$2199MSRP + tax - $200 off (with costco coupon) for Vizio GV52L which you can find in its quarterly coupon booklet. If you have not gotten it, go to costco's registration front desk and ask for one.
Updated on 8/7/2007: Today, Vizio updated from response time 8ms to 5ms. The rumor is that Vizio has two source for its panel, LG/Philips and Samsung. One has 5ms response time while the other has 8ms. ---------------------------------------------------- Notes: - If you want to wait for Westinghouse TX 52" before deciding you should buy that or Vizio 52", you can try to wait till Aug 26 to go to costco as it is very likely to be sold out. Get a rain check that is good for 30 days - Sharp LC-52D64U is coming out in 6 weeks so you can expect LC-52D62U to decline in price everywhere. - Get it early by buying it now 1. price adjust on Aug 20. 2. If #1 fail, wheel out a new 52" and refund with old receipt (buy and return) 3. If #1 fail, and it's out of stock, get a raincheck and perform #2 4. Worse come to worse if #1, #2 failed, rebuy a new 52" and return your old 2 weeks old tv
Users like you can add images, links and other relevant information about this topic.
posted: Aug. 6, 2007 @ 11:27p
clubxny
Shopaholic Member
posted: Aug. 7, 2007 @ 12:20a
WoW.. I may go for this.
OTD Price in NYC : ~$2167 (includes tax)
47" Vizio is going for $1599. $400 difference for 5" extra inches. ARghh
TypeEE
Senior Member
posted: Aug. 7, 2007 @ 12:26a
Other options to consider for under $2400?
Sharp LC-52D62U $2330 from some reputable online store --------------- How is it better than Vizio 52": Response time: 6.5ms refresh rate: 60Hz typical contrast ratio: 2000:1 Dynamic Contrast ratio: 10000:1 How is it worse than Vizio 52": no VGA port only 2 hdmi no PIP/POP Banding issues
Westinghouse TX-52F480S --------------- spec is uncertain but should be similar to Vizio Release on Sept 7.
TypeEE
Senior Member
posted: Aug. 7, 2007 @ 12:29a
Comparing diagonal length is not quite right.
47" = 44.5" x 31.4" = 1397.3 square inch => $1599/ 1397.3 = $1.1443 per sqt inch 52" = 50.4" x 33.4" = 1683.36 square inch => $1999 /1683.36 = $1.1875 per sqt inch
You are just look at 4 cent a sqt inch differences. In other words, 52" is only 3.775% more expensive in the square footage wise.
clubxny said: WoW.. I may go for this.
OTD Price in NYC : ~$2167 (includes tax)
47" Vizio is going for $1599. $400 difference for 5" extra inches. ARghh
sparklecopy
Greedy Member
posted: Aug. 7, 2007 @ 12:30a
the 42 inch vizio was 999 a month ago. I got that one and it's awesome. I can't really understand how they can justify a 1000 dollar increase for ten extra inches. I'm waiting for a 65 inch dlp to go down under 2k.
TypeEE
Senior Member
posted: Aug. 7, 2007 @ 12:36a
sparklecopy said: the 42 inch vizio was 999 a month ago. I got that one and it's awesome. I can't really understand how they can justify a 1000 dollar increase for ten extra inches. I'm waiting for a 65 inch dlp to go down under 2k.
40.5" W x 27.3" = 1105.65 sqrt inch => $999 / 1105.65 = $.9035 / sqrt inch
52" is 10.6% more expensive than 42" in terms of viewable area because price doubled and the viewable area is around 50% bigger.
shade45
Senior Member - 2K
posted: Aug. 7, 2007 @ 12:43a
Does the TV come with USB ports?
sparklecopy
Greedy Member
posted: Aug. 7, 2007 @ 1:05a
TypeEE said: sparklecopy said: the 42 inch vizio was 999 a month ago. I got that one and it's awesome. I can't really understand how they can justify a 1000 dollar increase for ten extra inches. I'm waiting for a 65 inch dlp to go down under 2k.
40.5" W x 27.3" = 1105.65 sqrt inch => $999 / 1105.65 = $.9035 / sqrt inch
52" is 10.6% more expensive than 42" in terms of viewable area because price doubled and the viewable area is around 50% bigger. if the price doubled than shouldn't the viewable area double as well? I would like to know how these TV guys price their sets. I'm sure the bigger the sets get the more profit margins they make.
priny
Member
posted: Aug. 7, 2007 @ 1:11a
TypeEE
Is 2199 the set price? Coz I was at Costco last Sunday, the electronic guy told me it will be 1999 + tax - 200.
I wish it's 1999 instead of 2199.
TypeEE
Senior Member
posted: Aug. 7, 2007 @ 7:24a
priny said: TypeEE
Is 2199 the set price? Coz I was at Costco last Sunday, the electronic guy told me it will be 1999 + tax - 200.
I wish it's 1999 instead of 2199.
Costco changed the price of this set several times. At first, it was $1899 in the system, then for the longest time, it was rumored to be $2099.99. Now, it has a price tagged as $2199 in store only that a lot of store are not selling them until next monday.
TypeEE
Senior Member
posted: Aug. 7, 2007 @ 7:30a
sparklecopy said: TypeEE said: sparklecopy said: the 42 inch vizio was 999 a month ago. I got that one and it's awesome. I can't really understand how they can justify a 1000 dollar increase for ten extra inches. I'm waiting for a 65 inch dlp to go down under 2k.
40.5" W x 27.3" = 1105.65 sqrt inch => $999 / 1105.65 = $.9035 / sqrt inch
52" is 10.6% more expensive than 42" in terms of viewable area because price doubled and the viewable area is around 50% bigger. if the price doubled than shouldn't the viewable area double as well? I would like to know how these TV guys price their sets. I'm sure the bigger the sets get the more profit margins they make.
I am sure they have a bigger profit margin right now as this is the only cheap brand with 52" right now. I am sure if you can stand DLP, it's a way cheaper buy. The reason I didn't look at the DLP are: The poor viewable angle, not wall mountable (which has a cool effect in it), may have rainbow effect (which I have never seen even w/ my dlp projector).
These are other options over $2.6k Sony's XBR3 or XBR2 52" are over $3k Samsung's last year model are still over $2.8k Sharp 52" 82U are $2.7k, 92U are over $3k
So a 52" bought at B&M for $2k is quite a bargain. Of course you don't have this year's latest features like: HDMI 1.3 with deep color 120Hz refresh rate that can take 1080p/24 from bluray/hd-dvd without 3:2 pulldown.
Sum1OrOtha
Member
posted: Aug. 7, 2007 @ 7:45a
Is it bad that I desperately want a 57" LCD for under $3k? Will I be waiting until 2012 for this kind of price?
TypeEE
Senior Member
posted: Aug. 7, 2007 @ 9:37a
Sum1OrOtha said: Is it bad that I desperately want a 57" LCD for under $3k? Will I be waiting until 2012 for this kind of price?
I too think 52" is quite small but 57" is still out of reach at the $5k range. I think as soon as Vizio, Westinghouse, Magnavox, and other cheap brand to have a 57" model, $3k is a sure thing. So most likely 2nd quarter or 3rd quarter of 2008.
hyperchao
Member
posted: Aug. 7, 2007 @ 10:11a
sparklecopy said: if the price doubled than shouldn't the viewable area double as well? I would like to know how these TV guys price their sets. I'm sure the bigger the sets get the more profit margins they make. Since when did electronics ever work like that? You always have to pay a premium for bigger/faster and even smaller in some markets. It's not like you're buying in bulk or something...
TypeEE
Senior Member
posted: Aug. 7, 2007 @ 12:27p
hyperchao said: sparklecopy said: if the price doubled than shouldn't the viewable area double as well? I would like to know how these TV guys price their sets. I'm sure the bigger the sets get the more profit margins they make. Since when did electronics ever work like that? You always have to pay a premium for bigger/faster and even smaller in some markets. It's not like you're buying in bulk or something...
May be that concept works in costco, buy more save more, but this is not the case for LCD TV at costco this time.
I am sure there are cheaper rear projection or plasma deals but some of us are not interested in those technologies for one reason or the other. I did see the 61" samsung at costco, the viewing angle was horrible compared to some of Sony's offering like the 70" at Sony Store.
Reasons for 1080p sets: - 1080i sources will look better on a 1080p set than a 720p set because you are stripping out resolutions during a 1080i -> 1080p -> 720p conversion. - its a better monitor if you do connect it to a PC.
TypeEE
Senior Member
posted: Aug. 8, 2007 @ 8:12a
It's funny that vizio changed it's response time from 8ms to 5ms on their website. Don't they know what they are selling?
hodedofome
New Member
posted: Aug. 8, 2007 @ 9:53a
The price goes up considerably when talking about 50" and larger LCD's. The cost to manufacture the glass and I believe other parts is much more the bigger it gets. It's getting better and the manufacturing costs are getting lower, which is why prices are dropping so dramatically, but they still have a ways to go to match the costs of large plasmas.
TypeEE
Senior Member
posted: Aug. 8, 2007 @ 12:47p
hodedofome said: The price goes up considerably when talking about 50" and larger LCD's. The cost to manufacture the glass and I believe other parts is much more the bigger it gets. It's getting better and the manufacturing costs are getting lower, which is why prices are dropping so dramatically, but they still have a ways to go to match the costs of large plasmas.
In terms of 1080p panels, 1080p LCD are already cheaper than 1080p plasmas for certain sizes.
For anyone looking for more information (technical or otherwise) on this TV, I suggest going over to the AVS forum and taking a look at this thread. It's about 19 pages so far with discussion on many speculations and "facts" about the TV even before it's on display at Costco.
IIRC, I was reading that the 8ms response time changed to 5ms because Vizio ended up going with a different panel manufacturer (Samsung instead of LG/Philips)
sideburns said: For anyone looking for more information (technical or otherwise) on this TV, I suggest going over to the AVS forum and taking a look at this thread. It's about 19 pages so far with discussion on many speculations and "facts" about the TV even before it's on display at Costco.
IIRC, I was reading that the 8ms response time changed to 5ms because Vizio ended up going with a different panel manufacturer (Samsung instead of LG/Philips)
-Mike
People should really be concerned about more important things in life
Bellyflops said: sideburns said: For anyone looking for more information (technical or otherwise) on this TV, I suggest going over to the AVS forum and taking a look at this thread. It's about 19 pages so far with discussion on many speculations and "facts" about the TV even before it's on display at Costco.
IIRC, I was reading that the 8ms response time changed to 5ms because Vizio ended up going with a different panel manufacturer (Samsung instead of LG/Philips)
-Mike
People should really be concerned about more important things in life
19 pages is nothing. I saw a thread in there that was over 200 pages long and ended when the products actually started shipping. It was for the newest 2007 Onkyo receivers. Insane, yet somehow quite useful.
TypeEE
Senior Member
posted: Aug. 9, 2007 @ 11:36a
Bellyflops said: sideburns said: For anyone looking for more information (technical or otherwise) on this TV, I suggest going over to the AVS forum and taking a look at this thread. It's about 19 pages so far with discussion on many speculations and "facts" about the TV even before it's on display at Costco.
IIRC, I was reading that the 8ms response time changed to 5ms because Vizio ended up going with a different panel manufacturer (Samsung instead of LG/Philips)
-Mike
People should really be concerned about more important things in life
I have read through some threads with 300pages both in fatwallet and avsforum.
TypeEE said: Comparing diagonal length is not quite right.
47" = 44.5" x 31.4" = 1397.3 square inch => $1999 / 1397.3 = $1.1443 per sqt inch 52" = 50.4" x 33.4" = 1683.36 square inch => $1599 /1683.36 = $1.1875 per sqt inch
You are just look at 4 cent a sqt inch differences. In other words, 52" is only 3.775% more expensive in the square footage wise.
Um... why do you have $1999 on the 47 and $1599 on the 52? Your results are correct, but your equations have the values transposed...
clubxny said: WoW.. I may go for this. OTD Price in NYC : ~$2167 (includes tax) 47" Vizio is going for $1599. $400 difference for 5" extra inches. ARghh
Note that 5 extra inches is about 15% larger. 15% more makes it justifyable. 1397 + 204 (15%)
TypeEE
Senior Member
posted: Aug. 10, 2007 @ 12:08a
riznick said: TypeEE said: Comparing diagonal length is not quite right.
47" = 44.5" x 31.4" = 1397.3 square inch => $1999 / 1397.3 = $1.1443 per sqt inch 52" = 50.4" x 33.4" = 1683.36 square inch => $1599 /1683.36 = $1.1875 per sqt inch
You are just look at 4 cent a sqt inch differences. In other words, 52" is only 3.775% more expensive in the square footage wise.
Um... why do you have $1999 on the 47 and $1599 on the 52? Your results are correct, but your equations have the values transposed...
I updated it as $1999 since I found from avsforum that the online price is $1899 but the B&M price is still $1999 after coupon. The online price will involve shipping charges.
TypeEE
Senior Member
posted: Aug. 14, 2007 @ 10:31a
JandS said: Anyone know where to find the coupon - I haven't received it in the mail yet.
If you haven't received it by now, you might not get it. Go to registration desk and ask for one, they will give it to you if they have it. However, I have heard that they ran out of them lately as this coupon book was from May-June period.
microwiz
Addicted Member
posted: Aug. 14, 2007 @ 10:44a
sideburns said: Insane, yet somehow quite useful.That's FW in a nutshell for me.
We're anxiously awaiting the start of this sale. We've been w/o a TV for three months now as we've been waiting for this deal. It will look awesome in our living room.
JandS said: We're anxiously awaiting the start of this sale. We've been w/o a TV for three months now as we've been waiting for this deal. It will look awesome in our living room.
Oh heck yeah that 1000:1 contrast ratio is gonna blow your eyes off!
Despite the very poor contrast ratio specs, I am curious how this TV really performs regarding contrast.
Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.
Members of our community may attach files to a post in accordance with the User Agreement. FatWallet is not responsible for the content, accuracy, completeness or validity of any information contained in any attached file. Files have *not* been scanned for viruses. Be especially wary of Excel files which may contain malicious content.
