Hello.
Our plumber referred us to the bathroom showroom, where we put together everything we needed.
Now, looking at the price list and searching online, we see huge price differences.
For example, the toilet with seat from the showroom costs about 700 euros, while on Amazon it’s roughly half that price.
So naturally, we wonder why we shouldn’t just order online, since the markup from the bathroom showroom seems quite extreme—twice the price just feels like too much?!?
What are your experiences with this?
Thank you.
Our plumber referred us to the bathroom showroom, where we put together everything we needed.
Now, looking at the price list and searching online, we see huge price differences.
For example, the toilet with seat from the showroom costs about 700 euros, while on Amazon it’s roughly half that price.
So naturally, we wonder why we shouldn’t just order online, since the markup from the bathroom showroom seems quite extreme—twice the price just feels like too much?!?
What are your experiences with this?
Thank you.
Hi,
Yes, that happens and it just is what it is and cannot be changed. Then there is no alternative. I don’t think I claimed that there is always and everywhere an option to have customer-supplied materials installed. So I really don’t see where we differ on that. My point was only that under certain circumstances there are alternatives and good plumbers who would be willing to work with customer-supplied materials. Possibly Reuter.de’s database can help find such a tradesperson. POSSIBLY, not necessarily.
Sure, that can be done, but it wouldn’t be my approach because I don’t see much sense in investing in things I already know I will throw away later.
Or was the motivation to take the standard and replace it later more to avoid jeopardizing the construction process (and thus the move-in date), because removing the trade from the contract would have caused construction delays?
I would certainly consider that, because if any delay causes monetary costs exceeding those of the standard installation and later replacement, then that is a reasonable and understandable approach for me.
If that wasn’t the motivation, I don’t quite understand why the standard was installed at all, instead of starting with a handyman for the sanitary fixtures from the beginning. Or did the general contractor (GC) say it’s either everything (pipe installation, bowls, fittings) or nothing (meaning no pipe installation either)?
In the latter case, I would actually reconsider whether the GC is the right route for me—depending on how important individuality is. We had exactly that situation: the GC said that if you want customization, you have to remove the plumbing trade (including pipework) and also heating (because the same subcontractor handles that). The “credit” offered was too low to call anything but ridiculous (I think it was around 23,000 euros for both!). Similar situation for the electrician and floor coverings. So we ended up going with an architect because that fit our wishes better and we felt we could manage and influence everything more precisely and in more detail. Of course, not everyone sees it that way. If you want to build with a GC—and there are definitely good reasons to do so—the route you described (standard first, then later replacement) can be a valid option. It would hurt me personally to waste money like that, but if it makes sense for others, why not?
Are we really that far apart? I have the impression we’re not...
Nordlys schrieb:
My son-in-law, who built 200 meters (650 feet) from us, was similarly annoyed by the extra sanitary costs. He also wanted to supply the fixtures himself. The plumbing company’s answer: I only install if you buy from me. No ifs or buts. No reason, no apology, no excuse. I just don’t do it. Period.
Yes, that happens and it just is what it is and cannot be changed. Then there is no alternative. I don’t think I claimed that there is always and everywhere an option to have customer-supplied materials installed. So I really don’t see where we differ on that. My point was only that under certain circumstances there are alternatives and good plumbers who would be willing to work with customer-supplied materials. Possibly Reuter.de’s database can help find such a tradesperson. POSSIBLY, not necessarily.
Nordlys schrieb:
Solution: the kids accepted the standard, moved in January, and then in October replaced everything, installed by a handyman paid with cash. – Again: it’s not about how you would like it to be, but what options are realistically available in the current situation. Karsten
Sure, that can be done, but it wouldn’t be my approach because I don’t see much sense in investing in things I already know I will throw away later.
Or was the motivation to take the standard and replace it later more to avoid jeopardizing the construction process (and thus the move-in date), because removing the trade from the contract would have caused construction delays?
I would certainly consider that, because if any delay causes monetary costs exceeding those of the standard installation and later replacement, then that is a reasonable and understandable approach for me.
If that wasn’t the motivation, I don’t quite understand why the standard was installed at all, instead of starting with a handyman for the sanitary fixtures from the beginning. Or did the general contractor (GC) say it’s either everything (pipe installation, bowls, fittings) or nothing (meaning no pipe installation either)?
In the latter case, I would actually reconsider whether the GC is the right route for me—depending on how important individuality is. We had exactly that situation: the GC said that if you want customization, you have to remove the plumbing trade (including pipework) and also heating (because the same subcontractor handles that). The “credit” offered was too low to call anything but ridiculous (I think it was around 23,000 euros for both!). Similar situation for the electrician and floor coverings. So we ended up going with an architect because that fit our wishes better and we felt we could manage and influence everything more precisely and in more detail. Of course, not everyone sees it that way. If you want to build with a GC—and there are definitely good reasons to do so—the route you described (standard first, then later replacement) can be a valid option. It would hurt me personally to waste money like that, but if it makes sense for others, why not?
Are we really that far apart? I have the impression we’re not...
ruppsn schrieb:
Was the motivation to use the standard and replace it later mainly to avoid risking the construction schedule (and therefore the move-in date), because removing that trade would have caused delays?Exactly. They had sold their old house and needed to move out.
R
Roland198325 Jul 2019 08:35It's incredible. It was even sent to an exhibition. Suddenly, the bathrooms cost 40,000.
A tradesman who didn’t even do my bathroom gave me the tip to check with Reuter. Thanks again to Ingo Schäfer, metal construction master from Lindlar.
I then found a plumber who did the work. The bathrooms cost half as much and were better equipped. Absolutely amazing...
You learn lessons like this for life.
A tradesman who didn’t even do my bathroom gave me the tip to check with Reuter. Thanks again to Ingo Schäfer, metal construction master from Lindlar.
I then found a plumber who did the work. The bathrooms cost half as much and were better equipped. Absolutely amazing...
You learn lessons like this for life.
Similar topics