No. It's straight to the point, minimal markup, few distractions (with the exception of some bad color choices), fast to load too.

There are some Web 3.0, responsive, all buzzwords included sites that are way more annoying than this.

Ugly it may be, but hey, it says right down at the bottom, "This web page was successfully Validated as: "HTML 5 with CSS level 3" and tested in all above browsers."

So there.

Maybe but I had a complete overview of what they sold within a couple of seconds...

If you're going to criticize a website, at least spell "existence" correctly.

Oh please. This is still the champ: http://www.lingscars.com/

At least that one has an excuse, from the copyright it appears it was created in 1996. This was created in 2010: http://www.warrens.net/

All they need to do is tone down the colors.

Red should never be used as the background for a website. Ever.

Challenge Accepted.