Discussion in 'Classic Menswear' started by BrizzleCizzle, Feb 6, 2013.
Good luck; pretty annoying experience.
Very true. As noted by the brilliant gent above, it's a battle of "all sales are final" vs. consumer protection laws. I'll update as it goes, if for nothing else than the casual reading pleasure of the unfortunate passerby.
Wow, this thread ties in perfectly with today's PTO post:
Bullets 2, 3 & 4 bode well for you, #5 does not. These look to me like the typical stock for sale at outlet stores and i hope you get the OK to return them. If not...you've got a decent looking (but slightly overpriced) pair of foul weather shoes.
Did you use your AmEx? If so, phone them immediately too.
I'm not sure these are the worst ever. I wouldn't be thrilled with the rubber sole, but I assume you knew it had this going into it. You can't even see the whole shoe in the picture, so I'm not sure why everyone thinks they are so awful. At least the creasing looks like it is in the right place.
Amex is a beautiful thing.
My guess is that's pretty accurate. They don't even look the reduced price to me.
By the way, this experience is exactly why I don't buy certain products from fashion labels. I wouldn't buy Hugo Boss or Ralph Lauren shoes or watches because HB and RL don't make shoes and watches. They make designs and styles. If I want shoes, I'll go to a shoe company (AE, C&J). If I want a watch, I'll go to a watch company (Omega, Hamilton, Seiko)
These shoes may look nice at first glance, but a more thorough look shoes less-than-desirable workmanship. I could stand paying 40 bucks for these shoes to wear in inclement weather, but that's about it.
The wear isn't the problem with them, it's the fact that they look poorly made. However, he knew that when he bought them. This is a case of buyers remorse gone litigious.
well, to be fair, RL shoes are generally made by high quality manufacturers like AE, C&J, EG (purple label), etc.
Yeah, RL do use high quality manufacturers but no one these ones (according to your pictures).
Very good advice. I've bought from forum members here and Gilt with no problem, but this was definitely precipitated by the notion that RL uses quality shoe makers, then come to find out I've spent AE prices on the floor model... learned my lesson. Even if these were C&J, leather soled, all goodness, they would be going back as someone has clearly begun the wrinkling process and I'm in no position to desire that from a new shoe. My Strands are devoid of this level of wrinkling despite years of wear. Sorry, rambling, suffice to say your strategy is wise.
There is an element of remorse, sure, but the lion's share is that fact that I paid for shoes sold as new, only to get something that's used and showing clear signs of wear, which wasn't stated on the listing and not reflected in the pictures of the item for sale. They can't show you one thing and then deliver another, they can't sell you a new car and deliver you a used one. They have consumer protection laws for these very reasons, which affirms your point that it has turned litigious, though I do think your perception is skewed to recognize the portion of remorse alone instead of my more prevalent (and case-based) issue, which is wear. Which, of course, is your perception and I'm in no place to tell you that your opinion is wrong, as it is your opinion. But I'll leave you with this: if you bought a new car, during a markdown event at a dealership, and then found out it was the program car (the one they let everyone drive around) and had significant signs of wear, what would your position be? I doubt, highly, you'd be passive and let it go. Your rebuttal is going to be: "it isn't that the theoretical car is used, it's that you didn't like the stitching in the leather seats". Great, but that's not grounds for a valid case, the grounds for a case rests in a misrepresentation of an item for sale (which is considered fraud, fyi), and this is where the issue is now; no longer are we in a discourse on the build quality (arguably sub-par), we are now at "he's trying to return them on the basis of wear, not quality" (though one could argue that higher quality would have reduced the incidence of signs of wear, but we don't have to go there). But hey, if you want to go back to the point, it's a free world, first amendment yourself.
EDIT: I just recognized that I said "i can't change your opinion" (paraphrased) and then spent a paragraph trying to do that. The irony made me laugh. That is all.
Very true, per my prior understanding, though my takeaway now is that I can't use that assumption in the future, combined with pricing, to reason quality. Even moreso, I can't/won't purchase things from Barney's Warehouse (or any similar entity) as they insist you operate on an "understanding of things not being in their original condition or state", despite that never being disclosed. To quote Dwight Schrute: false. Anyway, caveat emptor, don't put yourself in my shoes (pun!) and end up fighting to return clearly used merchandise against a final sale disclosure; it is a near-perfect paradox.
You never need to apologise when going on at length to explain to someone why you think he's right.
If I paid for shoes I'd assumed to be top quality and brand new, I'd probably keep them if they were at least one out of two. But as these are neither, the OP is spot on to demand a refund.
Separate names with a comma.