Comments on: Size 12 Stuart Weitzman’s for Less Than Sixty Bucks?

By: But Why?

But Why? — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 16:14:19 +0000

- Here’s what I’m wondering… Woman who wear a size 12 are most likely very tall woman. That being said, why on earth would an extremely tall woman want to be EVEN taller?
- I wear a size 12 hence the reason I opened this thread, but 4 inches? PLEASE!!! That would make me… *does the math*… SIX FOOT FIVE!!!! That’s freaking insane! Why can’t shoe makers realize that a larger foot equals higher height and make large shoes with smaller heels? I’ll never understand it. Maybe I should be the first realistic person to design masterfully beautiful shoes with low heals for woman with huge feet!!!
- That being said/vented I think the shoes are lovely… for a woman who is 5′1” wearing a size 6.

By: littlem

littlem — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 12:06:13 +0000

TeleriB, I was one of those women.

Stuart W., Sigerson Morrison, Michael Kors, and Jimmy Choo all make flats.

By: Dowdydiva

Dowdydiva — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 20:11:09 +0000

I would love to wear those. I have a pair of Michael Kors ones with a similar platform, and they are quite comfy - considering. Too bad they are too big for my feets! I would love to wear some SW shoes…

By: Francesca

Francesca — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 14:32:22 +0000

Francesca thinks they are more wearable than other 4-inch heels because the platform under the toes makes the heel, in reality, “only” 3 inches in relation to the rest of the foot. The wearability is determined not by how high up one is, but by how much the heel is raised relative to the toe.

Francesca is a big (ha!) fan of the Very Low Heel. But for women who can wear higher ones, these make a dramatic statement!

By: Cat

Cat — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 03:47:39 +0000

Ah, an engineer. That explains it! :) I love heels, but I also have some foot problems and cannot wear them as much as I used to (and can no longer get my foot into anything over a 3″ heel height, and even then it’s dicey and depends upon the shape and cut of the shoe in question). But I digress. I still wear heels as much as I can, but always have a pair of flats in my bag just in case I unexpectedly have to do some serious walking. So, I don’t change shoes multiple times every day — just on the rare occasions when it’s necessary (fire drill, long walk to a restaurant for lunch, etc.).

By: TeleriB

TeleriB — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 01:03:17 +0000

My little engineering soul rebels at the thought of such inefficiency. :) Seriously? I am trying to find things in life that are both useful and beautiful whenever possible. It would annoy me no end to change shoes multiple times a day, for no reason other than a cosmetic one. I’d be all grumbly about it, which isn’t very superfantastic.

By: Cat

Cat — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 20:59:36 +0000

TeleriB, there is another solution: keep an inexpensive pair of comfortable flats or athletic shoes in your car, and another in your office or work bag.

By: TeleriB

TeleriB — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 20:13:11 +0000

After reading about the women who had to go barefoot down the stairwells of the Twin Towers because they couldn’t walk that far in their shoes, I decided I wasn’t going to ever saddle myself with footwear that I can’t walk for at least a mile in. Forget the implied paranoia there for a minute: what if my car breaks down a mile or two from on off-ramp? What if my co-workers and I go out to lunch and have to park a few blocks from the restaurant? What if I have to walk to my car in the parking lot? For me, high heels (and pointy-pointy toes, and mules (I fall out) and so on) just do not fit this bill.

Does mean I have to work a lot harder to find cute shoes, though.

By: Hel

Hel — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 19:30:57 +0000

Nope, you’re not. Heels are cute but I’ll never be able to wear them. I’m not interested in having another ankle reconstructed…

By: caitlin

caitlin — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 18:49:40 +0000

I wonder if I’m the only Big Girl who would be in sheer agony wearing those shoes.