The bad news on the shopping front is that John Lewis has just reported "outstanding Christmas sales".
Up 6.2% in the last five weeks to December 31.
I bear no ill will towards this chain of department stores. In fact, John Lewis is to be admired because it is owned by its staff and is a great advert for workers' capitalism.
But I had hoped for a small blip in festive turnover. This might have brought a reduction in an item whose price I have been tracking at John Lewis for two years now. The object of my desire is an article of clothing. Strange, I know, for someone who goes about as a badly packed parachute courtesy of Primark and C&A Barcelona.
I have been ganting for a Gant jacket. Gant, as you probably know, is a fashion brand which peddles New England chic. Collegiate Oxford blazers, lambswool jacquard slipovers, a houndstooth plaid hat in hedge green.
I have not been lusting after any of that. What I want is a classic Gant mid-length jacket. Rainproof and fleece-lined, elegant, understated and ideal for seeing an old codger through a Scottish winter.
At £175 it is slightly out of my skinflint pricing policy. Attempts to negotiate a reduction have fallen on deaf John Lewis ears: "We don't have to cut the price. This Gant stuff flies off the shelves." The Gant shop in Barcelona says the same, despite the collapse of the Iberian economy.
There was a window of opportunity last week when Gant online reduced the price to £122. But by the time I had been into John Lewis to double-check my size and got back on the computer, all the XL jackets had been sold.
So, it's back to Plan A which is to get a job at John Lewis and qualify for a partner's discount.
Plan B is to search charity shops. Or maybe hope that someone reading this has a perfectly good Gant classic mid-length jacket, size XL, colour optional, hanging unused and unwanted in the wardrobe.
Plan C is to abandon penny-pinching and pay the price. I could probably scrape together £175 if I gave up buying drink for the rest of January.
Which I think I will do because I'm worth it. My liver agrees, by the way.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article