Showing 1 of 19 conversations about:
View Full Discussion
What is wrong about these bags outside of being made in India? Do non-Americans not know how to produce leather products or something?
Exactly. Looks like a decently made bag for a reasonable price. Made in India is stated clearly in the description. What's wrong with it? IPads are "Designed in California" and nobody seems to be too troubled that they are made in sweatshops. Some people would complain about anything.
Looks like the stitching will fall apart in a month. The leather also looks very thin and not very sturdy. When buying a leather messenger bag, there is no need for a cotton lining or whatever is in this one.
SteveP -- I don't think it actually has much to do with the bag itself; there are other games afoot. A couple pieces of context might be helpful:
Context 1: For years now, a lot of companies have been exploiting people's national pride and desire for goods made in the US by sly wording -- effectively charging more for the same (or, worse yet, an even cheaper - and more poorly made) product they've sold all along.
Context 2: There's also an association, primarily caused by the actions of these entities, that stuff not made in the US is inferior to stuff made in the US. Whether that is true or not is completely irrelevant.
Unfortunately, MD's description fits this pattern. Here's how:
Part A: In the early description, it talks about the company, stating that they "... grew to a small crew of talented individuals operating out of their studio in Grand Rapids, Michigan."
Part B: The description then begins talking about the bag itself, in the very next sentence of the very same paragraph: "Handmade using 100% vegetable tanned..."
The implied claim: Whether it was meant to or not, the implication -- due to the proximity of the statements and the structure of the English language -- is that these bags are made in their studio in Grand Rapids, MI.
Part C: In the description, it says, "Made in India."
This is where people usually get irritated, and it's because of a combination of the existing context (C1/C2) and the the clash between the Implied Claim and the actual claim in Part C.
In this specific case, making a clear delineation between the originating company's history and the product history would have been beneficial.
[edit: fixed phrasing in Part A]