Cedarvillestore review - A Bad Experience

[Gibonius]

Bought plenty of trees from Cedarville and never had a problem. I actually bothered to read a thread on sizing here, and ordered the correct size. There you go.

Now I try to get them in person to save on shipping, but if you don't have any decent local options, Cedarville is great.

 

[bellyhungry]

Given that the OP lives outside of the US, this international dispute is shaping up to be a diplomatic nightmare for the Obama administration.

 

[mcbrown]



I feel the need to reply to this. This customer ordered 3 Epic shoe trees X – small 78001 size 6E – 7.5E , 39.5 – 41,and that is what was shipped, we do not offer nor can we order Epic size 5.5E – 6.5E ,38/39 that was stated we shipped them. In the above post with the size charts the first one is for the Epics as stated, the second link is for our other shoe trees we carry and the Epics are not on that page. If we would have sent the wrong shoe trees we would have paid to replace them. We offered to refund the product when they were returned postage paid as per our return policy.

Don't worry, the non-looney SF readers still love you. In fact I just took advantage of your latest coupon codes and ordered some new trees.

 

[Rankiz]

I didn't pay for attorney, my friend is one.

I feel the need to reply to this. This customer ordered 3 Epic shoe trees X – small 78001 size 6E – 7.5E , 39.5 – 41,and that is what was shipped, we do not offer nor can we order Epic size 5.5E – 6.5E ,38/39 that was stated we shipped them. In the above post with the size charts the first one is for the Epics as stated, the second link is for our other shoe trees we carry and the Epics are not on that page. If we would have sent the wrong shoe trees we would have paid to replace them. We offered to refund the product when they were returned postage paid as per our return policy.

It's very good that you state which size I ordered, X-small size 6E – 7.5E, which is 39.5-41.

Please explain why my shoe trees are markedas 38/39



Let me know if I need to take a picture of every shoe tree I bought to proof it!

 

[PipersSon]

 

[mcbrown]



I didn't pay for attorney, my friend is one.
It's very good that you state which size I ordered, X-small size 6E – 7.5E, which is 39.5-41.
Please explain why my shoe trees are markedas 38/39

Let me know if I need to take a picture of every shoe tree I bought to proof it!

And yet it is also clearly marked "XS"...

By the way, it seems that your claim is that Cedarville maliciously sent you a shoe tree in a size that they don't carry and Woodlore doesn't sell (see here).

And for the record, it is even worse that you had your friend write the letter for free - as if he doesn't have better things to do with his time than help you tilt at windmills.

 

[NotoriousMarquis]



I feel the need to reply to this. This customer ordered 3 Epic shoe trees X – small 78001 size 6E – 7.5E , 39.5 – 41,and that is what was shipped, we do not offer nor can we order Epic size 5.5E – 6.5E ,38/39 that was stated we shipped them. In the above post with the size charts the first one is for the Epics as stated, the second link is for our other shoe trees we carry and the Epics are not on that page. If we would have sent the wrong shoe trees we would have paid to replace them. We offered to refund the product when they were returned postage paid as per our return policy.

Really? Cuz it sounds like he ordered XS, and the XS couldn't fit into a 7E shoe, which as you state above, it should...

 

[NotoriousMarquis]

Wait, wait, did you even try putting them inside the shoes. if you say they don't fit based entirely on the number and not on the shoe tree itself, then yes you are insane.

 

[Rankiz]



And yet it is also clearly marked "XS"...
By the way, it seems that your claim is that Cedarville maliciously sent you a shoe tree in a size that they don't carry and Woodlore doesn't sell (see here).
And for the record, it is even worse that you had your friend write the letter for free - as if he doesn't have better things to do with his time than help you tilt at windmills.

Wow, you just attacked me personally since I have a nice friend who actually care to help, go flame somewhere else.

It's not only I that have complained about the shoe tree sizes, and, in fact, I measured the width of the shoe trees to be 3,5", but these shoe trees are marked as E(wide) shoe trees and should be 3,8-3,9" in width. Because of this they do not fit snugly at all.

It might be easy for you to send the shoe trees back for replacements without much to lose, but if I do the same I actually lose money, since the shipping costs back to US is higher than the refund from the shoe trees.

 

[mcbrown]



How come you're so angry at me for receiving too small shoe trees? After what I've read you bought too small shoe trees yourself.
Small - 8E to 9E for your 9D shoes, but they didn't fit, and you needed to size up to the next shoe tree.

I wear 10D-10.5E depending on the shoe. I have never complained about cedarville or Woodlore. I have no idea what you're talking about.

Wow, you just attacked me personally since I have a nice friend who actually care to help, go flame somewhere else.
It's not only I that have complained about the shoe tree sizes, and, in fact, I measured the width of the shoe trees to be 3,5", but these shoe trees are marked as E(wide) shoe trees and should be 3,8-3,9" in width. Because of this they do not fit snugly at all.

What is driving me crazy is your complete and total lack of perspective and accountability.

First, the accountability issue. The trees "should" fit that way, they "should" be like this, they "should" have these dimensions... did you do ANY research other than looking at a chart on the cedarville website (which turned out to be clearly labelled as NOT the appropriate chart for Woodlore Epics)? Anyone who has spent any time reading about shoes on this site knows that shoe sizes are not universal figures (despite your claim that an E width "should" be a certain exact width). They depend on manufacturer, last, etc. I wear shoes ranging in size from 10D to 10.5E. Just as I would not expect to magically fit perfectly into a pair of shoes without trying them on based on nothing more than an internet sizing guide, I would not expect shoe trees (which are even more crudely divided into S/M/L sizes) to fit my shoes perfectly without trying them first.

Now the perspective issue. You bought some shoe trees based on a sizing guide. You had never tried them in person before. They turned out to be a little small. Rather than saying to yourself "oh well, I guess the return shipping is the price I pay for trying these out - next time I'll go up a size," you decide that Cedarville has engaged in some kind of underhanded sales practice, that they have cheated you and lied to you, that THEY should pay for your return shipping, and when they declined to do so that you should spend considerable amounts of your own and other peoples' time (like your friend) pursuing legal action and an internet smear campaign.

It took me 30 seconds of searching to find that Woodlore DOES NOT SELL a smaller shoe tree than you ordered, despite your allegation that you were sent a smaller tree. Now you are apparently claiming that they sent you a tree that is too narrow, when Woodlore DOES NOT SELL trees in different widths. You bought the smallest one they make. You neither tried it in person nor obtained exact dimensions. It turned out to be too small. That's life. No one deceived you. No one cheated you. You are clearly in the wrong. But nonetheless, here you are accusing cedarville of various terrible things, all over return shipping.

This kind of behavior is why we collectively don't deserve nice things anymore.

 

[swiego]

Clearly, you should sue Woodlore.

 

[curzon]



You got a lawyer involved over shoe trees?

Clearly you haven't recognized the gravity of this situation. There are three pairs of shoe tree involved.

 

[Rankiz]



Clearly you haven't recognized the gravity of this situation. There are three pairs of shoe tree involved.

I'm studing jurisprudence myself, so cases like this are very interesting.

 

[MattR]



this falls into false advertising as outlined in Taylor vs. Norman, United States Supreme Court.

Do you have a case citation? I did a search myself, and I couldn't find a US Supreme Court case by that name, and none that resemble it where they discuss false advertising. I'd be interested to see what you're referring to.

 

[JubeiSpiegel]

I enjoy these threads, you never quite know which way SF will go