The story held my interest for all 40 episodes but there were some glaring inconsistencies. For instance, the Grove family. It starts out with three girls and then they have a baby boy but when Mr Grove finds out the little boy isn't his, it changes to 2 girls and 3 boys. Then it later changes back to 3 girls and 1 boy. And what happened to the youngest Selfridge daughter. She is there until part way into season 3 and is never seen to talked about again. When Kitty is injured (won't give away what happened to her) the cut is on the right side of her face at the hospital but in the next scene it's on the left. Also, the dialog is often wrong for the period. There were phrases like "don't go there" as in don't talk about a particular topic. That idiom wasn't introduced until the 70s or 80s.Overall, I enjoyed the series but the inconsistencies were annoying and distracting.

I love most things about this programme, the clothes, the history and glamour. A lot of very good actors giving great performances, especially Jeremy Piven as Mr Selfridge, it some just stick out like a sore thumb. Particularly the mismatched Agnes Towler and Henri. He is a refined and handsome man and she is a weak whispering girl. With the most irritating voice and mouth!! The actor paying the artist that paints Rose is not convincing either. Why the Tointon Sisters get brought in as the older Selfridge girls as they don't look anything like the younger versions. It's just so weird that everything is practically perfect about this show barring the couple of dud castings. I do actually recommend it!!!

How can it be that we have moved from pre suffragette to 1920's London and yet the actors haven't aged a day? I love the London store and this should have been a really enthralling series but it lacked authenticity to the point of being ludicrous and now we have another series of the same...with all the doings, comings and goings, surely one frown line wouldn't have gone amiss from the makeup department? I also thought the dialogue stilted and contrived and the narrative itself sounded second-hand,a thrift shop sort of series where the actors are primed and primped and off they go...has anyone actually been realistically served in this shop since the series began? I've looked but not seen one purchase and how sad as Selfridges has such lovely things...No, its a boo-boo. The American accent and drawling on and on about the woes of being rich are just too trite and contrived for me. There seems to be only one layer of narrative here with no layering whatsoever. I will not be watching another series of this.

If the real Harry Selfridge was as much of a dear as he's portrayed in this series he would never have made the millions he squandered on gambling and concubines. Jeremy Piven's Harry is the ultimate dream employer, a cuddly little bear daddy who radiates love, sincere concern, and benevolence for all who work for him, in his shop and bed. He's so nonsexist that rampaging suffragettes won't throw bricks through his windows and he's so good to his employees that union organizers can't get to first base with them. And his customers! They get the best, most exciting shopping experience, with all those happy employees striving to please, and although glamorous and luxurious enough for the King himself to shop in, Selfridges welcomes the poor with bargains that even undercut Woolworths!I enjoyed the first season for the pretty costumes and fine performances (and yes, I do like what Piven does with Selfridge--it's the best thing about it in my opinion), but I got tired of it during the second season. Wish fulfillment fantasies only take you so far. I started feeling nostalgic for the original black and white TV version of "The Forsyte Saga," a much harder-edged and honest depiction of the Edwardian era that I recommend to anyone who found this as insubstantial as I did.