- Joined
- Feb 10, 2012
- Messages
- 2,120
- Reaction score
- 4,512
Quote:Will collar sizes over 15" or trousers over 28 be available?
Alright, alright, alright...
Amide Hadelin is right offering up to 40% off their excellent selection of exclusive menswear and accessories, including this Lambswool cable knit shawl collar cardigan made by a family business bon the Scottish borderlands. Please use code: SF10 at checkout for an extra 10% olf. Sale end February 2.
STYLE. COMMUNITY. GREAT CLOTHING.
Bored of counting likes on social networks? At Styleforum, you’ll find rousing discussions that go beyond strings of emojis.
Click Here to join Styleforum's thousands of style enthusiasts today!
Styleforum is supported in part by commission earning affiliate links sitewide. Please support us by using them. You may learn more here.
Quote:Will collar sizes over 15" or trousers over 28 be available?
Alright, alright, alright...
Light Tan Twill Chino is really light. More like light cream twill chino, IMO. The picture on Luxire's website is not very accurate.
Don't know anything about Ecru Twill Chino, sorry.
I ordered a pair of them 3 weeks ago so it shouldn't be long before they're shipped. I'll be sure to post pictures once i get them.
Would be nice if we could choose between the flat fee and risking customs. I've never been charged a penny for any of my orders to date and am quite disappointed; especially as there isn't any minimum order amount for free shipping anymore either.
The prices on my parcels were always a fraction of the real costs.
Luxire now puts the actual price on the parcel, thus you will be charged on customs more often and higher amounts.
Here's the thing: you're effectively publicly asking Luxire to participate in a tax evasion scheme.
Now, of course, we all know that in reality many companies - and individuals - do indeed choose to do this, and frequently they get away with it. But regardless of whatever our opinions about VAT/other tariffs are, it's never legal to evade them, and occasionally companies will get "enquiries" from the relevant authorities about their practice, esp. if they're getting big enough to be noticed or if it's been noticed and/or reported by an intermediary service. I have zero idea as to whether this happened to Luxire and that's why they're now playing by the book or whether it's merely proactive avoidance of future liability. But regardless, now that they've made their decision in this respect, I think it's extraordinarily unrealistic to expect them to revert to an older and illegal practice, especially in response to a public request to do so!
Almost as unrealistic as the other poster upthread who wanted Luxire to recompense them for the (admittedly extortionate) admin charges levied by DHL. Honestly, we as customers are going to have to grow up a bit more about what is and isn't going to be feasible for a company that's clearly growing (and therefore less able to do under the table things).
Just between friends here, of course I would much prefer not to pay any extra costs. I try to avoid ordering from outside the EU in order to minimise how much I get charged, for example. Luxire has been the exception that proves that rule, because of the rare combination of high quality service/garments and very low cost. But given the current situation and the law, the idea of a small flat rate fee as originally suggested by Luxire is probably going to be the optimal outcome. At least there would be certainty, and it's a relatively small extra charge, esp. within the context of a larger order. Luxire will still be a very good deal IMO.
Here's the thing: you're effectively publicly asking Luxire to participate in a tax evasion scheme.
Now, of course, we all know that in reality many companies - and individuals - do indeed choose to do this, and frequently they get away with it. But regardless of whatever our opinions about VAT/other tariffs are, it's never legal to evade them, and occasionally companies will get "enquiries" from the relevant authorities about their practice, esp. if they're getting big enough to be noticed or if it's been noticed and/or reported by an intermediary service. I have zero idea as to whether this happened to Luxire and that's why they're now playing by the book or whether it's merely proactive avoidance of future liability. But regardless, now that they've made their decision in this respect, I think it's extraordinarily unrealistic to expect them to revert to an older and illegal practice, especially in response to a public request to do so!
Almost as unrealistic as the other poster upthread who wanted Luxire to recompense them for the (admittedly extortionate) admin charges levied by DHL. Honestly, we as customers are going to have to grow up a bit more about what is and isn't going to be feasible for a company that's clearly growing (and therefore less able to do under the table things).
Just between friends here, of course I would much prefer not to pay any extra costs. I try to avoid ordering from outside the EU in order to minimise how much I get charged, for example. Luxire has been the exception that proves that rule, because of the rare combination of high quality service/garments and very low cost. But given the current situation and the law, the idea of a small flat rate fee as originally suggested by Luxire is probably going to be the optimal outcome. At least there would be certainty, and it's a relatively small extra charge, esp. within the context of a larger order. Luxire will still be a very good deal IMO.
Quote: I do appreciate the distinction you're driving at, but when the first part of your post is taken in concert with the second part (which strongly implied that it would be worth asking Luxire to mark a clearly commercial transaction as a gift; also illegal), the overall gist makes for a question that I think would be very difficult for someone at Luxire to answer, without creating problems for themselves.
Look, I might well be wrong, but put yourself in Luxire's shoes: the obvious answers are that they've made this change either because someone in authority has questioned their historical practice or because they want to avoid future legal problems. I mean, there really are very few other options. Admitting the former would put them in a shady light; saying the second effectively admits that they've been bending the law in the past. Neither is something you'd really want to talk much about. What other companies choose to do is pretty unremarkable, typically; it's not anything particularly clever, or finding some crazy legal loophole. They're simply choosing to run a legal risk in order to keep total costs to the consumer lower in the hope of more business. For whatever reason, it seems Luxire won't do that. Personally, I don't think it's worth questioning Luxire over that. YMMV. Anyways...
1) How does this fit into the importation fee conversation:
I got a Luxire shirt last week shipped on 3/13 to the United States; delivered 3/17; no added fees. But the most interesting part: the value of the USD$59.00 shirt was listed in the documentation as USD$189.99!! Any idea what this is about? Is it because there is concern that someone in the chain of custody won't believe that the shirt cost only $59?
2) Also, does anyone know if these new fees/surprises are specific to Luxire or is there some sort of broader shift in policies/procedures happening somewhere? I order things fairly regularly from Japan to the U.S. via the postal service, and I wonder if there is a new danger that I am suddenly going to see new fees on those orders. Insights, anyone?