Ebay And Shopping.

[FastFreddy2 282]

I have 8 pairs of New Look shoe, All are size 9uk 42/43. None are wide but I thought I had pair that were wide fitting but I think I wrong on that account . 5 pairs fit me well and I can wear them all day. Just 2 pairs that are a little tight.  That just leaves this pair being to big. I don't think I,m a New look size 8 wide but will try some on the next time I go shoe shopping. Thinking of going this week end.

. 

 

Given what you have in your collection already, I'd be inclined to agree. 

 

I had optimistically thought you might be an 8 wide in the hope you'd be able to access a greater range of shoes. Just about all sellers do a size 8, and many are now doing a "wide" fitting too. But if 7 out of 8 of the size 9 shoes fit, I'd say you had the right size ...

 

If you are going shopping and haven't tried already, I would still suggest a trial with a Primark 8. Their shoes are not expensive, and despite the low price, they seem to be quite well made. Heel heights can be surprisingly high sometimes and in-store returns are easy/quick too. No downside other than finding an 8 in a style you like.

 

 

P.S.

 

While doing something I shouldn't be .... (checking shoe prices) I was reminded that Debenhams do shoes in size 9. This is significant because the own a number of brand names that had gone to the wall. like Faith. They currently have one of their many sales going on, and some of the shoes in the sale are surprisingly inexpensive.

 

Not a Debenhams brand but .... very similar to the ALDO ones you returned. >> Here <<

 

Apparently, available in a UK9 at £17.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 23, 2015 by FastFreddy2

[Heels 27]

I like the ones shown in the link. Will order them if I can collect them. Have bought my best  pair of high heels from Debenhams.

[FastFreddy2 282]

I like the ones shown in the link. Will order them if I can collect them. Have bought my best  pair of high heels from Debenhams.

 

I hope you ordered them promptly. Now 'sold out' on-line of the 9's, though the other sizes are now at £12.

[Heels 27]

I didn't order them. I hoping to click and collect them but that opition wasn't available on this item.  I knew I wasn't going to be in and I didn't want my neigbours signing for them.

[FastFreddy2 282]

Yeah, their 'click and collect' service seems odd. I put some shoes in "my basket" and an offer came up to say I could get a £5 voucher if I topped up my click and collect order up to £30..... So I trawled the site for a couple more items to order, which I then added to "my basket". Yay, breached the £30 barrier, I thought spending enough to effectively get some discount? Nope. The other two items were not available via collect at store so they'd have to be delivered.  Nuts!

 

Only upside is that I got free delivery on the order as I'd spent over £30.  

 

I would prefer store collection. Two of the last three deliveries had the contents checked out before I got them when respective households took them in for me. Sealed bags don't get checked, but larger cardboard boxes have been. I can't know who is looking inside, but it's not a very nice thing to do.    

 

Not sure how the driver even got a signature on one package (that should have been delivered to a family member who is seldom out) as the people who took the package in, can't speak English....... 

Edited June 26, 2015 by FastFreddy2

[Heels 27]

I didn't think that some one would look into the box. I was more thinking  that if my neighbours saw a Dorothy Perkins box, they then might start asking questions.

 

Got my refund for the Aldo shoes. I,m not looking to good on  Ebay at the moment  The last 4 buys I,ve had to try to get refunds on. Left Negs for two sellers as refused refunds. One for those black heels with the short heels The other kept on refusing to take an item back and in the end had to ring Ebay to sort it out.  One item was damaged but still useable and had the items been packaged better this would never of happened but got a full refund of £5 that I wasn't expecting. I didn't ask for one. I,n not going to leave any feedback on this or the Aldo shoes either.

 

Now all I got to do is decide what to do with those New look heels. They just seem to be bigger then a size 9 should be. I have notice that most of my other New look heels are 42/9 these are 43/9.

Edited June 27, 2015 by Heels

[FastFreddy2 282]

I'll be able to confirm in a couple of days, but I believe anything from Debenhams comes in a sealed black and gold Debenhams bag. The two boxes that were opened (actually three out of 4 boxes delivered I now remember) were from House of Fraser and clearly marked with their branding.

 

One of those packages went to a next door neighbour. The box wasn't damaged, but there was tape closing the box that was marked "security sealed" with the HoF markings, indicating the box had been effectively closed off by the retailer. When I got the box from my neighbour, the top had been pressed open enough so the dispatch note could be pulled out and read. The two items listed were women's size 8 shoes .....

 

The fourth item I only just remembered, was some shrink-wrap I had sent to a commercial address, and clearly marked for an employee there. Despite this, the box had been tampered with enough so there was an opportunity for smaller items to be removed if someone chose to.

 

 

Nothing taken nor damaged, but it is slightly annoying that some people out there think my business, is their business.....

[Heels 27]

I  bought a pair of Barratts ankle books on line about 3 years ago and they did come in a Barratts box. Got asked by my mum what i was doing buying women's shoes and I had to lie to her.

 

I did say I would go shoe shpping this weekend. I didn't go as i felt  it would be very busy in town and I have to be comfortable when trying on heels. I go during the week..

 

Got 3 pairs up on Ebay on Buy it Now See how that works out.

[FastFreddy2 282]

I vividly remember buying a pair of shoes from a local Barratts .... I'm pretty sure the lady there knew they were for me, but I eluded to them being for someone else .... Still not sure why I bothered, other than I quite fancied her and she was roughly my age.... (Vanity then?)

 

Funny about 'shopping' times. I was back in Debenhams in Westfield last night. Nothing really there for me, but for devilment I decided to try on some courts. Place wasn't that busy, but got busy ..... I was actually trying on the courts when it became obvious a young-ish black girl (mentioned only because she likely won't have had much exposure to men wearing girls shoes) looked at me trying on the shoes, twice, as she walked past. I looked back, with a "what?" look on my face like me trying on ladies courts was the most natural thing in the world. As I later told Mrs Freddy (when discussing whether to travel further into London on one of the busiest nights of the year there) I could be dead in a week/month. No time for putting stuff off. "Do and be damned" someone once said?

 

Anyway, the West End was very very very busy. Parts were literally gridlocked. But we went. Getting out was pretty bad too. Life is too short ....

[FastFreddy2 282]

The shoes arrived from Debenhams. Oddly, in a Debenhams box, rather than a box inside a bag. And once again, despite security tape ensuring the box was sealed, the box had been damaged or tampered with.

 

I'm starting to think the delivery lady is the nosey one ..... I'm going to order up some more stuff soon. If it arrives damaged, I'm going to photograph it and then refuse delivery. That'll spook someone......

[Heels 27]

Never had a problem with parcels being tampered with but taking photos and refusing delivery would be a good start if this problem keeps happening.

 

I bought my first pair og heels in 2006/7 on Ebay for a total £25. A pair of red cross-strap courts from Pleaser. Now if I would I wanted to buy a pair of Pleaser heels of Ebay would cost me £46 at the least.

 

 Back then finding a pair of size uk9 in stores was hard but not impossible.  Today I could buy a pair of New look heels for around £25 or less if I wait for the sales. I could do the same on Ebay for around £20. So it seems  buying Pleaser heels on Ebay seems silly. Ebay sellers sort of priced themselves out  from me buying from them.

Edited July 4, 2015 by Heels

[FastFreddy2 282]

Do you mean "Pleaser" shoes?

[Heels 27]

Yes I meant "Pleaser"

[FastFreddy2 282]

There was a company selling Pleaser shoes on the auction site at ridiculously low prices. I know because I bought about 4 pairs off them. All but 1 pair have been re-sold (a pair Mrs Freddy 'owns' but has only ever worn once - to my recollection). They were typically £20-£29 for shoes and boots respectively. Company might have been called SkyHigh or something similar. These were even cheaper than American imports. At the time Pleaser boots advertised with a 5 inch heel, didn't have a 5 inch heel, but a little over 4½ inches. Same with the 6 inch heels, something a little over 5½ inches. The pair retained by Mrs Freddy are some patent ankle boots with 5½ inch heels. Very attractive, but not really going out shoes, which is why I sold my pair on.

 

 

The seller was very busy. There was at least two versions of the company, one starting after the other folded. I suspect they didn't pay VAT or taxes on any profits, disappearing when it came time to 'settle up'. 

 

I've experienced the same "unfair" competition myself, where someone sold the same product as my (then) company. They didn't pay any import duty/VAT, nor company tax on profits. Consequently they could sell the product for the same money it cost me to get them in the building. Fortunately for me, I had significantly better cash-flow so I was never out of stock, where he was nearly always 'waiting for new stock'. 

 

 

Pleaser now do a range of shoes I think are a lot more stylish, though I suspect harder to walk in. The older style (420's) had the heel tip closer to the toe than the current styles. The further away from the toe the heel tip is, the harder I find it to land my heel and then rotate my ankle. With the heel tip landing position slightly forward of the heel, the landing/rotation is noticeably easier. Taken to it's ultimate position, I have found "heel-less" shoes to be very easy to walk in

 

The 420 vs the new 20:

 

 

 

I hope to own a version of the 20's at some stage, but given the position of the heel, I know I won't be able to walk in them.   

Edited July 4, 2015 by FastFreddy2

[miltboot 2]

There was a company selling Pleaser shoes on the auction site at ridiculously low prices. I know because I bought about 4 pairs off them. All but 1 pair have been re-sold (a pair Mrs Freddy 'owns' but has only ever worn once - to my recollection). They were typically £20-£29 for shoes and boots respectively. Company might have been called SkyHigh or something similar. These were even cheaper than American imports. At the time Pleaser boots advertised with a 5 inch heel, didn't have a 5 inch heel, but a little over 4½ inches. Same with the 6 inch heels, something a little over 5½ inches. The pair retained by Mrs Freddy are some patent ankle boots with 5½ inch heels. Very attractive, but not really going out shoes, which is why I sold my pair on.

The seller was very busy. There was at least two versions of the company, one starting after the other folded. I suspect they didn't pay VAT or taxes on any profits, disappearing when it came time to 'settle up'.

I've experienced the same "unfair" competition myself, where someone sold the same product as my (then) company. They didn't pay any import duty/VAT, nor company tax on profits. Consequently they could sell the product for the same money it cost me to get them in the building. Fortunately for me, I had significantly better cash-flow so I was never out of stock, where he was nearly always 'waiting for new stock'.

Pleaser now do a range of shoes I think are a lot more stylish, though I suspect harder to walk in. The older style (420's) had the heel tip closer to the toe than the current styles. The further away from the toe the heel tip is, the harder I find it to land my heel and then rotate my ankle. With the heel tip landing position slightly forward of the heel, the landing/rotation is noticeably easier. Taken to it's ultimate position, I have found "heel-less" shoes to be very easy to walk in

The 420 vs the new 20:

Pleaser heels - Old vs New.jpg

I hope to own a version of the 20's at some stage, but given the position of the heel, I know I won't be able to walk in them.

I find your research on the Pleaser brand interesting. I own many pairs of older Pleaser boots and I'm starting to wonder if the newer ones may be different. May just buy a new pair to find out.

[FastFreddy2 282]

I find your research on the Pleaser brand interesting. I own many pairs of older Pleaser boots and I'm starting to wonder if the newer ones may be different. May just buy a new pair to find out.

 

Any excuse.   

 

 

I'm flattered you refer to it as research.   In some ways it might be just that. Let me explain .....

 

 

I can't be sure why "we" wear high heels, but I know I enjoy wearing them, a lot.

 

The consequence of that is I have quite a few. Too many actually, but them I've always been something of a collector - when finances have allowed.   So I have a range of heels, different heights, different styles ....

 

30 years ago I could wear a 5½ inch heeled shoe all evening, with no complaint from my feet. The court shoes were made by what we know as The Little Shoe Box. I'm pretty certain the lasts, and the construction of the shoe always had men in line to be the wearer. I got the shoes I could wear all evening from a shop called Covergirl in Islington London. They were a "theatrical" shop primarily, for showgirls officially, and TV's I found out after a few visits. My age, and an increase in shoe size (my body weight is up 30% from back then) means I have larger feet, and those very wearable shoes were sold last year.

 

I believe the 6" Pleaser 420's were modelled on the "5 inch" version of the LSB courts. Both had/have 5½" heels. I can walk (ish) in the 420's though not as elegantly as I used to 30 years ago. Conclusion: I have/can walk in a heel up to 5½ inches without looking like someone wearing heels for the first time...... As long as I don't try to run.   

 

 

Historically, I'd struggled to walk in some shoes I'd bought from Schuh, with a 5 inch heel. A similar design from ALDO had always been really easy to walk in. As far as I could tell, the big difference was the angle of the rise to the heel. Two shoes for the same length foot, but one with a gentle slope, verses one with a steep or curvy slope? Possibly the 'gentle slope' shoe is longer, meaning the foot is not so arched? This arching making the bones in the foot feel like they are in a shoe with 6" heels, not 5? Anyway, when I owned them, this was the thinking. Even now, many of my high heeled shoes are only fractions of an inch under 5 inches, and the ones in my avatar ARE 5 inches high. I have walked miles in them, spent hours in them. The 5" Schuh courts were always an enigma. Bit disappointing as they were lovely shoes.

 

Here is a comparison, Schuh verses ALDO.

 

Height difference is almost indiscernible. 

 

Note the stronger (deeper) curve on the arch of the Schuh pair.

 

But was there more to it than the arch profile? 

 

 

Early last year, I got to buy some heel-less shoes from Primarni. While the heel is obviously high thanks to a platform, the rise is deceptively high too. They are really quite pleasant to wear .... If only I could keep them on my feet ...   

 

 

The really surprising thing though, is despite the heel height and rise, they are easy to walk in. 

 

I started to wonder if the position of a heel tip (first point of contact) in relation to the back of the heel of my foot while I strode forward, might affect how easy or difficult a heel might be to walk in? To help decide, I started to take note of the respective positions of heel tips/most rearward point of the heels on my shoes. While hard to quantify, it does seem to make a difference.

 

More pictures; I've tried to identify a median on the rise, and show the distance of the heel tip from the back of the shoe.

 

 

 

 

Believe me, the ALDO shoes were so easy to walk in, even the female shop assistant who watched me walk up and down the store in them, couldn't understand why I didn't buy them. (Went back in the sales ~ another story already told.) The difference was really significant.

 

Both pairs shown, now long gone, but I have since bought some of these:

 

Kurt Geiger "Cilla".     

 

The heels are a tad over 5 inches, maybe 5¼ inches. Impossible for me to walk in ..... 

 

But notice the position of the heel tip in relation the the back of the heel. Since the new(er) Pleaser 20's are virtual copy of this shoe, I can be fairly confident I won't be able to walk in the 20's either.     

 

These have quite a gentle rise, with a shallow arch, so why so hard to walk in? Surely it must be the position of the heel tip when I stride forward.... In my mind's eye, I can see how the more vertical heel (KG Cilla and Pleaser 20's) might need more ankle rotation to get my toes landed, but how to demonstrate this ....

 

 

Thoughts anyone?

Edited July 5, 2015 by FastFreddy2

[Heels 27]

Not sure how to explain this.  The idea is when walking in high heels you walk from heel to toe but on these new models the heel is to far back which make your foot go through a wider angle which make them harder to walk in.  There is many other things that can make a high heel hard to walk in. I don't get to do much walking in heels.

 

The seller was Sky High Heels. I bought 3 pairs from him.  Yes he was very busy, makes me wonder if he was selling them to cheap as it sometimes took him ages to post. I thought he got kicked off Ebay as he had poor feedback.

Edited July 5, 2015 by Heels

[Puffer 258]

Freddy, your post #116 read with great interest.   Some comments:

 

1.   You imply (I think) that LSB made Cover Girl shoes.   I'm sure that this is correct.   CG used to advertise 6" heels (etc) quite regularly in the newspapers and I often wondered who actually bought them.   I had a pair of black leather sandals made by (or for) CG in 1972 to my measurements (size 11UK) with a 5" heel (no platform).   Although well made, and with a properly positioned stiletto heel, I have never found them easy to walk in and they are almost as new and I would be glad to sell them if anyone is interested (will post pic on request).   I think part of the problem is the 'curviness' of the arch, much as you suggest.

 

2.   It is very obvious to me from your helpful comparison pics that, quite apart from wearability,the Aldo shoe is much better styled and proportioned imho.   The slender stiletto is in the right place, the toe box looks better (more pointed?) and the arch is flatter.   That is a true classic stiletto!   Interestingly, it looks to have a slightly lower heel - because there is less 'daylight' forward of the heel - although effectively the same (rear) height as the Schuh model.   Is this why heels are often now found set back - to appear higher?   (I despair of modern women - they have to have a set-back heel and/or a platform, usually with an effective rise of not more than 4.5", instead of mastering a true 5" Aldo-style heel - if they can find one.)

 

3.   Again aside from wearability (and I'm not surprised that you find them difficult), the heel on the KG Cilla looks awful imho.   It is not only too far back but has that strange curve to the rear - almost as if it is bending (which it may well do when worn).   Why reinvent the (w)heel?

 

4.   I quite often see references to 'Super Arch' heels from the US, typically with heels of around 6".   These seem to be claimed as easier to wear, despite the curvy arch.   Is that so; your findings would suggest otherwise?

[FastFreddy2 282]

Freddy, your post #116 read with great interest.   Some comments:

 

1.   You imply (I think) that LSB made Cover Girl shoes.   I'm sure that this is correct.   CG used to advertise 6" heels (etc) quite regularly in the newspapers and I often wondered who actually bought them.   I had a pair of black leather sandals made by (or for) CG in 1972 to my measurements (size 11UK) with a 5" heel (no platform).   Although well made, and with a properly positioned stiletto heel, I have never found them easy to walk in and they are almost as new and I would be glad to sell them if anyone is interested (will post pic on request).   I think part of the problem is the 'curviness' of the arch, much as you suggest.

 

From a young age I had seen adverts for the Covergirl shoes in Exchange and Mart. If I remember, they were advertised with 6" heels, and sold for £25. I got my first pair around '83/'84. They were bought for me, and I LOVED them. My second and third pairs of 'walking' heels, were the 5" inch version. I visited the shop to buy both these pairs on separate occasions (and other things that were useful to my subsequently public adventures), so knew first hand where the shop was in relation to LSB, although I'm pretty sure LSB wasn't big on retail sales at the time. (A story for another day.) The Covergirl shop was literally around the corner from LSB, and this was a time when the UK had a shoe manufacturing base. I can't imagine one didn't supply the other.

 

While a size 11 is too large for myself, those shoes would undoubtedly sell well on an auction site. If you don't use the auction site, or the shoes wouldn't fit in with your usual items listed, I'm happy to help. (Meaning I could list them for you, if you like?)  

 

2.   It is very obvious to me from your helpful comparison pics that, quite apart from wearability,the Aldo shoe is much better styled and proportioned imho.   The slender stiletto is in the right place, the toe box looks better (more pointed?) and the arch is flatter.   That is a true classic stiletto!   Interestingly, it looks to have a slightly lower heel - because there is less 'daylight' forward of the heel - although effectively the same (rear) height as the Schuh model.   Is this why heels are often now found set back - to appear higher?   (I despair of modern women - they have to have a set-back heel and/or a platform, usually with an effective rise of not more than 4.5", instead of mastering a true 5" Aldo-style heel - if they can find one.)

 

When wearing a shoe, especially a heeled court, my heel is always touching the back of the shoe. I once read on HHp the way a foot stays in a heeled court, is that it's wedged in. That would be the case with my feet. Heels used to be quite curved inward toward the Achilles years ago, to help keep the foot in the shoe. Not any longer. I suppose women got fed up with blisters/cuts to their heels? Well for me, at least the older shape keep the foot in the shoe....

 

The difference in height of the heels on the shoes was no more than 3mm. I spent a couple of hours last night trying to find the full-size version of the original photographs taken, with no success. I've used a couple of computers since July 2012 but the Freddy Filing System (archive) has let me down .... Given the position of my heel in relation to the heel height of the shoes heel, I would suggest the shape of the heel doesn't affect the "felt" height of the heel until walking takes place.

 

3.   Again aside from wearability (and I'm not surprised that you find them difficult), the heel on the KG Cilla looks awful imho.   It is not only too far back but has that strange curve to the rear - almost as if it is bending (which it may well do when worn).   Why reinvent the (w)heel?

 

Firstly, the heel on the Cilla, looks stunning.      

 

I think you have answered your own point, in para 2. Although I don't favour them, we've had a good six or seven years of platforms. It seems to me, the whole purpose of these is provide a false impression of a higher heel? I've many times seen shoes advertised with a 6 inch heel, but with a 2 inch platform providing only a 4 inch rise - and a more difficult/dangerous shoe to walk in? A set back style would show off that 6 inch heel best? Move forward to slightly more topical (2014/2015) shoe styles, with lower platforms, or better (for us) no platforms, cutting down your stock of 6 inch heels has got to be cheaper than completely replacing them with a more traditional heel style stock? (Pleaser 420's heels style for example.) 

 

4.   I quite often see references to 'Super Arch' heels from the US, typically with heels of around 6".   These seem to be claimed as easier to wear, despite the curvy arch.   Is that so; your findings would suggest otherwise?

 

They might be right. 'On paper' a more curved arch would usually provide a longer landing for a persons heel to sit on, rather than all the body weight resting on the ball of the foot likely with a gentle linear slope. With only one style to compare (now sold on anyway) my findings aren't reliable really. And given the subject under debate, it may well be the set back heel was the real problem after all?

 

 

 

I've been trying to think of a way to demonstrate/illustrate the difference in walking between a traditional heel, and a set back heel, and haven't come up with a solution.

 

Ahhh! Eureka! 

 

 

It's not the angle, (as "Heels" suggests), because the 'angle of approach' is determined by the wearer. How far you (any of us) step forward when we walk is determined by our natural gait. True a heel will change that, but on like-for-like shoe heights, our step length will be all but uniform. (I'm sure).

 

So lets agree the (leg+ankle+foot) approach angle is the same, for any given shoe height.

 

Both styles of heels shoes land on the heel, followed by the foot. What is the difference? The length of the radius! (Length of the shoe.) Which in turn gives us the length of the arc travelled by the toe to sit on the floor. The greater the arc, the more work (harder) it is for the ankle to cope. [For example, the landing angle on a size 5 shoe might be 30 degrees. Some person same shoe style but a size 10, when the show lands at 30 degrees still, the toe of the size 10 has to travel further because the arc is longer.]

 

 

Alternatively, (turning this concept on its head a bit), the shoe approach angle - governed by our physical capabilities, will have the shoe angle of descent being quite similar if not same. BUT the shoe with a set back heel will touch the floor first because the longer shoe must land first before the shorter shoe. (The inclined heel allowing the heel to come down at an ever-so-slightly less acute angle. this might be 50 degrees with a traditional heel, but 45 degrees with a set back heel). The "felt" difference in the two styles could be as much as ⅜ of an inch with this 5 inch model. What I'm suggesting is the set-back heel, not only looks higher, but in striding forward it feels higher too?

 

Add to that "felt" additional height (as it can only be 'felt' since both heel types are actually the same height), the increase in the arc length required to land the toe on the shoe with the set back heel, and the difficulty in walking in the newer style heel is compounded. 

 

 

So conclusion to the "theory" ....

 

A set-back heel will land earlier than a traditional heel. (Looked at in profile the heel will seem a tad lower on landing.)

 

A set-back heel demands a longer arc to land the toe of the shoe.

 

 

I'll try to demonstrate this in some photo's over the weekend.   

 

 

 

 

Having re-read the text, I'm now having third thoughts.  Why?

 

In the text above, I added (when re-reading), the example of the size 5 vs size 10 shoe. It's the part that is shown in grey rather than black. I used it, intending to indicate the length of the shoe matters. But does it matter? To an ankle - the rotating bit that has to accommodate the heel-to-toe landing operation - it understands only angles, not length. I suppose that overall there must be some difference (affect) somewhere, because that longer arc needs time to happen. 

 

 

I'm tired. It's 2 a.m.

 

I'll have to 'over think' this again, perhaps over the weekend when I've done some photo's.

 

 

As an aide-memoire to myself .....

 

Ankle is a hinge. (Ball of foot is a hinge.)

 

High heels are levers or hinges? Set back heel is worse lever?

 

Set back heel increases leg length directly, but traditional heel removes some of that disadvantage 

 

Does the suggested 5 degree change/advantage of a traditional heel, affect/change the toe landing arc significantly enough to greatly improve the shoe "walkability"? 

 

Inclined heel would have been developed during the time when a stiletto heel was at its most popular. Surely the makers knew a thing or two about the benefits to the owner. Who would want to buy a shoe that was difficult to walk in? Back in the day, the wearer might be wearing this style of shoe all day.....

Edited July 10, 2015 by FastFreddy2

[Heels 27]

You could be over thinking this but then again I've been trying to work out what heels are going to be more comfortable for me to wear for around 4 hours just by looking online. Not had much luck in this at the moment.

 

Ebay is a strange place to sell on. You never know what willl sell or not. Managed to sell one pair of wedge sandals for £10. I will make about £6 from that sell.  Had one watcher and about 15 people view the item.

 

Got two other pairs up for sell both have had over 15 watchers and over 100 views, but no sell. Have one up for £14 plus £4 postage. This pair are new but have a little mark at the very front.  Seen another pair, same as this sell for £33 (new but no marks) Ebay is a strange place.

 

Edit. Just sold that pair I was just talking about. I think I only paid £8 for them in the first place when the sales were on at christmas. I don't count petrol or parking as for me that a day out shoe shopping.

 

Going to buy couple of pairs from New look online and they now got their summer sale on.

Edited July 18, 2015 by Heels

[Heels 27]

Bought 3 pairs from New look last week, to be collected at store. I have a New look store about 4 miles away from me. It is only a small one and does not hold a large amount of shoes.  Pick the shoes up this morning just after the shop opened.  No problem with the sales girl. All she ask for was I.D. Shoes were in a New Look bag and a heel was sticking out.  Did think about having them posted to me so I,m glad I went and collected them.  It does seem to be the way to go now. That is to stop buying on Ebay and either go and buy on New look web site or go in store.

 

I meant to be going away this weekend camping.  I,m pleased with one pair, One pair the straps are to short but seem comfortable.and I,m not sure about the last pair. Need to wear them longer. Post photos at a later date.

Edited July 24, 2015 by Heels

[FastFreddy2 282]

I got a "100 free listings" offer this weekend, that I need to use. Not that it saves a lot of money, but I guess it adds up over time.

 

So busy at home at the moment though .... 

 

 

 

New Look used to be my favourite shop for shoes. I don't see so many styles I want to these days. I suppose it's because I already have so many similar styles to those they sell?   Better than buying off an auction site though, as they've a good returns policy. I've taken other bits back in the past too, and usually get a 'no questions' refund. 

 

 

 

Sure I haven't mentioned it already, so .....

 

Was in a Blue Inc store a couple of weeks ago. Bought some heels having tried one on (discreetly) in store. Was a 'Truffle' branded PU court. Nice shoe.

 

I went to the sales counter to buy, and I suppose I may have been spotted trying a shoe on (or not) but I'd been quite brazen about the returns policy (store credit - no refund). So the chap I'd spoken to, who had put the shoes behind the counter was still there, as were the two girls who had been serving another customer as I arrived - money in hand. The 'senior' girl says to me; "These a nice present for someone?" which I took to be a direct enquiry as to; were they for me? Tempted as I was to say "Yes, for me." I settled for; "They're going straight onto Ebay" which seemed to take the wind out of her sails a little.... While I love to perform to an audience, I thought it a bit weird practically every member of staff was watching me buy ....

 

I also tried a high heel sandal in a 'barely there' style with ankle strap. Fitted well, but where to wear? So that pair stayed in the shop.

 

 

As it turns out, I swapped over the Truffle courts for a pair of shoes with another high heel wearing man.  They were nice shoes though. Came up a little tight for a proper UK8 but I try to wear a 7 when I can, as they tend to stay on where an 8 won't, (in a court style). In fact I recently got a pair of faux suede courts from Primarni, with a size 7 fitting better (more comfortable) than an 8. Strange but true. The upper on the 8's actually cut into the top of my left (smaller) foot. At the moment, I haven't worked out if I'll keep the Primarni shoes. I don't really have a lot of use for courts - though these look nice with shiny leggings or 'faux' leather trousers. Which I seem to buy and also don't wear .....   

[Heels 27]

First pair. I like the style but just can not do the straps up which is a shame as  these heels did seem very comfortable around the toe box. I only paid £10 so I could just sell them on Ebay.

                                                                                       

 

Second pair seem to pinch on my right foot, worse when I walk around.  I noticed the  inner lining has not been glued down properly and have left air bubbles in the lining, Only paid £8. Not sure to either keep them or return to New look.

                                                                                      

 

Last pair.  Paid full price for this pair, which was only £19. Like the style, fit well and will keep this pair.

                                                                                      

Edited July 27, 2015 by Heels

[Heels 27]

Returned the second pair back to New look.  I had only 14 days to return sale items.  I thought this was from the time I picked the heels up, it's not, it's from the time you pay for them.  In this case I was lucky as the heels were faulty so the sale girl took them back without to much complaint.  I was out of time otherwise

 

I,ve been trying to find a way stretch my heels out. Length is fine it's the width I,m trying to make wider. First shoe stretcher I bought didn't seem to do the job. Wasn't sure if I needed to buy a woman's or a man's shoe stetcher. I bought a man's shoe stetcher thinking that it would make the shoes fit better since the stretcher was made for the shape of a man's foot.  The problem was both the women's and men's stretchers were made for flat heels. I just could not find any stretchers to fit high heels on Ebay or anywhere else online to start with.

 

I then bought a mini strecther, but those only stretched the shoes in a small area. Seemed to stretch the top part of the vamp making it flat, as if taking up the slack before it could do the job.

 

Last night I managed to find a pair of high heel strechers online. I paid for them online but I found out afterwards that their warehouse is only 3 miles from where I live.  I just gone and picked  them up !  Trying the strecher out at the moment. Seems to fit well and stetching the shoe in all the right places.

Edited August 1, 2015 by Heels

[FastFreddy2 282]

 

 

Last night I managed to find a pair of high heel strechers online. I paid for them online but I found out afterwards that their warehouse is only 3 miles from where I live.  I just gone and picked  them up !  Trying the strecher out at the moment. Seems to fit well and stetching the shoe in all the right places.

 

Don't stretchers only work on leather shoes? 

 

Could you add a link to the on-line source of the HH stretchers, just in case others might like to buy some too? 

 

 

 

I thought New Look sale items couldn't go back at all? Or maybe that's clearance?