WOMAN & HER SHOES

Greymouth Evening Star, 16 January 1925, Page 3

WOMAN & HER SHOES

ANKLE CHARM THE TEST — When low-heeled shoes became common, it was thought by many that a great victory had been won by those who had condemned the highheeled shoe on the score "of health. Now comes the information from London that the French effort to popularise low-heeled shoes has failed. English women, says the message, only pretended to like them. Though they were more comfortable, the wearers were conscious of loss of ankle charm. Some suffered from ankle neuralgia, which disappeared on their resuming high heels. An authority who was consulted (by an Auckland Herald reporter) was

found in a most buoyant mood. “I always believed that the Louis heel would hold its plac£ for smart wear and therefore I haven’t a low-heeled shoe in the place. The flat-heeled shoe suggests the boudoir slipper, and that spoils the effect of a smart frock. The flapper has killed the trade in the sandal type of shoe. A buyer must always be wary of what the flapper demands, She selects the most extreme form of a new fashion, and the people who really make a trade don’t like to follow the flapper.” ‘‘But what about the gospel of the low shoe preached by medical men?” he was asked.

“That did not bring the low heel into vogue,” he promptly returned. “Women’ in the mass do not consider that aspect of the matter. They will suffer torture to be in the fashion. What introduced the lowheel shoe was’ an effort to copy- the old Egyptian sandal. The, type of shoe so modelled had an open front, and the upper was mainly straps. Then the Grecian sandal became the model. The shoe produced had a

front piece and a back and a sole—-practically no instep. A vamp and back counter is how it is technically described. Not one in'a hundred of the wearers had a thought about the heel and its effect upon the balance of the body. All that mattered was the effect of the straps or the cutaways. “When one talks of the Louis heel it is often visualised in its extreme form. In London and Paris heels three and a quarter Inches high known as ‘stilts,’ were worn by the ultra smart, and the result was that the wearers were practically on their toes. In Auckland ’such shoes were not imported. Two and ja-quarter inches was about the limit -of the Louis heel sold here, but it is not necessary to have that height to give ankle ’ charm. It is, my opinion that ankles that have been accustomed to high heels are inclined to become beefy when a sudden change is made to low heels, and for that reason I have always ( kept a good stock of shoes with Loui(! heels, and their sale has been maintained, certainly in high-class trade, notwithstanding the vogue of the sandal shoe. For walking shoes there has remained a good demand for heels known as semiCuban. That is a solid heel without the narrow neck of the Louis, but not low enough to give the flat effect.

“You can’t get away from the argument of ankle charm. Any sort of freak shoe would find wearers, but the winner in the long run is the shoe that shows the ankle to advantage. I.t was not always so. In the days of the crinoline, when ankles were not seen, elastic-sided boots were worn, and very comfortable they were no doubt. But now that skirts are shorter and less billowy, one could not persuade the most ardent footwear reformer to wear elasticsided boots. Whether they admit it or not, there is not a woman who does not like to display a pair of pretty ankles. If fate has been unkind in providing a pair of stout ones, it is a matter of deep distress. Because of the instinct to make the most of beauty, you will find, I think, that a neat simplicity nicely raised at the heel will be the key-note of shoe fashion. FEET GROWING BIGGER.

“Women may not like it said, but it is unquestionably true that their feet are growing larger.” This statement was made to a “Dominion” reporter by a Wellington boot salesman who has been forty years in the trade at Home and in New Zealand. The question arose through an inquiry for a pair of size 2 rubber shoes, and the difficulty the salesman had in readily supplying them. f! “You may not know it,.” he said, “but we have very few inquiries nowadays for size 2’s, though I can remember when 13’s, I’s, and 2’s were more in demand that ariy other sizes in ladies’ footwear. I have been in the boot sale tyade now for over forty years, and have seen a good many changes. 1 remember when I was a very young man at Home the siizes most in demand for women’s boots —they were mostly high-legged boots worn then —were 13’s, l’s and 2’s. It all comes back to me, because at the time I mention there was a great demand for a very well-made boot which used to come to us from Austria, and I can remember, after I had been in l the trade some years, that the traveller who used to visit us complained that the sizes his firm used to specialise in were no longer in demand.i By that time the popular sizes had increased to 2’s, 3’s, and 4’s.

“What do they want now?” asked the reporter.

“Well, I should say that 60 per cent, of the ladies now take s’s or 6’s. I don’t think we sell 10 per cent, of size 2’s to adult ladies, whereas forty years ago this size, with .l’s, were the ones'mostly in demand.”’ “To what do you attribute this change?” “Freedom,' The young ladies of the mid-Victorian age were not allowed to romp around at all, and played very few games, and, if they did, it was not in the whole-hearted spirit with which girls enter into all manner of sport to-day. It has all made for the growth of the feet—hockey, golf, tennis; you cannot play these games with crushed up toes and shoes that pinch. There must be foot freedom and comfort, whereas the mid-Victori-an young lady was not averse to suffering a little that her feet might appear diminutive. Many women now take size 7’s, and think nothing of it. If this change can be brought about in less than half a century, what will the size of women’s feet be in 1945?”