Just happened to spot this...

[OvenMaster]

... at www.consumerreports.org 's archive. Seems they weren't impressed with some brands of TVs.
Tom

[HomerJ]

If you go buy ConsumerReports then all you need is a 3$ surround processor with shitty innards like a DiVinci 'cause they all sound good to their ears. Kinda like Stereo Review.

[old_tv_nut]

Consumer Reports' main goal in life seems to be making controversy whether based on significant differences or not. In the past, their criteria for judging many items was far from well-balanced and did not take into proper consideration that some consumers may value certain attributes in a product. This was especially noticeable to me in their car reviews, where they sometimes put down sporty cars apparently because they didn't cater to the same uses as a family sedan!

They did do one thing for TV sets, in constantly complaining about the lack of full DC restoration, which was one of the failings of color sets for a long time. Eventually, one year, they did come up with the amazing but true revelation that most transistorized color TVs at the time had roughly the same picture quality, and reliability was now much better than the old tube sets. Don't know how they managed to write that, when their existence depends on finding differences among products.

[John Folsom]

What is the difinition of "private label" TVs? I would have assumed that Muntz, for example, WAS mass-produced. ??

[Whirled One]

Originally Posted by John Folsom

What is the difinition of "private label" TVs? I would have assumed that Muntz, for example, WAS mass-produced. ??

Methinks Consumer Reports was just recycling a photo from their archives. The article that that photo originally went with wasn't "private label" TVs. The article was about "minor brand" TVs which CU didn't normally cover due to either (a) being regional or small-house-brand brands, and/or (b) failing to meet certain basic criteria that CU generally required when choosing large B&W sets for testing at the time, namely having 3 IF stages and keyed AGC.

[OvenMaster]

I thought so as well. Private label I thought was something like Sears having their Silvertone brand slapped on a TV made by someone else.

[andy]

---

[veg-o-matic]

I have that actual report somewhere if anyone wants me to scan it.

veg

[Whirled One]

Originally Posted by veg-o-matic

I have that actual report somewhere if anyone wants me to scan it.

veg

I've got it around here too. By the way, CU really seems to like that photo; they also used it in their I'll Buy That! 50-year retrospective book that they published in the late 80's.

[Bill Cahill]

Originally Posted by veg-o-matic

I have that actual report somewhere if anyone wants me to scan it.

veg

I'd be interested in a scan of article. Thanks. Bill CAhill

[BridgedToMono]

Hope I don't deviate too much here... but Whirled One's showin' off my Amana!

[Carmine]

I've never actually laid my hands on a Setchel-Carlson, but don't those sets have hand-wired unitized "modules"? They find nothing that differenciates that from a Muntz???

Idiots.

It's almost comical if you know a certain product inside & out to read a CU report. They've aquired their "fame" by default, as I don't know of any other independant testing lab that reports to the public.

[Whirled One]

Originally Posted by Carmine

I've never actually laid my hands on a Setchel-Carlson, but don't those sets have hand-wired unitized "modules"? They find nothing that differenciates that from a Muntz???

Idiots.

??? What gave you the impression that they rated the Setchell-Carlson the same as the Muntz..??

Looking at the actual article, the Muntz was the lowest-rated set tested, and rated below the worst of the sets tested in CU's 'regular' 21" B&W TV project that year.

The best rated of the "minor-brand" sets tested was the Andrea, but even it was not considered as good as the Dumont or Zenith (or even Admiral) sets tested earlier.

From the article:
"The Andrea's ranking throws a curious light on the promotion for this brand, which has persisted in claiming special "craftsmanship" that lifts it far above the "mass-produced" reciever. Actually, the general design features of the Andrea, as well as its performance, show it to be really the same breed of cat as the "mass-produced" sets of comparable quality. CU's study of the sets included in this project reinforces the concpet that neither mass-production nor small-scale production necessarily creates good TV quality or bad TV quality."
"Such quality depends, first, on what the design engineers do at their drafting boards; and second, on the exactness with which the final design is realized in production."
"This exactness can be achieved by automatic production machines, by women wielding soldering irons, or by men from outer space-- if they could be persuaded to come down and do the job. It's simply a question of how well the job is done; not how it is done."


As for the Setchel-Carlson, it wasn't actually given any ratings for quality, since it was judged "not acceptable" due to shock hazard, in part due to the fact it was the first set they had tested in the past several years that did not have a line-cord interlock. [You can complain about that being grounds for disqualification if you want, but it does seem distinctly odd to see a TV in 1960 without a safety interlock; wasn't that a UL *requirement* by that time..?]

[Carmine]

I was never able to link to an article... Only saw the caption which stated "..brands such as Andrea, Muntz and Setchell-Carlson find nothing to justify their reputation for being better than mass-produced models."

So to me it appeared they were lumping Muntz in with Setchell-Carlson.

Which their caption, in fact, did.

[Whirled One]

...and here's the original article. From Consumer Reports, March 1960.

By the way, those of you interested in such things might want to pay a visit to your local library and take a look at the periodical stacks. [University libraries are especially good for this.] Old issues of Consumer Reports can make for a very interesting read. Try it-- you'll be glad you did.