It's not the actual problem, it's just irrelevant. The reference doesn't make sense to describe the actual kind of shoe. The original description doesn't provid

It's not the actual problem, it's just irrelevant. The reference doesn't make sense to describe the actual kind of shoe. The original description doesn't provide a real distinction about the sandal in question, if there ever was one. The authors seem to have concluded from the works, that it was merely a sandal and that nothing points one way or another about its nature. Edit, My reading of the original entry was that it doesn't describe what sandal an ancient Greek equivalent of 'fop' used. The entry then, must have described an 18th-19th century contemporary feature.