Vintage Heel Heights

[jitterbugdoll]

If they were less expensive I'd get them in a heartbeat!

The original price is laughable, but the sale price isn't bad (it's not great, but if they were actual vintage and listed on eBay, I can imagine they would generate some interest )

Check these out (the prices are absurd, but the shoes are darling):

I was actually eyeing a very similar 1940s pair to these plaid ones on eBay awhile back--http://www.anthropologie.com/jump.jsp?itemID=12394&itemType=PRODUCT&iSubCat=815&iMainCat=812

http://www.anthropologie.com/jump.jsp?itemID=10373&itemType=PRODUCT&iSubCat=815&iMainCat=812

http://www.anthropologie.com/jump.jsp?itemID=10830&itemType=PRODUCT&crosssell=1

 

[Shimmy Sally]

Oh yes, I love the patterned shoes, too. I have a flowered 30s pair that belonged to my Grandmother and a late 50s pair I picked up for a few cents at a thrift store also.

 

[Shimmy Sally]

Oooh, I want these: http://www.listitcafe.com/item.asp?id=2252&pic=1

 

[LizzieMaine]

As one of the unfortunate gals condemned to go thru life with big flat feet, I have to depend for the most part on vintage-looking modern shoes rather than actual vintage -- and one of the things that bugs me is that, all too often, the modern shoes have heels that are just too high. Nowadays, 3 inches is considered a "mid heel" by a lot of manufacturers, and 4 inches is more and more the default height. Too often a really vintage-looking style of shoe is rendered unwearable -- for me, anyway -- by these skyscraper heels.

Looking thru my shelf full of old catalogs, I don't see heels this high -- the average pair of dressy pumps tends to show heels in the 2 or 2 1/2 inch range, and everyday shoes are often under 2 inches. I don't think I've ever seen a style of vintage shoes shown in a catalog with a 4 inch heel.

So my question to those with big collections of genuine vintage footwear -- *were* there common shoes with heels that high? Or is this 4-inch-heel bit just another exaggerated modern affectation?

 

[VintageJess]

Great question Lizzie! I am anxious to see the responses. Although I am fairly short and could use the extra lift, I just don't find it comfortable or practical to teeter around in those really high heels. And I agree with you that it is pretty difficult to find things with a lower heel.

Jessica

 

[jitterbugdoll]

Most of my vintage shoes have a heel height of around three inches. My collection ranges from the late 30s to the early 50s, with most of the shoes dating to the early-mid 40s. I personally prefer a taller, more slender heel than the traditional Cuban heel (though I like the look of it), as this style makes my legs look extra long and shapely So, my collection is made up of pumps and platforms, along with wedges for more casual daywear and dancing. Of course, they styled shoes for every taste, so I've come across plenty of shorter-heeled versions as well.

My 1940s platforms (I have about 15 pairs) are all about four inches in height. I have seen eBay auctions for custom shoes that were even higher though (five inches), with a thicker platform sole.

I know I have posted this here before, but I will post it again. This site is excellent for dating shoes, and it shows the range of heel heights:
http://www.return2style.de/amishoef.htm

You can see that several of the later 1930s day shoes are rather high:

The same goes for the 1940s, especially during wartime and right after:

Here's Betty trying on a fairly tall pair of slingbakcs:

And here is an AP photo of mine that dates to 1941:

Even wedges during the war became quite outlandish:

http://us.a2.yahoofs.com/users/43c2a7a8zc891240/b417/__sr_/0cbd.jpg?ph4jQtEBDovme048
http://us.a2.yahoofs.com/users/43c2a7a8zc891240/b417/__sr_/12d0.jpg?ph4jQtEBtzht4ydD

This is another page that shoes a wide variety of 1920s-40s shoes:
http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/hallr...p://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/hallreis/my_photos

The one thing that bothers me about buying modern shoes is that the manufacturer almost never gets the heel shape right. You'll see spike heels on so-called 40s platforms, and heels that are way too chunky to look right. Why designers don't bother to replicate the correct heel shape is beyond me; nothing is as flattering as the shape of an elegant 1930s-40s heel!

 

[Paul]

Hi Lizzie
I thought your question rang a bell from something I had read in a shoe history book, You are right that really height stilettos heels with 4" plus and even over 3" are a modern style
In the 50's it says that " Heel heights were no more than a modest 3 inches "
I will try and scan in the page later today for you to read as this picture is out of focus. I cannot say for before than but it look as if jitterbugdoll has that age under control!

 

[decodoll]

The difference for me between modern 4" heels and vintage, is that I can actually walk in the vintage ones. Unlike a lot of modern, the soles actually bend and flex as you walk. And like Jitterbugdoll said, I'll never understand why modern shoemakers can't get the heel right! I'll admit I am a vintage shoe addict. lol I have about 30 pairs and they range from about 2 1/2 inches to 4 inches in heel height. Here are pics of a couple of the higher ones (these are about 3 1/2"):

And a pair that is on it's way with a 3 1/4 inch heel:

 

[maisie]

Why designers don't bother to replicate the correct heel shape is beyond me; nothing is as flattering as the shape of an elegant 1930s-40s heel!

I have no idea why either! 40's chunky heels have got to be the most comftable ever! I think my feet have adjusted to 40's shoes as well as all the modern shoes i wear (flat pumps) rub like hell, i wore a pair yesterday and have now got blisters everywhere!

I have 40's shoes that go from a wedge heel of about 1" all the way up to a wedge of about 4"! But most of the shoes are about 3-4" heels, well the nice ones any way! I find that unless they are wedges or sandles, most shoes with low heels are very granny looking or made for the military.

 

[jitterbugdoll]

Heel heights did drop somewhat in the mid-late 50s, with the advent of the kitten (which was marketed as a training shoe for teen girls) and stiletto heels.

However, late 40s-early 50s "New Look" shoes still retained high heels (I have a pair of "sweater" pumps from the early 50s that has a 3.5 inch heel). In fact, the platform shoe remained popular for a few years after the war, with a heel height of 3.5-4 inches. Also, I have a pair of mid-50s Spring-o-lators with a 4-inch spike heel. These are actually fairly comfortable and easy to walk in, as the sole had a piece of elastic that gives support and lift when you walk.
They are just like this pair, only black patent:

Here's an excerpt from www.fashion-era.com:
"Early 1950's shoes were often very high, but with rounded or peep toes and low cut front uppers. Strapped sandals with finer heels were popular as were heavier thicker heels for lower shoes, but by the mid fifties kitten heels and metal tipped steel stiletto heels replaced styles that owed more to designs that had been brought out to compliment the New look of 1947."

And another one:
"By the mid 1950s pointed toe shoes called winkle pickers with stiletto heels up to 5 inches were a common sight. There is no doubt that the trademark of the fifties was the stiletto heeled shoe, first seen in 1952 at a Dior fashion show."

So I wouldn't go so far as to say that four-inch heels are a "modern" invention, what when shoes like these existed 60 years ago. They may not have been as popular for daily wear as more "respectable" heel heights were, but they were still out there :

As decodoll says, vintage shoes are very easy to walk in, regardless of heel height. 1940s shoes are especially comfortable because the heel is fairly chunky; platforms also give height without setting your foot at an uncomfortable angle.

 

[jitterbugdoll]

I find that unless they are wedges or sandles, most shoes with low heels are very granny looking or made for the military.

Yep, and those ones are not the style for me

 

[LizzieMaine]

Good point about heel shape -- that's another thing that tends to bug me, that you can have an upper that's very vintage totally spoiled by a heel with some really outre shape.

The comments about higher vintage heels got me to thinking, so I dug out one of the few pairs of vintage shoes I've ever gotten hold of that actually fit -- a pair of peep-toe slings from c. 1947 -- and I was amazed to discover that the heel actually measured 3 1/2 inches. *They don't feel that high at all* when I have them on, but when I put on a modern pair with heels that high, I can barely stand up. I think it really must be a combination of heel shape and sole that makes the difference, and makes me wish all the more that we'd get a modern shoe designer who'd get wise to that!

I'm also getting the sense that what we see in Sears/Wards type catalogs may not necessarily represent what was actually being worn by fashion-forward women -- given that catalog shoppers tended to be rural sorts, it'd make sense for their shoe offerings to tend toward the conservative.

 

[jitterbugdoll]

Exactly! Steve Madden actually had a pair of red suede, ankle strap platforms out a few months ago that were very authentic.

Another designer who does a great job (but is very pricey) is Jill Stuart; she's put out a number of platforms that are dead ringers for the real deal.

Also, I met a gal at Reading last year who was sporting a pair of killer, polka dot wedges that looked incredibly 1940s. Turned out she works with a designer in New York (I'm drawing a blank on the name right now--it may have been Jill Stuart as well) and they were brand new shoes!

 

[Rosie]

As decodoll says, vintage shoes are very easy to walk in, regardless of heel height. 1940s shoes are especially comfortable because the heel is fairly chunky; platforms also give height without setting your foot at an uncomfortable angle.

I find this to be very true. My feet are too big for actual vintage shoes but, I try my best to find shoes that are as close in design to vintage as I can find. And the heel shape makes a world of difference. I have two pairs of vintage-esque shoes that I picked up in Italy years ago with a thick banana heel I believe they are called, and these are not uncomfortable to walk in.

I have these in a dark tan also.

I also have a hew wedgies that my mom SWEAR are just like my Gram's and those are fine to walk in. Wearing shoes with the thinner heel but a vintage flair, my feet hurt after like two hours, I want to go home and put my feet up, and I get grumpy

,

And DecoDoll, those green and snake shoes. OMG! I'm drooling over here!

 

[jitterbugdoll]

I'm also getting the sense that what we see in Sears/Wards type catalogs may not necessarily represent what was actually being worn by fashion-forward women -- given that catalog shoppers tended to be rural sorts, it'd make sense for their shoe offerings to tend toward the conservative.

I study a lot of fashion magazines for reference (Vogue and Mademoiselle are my favorites), and find that you see a lot of fashion ads aimed at young, stylish women who would be more apt to go out on a limb to be in vogue. I have even seen some fantastic shoes in catalogs too--there are even a few pairs in the Sears compilation catalogs. But these shoes are not as practical, so it would make sense that those in rural areas wouldn’t be as concerned with being fashion forward as a 20-something career girl or socialite in the big city would!

 

[artdecodame]

Ooohh. I love Anthropologie shoes. Too bad they're so dang expensive. That second pair looks pretty spot on. Too bad it's not in a solid color!

They are very pretty at that store! I once saw a vintage pair of heels like that, but in a violety purple. Too bad they were too big for me.

I discovered these on the Newport News site:

 

[Shimmy Sally]

I love spring-o-laters, they are so comfortable on my high arches and usually have rhinestones.
Well, with my vintage shoes I notice a range of heel heights, the highest being mid-late 40s platforms, and 50s-early 60s stilettos, which were about 4" at the highest (in my collection). There may be higher, but I haven't seen them.
The present platforms all flare out at the bottom of the heel, which is quite ugly, especially as I have exceptionally slender ankles. Any kind of chunky heel looks ridicules on me. I need the tapered look. Just another reason I prefer vintage -- more delicate dainty styles.

 

[Lady Day]

I too have a problem with the heel thing. I have a regular arch, but heels higher than 2" bother me to no end. I was looking online and found this company on Zappos.

http://www.zappos.com/n/br/b/441.html

You will have to look, but there are some real nice low heel vintagy type selections.

Good luck,

LD

 

[Miss Dottie]

All of these vintage shoes are just divine!

But alas, I too have huge size 10 feet. Anyone ever come across a vintage shoe that big? I don't think I've ever even seen them on eBay!

Sigh! Someday....

 

[jitterbugdoll]

I have, Miss Dottie! I have found that luck in vintage shoes actually has more to do with how narrow your feet are. I have a 7.5B, and many shoes I come across are plenty long, but too narrow

Till you find the right vintage shoes, check out www.remixvintageshoes.com.