The footstool is made in China by an unidentified manufacturer, and is distributed/sold in this webpage under the registered brand Ibukye, whose legal owner has an address in that country.
Its frame is a box without a top, made of pinewood, which is filled with some type of foam of medium density. (As the foam is likely polyurethane, I left the stool ventilating in a safe place for the 72 hours recommended by the EPA to reduce VOCs off-gassing). It is covered with the upholstery fabric but at the bottom, where is covered with a black polyester cloth. The manufacturing quality of the footstool I received is nothing short of disastrous.
1. The upper piece of the fabric has been sewn in an amateurish way that creates numerous ripples along one edge (see panel A of my attached figure).
2. The black cloth on the bottom, whose edges are irregular in some spots, is affixed only by a few, widely separated staples (panel B), and its drooping edges are visible (panels D-E).
3. The circular marks around the four openings of the wood-inserted nuts for fastening leg screws (panel B) show that the stool legs had previously been attached to the frame before delivery. The stool seems a returned item being sold as new one by , but I cannot exclude a factory testing of the legs where too much force was applied. The anti-slip pads claimed as part of the footstool were not included.
4. The more damning defect is the _incomplete construction_ of its frame box. In one of its corners, the lateral wall is totally missing and the shape of the corner is deformed -- panel C shows this, with red arrows marking the horizontal and vertical limits of the incomplete wall, and panels D-E provide a visual comparison of a normal corner (D) with the defective one (E).
Even for persons weighing non-trivially less than the stool load limit, the missing corner of the box poses a potential risk if it were used for sitting, like this page suggests, and a much more dangerous risk if used as a stepping stool (an action explicitly opposed in this page) since --with the full body weight on one foot-- the altered distribution of structural forces of the design may lead to the tilting or collapse of the stool.
I returned it. I cannot exclude its terrible construction might have been an isolated or rare case of production error, but the fact it was nonetheless shipped to be sold is evidence of dismal quality control. Beware.
.
Dismal manufacture and quality control
The footstool is made in China by an unidentified manufacturer, and is distributed/sold in this webpage under the registered brand Ibukye, whose legal owner has an address in that country. Its frame is a box without a top, made of pinewood, which is filled with some type of foam of medium density. (As the foam is likely polyurethane, I left the stool ventilating in a safe place for the 72 hours recommended by the EPA to reduce VOCs off-gassing). It is covered with the upholstery fabric but at the bottom, where is covered with a black polyester cloth. The manufacturing quality of the footstool I received is nothing short of disastrous. 1. The upper piece of the fabric has been sewn in an amateurish way that creates numerous ripples along one edge (see panel A of my attached figure). 2. The black cloth on the bottom, whose edges are irregular in some spots, is affixed only by a few, widely separated staples (panel B), and its drooping edges are visible (panels D-E). 3. The circular marks around the four openings of the wood-inserted nuts for fastening leg screws (panel B) show that the stool legs had previously been attached to the frame before delivery. The stool seems a returned item being sold as new one by , but I cannot exclude a factory testing of the legs where too much force was applied. The anti-slip pads claimed as part of the footstool were not included. 4. The more damning defect is the _incomplete construction_ of its frame box. In one of its corners, the lateral wall is totally missing and the shape of the corner is deformed -- panel C shows this, with red arrows marking the horizontal and vertical limits of the incomplete wall, and panels D-E provide a visual comparison of a normal corner (D) with the defective one (E). Even for persons weighing non-trivially less than the stool load limit, the missing corner of the box poses a potential risk if it were used for sitting, like this page suggests, and a much more dangerous risk if used as a stepping stool (an action explicitly opposed in this page) since --with the full body weight on one foot-- the altered distribution of structural forces of the design may lead to the tilting or collapse of the stool. I returned it. I cannot exclude its terrible construction might have been an isolated or rare case of production error, but the fact it was nonetheless shipped to be sold is evidence of dismal quality control. Beware. .