted from the listing even when advised it useful to other prospective buyers .... I now don't bother.