or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Highest heel height in a man's shoe...(before it becomes ridiculous)?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Highest heel height in a man's shoe...(before it becomes ridiculous)?

post #1 of 29
Thread Starter 
Hi. What's the highest heel you would accept in formal to semi-formal shoe?

Just saw one in a store with 3.3" heels that's stellar otherwise, but the heel looks a tad high to my eyes.

Welcome thoughts!
post #2 of 29
More than an inch is too much if you have testicles. I'd rather look down at a short guy in nice shoes than see a guy pretend he's not in heels when he's 5'7 and speaking to me at eye level.
post #3 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenTribe View Post

More than an inch is too much if you have testicles.

+1 lol8[1].gif
post #4 of 29
Unless you're wearing cowboy boots, more than an inch is too much. Cowboy boots you can go up to 1.5 inches before it's too much.
post #5 of 29
Thread Starter 
Seems to be the consensus here. Pity, as the shoes are gorgeous otherwise. Thx..
post #6 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkiula View Post

Seems to be the consensus here. Pity, as the shoes are gorgeous otherwise. Thx..

Photos please. Was this a thrift store you were in? because the last time I saw mens shoes with high heels was in the 1970's...those horrible platform shoes.
post #7 of 29
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Man Of Lint View Post

Photos please. Was this a thrift store you were in? because the last time I saw mens shoes with high heels was in the 1970's...those horrible platform shoes.


Not thrift, a specialist boutique store in leather goods, a part of a 'gallery'. Claimed hand-made in Bologna. The cut and shape were very modern (surely not 70s hip, which was hideous), just the heels are indeed platform-ish. Will see if I can snap one with my mobile next time around.
post #8 of 29
3.3 inches ?? Surely you meant 3.3 cms. Aren't 4 inch heels called fuck me heels in women's shoes ?
post #9 of 29
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by aj_del View Post

3.3 inches ?? Surely you meant 3.3 cms. Aren't 4 inch heels called fuck me heels in women's shoes ?


Yes, absolutely - 3.3 cms! That's about 1.3 inches.
post #10 of 29
i have a pair of vintage lobb, st.james (courtesy of spoo poker) horsebit loafers.

the heel was 5 cm. i had it shortened by 1 cm. fellow member barims wears them at full/original height.

i guess some g&g are around 3 cm. so imo the 3,3 cm is not a big deal.
Edited by fritzl - 9/18/11 at 6:34am
post #11 of 29
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by fritzl View Post

....so imo the 3,3 is not a big deal.


Good to know. At 1.3 inches (as opposed to 3.3) I think it's make-doable. Thanks!
post #12 of 29
The common wisdom is/has been that 1-1/2" is about the maximum height that one can elevate the heel without causing substantial damage to the foot. Over the years I have spoken to podiatrists and other foot specialists who have pretty much confirmed that rule of thumb.

That said, individual feet will respond differently. The human foot is one of the most complex structures in nature...consisting of five arches (according to some authorities) and a a wonderfully intricate framework of muscle, tendons, ligaments and bones. Asking it to function...bear the whole weight of the body, and simultaneously act somewhat like a gyroscope--keeping us upright and balanced...while tilted on one corner is asking for trouble.

And, the better quality the shoe the less the heel height can be raised or lowered without not only distorting the shoe but throwing off gait and weight distribution. In most cases lowering or raising the heel height more than 1/8" (3mm) from the heel height set by the last, will destroy the shoe, the fit, and threaten the foot.

Don't do it! Not if you care for your shoes.
post #13 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Man Of Lint View Post


+1 lol8[1].gif

Agreed.

Any higher then you would be copying the President of France!
post #14 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by fritzl View Post



i guess some g&g are around 3 cm. so imo the 3,3 cm is not a big deal.

Absolutely. 3.3 cm will go completely unnoticed and is barely worthy of a discussion. Most running shoes have rears that high. In fact what bothers me are shoes where I like the design but that only have a 1 inch heel. Worse 3/4 heel - at that height why even bother with a heel, just wear a driving moc instead.
post #15 of 29
One thing to recall in all this is that heel height is relative to the thickness of the outsole. Many of the high heeled shoes of the '70's had a one inch (or more) thick sole under the forepart of the shoe--effectively reducing the apparent heel height by one inch.

The same is true of many brands of running shoe, although to a lesser degree.

Also heel height is not measured from the ground to the top of the "rand"/heel seat running around the back of the heel. Because that measurement includes the thickness of the outsole.

Nor is it measured at the back of the heel. Some lasts incorporate a "degree" in the heel--a slant or incline that leaves the back edge of the heel higher than the "breast" of the heel. Below 1-1/2" that incline is considered orthopedically problematic because to one degree or the other it takes the weight off the os calcis and forces weight into the metarsal arch of the foot.

Heel height is properly measured at the medial breast of the heel...directly under the weight of the body.
Edited by DWFII - 9/18/11 at 9:18am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Highest heel height in a man's shoe...(before it becomes ridiculous)?