Holiday

[mousiegirl]

---

@loriqvc wrote:

@mousiegirl - Sadly, I'm not saying it is actually a feasible thing to do; I was just trying to point out that the service rep was not being facetious and this truly is a manufacturer issue. <=|

---

@loriqvc  A rep is representing QVC, and QVC has an obligation to it's customers to supply all pertinent information, which it doesn't do.  The fact that it isn't feasible to contact a manufacturer in another country, is what makes the suggestion by customer service absurd.  Q should be contacting manufacturers and telling them not to produce lead based items, but no one cares enough, except California, it seems.  I am done with my rant.

[loriqvc]

---

@mousiegirl wrote:

---

@loriqvc wrote:

@mousiegirl - Sadly, I'm not saying it is actually a feasible thing to do; I was just trying to point out that the service rep was not being facetious and this truly is a manufacturer issue. <=|

---

@loriqvc  A rep is representing QVC, and QVC has an obligation to it's customers to supply all pertinent information, which it doesn't do.  The fact that it isn't feasible to contact a manufacturer in another country, is what makes the suggestion by customer service absurd.  Q should be contacting manufacturers and telling them not to produce lead based items, but no one cares enough, except California, it seems.  I am done with my rant.

---

@mousiegirl - Actually, the real problem is that the manufacturers won't tell QVC what is in their products. It is not necessarily the presence of lead or other chemicals identified by CA as hazardous that is preventing items from being shipped--it is the fact that without knowing what is in a product, the appropriate disclaimer cannot be applied by QVC to meet the standards of Proposition 65, so ordering and shipping is not permitted. QVC should have done a better job of forcing manufacturers and vendors to provide the necessary details before the recent deadline, but ultimately, it is the fault of those non-compliant manufacturers and vendors that customers cannot get the items they want.

[mousiegirl]

---

@loriqvc wrote:

---

@mousiegirl wrote:

---

@loriqvc wrote:

@mousiegirl - Sadly, I'm not saying it is actually a feasible thing to do; I was just trying to point out that the service rep was not being facetious and this truly is a manufacturer issue. <=|

---

@loriqvc  A rep is representing QVC, and QVC has an obligation to it's customers to supply all pertinent information, which it doesn't do.  The fact that it isn't feasible to contact a manufacturer in another country, is what makes the suggestion by customer service absurd.  Q should be contacting manufacturers and telling them not to produce lead based items, but no one cares enough, except California, it seems.  I am done with my rant.

---

@mousiegirl - Actually, the real problem is that the manufacturers won't tell QVC what is in their products. It is not necessarily the presence of lead or other chemicals identified by CA as hazardous that is preventing items from being shipped--it is the fact that without knowing what is in a product, the appropriate disclaimer cannot be applied by QVC to meet the standards of Proposition 65, so ordering and shipping is not permitted. QVC should have done a better job of forcing manufacturers and vendors to provide the necessary details before the recent deadline, but ultimately, it is the fault of those non-compliant manufacturers and vendors that customers cannot get the items they want.

---

@loriqvc  That may be true, but when I called, the rep told me it had to do with Prop 65, and for California, this means lead, in my experience.

[SHOPR]

@mousiegirl, Oh no. Sorry that you couldn't order what you wanted due to that crazy ordeal with Prop65 or whatever is going on.  Maybe the kinks will get worked out eventually and Valerie will place a reorder for the items.  I hope so.

I was trying to watch the wreath presentation at my mom and dad's, but their Comcast tv channels' clarity is so pitiful that I couldn't focus on anything.  I will be watching the video if there is one.  

[mousiegirl]

---

@SHOPR wrote:

@mousiegirl, Oh no. Sorry that you couldn't order what you wanted due to that crazy ordeal with Prop65 or whatever is going on.  Maybe the kinks will get worked out eventually and Valerie will place a reorder for the items.  I hope so.

I was trying to watch the wreath presentation at my mom and dad's, but their Comcast tv channels' clarity is so pitiful that I couldn't focus on anything.  I will be watching the video if there is one.  

---

@SHOPR  It's just as well, as I don't need it, but it was the principle, you know, should have been mentioned in the item description, saved me money, lol.

[loriqvc]

---

@mousiegirl wrote:

---

@loriqvc wrote:

---

@mousiegirl wrote:

---

@loriqvc wrote:

@mousiegirl - Sadly, I'm not saying it is actually a feasible thing to do; I was just trying to point out that the service rep was not being facetious and this truly is a manufacturer issue. <=|

---

@loriqvc  A rep is representing QVC, and QVC has an obligation to it's customers to supply all pertinent information, which it doesn't do.  The fact that it isn't feasible to contact a manufacturer in another country, is what makes the suggestion by customer service absurd.  Q should be contacting manufacturers and telling them not to produce lead based items, but no one cares enough, except California, it seems.  I am done with my rant.

---

@mousiegirl - Actually, the real problem is that the manufacturers won't tell QVC what is in their products. It is not necessarily the presence of lead or other chemicals identified by CA as hazardous that is preventing items from being shipped--it is the fact that without knowing what is in a product, the appropriate disclaimer cannot be applied by QVC to meet the standards of Proposition 65, so ordering and shipping is not permitted. QVC should have done a better job of forcing manufacturers and vendors to provide the necessary details before the recent deadline, but ultimately, it is the fault of those non-compliant manufacturers and vendors that customers cannot get the items they want.

---

@loriqvc  That may be true, but when I called, the rep told me it had to do with Prop 65, and for California, this means lead, in my experience.

---

@mousiegirl - The sales ban definitely is tied to California's Prop 65, but other chemicals are also tied to that regulation; it isn't just about lead (though lead in water is what started it all). Here's a link to the FAQs section of the website CA has put together for Prop 65: https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/proposition-65-faqs

[on the bay]

@Mominohio-

I kind of went with exactly how you were thinking

I enjoyed looking at the birds on tv and online, but thought, I don't need them and my fall decorations are more elegant.

And they are almost too cute if you know what I mean.

Plus I already do have the winter snowy ones

I kept thinking about your post and thought, yeah, thats me too. 

I keep slowly getting rid of things so no sense putting more back in

I listened to it while I was rocking my granddaughter to sleep. (She liked watching and listening too but my daughter was rolling her eyes -she said "It looks like your apartment!" and "Its like SNL!")lol!

Well!! 

[SHOPR]

It will cost me $111 total if I order this:

H216459 Indoor/Outdoor Oversized Carved Pumpkin Stack by Valerie

It is 22-1/2" tall, which I don't think of as all that huge and oversized for a stack of 3 pumpkins. 

I'm not able to comprehend what seem like waay high prices on the "oversized" items such as this, particularly when they are made of resin, which can break.   Anyone able to offer a logical explanation?

I really like the looks of it, though.  Sigh...

[ladycos]

@SHOPR
I’m having a hard time justifying that price also. Of course we would need two and that would be over $200. I wonder if we might see it later at TJ Maxx or marshalls or something similar for more like $49? But I do love them. What to do???

[on the bay]

@SHOPR-

I didn't understand the pricing on these at all either!

They were one of the things I liked in the ivory, but not for $100.

I guess it was the manufacturer who set the pricing to QVC. That wasn't a good choice.