Home

[noodleann]

---

@apple blossom wrote:

Today's TVS and all other  sheet and bedding should be priced according to size ordered.  I use the twin size and resent having to pay as much as the largest set offered.  I would rather go to a box store and pay according to the size I purchased.  Sorry will no b uy bedding from QVC.

---

What you find "unfair" can and probably is perceived as "great" by people buying larger-sized sheet sets, which is going to be most people--queen or king. In that sense, by departing from the norm and not using a sliding scale based on size, QVC can be seen as giving the larger sizes a break. "You get king-sized sheets for the price of twin," in effect.

There's another factor, and that's the smaller-sized sheets aren't as in-demand and may have shorter manufacturing runs and lose economies of scale. I imagine that's especially true for double/full-size sheets, which are becoming harder to find. So if they'e making more of the larger sheets, they may be able to afford to discount them.

Paying "according to the size I purchased" is only paying according to the price the store decides to set. There's no intrinsic requirement that sellers scale prices by size. I can imagine the brouhaha that would ensue if sellers priced dresses that way, charging $50 for a size 2, $60 for a size 6, on up to $100 for a 3X. Seller often do increase price from missy to women's, and within women's, between sizes up to 1X or 24 and those higher. I've never seen it within missy sizes.

But back to the sheets, I do think if they're all going to be the same price, the twin set should come with two cases.