Q Talk

[Bettyanne]

@kaydee50 

I so agree with you ....there is ALWAYS someone ready to Pounce....i thought this wa sa a place you can give your opinions....but apparently that's not the case. 

[Gkhm]

Manny2...SO TRUE!!!  

[Gkhm]

I buy from one of the "exclusive to QVC" designers OFTEN, But I can tell you that I have sent numerous things back because of poor quality construction!  Crooked seams, odd fit, etc...  At the moment it is easier to order online, but I am quickly seeing the need to go back into the brick and mortar sellers!

[Gkhm]

febe1...couldn't agree more!

[Love to Run]

---

@Qvcmeow wrote:
"Subsiding?" "Not fair?" When the Q or HSN sells bedding at a single price point, ( as they occasionally have done)are the people who purchase twin or full size subsiding those with queens or kings? Is that unfair?

What is "unfair" is people judging or making snarky comments about others' weight.

---

The fact is that larger sizes cost more to produce, and yes, that's true for bedding and food too. I certainly wasn't judging or being snarking about anyone's weight, the post is about rising clothing costs.

According to Vogue Business:

"The fashion industry long ago agreed to give the same price to clothing regardless of size, essentially amortising the higher cost of materials for larger sizes. Given that tradition, it would be bizarre to pay more for a size 10 than a 2. However, the “plus size” category has been so overlooked that no one has come up with a satisfying term for sizes US 14 and above, let alone set industry standards for production and pricing.

I recently witnessed a mass-priced apparel chief executive debate larger sizes with his creative director, who was reluctant to size. As they discussed the need for larger fit models and extra patterns, it was pricing that ultimately derailed them. They deemed it unfair to spread the cost of larger sizes across the regular size range they currently produce. But charging more also felt wrong. Flummoxed, they tabled the idea."