Skip to main content

In which I venture into a jewellery store

As a science writer, I believe I am qualified to write about life, the universe and everything. In this case it's going to be about online jewellery shopping, as online store JewelryArtDesigns (aka LuShae Jewelry) kindly agreed to let me loose in their virtual aisles provided I wrote up the experience.

They sell rings, earrings and pendants, priced around £40 ($60-70) including worldwide shipping. Many of the pieces (note the easy use of the jargon there) feature cubic zirconium stones and a lot are gold or rhodium plated in finish.

I toyed with a suitably bling ring, wondering if I could go for the gangsta rapper science writer look (there aren't many science writers who can pull this off), but decided on the whole I'd be better settling for something for my wife. If I'm honest, a lot of the jewellery was a bit too flashy for me, but I dithered between a simple pair of stud earrings and a rather nice looking pendant, and went for the latter.

The shopping process was painless, and despite this being an Australian company shipping from the US, it was easy enough to flip the currency in the shopping cart and get a price I understood. Then the wait. It took a little longer than I expected, taking 20 days to arrive. Irritatingly, I had to go to the post office and pay tax on it - particularly galling because the tax was £3.83, but the Post Office added an £8 handling charge. I'm assured by the people at JewelryArtDesigns that this doesn't usually happen, but see comments below. It seems very likely to happen unless the Post Office only checks random samples.

The item itself was in a mid-range box - not a cheap and nasty plastic one, not something that exuded 'expensive jewellers'. The pendant seemed well-finished - not flimsy and with a good, solid chain, not the sort that snaps if you breathe on it that you often get with a cheap necklace. I assume the chain is gold plated too (it doesn't say on the website).

All in all, apart from slight issues with delivery and tax, a good experience. The pricing (provided you don't get hit with tax) seems about what you'd expect for an item of this quality, though I wouldn't say it was any cheaper than buying something in a local jewellers.

Here ends my excursion into the retail world. Normal service will be resumed in the next post.
Labels:

Comments

  1. Philip Sheard5 February 2010 at 12:50

    It would have been better to make the import duties the main subject of the article - unless you were being commissioned to write it, of course.

    The shop is definitely telling porkies. You will ALWAYS get stung, unless the total declared on the CN22 form is less than £18, including shipping. Think about it - it is a no-brainer really. The Post office gets paid an £8 handling fee for doing diddly squat. It is not just VAT that you pay either. There are also import duties to pay, which are 25% for most items.

    The bottom line is that if you shop outside the EC, you are going to get stung for a 42.5% surcharge, plus a handling fee. The item will be delayed for several weeks while it clears customs, and you will have to pay a handling fee. The Post office is relatively cheap. Couriers charge much more, often as much as £25. In most cases, it just is not worth it.

    The two exceptions to this are if the cost of the goods including shipping is less than £18, or if the sender is willing to lie about this on the CN22 form. I import a lot of spare parts from China, but I never pay more than £18 per shipment. This is perfectly legit. There are also lots of sellers who are willing to make a false declaration on the CN22 form.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Brian Clegg5 February 2010 at 13:54

    I wasn't being commissioned to write it, Philip, but as I made clear I was given a free purchase in the shop.

    I merely passed on the shop's comments about the customs charge. As you say, I can't see why the Post Office wouldn't hammer everything over the limit (though I hadn't realized it was so low), as it's money for very little. Caveat emptor.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Brian Clegg5 February 2010 at 13:56

    I have slightly modified the main text on this to reflect these comments.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp
117 comments
Read more

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor
25 comments
Read more

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense
6 comments
Read more