Review methodology

How we test

Everything we score was ordered and tested by our testing team at the Rotterdam desk. The steps below apply whether we are grading an agent, a shipping line or a pair of sneakers.

Step by step

• Order and timestamp. We place the order ourselves, pay the real fees, and log the time to the minute.

• Warehouse intake. We record how long the agent takes to book the parcel in, and how many QC photos arrive unprompted.

• QC re-shoot. We request extra angles plus a ruler shot, then measure heel-to-toe, insole width and stitch spacing against the listing.

• Consolidation. Every parcel is weighed on a calibrated 0.1 kg bench scale and compared with the weight the agent declared.

• Line selection and transit. We log dispatch, first scan, customs entry and delivery, then report median and worst-case days rather than a single average.

• Unboxing. Packaging is photographed as received and graded for crush protection and moisture control.

• Hands-on use. Footwear and outerwear get at least two full working days of wear before scoring; small electronics run through a seven-day cycle.

Scores

We use a five-point scale: 5 / 5 excellent, 4 / 5 good, 3 / 5 adequate, 2 / 5 poor, 1 / 5 very poor. We publish X / 5, never percentages or marks out of ten.

Limits and updates

Our sample sizes are small by design, because we are a desk and not a courier network. Where a result rests on fewer than ten parcels, the article says so. Transit times move with customs queues and peak season, so timed results carry their collection dates and sample sizes. Changes to a line or its conditions prompt a review of the affected comparison.

Comparison scope

Identify product variants and relevant warehouse views. Distinguish footwear dimensions from fit observations and state use conditions. For mixed hauls, separate footwear, outerwear, bags and electronics when assessing packaging and weight. Link transit conclusions to dated route records. Brand names identify the coverage subject; boxes, labels and photographs do not certify authenticity, endorsement or authorization.

The review identifies the sample, dates, conditions and any steps omitted. A hands-on claim requires documented inspection or use; desk research is labelled. Scoring uses the complete 1-to-5 scale with the criteria and evidence explained, including unfavorable findings and missing information.