| Anne Duhon |
I have a Sunbeam waffle/sandwich grill my mother used when I was a
child, I made waffles for my children and later my grandchildren. It
still works. I have a westinghouse toaster and a Sunbeam mixer---both
bought in late 50s---still work. I have a Rival crockpot and an
Osterzer blender that processes even the hardest raw vegetables bought
during the 70s, Both work as good as the day I bought them.
My appliances are not fancy designer pieces but they are dependable.
My grown children are buying these appliances today and they break down
in no time at all. Is there any quality brands being made today or is
everything overpriced junk? Anne
|
|
|
| Edwin Pawlowski |
"Anne Duhon" <anneduhon@webtv.net> wrote in message
>I have a Sunbeam waffle/sandwich grill my mother used when I was a
> child, I made waffles for my children and later my grandchildren. It
> still works.
Our is about 38 y ears old. We still like it.
> Is there any quality brands being made today or is
> everything overpriced junk? Anne
>
Much is junk, but a few good brands still exist. The consumer is as much of
a problem as the manufacturers. We like to buy cheap stuff and don't
investigate quality. You can buy a toaster as cheap as $7.50 in K Mart. How
long does it take you to earn $7.50? How long did it take you to earn
enough to buy that reliable toasted 30 years ago? Two weeks ago I paid $40
for a toaster. Won't really know how good it is for a few years.
Where I work, we use plain old household irons (must be Teflon coated) to
seal some polyethylene. There is not industrial product made that works as
well. When we started using them about 12 years ago, I paid $20 or so.
Thursday I paid $9.97 at Wal Mart for the Black & Decker and it works just
as well as when they cost $20. . FWIW, they are on 24 hours a day and
never burn out. They eventually get dropped and break.
|
|
|
| hw |
I'm still using the Farberware electric frying pan I bought in 1959 at White
Front Store on South Central, in Elay..and my Sunbeam portable mixer circa
1966...
harriet & critters...
> I have a Sunbeam waffle/sandwich grill my mother used when I was a
> child, I made waffles for my children and later my grandchildren. It
> still works. I have a westinghouse toaster and a Sunbeam mixer---both
> bought in late 50s---still work. I have a Rival crockpot and an
> Osterzer blender that processes even the hardest raw vegetables bought
> during the 70s, Both work as good as the day I bought them.
> My appliances are not fancy designer pieces but they are dependable.
> My grown children are buying these appliances today and they break down
> in no time at all. Is there any quality brands being made today or is
> everything overpriced junk? Anne
>
|
|
|
| Julia Altshuler |
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> Much is junk, but a few good brands still exist. The consumer is as much of
> a problem as the manufacturers. We like to buy cheap stuff and don't
> investigate quality. You can buy a toaster as cheap as $7.50 in K Mart. How
> long does it take you to earn $7.50? How long did it take you to earn
> enough to buy that reliable toasted 30 years ago? Two weeks ago I paid $40
> for a toaster. Won't really know how good it is for a few years.
>
> Where I work, we use plain old household irons (must be Teflon coated) to
> seal some polyethylene. There is not industrial product made that works as
> well. When we started using them about 12 years ago, I paid $20 or so.
> Thursday I paid $9.97 at Wal Mart for the Black & Decker and it works just
> as well as when they cost $20. . FWIW, they are on 24 hours a day and
> never burn out. They eventually get dropped and break.
But how does one go about investigating quality? It seems like a
manufacturer puts effort into making a good product for a couple of
years, gets the word out that this particular model and make is built to
last, then rests on its laurels so to speak and can clean up by making
an inferior cheap product and selling it at double the price. My
experience has been like Anne's old items bought at garage sales last
forever. New ones, no matter what I pay, break after a year and can't
be repaired.
--Lia
|
|
|
| PENMART01 |
> Julia Altshuler writes:
>
>Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>
>> Much is junk, but a few good brands still exist. The consumer is as much
>of
>> a problem as the manufacturers. We like to buy cheap stuff and don't
>> investigate quality. You can buy a toaster as cheap as $7.50 in K Mart.
>How
>> long does it take you to earn $7.50? How long did it take you to earn
>> enough to buy that reliable toasted 30 years ago? Two weeks ago I paid $40
>
>> for a toaster. Won't really know how good it is for a few years.
>>
>> Where I work, we use plain old household irons (must be Teflon coated) to
>> seal some polyethylene. There is not industrial product made that works as
>
>> well. When we started using them about 12 years ago, I paid $20 or so.
>> Thursday I paid $9.97 at Wal Mart for the Black & Decker and it works just
>> as well as when they cost $20. . FWIW, they are on 24 hours a day and
>> never burn out. They eventually get dropped and break.
>
>
>But how does one go about investigating quality? It seems like a
>manufacturer puts effort into making a good product for a couple of
>years, gets the word out that this particular model and make is built to
>last, then rests on its laurels so to speak and can clean up by making
>an inferior cheap product and selling it at double the price. My
>experience has been like Anne's old items bought at garage sales last
>forever. New ones, no matter what I pay, break after a year and can't
>be repaired.
No one repairs a $10 toaster... do you repair light bulbs? duh
There are still plenty of very well made products... shop for quality of
Customer Service... who cares if a product malfunctions, not if customer
service makes it right no questions asked, even if the customer obviously
abused it... ie. no matter what tool I need I always first check for
availability from Sears, any "Craftsman" product fails, for any reason
whatsoever, return it for a new one, no questions, no hassle. I can't begin to
relate how many "Craftsman" products I abused/misused... brought em back to any
Sears for a brand new one... just last week I mowed over a "Craftsman" all
rubber garden hose, a 100' length, nicked a big slice out of it... the sales
clerk took it back and gave me a brand new one. Doesn't matter if it's a $10
shovel handle busted or a $500 drill press motor burned out, If it says
"Craftsman" Sears makes it right... and when their warranty says "Lifetime"
they mean LIFETIME. My tool wears out 10 years from now I know I can have it
replaced, free... so gals, whenever you meet a guy first thing check his tool
for the "Craftsman" label... and all yoose gals need to give yer guys a
"Craftsman" tool box.
---= BOYCOTT FRANCE (belgium) GERMANY--SPAIN =---
---= Move UNITED NATIONS To Paris =---
*********
"Life would be devoid of all meaning were it without tribulation."
Sheldon
````````````
|
|
|
| sd |
In article <33jYc.64468$9d6.57996@attbi_s54>,
Julia Altshuler <jaltshuler@comcast.net> wrote:
> But how does one go about investigating quality?
Well, there's the Internet. Google carries Usenet archives back to
1992 or such (granted, not everyone's postings are archived, but it's
still considerable). Web searches can go back a few years. Consumer
Reports (caveats about their testing and reliability methodologies
aside) is available (in print, at least) for years gone by at your
local library.
Some of it is just using good sense: if Acme Appliance Company, which
has had a high-end-department-store reputation for years, comes out
with a line sold exclusively at Wal*Mart, you can be pretty sure it's
built to a price and not necessarily the legendary quality Acme has
been known for. Sometimes companies like Acme get smart and they
relabel: "Brandex by Acme" provides most of the brand promise without
muddying Acme's good name with the shortcomings of the cheaper
product.
And some of it is just knowing what you're looking at:
- Simpler product designs are better. Microwaves with doors that open
_without_ pressing a button are likely to last longer because there
are fewer moving parts.
- A nameplate that reappears after having been gone from the market
for a few years (GE and Westinghouse come to mind in small appliances)
usually means someone bought the name, so the quality would be similar
to what the company makes now, not what GE or Westinghouse used to
make "back in the day."
- Spending more for a mixer that can handle cookie dough -- even if
you never bake cookies -- likely will get you a sturdier product than
the cheaper mixer that will handle your mixing needs.
I think it _is_ harder to find quality appliances. But they seem to
exist in all market segments if you're willing to shop and spend some
money.
sd
|
|
|
| JeanineAlyse in 29 Palms |
anneduhon@webtv.net (Anne=A0Duhon) inquiry snipped greatly, but....
>Is there any quality brands being made
>today or is everything overpriced junk?
A few months ago I had the joy of replacing many things in my kitchen,
in order to nearly set up my 30 year old son's first "independant of
others" kitchen. Not only did this child get all of the very complete
set of Revere Ware (circa 1950 or so) that had come from my
grandmother's kitchen, and because he knows I now use only a "wand" or
"stick" beater, he also glommed onto the very old, copper encased Oster
hand-beater that still works perfectly, as well as the entire Oster
"Kitchen Center" blender that has attachments for making bread dough and
grinding meats.
The 24 piece set of Revere Ware I replaced the old with is of a much
less heavy construction, and the lids don't set in as snuggly as did my
grandmother's, as though they are out of round. I never used the
blender's bread attachment, or it's meat grinder, but son says both do
work quite well. The ever a bread maker, me, prefers using
grandfather's very old, metal, hand-crank meat grinder that son had no
chance of begging away.
Based on merely this most recent experience with supplying son, methinks
nothing I've replaced the old with could possibly hold up to the use he,
or most any family could need to use on a daily basis.
Picky ~JA~
|
|
|
| EskWIRED@spamblock.panix.com |
In rec.food.cooking, Anne Duhon <anneduhon@webtv.net> wrote:
> I have a Sunbeam waffle/sandwich grill my mother used when I was a
> child, I made waffles for my children and later my grandchildren. It
> still works. I have a westinghouse toaster and a Sunbeam mixer---both
> bought in late 50s---still work. I have a Rival crockpot and an
> Osterzer blender that processes even the hardest raw vegetables bought
> during the 70s, Both work as good as the day I bought them.
> My appliances are not fancy designer pieces but they are dependable.
> My grown children are buying these appliances today and they break down
> in no time at all. Is there any quality brands being made today or is
> everything overpriced junk? Anne
Personally, I favor eBay for appliance purchases. As you know, the
appliances of the past were built like tanks. I expect to pass down my
toaster to my grandkids (that is, if they still like art-deco styling).
--
....I'm an air-conditioned gypsy...
- The Who
|
|
|
| Edwin Pawlowski |
"PENMART01" <penmart01@aol.como> wrote in message
> My tool wears out 10 years from now I know I can have it
> replaced, free... so gals, whenever you meet a guy first thing check his
> tool
> for the "Craftsman" label... and all yoose gals need to give yer guys a
> "Craftsman" tool box.
Damn, I sure wish my tool was a Craftsman. I'm going to be 59 soon and I'm
not sure it will work as well in another 10 years.
|
|
|
| Edwin Pawlowski |
"Julia Altshuler" <jaltshuler@comcast.net> wrote in message
> But how does one go about investigating quality? It seems like a
> manufacturer puts effort into making a good product for a couple of years,
> gets the word out that this particular model and make is built to last,
> then rests on its laurels so to speak and can clean up by making an
> inferior cheap product and selling it at double the price. My experience
> has been like Anne's old items bought at garage sales last forever. New
> ones, no matter what I pay, break after a year and can't be repaired.
>
>
> --Lia
>
It is not easy. Shopping for a toaster, every one was made in China. Close
inspection did reveal some differences though, in the quality of the
materials. Some are heavier, some have coatings, heavier cords, more
heating elements for a more even toast.
Kitchen Aid is still a good brand, but the stand mixer is still not as good
as the ones made when it was a Hobart brand. Singer still trades on its
name earned many years ago, but they have not made a decent machine in 25
years and three or four owners. Frigidaire used to be good when owned by
General Motors, but they too when to crap by various owners and
consolidations with mediocre brands.
As long as consumers buy second and third rate appliances, companies will
continue to give us what sells.
|
|
|
| Mark Thorson |
Anne Duhon wrote:
> Is there any quality brands being made today or is
> everything overpriced junk? Anne
The ones made in China are all junk. I have a Rival
crockpot made in the USA that I bought about 5 years
ago, and works great! Rival recently announced a
recall of all their crockpots -- all models made in China
-- because the handles break off too easily.
My Chinese-made George Foreman rotissiere is very cheaply
made, with thin sheet metal and a knob that broke off after
not much use. On the other hand, my Korean-made
Ronco rotissiere is solid as a rock, having survived
very heavy use with not even the least sign of defect.
I don't think it's the fault of the Chinese that their
products are so bad -- it's the American companies
who ask them to build products so cheaply. I think
it is within the capability of the Chinese to build a
good product, if someone like Ronco were to contract
with them to make a product to a high specification
and pay them adequately for the job.
Part of the problem is the Walmartization of consumer
demand in the U.S. We have grown accustomed to
expecting unreasonably low prices for appliances.
The fan in my Chinese-made Toastmaster convection
oven is breaking down after only light use, but what
can you expect for only $90? The next nearest in price
convection oven was about double that. You get what
you pay for, and the very existence of a $90 convection
oven (even though it's junk) puts pressure on the other
manufacturers to get their price down.
That said, the Toastmaster has served its purpose in
teaching me how much I would use a convection oven
and what features I need. I saw a very high quality
commercial convection oven for about $650, and I
could tell it just reeked of quality. Even the feel of
the door latch told me it was like the Mercedes-Benz
of convection ovens. If I were to get serious about
convection ovens, that would be what I would buy.
It would probably last three generations, until it was
stolen or lost in a house fire or sold on eBay by
unappreciative great-grandchildren.
However, what I learned from the piece-of-junk
Toastmaster is that I don't need a convection oven.
I only use it as a food dehydrator, and it operates
poorly for that purpose. What I need is a food
dehydrator. The Excalibur units look good to me,
and I'm going to buy one once I figure out which
model to get. I'm thinking the low-end model would
be most suitable, because it has the lowest wattage
heater. The biggest problem with the Toastmaster
operating as a food dehydrator is that it would maintain
temperature by frequent cycling between 0 and 1200
watts. Lower wattage and longer cycles are what
I want, and I didn't know that before buying the
piece-of-crap Toastmaster.
|
|
|
| Allan Matthews |
On 29 Aug 2004 13:58:17 GMT, penmart01@aol.como (PENMART01) wrote:
>> Julia Altshuler writes:
>>
>>Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>>
>>> Much is junk, but a few good brands still exist. The consumer is as much
>>of
>>> a problem as the manufacturers. We like to buy cheap stuff and don't
>>> investigate quality. You can buy a toaster as cheap as $7.50 in K Mart.
>>How
>>> long does it take you to earn $7.50? How long did it take you to earn
>>> enough to buy that reliable toasted 30 years ago? Two weeks ago I paid $40
>>
>>> for a toaster. Won't really know how good it is for a few years.
>>>
>>> Where I work, we use plain old household irons (must be Teflon coated) to
>>> seal some polyethylene. There is not industrial product made that works as
>>
>>> well. When we started using them about 12 years ago, I paid $20 or so.
>>> Thursday I paid $9.97 at Wal Mart for the Black & Decker and it works just
>>> as well as when they cost $20. . FWIW, they are on 24 hours a day and
>>> never burn out. They eventually get dropped and break.
>>
>>
>>But how does one go about investigating quality? It seems like a
>>manufacturer puts effort into making a good product for a couple of
>>years, gets the word out that this particular model and make is built to
>>last, then rests on its laurels so to speak and can clean up by making
>>an inferior cheap product and selling it at double the price. My
>>experience has been like Anne's old items bought at garage sales last
>>forever. New ones, no matter what I pay, break after a year and can't
>>be repaired.
>
>No one repairs a $10 toaster... do you repair light bulbs? duh
>
>There are still plenty of very well made products... shop for quality of
>Customer Service... who cares if a product malfunctions, not if customer
>service makes it right no questions asked, even if the customer obviously
>abused it... ie. no matter what tool I need I always first check for
>availability from Sears, any "Craftsman" product fails, for any reason
>whatsoever, return it for a new one, no questions, no hassle. I can't begin to
>relate how many "Craftsman" products I abused/misused... brought em back to any
>Sears for a brand new one... just last week I mowed over a "Craftsman" all
>rubber garden hose, a 100' length, nicked a big slice out of it... the sales
>clerk took it back and gave me a brand new one. Doesn't matter if it's a $10
>shovel handle busted or a $500 drill press motor burned out, If it says
>"Craftsman" Sears makes it right... and when their warranty says "Lifetime"
>they mean LIFETIME. My tool wears out 10 years from now I know I can have it
>replaced, free... so gals, whenever you meet a guy first thing check his tool
>for the "Craftsman" label... and all yoose gals need to give yer guys a
>"Craftsman" tool box.
>
>
>---= BOYCOTT FRANCE (belgium) GERMANY--SPAIN =---
> ---= Move UNITED NATIONS To Paris =---
> *********
>"Life would be devoid of all meaning were it without tribulation."
>Sheldon
>
Only Craftsman hand tools carry a lifetime guarentee..If you burn out
a motor...tough luck``````````
|
|
|
| Blair P. Houghton |
Anne Duhon <anneduhon@webtv.net> wrote:
>I have a Sunbeam waffle/sandwich grill my mother used when I was a
>child, I made waffles for my children and later my grandchildren. It
>still works. I have a westinghouse toaster and a Sunbeam mixer---both
>bought in late 50s---still work. I have a Rival crockpot and an
>Osterzer blender that processes even the hardest raw vegetables bought
>during the 70s, Both work as good as the day I bought them.
>My appliances are not fancy designer pieces but they are dependable.
>My grown children are buying these appliances today and they break down
>in no time at all. Is there any quality brands being made today or is
>everything overpriced junk? Anne
I can't remember the last small appliance I bought that just
fell apart.
But then, I don't shop strictly on price.
--Blair
"New York City?!"
|
|
|
| occupant |
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>
> "PENMART01" <penmart01@aol.como> wrote in message
> > My tool wears out 10 years from now I know I can have it
> > replaced, free... so gals, whenever you meet a guy first thing check his
> > tool
> > for the "Craftsman" label... and all yoose gals need to give yer guys a
> > "Craftsman" tool box.
>
> Damn, I sure wish my tool was a Craftsman. I'm going to be 59 soon and I'm
> not sure it will work as well in another 10 years.
Well, as you can appreciate lots of Craftsman tools were lost, stolen
and destroyed without a warranty claim.
I am confident that if your non-craftsman tool is still very functional
after 59 years, it will last you a lifetime. Like an old car, you may
have to coax it to start, fiddle with it to keep it running, but in the
end it gets you where you want to go. And probably gets way more
attention because of its vintage than something new on the block that
could theoretically out perform you!
|
|
|
| Saerah |
PENMART01 wrote in message <20040829095817.14991.00002523@mb-m02.aol.com>...
<snip>
so gals, whenever you meet a guy first thing check his tool
>for the "Craftsman" label... and all yoose gals need to give yer guys a
>"Craftsman" tool box.
well, this gal brought her own tools to the marriage, but, hey....
:)
--
saerah (handy around the house)
TANSTAAFL
Bango Skank Awaits the King!
|
|
|
| Alex Rast |
at Sun, 29 Aug 2004 13:58:17 GMT in
<20040829095817.14991.00002523@mb-m02.aol.com>, penmart01@aol.como
(PENMART01) wrote :
>> Julia Altshuler writes:
>>
>>Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>>
>>> Much is junk, but a few good brands still exist. The consumer is as
>>> much
>>of
>>> a problem as the manufacturers. We like to buy cheap stuff and don't
>>> investigate quality. ...
>>But how does one go about investigating quality? ...
My recommendations:
Spend some time learning about the essential performance aspects of the
appliance. This means learning what construction techniques, materials,
etc. do the best job at achieving the central function the appliance is
meant to do. So, for instance, you'll want to investigate the manufacturing
process and filament properties of toaster elements, since these play a
large part in how well a toaster does the basic job of toasting bread.
Similarly, you'll want to know something about the construction of electric
motors and drill bits if you're looking at a power drill. Yes, this process
isn't easy and probably involves learning some technobabble, but it's one
of the most reliable ways of being able to discern quality because you'll
then be able to ask pointed and relevant questions of the manufacturer.
Read up back issues of industry publications and consumer-interest
publications relevant to the product you're trying to buy. General-purpose
consumer ratings magazines like Consumer Reports aren't particularly useful
because they're not specialists in the specific thing you're looking at.
Look both at the ads and at product reviews. Look for companies especially
in reviews that consistently do well, from year to year. Also look at ads
which contain any details on construction or performance, and look for
companies that have been around for a while and/or don't change models too
frequently.
Spend a lot of time at the stores looking over appliances and finding out
where the salient differences are. Ask questions (being aware that the
salesman is not always the best place to get answers to the more detailed
technical ones. Don't be afraid to shake things, listening for looseness or
rattling, push buttons, checking for good positive actuation and solid
feel, open doors, or whatever else lets you check for obvious shortcomings
in build. Suspect anything that looks or feels flimsy, awkward, gadgety, or
confusing.
The key point is that you can't expect buying even a small appliance to be
something that you can achieve by simply walking into a store blindly and
walk out 10 minutes later, new appliance in hand. If what I've described
sounds like too much effort, then understand that you're prioritising the
value of your time over the value of your appliance and use the appliance
you get gladly without complaining if it turns out to be unreliable or a
poor performer.
>
>There are still plenty of very well made products... shop for quality of
>Customer Service... who cares if a product malfunctions, not if customer
>service makes it right no questions asked, even if the customer
>obviously abused it...
It makes a *big* difference if a product malfunctions because even great
customer service can't make the toast you were planning on making tonight
for your important party if the toaster decides to malfunction at exactly
the wrong moment. Even worse, it can't replace your finger if the poorly-
designed food processor decides to turn on of its own free will just as you
were opening it up. However, product-safety issues aside, having an
appliance malfunction is always irritating and can't be fixed right away,
so you're always inconvenienced for a certain period of time no matter how
responsive customer service is.
--
Alex Rast
ad.rast.7@nwnotlink.NOSPAM.com
(remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply)
|
|
|
| Jessica V. |
Anne Duhon wrote:
> I have a Sunbeam waffle/sandwich grill my mother used when I was a
> child, I made waffles for my children and later my grandchildren. It
> still works. I have a westinghouse toaster and a Sunbeam mixer---both
> bought in late 50s---still work. I have a Rival crockpot and an
> Osterzer blender that processes even the hardest raw vegetables bought
> during the 70s, Both work as good as the day I bought them.
> My appliances are not fancy designer pieces but they are dependable.
> My grown children are buying these appliances today and they break down
> in no time at all. Is there any quality brands being made today or is
> everything overpriced junk? Anne
>
I haven't had that problem. In the decade that I've had my own place
I've had only to replace a toaster and coffemaker, both within the past
year. I didn't think that getting nine + years out of a couple of small
appliances that I spent about thirty bucks on was bad. They were the
only two small appliances that indeed got used once or more everyday. I
bought inexpensive models seeing those items as desposable, and spent
the bulk of the budget on a good mixer, blender, and food processor.
Big box stores tend to have the junk, restaurant supply and specialty
cooking stores tend to have better quality...and it doesn't have to cost
a forture, some of the cooking stores here have deep discounts on what
isn't the latest greatest model...75% off on an passe color is
commonplace, it works out well when the passe color is black or white.
Jessica
|
|
|
| Faux_Pseudo |
_.-In rec.food.cooking, sd wrote the following -._
> Well, there's the Internet. Google carries Usenet archives back to
> 1992 or such
1981
But the most usefull years are 1995 and above when more people started
getting on it and the number of groups expanded to contain a lot of
odds and ends subjects. But the post 1995 signal to noise ratio is
worse. You can't win them all.
--
.-')) http://asciipr0n.com/fp ('-. | It's a damn poor mind that
' ..- .:" ) ( ":. -.. ' | can only think of one way to
((,,_;'.;' UIN=66618055 ';. ';_,,)) | spell a word.
((_.YIM=Faux_Pseudo :._)) | - Andrew Jackson
|
|
|
| Tony P. |
In article <ifvYc.377679$6p.74680@news.easynews.com>, b@p.h says...
> Anne Duhon <anneduhon@webtv.net> wrote:
> >I have a Sunbeam waffle/sandwich grill my mother used when I was a
> >child, I made waffles for my children and later my grandchildren. It
> >still works. I have a westinghouse toaster and a Sunbeam mixer---both
> >bought in late 50s---still work. I have a Rival crockpot and an
> >Osterzer blender that processes even the hardest raw vegetables bought
> >during the 70s, Both work as good as the day I bought them.
> >My appliances are not fancy designer pieces but they are dependable.
> >My grown children are buying these appliances today and they break down
> >in no time at all. Is there any quality brands being made today or is
> >everything overpriced junk? Anne
>
> I can't remember the last small appliance I bought that just
> fell apart.
>
> But then, I don't shop strictly on price.
Nor do I. That being said I have a Sunbeam stand mixer, an Osterizer
blender, and a B&D Food processor.
I've had all for anywhere between 20 and 5 years and have yet to have
one fail on me.
I have heard that some of the new stuff is indeed junk. I hate planned
obsolescence and am handy enough that where I see weak design, in most
cases can improve or repair it.
But as I said, it's been at least five years since I've bought anything.
|
|
|
| bigmac@mcdonalds.com |
Most anything made these days is disposible junk. Its the same with
power tools, vacuum cleaners, tvs, radios, furniture, etc.
Face it, it's 2004. Pay more, get less, and pollute like there is no
tomorrow, because there wont be if we keep living like we are.
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 01:10:41 -0400, anneduhon@webtv.net (Anne Duhon)
wrote:
>I have a Sunbeam waffle/sandwich grill my mother used when I was a
>child, I made waffles for my children and later my grandchildren. It
>still works. I have a westinghouse toaster and a Sunbeam mixer---both
>bought in late 50s---still work. I have a Rival crockpot and an
>Osterzer blender that processes even the hardest raw vegetables bought
>during the 70s, Both work as good as the day I bought them.
>My appliances are not fancy designer pieces but they are dependable.
>My grown children are buying these appliances today and they break down
>in no time at all. Is there any quality brands being made today or is
>everything overpriced junk? Anne
|
|
|
| bigmac@mcdonalds.com |
On 29 Aug 2004 13:58:17 GMT, penmart01@aol.como (PENMART01) wrote:
>No one repairs a $10 toaster... do you repair light bulbs? duh
I tried to repair a lightbulb once, but I could not get the lid to
unscrew :)
|
|
|
| PENMART01 |
>"Saerah" writes:
>
>>PENMART01 wrote:
>> so gals, whenever you meet a guy first thing check his tool
>>for the "Craftsman" label... and all yoose gals need to give yer guys a
>>"Craftsman" tool box.
>
>well, this gal brought her own tools to the marriage, but, hey....
Yeah, but did you bring extra batterys...
---= BOYCOTT FRANCE (belgium) GERMANY--SPAIN =---
---= Move UNITED NATIONS To Paris =---
*********
"Life would be devoid of all meaning were it without tribulation."
Sheldon
````````````
|
|
|
| Wayne |
bigmac@mcdonalds.com wrote in news:8l35j01us2gmv3qqe5mec9jmhmmilse3gi@
4ax.com:
> On 29 Aug 2004 13:58:17 GMT, penmart01@aol.como (PENMART01) wrote:
>
>>No one repairs a $10 toaster... do you repair light bulbs? duh
>
> I tried to repair a lightbulb once, but I could not get the lid to
> unscrew :)
>
>
Well, duh! Your not supposed to unscrew the lid. You're supposed to drill
a whole in the glass!
--
Wayne in Phoenix
unmunge as w-e-b
*If there's a nit to pick, some nitwit will pick it.
*A mind is a terrible thing to lose.
|
|
|
| PENMART01 |
>Duh'Wayne sez:
>
>>bigmac wrote:
>>(PENMART01) wrote:
>>
>>>No one repairs a $10 toaster... do you repair light bulbs? duh
>>
>> I tried to repair a lightbulb once, but I could not get the lid to
>> unscrew :)
>>
>>
>
>Well, duh! Your not supposed to unscrew the lid. You're supposed to drill
>a whole in the glass!
Whole? Duh
---= BOYCOTT FRANCE (belgium) GERMANY--SPAIN =---
---= Move UNITED NATIONS To Paris =---
*********
"Life would be devoid of all meaning were it without tribulation."
Sheldon
````````````
|
|
|
| Melba's Jammin' |
In article <17098-41316551-336@storefull-3216.bay.webtv.net>,
anneduhon@webtv.net (Anne Duhon) wrote:
>I have a Rival crockpot and an Osterzer blender that processes even
>the hardest raw vegetables bought during the 70s,
Those raw vegetables are probably petrified by now if you bought them in
the 70s.
--
-Barb, <www.jamlady.eboard.com> An update on 8/22/04; check the Fairs Fare tab.
|
|
|
| Wayne |
Melba's Jammin' <barbscxhaller@mac.com> wrote in news:barbscxhaller-
05DEC2.22180329082004@news.individual.net:
> In article <17098-41316551-336@storefull-3216.bay.webtv.net>,
> anneduhon@webtv.net (Anne Duhon) wrote:
>
>>I have a Rival crockpot and an Osterzer blender that processes even
>>the hardest raw vegetables bought during the 70s,
>
> Those raw vegetables are probably petrified by now if you bought them in
> the 70s.
Guffaw!
--
Wayne in Phoenix
unmunge as w-e-b
*If there's a nit to pick, some nitwit will pick it.
*A mind is a terrible thing to lose.
|
|
|
| Mpoconnor7 |
>I have a Sunbeam waffle/sandwich grill my mother used when I was a
>child, I made waffles for my children and later my grandchildren. It
>still works. I have a westinghouse toaster and a Sunbeam mixer---both
>bought in late 50s---still work. I have a Rival crockpot and an
>Osterzer blender that processes even the hardest raw vegetables bought
>during the 70s, Both work as good as the day I bought them.
>My appliances are not fancy designer pieces but they are dependable.
>My grown children are buying these appliances today and they break down
>in no time at all. Is there any quality brands being made today or is
>everything overpriced junk?
I think if you look at older kitchen appliances vs the newer ones, the vintage
stuff is generally made better. One reason I think this is is that a lot of it
was Made in America, which used to mean something. Nowadays, it's all made in
Mexico or Singapore.
When it comes to buying a hand mixer or blender or waffle iron, I often find
myself looking at Goodwill stores or checking out garage sales, where I can
sometimes find an old one for next to nothing. Why pay 20 or 30 bucks at
Walmart when you can pick up a used one for three or four dollars that works
every bit as well.
Ebay is another good place to look for this stuff, but costs more than other
secondhand sources because you have to pay for shipping. I picked up a vintage
stainless steel meat slicer on Ebay about a month ago (still with original box
and instructions; probably from the 1960s and appears to have never been used
and in perfect condition) that cost with shipping less than 25 bucks; I
probably would have paid two or three times that to get the same thing at
Target and it probably won't work as well as the one I bought. A lot of people
have that stuff sitting around in their attics but would rather use the newer,
fancier items. I don't understand it.
Michael O'Connor - Modern Renaissance Man
"The likelihood of one individual being correct increases in a direct
proportion to the intensity with which others try to prove him wrong"
James Mason from the movie "Heaven Can Wait".
|
|
|
| Scott |
In article <20040829095817.14991.00002523@mb-m02.aol.com>,
penmart01@aol.como (PENMART01) wrote:
> There are still plenty of very well made products... shop for quality of
> Customer Service... who cares if a product malfunctions, not if customer
> service makes it right no questions asked, even if the customer obviously
> abused it... ie. no matter what tool I need I always first check for
> availability from Sears, any "Craftsman" product fails, for any reason
> whatsoever, return it for a new one, no questions, no hassle. I can't begin
> to
> relate how many "Craftsman" products I abused/misused... brought em back to
> any
> Sears for a brand new one... just last week I mowed over a "Craftsman" all
> rubber garden hose, a 100' length, nicked a big slice out of it... the sales
> clerk took it back and gave me a brand new one. Doesn't matter if it's a $10
> shovel handle busted or a $500 drill press motor burned out, If it says
> "Craftsman" Sears makes it right... and when their warranty says "Lifetime"
> they mean LIFETIME. My tool wears out 10 years from now I know I can have it
> replaced, free... so gals, whenever you meet a guy first thing check his tool
> for the "Craftsman" label... and all yoose gals need to give yer guys a
> "Craftsman" tool box.
The lifetime guarantee on Craftsman products does not extend to the
power tools--it's the "Craftsman Unlimited Hand Tool Warranty." I'm
surprised they took back the garden hose.
I found this out by accident: some time ago, my Craftsman Rotary Tool
(their version of a Dremel) died after about two years. I brought it
back to Sears, and they said I had to take it to a service center for
out-of-warranty repair--no power tool is covered by the lifetime
warranty. I paid $20 plus tax for the repair (on a $50 item), which they
said was a flat-rate repair cost regardless of what was wrong. Weeks
later, they sent me a post card, saying it would cost them too much to
repair, and I'd have to pick up the tool and get a refund.
I protested--they were going to charge me $20 even if all they had to do
was to open it up, blow off some dust, and stick it back together. Thus
the meaning of "flat rate." I argued with managers, and was finally
given a reconditioned rotary tool.
--
to respond, change "spamless.invalid" with "optonline.net"
please mail OT responses only
|
|
|
| Nancy Young |
Scott wrote:
> I protested--they were going to charge me $20 even if all they had to do
> was to open it up, blow off some dust, and stick it back together. Thus
> the meaning of "flat rate." I argued with managers, and was finally
> given a reconditioned rotary tool.
Heh, you just reminded me of an incident. I was on line to buy
something (you know, the long lines generated by their checkout
procedure? Type in 253 THOUSAND numbers, then put you on the phone
to make sure your card was still good?) Suddenly, this guy came
storming from the back of the store yelling really loud.
Yikes! Well, it all involved something about we should all leave
the store and never shop there again because they wouldn't honor
some warranty. This was one infuriated guy.
I don't go there because they are a pain in the neck.
nancy
|
|
|
| Julia Altshuler |
Thanks to sd, Edwin and Alex for answers on how to buy quality. A lot
of my disappointment comes from the times I have done some research and
have paid more thinking I was buying quality, only to discover that
manufacturers can charge a lot for junk as well as for good products.
It's funny that the thread turned to Craftsman and Sears products. My
grandmother swore by Sears. They had a wonderful reputation. Grandma
didn't even have to shop around much. When she wanted a new sewing
machine, she went straight for a Kenmore. I worked for Sears one summer
in 1976. It was one of my first jobs. I remember being so impressed
with Sears's policy of taking products back no matter what the customer
excuse. (I was naive at 18.) Now I've been screwed by Sears so many
times I never think of shopping there. I've tried to get Grandma's 70's
era sewing machine fixed, and I've given up. Either the parts or the
service are horrible. I think of Sears first as an example of a company
resting on its laurels, able to charge a higher price for an inferior
product because of the good will it built up years ago.
--Lia
|
|
|
| PENMART01 |
>Scott heimdall writes:
>(PENMART01) wrote:
>
>> There are still plenty of very well made products... shop for quality of
>> Customer Service... who cares if a product malfunctions, not if customer
>> service makes it right no questions asked, even if the customer obviously
>> abused it... ie. no matter what tool I need I always first check for
>> availability from Sears, any "Craftsman" product fails, for any reason
>> whatsoever, return it for a new one, no questions, no hassle. I can't
>begin
>> to
>> relate how many "Craftsman" products I abused/misused... brought em back to
>> any
>> Sears for a brand new one... just last week I mowed over a "Craftsman" all
>> rubber garden hose, a 100' length, nicked a big slice out of it... the
>sales
>> clerk took it back and gave me a brand new one. Doesn't matter if it's a
>$10
>> shovel handle busted or a $500 drill press motor burned out, If it says
>> "Craftsman" Sears makes it right... and when their warranty says "Lifetime"
>> they mean LIFETIME. My tool wears out 10 years from now I know I can have
>it
>> replaced, free... so gals, whenever you meet a guy first thing check his
>tool
>> for the "Craftsman" label... and all yoose gals need to give yer guys a
>> "Craftsman" tool box.
>
>The lifetime guarantee on Craftsman products does not extend to the
>power tools--it's the "Craftsman Unlimited Hand Tool Warranty."
You need to read more carefully... my tool qualifies as both a hand tool and a
power tool. hehe
>I'm surprised they took back the garden hose.
Why not, other brands of garden hoses come with a lifetime warranty also, Swan
forinstance. I suppose if one happens to have the misfortune of encountering a
crank of an employee, which sometimes occurs, they can make a whole federal
case out of exchanging something so trivial as a $50 tool that merely requires
a quick subjective opinion... as is what likely occured in your narrative
below, your initial contact happened to be with an officious *******, a small
time punk nobody who took it upon himself to portray himself as Mr. Sears... so
for a lousy $50 item (to Sears is chump change) that he could easily have taken
back and handed you a new one off the shelf he instead took his usual offensive
posture and immediately went to "NO"... most likely drove away a good customer,
and others to whom you reiterate your tale over and over at every opportunity
for the rest of your life. The person who took it upon himself to refuse to
exchange your Dremel was just being himself, a no account impotent creep. When
I brought my hose back to the Sears garden center I quite naturally chose to
discuss my dilemma with the cute redheaded chick with zoftig cleavage filled
with exactly 182 freckles... musta been the twinkle in my eye when I proceded
to discuss my hose with her, 'cause I got a brand new one lickitysplit no
problem at all... she even carried my poor damaged hose, albiet tentively, back
to to the returns bin and with a demure smile brought me the exchange... even
asked if I'd like her to affix a new nozzle... hey, I was very tempted, but my
old one still sprays plenty good. Mine was a very pleasant experience, Ms
Freckles even thanked me for shopping at Sears, said I should enjoy my hose and
come back soon.
>I found this out by accident: some time ago, my Craftsman Rotary Tool
>(their version of a Dremel) died after about two years. I brought it
>back to Sears, and they said I had to take it to a service center for
>out-of-warranty repair--no power tool is covered by the lifetime
>warranty. I paid $20 plus tax for the repair (on a $50 item), which they
>said was a flat-rate repair cost regardless of what was wrong. Weeks
>later, they sent me a post card, saying it would cost them too much to
>repair, and I'd have to pick up the tool and get a refund.
>
>I protested--they were going to charge me $20 even if all they had to do
>was to open it up, blow off some dust, and stick it back together. Thus
>the meaning of "flat rate." I argued with managers, and was finally
>given a reconditioned rotary tool.
Maybe we live in very different areas, Sears employees where I live are very
nice... I suppose they kinda hafta be, not twenty minutes drive down the road
from my front door is Lowes, Home Depot, Ace Hardware, True Value, a brand new
Mega-Walmart, and quite a few independents.
---= BOYCOTT FRANCE (belgium) GERMANY--SPAIN =---
---= Move UNITED NATIONS To Paris =---
*********
"Life would be devoid of all meaning were it without tribulation."
Sheldon
````````````
|
|
|
| Allan Matthews |
On 30 Aug 2004 21:33:13 GMT, penmart01@aol.como (PENMART01) wrote:
>>Scott heimdall writes:
>>(PENMART01) wrote:
>>
>>> There are still plenty of very well made products... shop for quality of
>>> Customer Service... who cares if a product malfunctions, not if customer
>>> service makes it right no questions asked, even if the customer obviously
>>> abused it... ie. no matter what tool I need I always first check for
>>> availability from Sears, any "Craftsman" product fails, for any reason
>>> whatsoever, return it for a new one, no questions, no hassle. I can't
>>begin
>>> to
>>> relate how many "Craftsman" products I abused/misused... brought em back to
>>> any
>>> Sears for a brand new one... just last week I mowed over a "Craftsman" all
>>> rubber garden hose, a 100' length, nicked a big slice out of it... the
>>sales
>>> clerk took it back and gave me a brand new one. Doesn't matter if it's a
>>$10
>>> shovel handle busted or a $500 drill press motor burned out, If it says
>>> "Craftsman" Sears makes it right... and when their warranty says "Lifetime"
>>> they mean LIFETIME. My tool wears out 10 years from now I know I can have
>>it
>>> replaced, free... so gals, whenever you meet a guy first thing check his
>>tool
>>> for the "Craftsman" label... and all yoose gals need to give yer guys a
>>> "Craftsman" tool box.
>>
>>The lifetime guarantee on Craftsman products does not extend to the
>>power tools--it's the "Craftsman Unlimited Hand Tool Warranty."
>
>
>You need to read more carefully... my tool qualifies as both a hand tool and a
>power tool. hehe
>
>>I'm surprised they took back the garden hose.
>
>Why not, other brands of garden hoses come with a lifetime warranty also, Swan
>forinstance. I suppose if one happens to have the misfortune of encountering a
>crank of an employee, which sometimes occurs, they can make a whole federal
>case out of exchanging something so trivial as a $50 tool that merely requires
>a quick subjective opinion... as is what likely occured in your narrative
>below, your initial contact happened to be with an officious *******, a small
>time punk nobody who took it upon himself to portray himself as Mr. Sears... so
>for a lousy $50 item (to Sears is chump change) that he could easily have taken
>back and handed you a new one off the shelf he instead took his usual offensive
>posture and immediately went to "NO"... most likely drove away a good customer,
>and others to whom you reiterate your tale over and over at every opportunity
>for the rest of your life. The person who took it upon himself to refuse to
>exchange your Dremel was just being himself, a no account impotent creep. When
>I brought my hose back to the Sears garden center I quite naturally chose to
>discuss my dilemma with the cute redheaded chick with zoftig cleavage filled
>with exactly 182 freckles... musta been the twinkle in my eye when I proceded
>to discuss my hose with her, 'cause I got a brand new one lickitysplit no
>problem at all... she even carried my poor damaged hose, albiet tentively, back
>to to the returns bin and with a demure smile brought me the exchange... even
>asked if I'd like her to affix a new nozzle... hey, I was very tempted, but my
>old one still sprays plenty good. Mine was a very pleasant experience, Ms
>Freckles even thanked me for shopping at Sears, said I should enjoy my hose and
>come back soon.
>
>>I found this out by accident: some time ago, my Craftsman Rotary Tool
>>(their version of a Dremel) died after about two years. I brought it
>>back to Sears, and they said I had to take it to a service center for
>>out-of-warranty repair--no power tool is covered by the lifetime
>>warranty. I paid $20 plus tax for the repair (on a $50 item), which they
>>said was a flat-rate repair cost regardless of what was wrong. Weeks
>>later, they sent me a post card, saying it would cost them too much to
>>repair, and I'd have to pick up the tool and get a refund.
>>
>>I protested--they were going to charge me $20 even if all they had to do
>>was to open it up, blow off some dust, and stick it back together. Thus
>>the meaning of "flat rate." I argued with managers, and was finally
>>given a reconditioned rotary tool.
>
>Maybe we live in very different areas, Sears employees where I live are very
>nice... I suppose they kinda hafta be, not twenty minutes drive down the road
>from my front door is Lowes, Home Depot, Ace Hardware, True Value, a brand new
>Mega-Walmart, and quite a few independents.
>
>
>---= BOYCOTT FRANCE (belgium) GERMANY--SPAIN =---
> ---= Move UNITED NATIONS To Paris =---
> *********
>"Life would be devoid of all meaning were it without tribulation."
>Sheldon
>````````````
Craftsman Hand tools have a lifetime guarentee. Craftsman Power Tools
do not!!! Their old power tools were very good...20 years ago. Their
new power tools are very poor quality, over raterd on power, etc.
Once again...Craftsman Power tools DO NOT have a lifetime
guarantee...burn out a motor after 90 days and tough luck.
|
|
|
| Bill |
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 01:36:48 -0000, ad.rast.7@nwnotlink.NOSPAM.com
(Alex Rast) wrote:
>at Sun, 29 Aug 2004 13:58:17 GMT in
><20040829095817.14991.00002523@mb-m02.aol.com>, penmart01@aol.como
>(PENMART01) wrote :
>
>>> Julia Altshuler writes:
>>>
>>>Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>>>
>>>> Much is junk, but a few good brands still exist. The consumer is as
>>>> much
>>>of
>>>> a problem as the manufacturers. We like to buy cheap stuff and don't
>>>> investigate quality. ...
>>>But how does one go about investigating quality? ...
>
>My recommendations:
>
>Spend some time learning about the essential performance aspects of the
>appliance. This means learning what construction techniques, materials,
>etc. do the best job at achieving the central function the appliance is
>meant to do. So, for instance, you'll want to investigate the manufacturing
>process and filament properties of toaster elements, since these play a
>large part in how well a toaster does the basic job of toasting bread.
>Similarly, you'll want to know something about the construction of electric
>motors and drill bits if you're looking at a power drill. Yes, this process
>isn't easy and probably involves learning some technobabble, but it's one
>of the most reliable ways of being able to discern quality because you'll
>then be able to ask pointed and relevant questions of the manufacturer.
>
>Read up back issues of industry publications and consumer-interest
>publications relevant to the product you're trying to buy. General-purpose
>consumer ratings magazines like Consumer Reports aren't particularly useful
>because they're not specialists in the specific thing you're looking at.
I'll have to disagree with you about Consumer Reports. I have
subscribed to them for over twenty years and have relied on the
results of their continuous testing. They have never steered me wrong
if I buy the appliance they rated as number one!
I suspect the only people who don't like Consumer Reports are the
manufacturers who build crappy products with low ratings in Consumer
Reports...they have their own aggenda...discrediting Consumers
Reports. Geez...all the have to do is build quality products that are
durable and they too will receive high marks in Consumer Reports!
Bill
|
|
|
| Richard Periut |
Bill wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 01:36:48 -0000, ad.rast.7@nwnotlink.NOSPAM.com
> (Alex Rast) wrote:
>
>
>>at Sun, 29 Aug 2004 13:58:17 GMT in
>><20040829095817.14991.00002523@mb-m02.aol.com>, penmart01@aol.como
>>(PENMART01) wrote :
>>
>>
>>>>Julia Altshuler writes:
>>>>
>>>>Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Much is junk, but a few good brands still exist. The consumer is as
>>>>>much
>>>>
>>>>of
>>>>
>>>>>a problem as the manufacturers. We like to buy cheap stuff and don't
>>>>>investigate quality. ...
>>>>
>>>>But how does one go about investigating quality? ...
>>
>>My recommendations:
>>
>>Spend some time learning about the essential performance aspects of the
>>appliance. This means learning what construction techniques, materials,
>>etc. do the best job at achieving the central function the appliance is
>>meant to do. So, for instance, you'll want to investigate the manufacturing
>>process and filament properties of toaster elements, since these play a
>>large part in how well a toaster does the basic job of toasting bread.
>>Similarly, you'll want to know something about the construction of electric
>>motors and drill bits if you're looking at a power drill. Yes, this process
>>isn't easy and probably involves learning some technobabble, but it's one
>>of the most reliable ways of being able to discern quality because you'll
>>then be able to ask pointed and relevant questions of the manufacturer.
>>
>>Read up back issues of industry publications and consumer-interest
>>publications relevant to the product you're trying to buy. General-purpose
>>consumer ratings magazines like Consumer Reports aren't particularly useful
>>because they're not specialists in the specific thing you're looking at.
>
>
> I'll have to disagree with you about Consumer Reports. I have
> subscribed to them for over twenty years and have relied on the
> results of their continuous testing. They have never steered me wrong
> if I buy the appliance they rated as number one!
>
> I suspect the only people who don't like Consumer Reports are the
> manufacturers who build crappy products with low ratings in Consumer
> Reports...they have their own aggenda...discrediting Consumers
> Reports. Geez...all the have to do is build quality products that are
> durable and they too will receive high marks in Consumer Reports!
>
> Bill
>
>
Bill, I agree with your 100%. Even in the cars and SUV's that I've
bought, CR has not let me down. They were right to the very last iota of
a detail. I love it when they expose companies that try to fool the
public, or ridiculing those that don't care for quality control.
Rich
--
"Dum Spiro, Spero."
As long as I breath, I hope.
Cicero
|
|
|
| Andy |
anneduhon@webtv.net (Anne Duhon) wrote in news:17098-41316551-336
@storefull-3216.bay.webtv.net:
> Is there any quality brands being made today or is
> everything overpriced junk?
Anne,
I have been through your thread. No mention of "Good Housekeeping"
ratings. I don't know how it compares to CR, but if the product carries
that seal, it might be a better product.
Or not. :-/
Andy
|
|
|
| Anne Duhon |
Well, I got 2 good suggestions. Restaurant supply stores and garage
sales.
I would question my sanify if I began studying engineering and machine
design in order to purchase a small kitchen appliance, and I never shop
in a Walmart---I hate the store.
I dont need to shop price and would not hesitate to pay more for a
quality product, but so called quality products dont always give you
your moneys worth,
I hope my appliances outlive me, In the meantime I will be at garage
and estate sales. Perhaps I'll be lucky and find what I already own and
get it for a spare just in case mine die. Thanks to all. Anne
|
|
|
| Alex Rast |
at Mon, 30 Aug 2004 23:03:51 GMT in
<69c7j09ll4ume5ull4j029c0rai9u35849@4ax.com>, bigc300@carolina.rr.com
(Bill) wrote :
>On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 01:36:48 -0000, ad.rast.7@nwnotlink.NOSPAM.com
>(Alex Rast) wrote:
>
>>at Sun, 29 Aug 2004 13:58:17 GMT in
>><20040829095817.14991.00002523@mb-m02.aol.com>, penmart01@aol.como
>>(PENMART01) wrote :
>>
>>>> Julia Altshuler writes:
>>>>
>>>>Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Much is junk, but a few good brands still exist. The consumer is
>>>>> as much
>>>>of
>>>>> a problem as the manufacturers. We like to buy cheap stuff and
>>>>> don't investigate quality. ...
>>>>But how does one go about investigating quality? ...
>>
>>My recommendations:
>>...
>>Read up back issues of industry publications and consumer-interest
>>publications relevant to the product you're trying to buy.
>>General-purpose consumer ratings magazines like Consumer Reports aren't
>>particularly useful because they're not specialists in the specific
>>thing you're looking at.
>
>I'll have to disagree with you about Consumer Reports. I have
>subscribed to them for over twenty years and have relied on the
>results of their continuous testing. They have never steered me wrong
>if I buy the appliance they rated as number one!
The big issue I was pointing out about CR is that, not being a specialty
magazine, they may not home in on or even be able to identify all the
salient points that distinguish real quality in an item. For instance, in
evaluating cars, they may be able to identify basic differences in
appointments and reliability but don't assess performance as thoroughly as
one would need to do if you really want to determine the very top quality.
For example, they're not going to assess the technical merits of the engine
in great detail nor do they push the performance capabilities to the limit
in various categories to establish the car's performance envelope. They
don't have the number of expert drivers to be able to give a detailed
assessment of performance and driving feel or control responsiveness in a
variety of situations, so you don't get the kind of in-depth review you can
expect out of a car magazine. Now, car magazines do often have advertisers
to pacify, so you can't always be assured of a completely objective
assessment, but you will get a more detailed breakdown of what the car can
do.
The second problem about magazines like CR is that because of their
general-purpose nature, they don't, and can't, assess as many different
brands or models of a given item. There's only so many items you can review
at a time and CR has to make hard choices about which ones to review.
Typically CR stays away from very high-end models, or, at most, tries only
a few ones they think of as "representative". (Actually, in the high end,
it's much harder for one model to be "representative" because it is in this
category that individual brands and models are more sharply differentiated
on features and specific performance specifications). And if the number of
brands in the mid-range is truly bewildering, they typically choose a
selection rather than trying every brand. Furthermore, they tend not to
test every model across a brand's line nor more than one option
combination, if the item in question has options.
In addition, given the limited space per article, they can't spend as much
time explaining *why* certain criteria or features of a product are
important. So they're not going to spend many paragraphs in a discussion
over the difference between horsepower and watts in describing an
appliance's motor power. That means you can't really educate yourself very
much as to how to make informed decisions. It's a magazine designed much
more for those who would rather not learn how to decide for themselves and
are grateful to have a source who will make their decisions easy by making
recommendations for t
--
Alex Rast
ad.rast.7@nwnotlink.NOSPAM.com
(remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply)
|
|
|
| Richard Periut |
Alex Rast wrote:
> at Mon, 30 Aug 2004 23:03:51 GMT in
> <69c7j09ll4ume5ull4j029c0rai9u35849@4ax.com>, bigc300@carolina.rr.com
> (Bill) wrote :
>
>
>>On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 01:36:48 -0000, ad.rast.7@nwnotlink.NOSPAM.com
>>(Alex Rast) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>at Sun, 29 Aug 2004 13:58:17 GMT in
>>><20040829095817.14991.00002523@mb-m02.aol.com>, penmart01@aol.como
>>>(PENMART01) wrote :
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Julia Altshuler writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Much is junk, but a few good brands still exist. The consumer is
>>>>>>as much
>>>>>
>>>>>of
>>>>>
>>>>>>a problem as the manufacturers. We like to buy cheap stuff and
>>>>>>don't investigate quality. ...
>>>>>
>>>>>But how does one go about investigating quality? ...
>>>
>>>My recommendations:
>>>...
>>>Read up back issues of industry publications and consumer-interest
>>>publications relevant to the product you're trying to buy.
>>>General-purpose consumer ratings magazines like Consumer Reports aren't
>>>particularly useful because they're not specialists in the specific
>>>thing you're looking at.
>>
>>I'll have to disagree with you about Consumer Reports. I have
>>subscribed to them for over twenty years and have relied on the
>>results of their continuous testing. They have never steered me wrong
>>if I buy the appliance they rated as number one!
>
>
> The big issue I was pointing out about CR is that, not being a specialty
> magazine, they may not home in on or even be able to identify all the
> salient points that distinguish real quality in an item. For instance, in
> evaluating cars, they may be able to identify basic differences in
> appointments and reliability but don't assess performance as thoroughly as
> one would need to do if you really want to determine the very top quality.
> For example, they're not going to assess the technical merits of the engine
> in great detail nor do they push the performance capabilities to the limit
> in various categories to establish the car's performance envelope. They
> don't have the number of expert drivers to be able to give a detailed
> assessment of performance and driving feel or control responsiveness in a
> variety of situations, so you don't get the kind of in-depth review you can
> expect out of a car magazine. Now, car magazines do often have advertisers
> to pacify, so you can't always be assured of a completely objective
> assessment, but you will get a more detailed breakdown of what the car can
> do.
>
> The second problem about magazines like CR is that because of their
> general-purpose nature, they don't, and can't, assess as many different
> brands or models of a given item. There's only so many items you can review
> at a time and CR has to make hard choices about which ones to review.
> Typically CR stays away from very high-end models, or, at most, tries only
> a few ones they think of as "representative". (Actually, in the high end,
> it's much harder for one model to be "representative" because it is in this
> category that individual brands and models are more sharply differentiated
> on features and specific performance specifications). And if the number of
> brands in the mid-range is truly bewildering, they typically choose a
> selection rather than trying every brand. Furthermore, they tend not to
> test every model across a brand's line nor more than one option
> combination, if the item in question has options.
>
> In addition, given the limited space per article, they can't spend as much
> time explaining *why* certain criteria or features of a product are
> important. So they're not going to spend many paragraphs in a discussion
> over the difference between horsepower and watts in describing an
> appliance's motor power. That means you can't really educate yourself very
> much as to how to make informed decisions. It's a magazine designed much
> more for those who would rather not learn how to decide for themselves and
> are grateful to have a source who will make their decisions easy by making
> recommendations for t
>
>
That's why they also rely on the feedback that people give them about
their cars.
Rich
--
"Dum Spiro, Spero."
As long as I breath, I hope.
Cicero
|
|
|
| Alex Rast |
at Tue, 31 Aug 2004 21:41:00 GMT in
<9556903D0adrastnwnotlinkcom@216.168.3.44>,
ad.rast.7@nwnotlink.NOSPAM.com (Alex Rast) wrote :
Sorry, ignore the last post. I accidentally pressed some keystroke that
sent the message before I was finished (did I ever say that I *HATE*!
keystroke-combination commands?)
>at Mon, 30 Aug 2004 23:03:51 GMT in
><69c7j09ll4ume5ull4j029c0rai9u35849@4ax.com>, bigc300@carolina.rr.com
>(Bill) wrote :
>
>>On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 01:36:48 -0000, ad.rast.7@nwnotlink.NOSPAM.com
>>(Alex Rast) wrote:
>>
>>>at Sun, 29 Aug 2004 13:58:17 GMT in
>>><20040829095817.14991.00002523@mb-m02.aol.com>, penmart01@aol.como
>>>(PENMART01) wrote :
>>>
>>>>> Julia Altshuler writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Much is junk, but a few good brands still exist. The consumer is
>>>>>> as much
>>>>>of
>>>>>> a problem as the manufacturers. We like to buy cheap stuff and
>>>>>> don't investigate quality. ...
>>>>>But how does one go about investigating quality? ...
>>>
>>>My recommendations:
>>>...
>>>Read up back issues of industry publications and consumer-interest
>>>publications relevant to the product you're trying to buy.
>>>General-purpose consumer ratings magazines like Consumer Reports
>>>aren't particularly useful because they're not specialists in the
>>>specific thing you're looking at.
>>
>>I'll have to disagree with you about Consumer Reports. I have
>>subscribed to them for over twenty years and have relied on the
>>results of their continuous testing. They have never steered me wrong
>>if I buy the appliance they rated as number one!
>
>The big issue I was pointing out about CR is that, not being a specialty
>magazine, they may not home in on or even be able to identify all the
>salient points that distinguish real quality in an item. For instance,
>in evaluating cars, they may be able to identify basic differences in
>appointments and reliability but don't assess performance as thoroughly
>as one would need to do if you really want to determine the very top
>quality. For example, they're not going to assess the technical merits
>of the engine in great detail nor do they push the performance
>capabilities to the limit in various categories to establish the car's
>performance envelope. They don't have the number of expert drivers to be
>able to give a detailed assessment of performance and driving feel or
>control responsiveness in a variety of situations, so you don't get the
>kind of in-depth review you can expect out of a car magazine. Now, car
>magazines do often have advertisers to pacify, so you can't always be
>assured of a completely objective assessment, but you will get a more
>detailed breakdown of what the car can do.
>
>The second problem about magazines like CR is that because of their
>general-purpose nature, they don't, and can't, assess as many different
>brands or models of a given item. There's only so many items you can
>review at a time and CR has to make hard choices about which ones to
>review. Typically CR stays away from very high-end models, or, at most,
>tries only a few ones they think of as "representative". (Actually, in
>the high end, it's much harder for one model to be "representative"
>because it is in this category that individual brands and models are
>more sharply differentiated on features and specific performance
>specifications). And if the number of brands in the mid-range is truly
>bewildering, they typically choose a selection rather than trying every
>brand. Furthermore, they tend not to test every model across a brand's
>line nor more than one option combination, if the item in question has
>options.
>
>In addition, given the limited space per article, they can't spend as
>much time explaining *why* certain criteria or features of a product are
>important. So they're not going to spend many paragraphs in a discussion
>over the difference between horsepower and watts in describing an
>appliance's motor power. That means you can't really educate yourself
>very much as to how to make informed decisions. It's a magazine designed
>much more for those who would rather not learn how to decide for
>themselves and are grateful to have a source who will make their
>decisions easy by making recommendations for them.
Be aware furthermore that CR in particular seems to have a certain bias
towards low price. I've seen them derate quality items, mostly, it would
appear, on the basis of their high price relative to other brands they were
assessing. This naturally fights against quality which at some level is
directly related to price: up to a point, at least, you get what you pay
for. Certainly not all of the cost of a higher-priced item need necessarily
be attributable to extra flashy features, snob appeal, or design overkill.
It's not a heavy bias but it seems to be there nonetheless.
It is this combination of (mostly necessary and inevitable) characteristics
which makes most consumer-review magazines of a general nature only of
limited use when looking for quality in, for instance, appliances. The
specialty magazines generally give you a lot more information (often more
current information, as well) and thus empower you a lot make more to make
the decisions yourself.
--
Alex Rast
ad.rast.7@nwnotlink.NOSPAM.com
(remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply)
|
|
|
| Dan Abel |
In article <9556903D0adrastnwnotlinkcom@216.168.3.44>,
ad.rast.7@nwnotlink.NOSPAM.com (Alex Rast) wrote:
> at Mon, 30 Aug 2004 23:03:51 GMT in
> <69c7j09ll4ume5ull4j029c0rai9u35849@4ax.com>, bigc300@carolina.rr.com
> (Bill) wrote :
> >I'll have to disagree with you about Consumer Reports. I have
> >subscribed to them for over twenty years and have relied on the
> >results of their continuous testing. They have never steered me wrong
> >if I buy the appliance they rated as number one!
>
> The big issue I was pointing out about CR is that, not being a specialty
> magazine, they may not home in on or even be able to identify all the
> salient points that distinguish real quality in an item. For instance, in
> evaluating cars, they may be able to identify basic differences in
> appointments and reliability but don't assess performance as thoroughly as
> one would need to do if you really want to determine the very top quality.
> For example, they're not going to assess the technical merits of the engine
> in great detail nor do they push the performance capabilities to the limit
> in various categories to establish the car's performance envelope. They
> don't have the number of expert drivers to be able to give a detailed
> assessment of performance and driving feel or control responsiveness in a
> variety of situations, so you don't get the kind of in-depth review you can
> expect out of a car magazine. Now, car magazines do often have advertisers
> to pacify, so you can't always be assured of a completely objective
> assessment, but you will get a more detailed breakdown of what the car can
> do.
You make some good points, but I still want to argue with you. Who
cares? Evidently you do, and probably it is exactly those who subscribe
to car magazines who really care about these issues. My wife judges cars
by color. She likes blue, so blue cars are better than other cars. She
doesn't care about performance, because she drives like a little old
lady. In fact, after reading many years of CR, real quality is not their
highest concern. Many times they will recommend a lower rated $50 item
over a higher rated $350 item, because they don't feel like the average
person is getting $300 more value out of the higher rated item.
> The second problem about magazines like CR is that because of their
> general-purpose nature, they don't, and can't, assess as many different
> brands or models of a given item. There's only so many items you can review
> at a time and CR has to make hard choices about which ones to review.
> Typically CR stays away from very high-end models, or, at most, tries only
> a few ones they think of as "representative". (Actually, in the high end,
An additional factor is that CR *buys* the items they test, right in the
same marketplace where the consumer buys them. The car magazines usually
seem to get the cars they review from the maker. The car magazines know
that the car the consumer buys is not going to be as carefully tuned as
the ones they test, but they can't afford to buy cars off the lot. As far
as the high end stuff, again, who cares? People who buy the high end
items are probably the ones who subscribe to the specialty magazines
already. CR is aimed more at the average consumer. I think that they
throw in a very limited number of high end models, not to help you decide
which one, but to identify whether high end models are much better than
cheaper ones. I was reading their review of kitchen stoves, and they
mentioned that the high end stoves they tested were actually less
convenient to use and clean than mid-level stoves.
> In addition, given the limited space per article, they can't spend as much
> time explaining *why* certain criteria or features of a product are
> important. So they're not going to spend many paragraphs in a discussion
> over the difference between horsepower and watts in describing an
> appliance's motor power. That means you can't really educate yourself very
> much as to how to make informed decisions. It's a magazine designed much
> more for those who would rather not learn how to decide for themselves and
> are grateful to have a source who will make their decisions easy by making
> recommendations for t
For the third time, who cares? Those who really care are reading the
specialty magazines. The average consumer doesn't want much detail. I
guess that's what you are saying anyway. I find that CR has as much as I
want about most things that I buy.
--
Dan Abel
Sonoma State University
AIS
dabel@sonic.net
|
|
|
| Bill |
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 22:05:26 -0000, ad.rast.7@nwnotlink.NOSPAM.com
(Alex Rast) wrote:
>at Tue, 31 Aug 2004 21:41:00 GMT in
><9556903D0adrastnwnotlinkcom@216.168.3.44>,
>ad.rast.7@nwnotlink.NOSPAM.com (Alex Rast) wrote :
>
>Sorry, ignore the last post. I accidentally pressed some keystroke that
>sent the message before I was finished (did I ever say that I *HATE*!
>keystroke-combination commands?)
>
>>at Mon, 30 Aug 2004 23:03:51 GMT in
>><69c7j09ll4ume5ull4j029c0rai9u35849@4ax.com>, bigc300@carolina.rr.com
>>(Bill) wrote :
>>
>>>On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 01:36:48 -0000, ad.rast.7@nwnotlink.NOSPAM.com
>>>(Alex Rast) wrote:
>>>
>>>>at Sun, 29 Aug 2004 13:58:17 GMT in
>>>><20040829095817.14991.00002523@mb-m02.aol.com>, penmart01@aol.como
>>>>(PENMART01) wrote :
>>>>
>>>>>> Julia Altshuler writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Much is junk, but a few good brands still exist. The consumer is
>>>>>>> as much
>>>>>>of
>>>>>>> a problem as the manufacturers. We like to buy cheap stuff and
>>>>>>> don't investigate quality. ...
>>>>>>But how does one go about investigating quality? ...
>>>>
>>>>My recommendations:
>>>>...
>>>>Read up back issues of industry publications and consumer-interest
>>>>publications relevant to the product you're trying to buy.
>>>>General-purpose consumer ratings magazines like Consumer Reports
>>>>aren't particularly useful because they're not specialists in the
>>>>specific thing you're looking at.
>>>
>>>I'll have to disagree with you about Consumer Reports. I have
>>>subscribed to them for over twenty years and have relied on the
>>>results of their continuous testing. They have never steered me wrong
>>>if I buy the appliance they rated as number one!
>>
>>The big issue I was pointing out about CR is that, not being a specialty
>>magazine, they may not home in on or even be able to identify all the
>>salient points that distinguish real quality in an item. For instance,
>>in evaluating cars, they may be able to identify basic differences in
>>appointments and reliability but don't assess performance as thoroughly
>>as one would need to do if you really want to determine the very top
>>quality. For example, they're not going to assess the technical merits
>>of the engine in great detail nor do they push the performance
>>capabilities to the limit in various categories to establish the car's
>>performance envelope. They don't have the number of expert drivers to be
>>able to give a detailed assessment of performance and driving feel or
>>control responsiveness in a variety of situations, so you don't get the
>>kind of in-depth review you can expect out of a car magazine. Now, car
>>magazines do often have advertisers to pacify, so you can't always be
>>assured of a completely objective assessment, but you will get a more
>>detailed breakdown of what the car can do.
>>
>>The second problem about magazines like CR is that because of their
>>general-purpose nature, they don't, and can't, assess as many different
>>brands or models of a given item. There's only so many items you can
>>review at a time and CR has to make hard choices about which ones to
>>review. Typically CR stays away from very high-end models, or, at most,
>>tries only a few ones they think of as "representative". (Actually, in
>>the high end, it's much harder for one model to be "representative"
>>because it is in this category that individual brands and models are
>>more sharply differentiated on features and specific performance
>>specifications). And if the number of brands in the mid-range is truly
>>bewildering, they typically choose a selection rather than trying every
>>brand. Furthermore, they tend not to test every model across a brand's
>>line nor more than one option combination, if the item in question has
>>options.
>>
>>In addition, given the limited space per article, they can't spend as
>>much time explaining *why* certain criteria or features of a product are
>>important. So they're not going to spend many paragraphs in a discussion
>>over the difference between horsepower and watts in describing an
>>appliance's motor power. That means you can't really educate yourself
>>very much as to how to make informed decisions. It's a magazine designed
>>much more for those who would rather not learn how to decide for
>>themselves and are grateful to have a source who will make their
>>decisions easy by making recommendations for them.
>
>Be aware furthermore that CR in particular seems to have a certain bias
>towards low price. I've seen them derate quality items, mostly, it would
>appear, on the basis of their high price relative to other brands they were
>assessing. This naturally fights against quality which at some level is
>directly related to price: up to a point, at least, you get what you pay
>for. Certainly not all of the cost of a higher-priced item need necessarily
>be attributable to extra flashy features, snob appeal, or design overkill.
>It's not a heavy bias but it seems to be there nonetheless.
>
>It is this combination of (mostly necessary and inevitable) characteristics
>which makes most consumer-review magazines of a general nature only of
>limited use when looking for quality in, for instance, appliances. The
>specialty magazines generally give you a lot more information (often more
>current information, as well) and thus empower you a lot make more to make
>the decisions yourself.
I enjoyed reading your response to my post Alex! I'm sure alot of us
reading this are curious...tell us what you do for a living? Also, how
has Consumers Union affected the way your company does business?
Do you work for a manufacturer of automobiles? What do you think about
Consumers Union's stance against the basic "top heavy" design of sport
utility vehicles...that they are poorly designed and very dangerous to
ride in? People keep buying these top heavy cars that often roll over
on highways killing the occupants...don't you think somebody who is
objective should evaluate products for those of us who don't have the
time to study the details of the design of a product?
Enough people have faith in Consumer Reports that manufacturers do
understand that if they opt to build their product "on the
cheap"...word will get out and spread like wildfire. Of course it
makes no difference to shoppers like my wife...she simply goes for
cheap price and has no regard for quality. My Grandfather must have
passed his ideas about quality products on to me. He had a Jacobsen
lawnmower he bought in 1948 that was still running well when I sold it
in 1973! My ex-wife used to tell all her friends they should let me
select the appliances around their house because the ones I select and
buy tend to last a very long time! It's not brain surgery...it's
Consumer Reports!
Regards,
Bill
|
|
|
| iquill@webtv.net |
I too still have my GE hand mixer & coffee pot, revere Stainless pots &
bowls & Oster blender from 1960... When amassing newer gadgets thru the
years I have learned that, Black & Decker used to be great but out
sources to the Far East now and is crapola as well as Toastmaster
(which goes up in flames and has been recalled so many times)...so I buy
Braun, Moulinex, DiLonghi whenever possible now....They are only
slightly higher priced but worth not having to worry about and replacing
it every few years....
As you wrote, people can only manufacture a product according to specs
and if they are el cheapo, so is the finished product.....buyer beware
...
http://community.webtv.net/R-J-Q/FIRSTANNUALALLYEAR
http://www.wtv-zone.com/cal555/index.html
|
|
|
| Julia Altshuler |
iquill@webtv.net wrote:
> I too still have my GE hand mixer & coffee pot, revere Stainless pots &
> bowls & Oster blender from 1960... When amassing newer gadgets thru the
> years I have learned that, Black & Decker used to be great but out
> sources to the Far East now and is crapola as well as Toastmaster
> (which goes up in flames and has been recalled so many times)...so I buy
> Braun, Moulinex, DiLonghi whenever possible now....They are only
> slightly higher priced but worth not having to worry about and replacing
> it every few years....
I keep trying to think of a solution to the problem of consumers not
having information about products, a solution that wouldn't make the
price shoot through the roof. (I imagine a system where every toaster
had an individual number the way cars do and was tracked for use,
repairs and longevity, but that's ridiculous in terms of expense.) At
the very least, couldn't there be something on the package saying where
an item was manufactured the way there's a tag on clothing? (A tag that
I remove with a seam rippper as soon as I get home because the darn
things are scratchy.)
--Lia
|
|
|
| iquill@webtv.net |
Lia,
If you look carefully on the box it will always tell you where an item
is manufactured....it's not always easy to find but it's there in tiny
print "somewhere" according to law. What's worse are the instruction
booklets printed in the same country of the manufacturer....the
translation is a riot and sometimes entire phrases or sentences are left
out ???...not fun if its really technical and you're standing there with
a bunch of wires or parts in both hands and trying to scratch your head
and read them all at the same time...now THAT'S a picture of total
frustration...LOL
http://community.webtv.net/R-J-Q/FIRSTANNUALALLYEAR
http://www.wtv-zone.com/cal555/index.html
|
|
|
| PENMART01 |
> Julia Altshuler spews:
>
>I keep trying to think of a solution to the problem of consumers not
>having information about products, a solution that wouldn't make the
>price shoot through the roof. (I imagine a system where every toaster
>had an individual number the way cars do and was tracked for use,
>repairs and longevity, but that's ridiculous in terms of expense.) At
>the very least, couldn't there be something on the package saying where
>an item was manufactured the way there's a tag on clothing?
Well, DUH! Every electrical appliance has a permanently attached manufacturers
tag that among power ratings, etc. also contains a Model Number and Serial
Number... hopefully the normal brained consumers (not you) will register their
appliances so that they can be tracked.
---= BOYCOTT FRANCE (belgium) GERMANY--SPAIN =---
---= Move UNITED NATIONS To Paris =---
*********
"Life would be devoid of all meaning were it without tribulation."
Sheldon
````````````
|
|
|
| Greg Zywicki |
Richard Periut <rperiut@nj.rr.com> wrote in message news:<_p6Zc.28174$Ot3.26487@twister.nyc.rr.com>...
>
> That's why they also rely on the feedback that people give them about
> their cars.
>
> Rich
Hah. Here's the best skewering of CR I've ever seen:
http://www.thecarconnection.com/index.asp?article=4733
The sampling bias in CR makes it pretty much useless, as far as I'm
concerned.
Add to that the fact that the Consumer's Union was founded
specifically to pimp "Unsafe at any speed," an attack on US carmakers,
and you'll understand why I have little faith in their car ratings.
They were a great source for detailled info, before the internet.
Greg Zywicki
|
|
|
| Richard Periut |
Greg Zywicki wrote:
> Richard Periut <rperiut@nj.rr.com> wrote in message news:<_p6Zc.28174$Ot3.26487@twister.nyc.rr.com>...
>
>>That's why they also rely on the feedback that people give them about
>>their cars.
>>
>>Rich
>
>
> Hah. Here's the best skewering of CR I've ever seen:
>
> http://www.thecarconnection.com/index.asp?article=4733
>
> The sampling bias in CR makes it pretty much useless, as far as I'm
> concerned.
>
> Add to that the fact that the Consumer's Union was founded
> specifically to pimp "Unsafe at any speed," an attack on US carmakers,
> and you'll understand why I have little faith in their car ratings.
>
> They were a great source for detailled info, before the internet.
>
> Greg Zywicki
They may not be perfect; but I like the detailed pros and cons. The
ultimate driving test is done by mua; that's the deciding factor.
Rich
BTW, The Car Connection? Who made them the authority on cars on the
internet? DA Acquisitions, Inc.? I love these self professing sites.
--
"Dum Spiro, Spero."
As long as I breath, I hope.
Cicero
|
|
|
| Julia Altshuler |
iquill@webtv.net wrote:
> Lia,
>
> If you look carefully on the box it will always tell you where an item
> is manufactured. It's not always easy to find, but it's there in tiny
> print somewhere according to law.
That's good to know. The next question is how to convert country of
origin to good guess as to quality of product. I wouldn't say that
anything made in Switzerland is automatically better than anything made
in Bangladesh. Or should I?
--Lia
|
|
|
| Greg Zywicki |
anneduhon@webtv.net (Anne Duhon) wrote in message news:<17098-41316551-336@storefull-3216.bay.webtv.net>...
> I have a Sunbeam waffle/sandwich grill my mother used when I was a
> child, I made waffles for my children and later my grandchildren. It
> still works. I have a westinghouse toaster and a Sunbeam mixer---both
> bought in late 50s---still work. I have a Rival crockpot and an
> Osterzer blender that processes even the hardest raw vegetables bought
> during the 70s, Both work as good as the day I bought them.
> My appliances are not fancy designer pieces but they are dependable.
> My grown children are buying these appliances today and they break down
> in no time at all. Is there any quality brands being made today or is
> everything overpriced junk? Anne
Has it occurred to anyone that the only evidence of quality we have on
decades old products are the ones that lasted that long? Maybe
products were made better, or maybe natural selection has weeded out
all the bad models.
Changes in materials and manufacturing methods are probably one major
cause for quality interuptions. Switching from metal to plastic
gearing, for example, can cause problems until the engineers get used
to designing for plastic.
Greg Zywicki
|
|
|
| Bill Ranck |
"Greg Zywicki" <gregzywicki@cs.com> wrote in message
news:22729440.0409010636.3b8e702a@posting.google.com...
>
> Hah. Here's the best skewering of CR I've ever seen:
>
> http://www.thecarconnection.com/index.asp?article=4733
>
> The sampling bias in CR makes it pretty much useless, as far as I'm
> concerned.
>
> Add to that the fact that the Consumer's Union was founded
> specifically to pimp "Unsafe at any speed," an attack on US carmakers,
> and you'll understand why I have little faith in their car ratings.
Uh, just how was Consumer's Union founded to pimp "Unsafe at Any Speed" when
that
particular book was published by Ralph Nader in the 1960s and CU goes back
to the 1930s?
Even the web page you cite talks about reading CR right after WWII.
CR is far from perfect, but they provide about the only real world data on
reliability and costs of repair for a broad range of cars. Who else does
that?
Name some better source. I don't suggest anyone take them as gospel, but
their data is better than no data, and I fail to see how sampling bias will
affect
comparisons within their own survey data. True, it may not compare to some
other survey data well, but again, what other survey data is there?
Bill Ranck
Blacksburg, Va.
|
|
|
| Julia Altshuler |
Greg Zywicki wrote:
> Has it occurred to anyone that the only evidence of quality we have on
> decades old products are the ones that lasted that long? Maybe
> products were made better, or maybe natural selection has weeded out
> all the bad models.
Not until you pointed it out. Now this
anthropologist-totally-familiar-with-evolution-and-natural-selection is
giving herself a dopeslap for not thinking of the obvious.
--Lia
|
|
|
| Greg Zywicki |
"Bill Ranck" <ranck@vt.edu> wrote in message news:<ch51j7$a68$1@solaris.cc.vt.edu>...
> "Greg Zywicki" <gregzywicki@cs.com> wrote in message
> news:22729440.0409010636.3b8e702a@posting.google.com...
> >
> > Hah. Here's the best skewering of CR I've ever seen:
> >
> > http://www.thecarconnection.com/index.asp?article=4733
> >
> > The sampling bias in CR makes it pretty much useless, as far as I'm
> > concerned.
> >
> > Add to that the fact that the Consumer's Union was founded
> > specifically to pimp "Unsafe at any speed," an attack on US carmakers,
> > and you'll understand why I have little faith in their car ratings.
>
> Uh, just how was Consumer's Union founded to pimp "Unsafe at Any Speed" when
> that
> particular book was published by Ralph Nader in the 1960s and CU goes back
> to the 1930s?
> Even the web page you cite talks about reading CR right after WWII.
eep.
> CR is far from perfect, but they provide about the only real world data on
> reliability and costs of repair for a broad range of cars. Who else does
> that?
> Name some better source. I don't suggest anyone take them as gospel, but
> their data is better than no data,
Then you're not in the sciences? Because I view wrong data as worse
than no data.
> and I fail to see how sampling bias will
> affect
> comparisons within their own survey data.
Because people look at the list, see car X as being bad, don't know
that car X was bad only in situations that don't apply to them at all,
and avoid car X. Or they look at the reports, see that car X has a
problem with item Z, don't realize that item Z has been fixed by the
manufacturer on all the availlable new cars, and avoid car X.
Full disclosure here: I work for a company that is too often car X.
And i've known too many people who apply this faulty logic to car
buying.
"I bought car Y because it's more reliable."
"How do you know?"
"Consumer's reports."
"Have you had any trouble with it?"
"Yes. This and that."
"Oh. I have car X, and haven't had any trouble with it."
"Oh, I would never buy car X. Consumer reports says it's unreliable."
> True, , it may not compare to some
> other survey data well, but again, what other survey data is there?
>
I don't know either. JD power is availlable for short-term
reliabillity. If you have a mechanic you trust, you could ask them.
Your friends and neighbors might have some ideas.
But as that article shows, the reliability info from Consumer Reports
is unrelliable: it is based on self reporting. Self reporting is
useless. I can give you health advice based on self reporting;
regular consumption of Ice Cream protects you from heart attacks. I
eat Ice Cream all the time, and I've never had a heart attack.
As the article also shows, the subjective ratings may be useless.
They are made by people with specific biasses in specific driving
conditions that may not apply to you. If you want to know if a car
will meet your needs and desires, take a test drive. Reading someone
else's biassed account beforehand is a mistake, because you'll be
influenced by it.
Greg Zywicki
|
|
|
| iquill@webtv.net |
As I said Lia, the manuufacturer can only produce a product according to
the designers specs...if they stink, ergo , the product will, no matter
who crafts it...however some brands are notoriously better, such as
Braun, DeLonghi, and of course there's always that old standby, "Ya gits
what ya pays fer"... or the old fashioned way, ask around, or only buy
in small shops as opposed to the big box stores....small businessmen
want you to return for other items and they know each and every product
they sell...and don't want you comin' back with a complaint...I know it
costs a bit more, but do you really want to keep going back to return
stuff that stinks,,,,you've got more important things to do with your
time....like, cook, cook and maybe cook.. LOL
http://community.webtv.net/R-J-Q/FIRSTANNUALALLYEAR
http://www.wtv-zone.com/cal555/index.html
|
|
|
| Bill Ranck |
"Greg Zywicki" <gregzywicki@cs.com> wrote in message
news:22729440.0409020530.fb6bdf8@posting.google.com...
> "Bill Ranck" <ranck@vt.edu> wrote in message
news:<ch51j7$a68$1@solaris.cc.vt.edu>...
> > CR is far from perfect, but they provide about the only real world data
on
> > reliability and costs of repair for a broad range of cars. Who else
does
> > that?
>
>
> > Name some better source. I don't suggest anyone take them as gospel,
but
> > their data is better than no data,
>
> Then you're not in the sciences? Because I view wrong data as worse
> than no data.
I view data as data. I've seen the survey form they send out to
subscirbers.
I know how the questions which give them the cost and frequency of
repair are worded. While there may be some geographical bias due to the
geographical bias of the subscriber list, the data provided by the
subscribers
should compare well within its own survey. In other words, there is no
reason owners of brand X should report higher dollars spent in the past
year on transmission problems than brand Y owners. That is how the
survey asks the question. Something like, "How much money did you
spend on transmission repairs in the past year?" Now, if you think
brand X owners somehow have better memories or all keep better
records than brand Y owners, I could see a problem, but presumably
owners in both groups range from the anal to the slipshod on keeping
records/remembering. Yes, there may be some biases in the sample, but
those should apply across the whole range. And, yes, I would like to
see a little more info on how they process the raw data and use it to
assign those little red and black dots, but still I think it's better than
nothing at all.
> Because people look at the list, see car X as being bad, don't know
> that car X was bad only in situations that don't apply to them at all,
> and avoid car X. Or they look at the reports, see that car X has a
> problem with item Z, don't realize that item Z has been fixed by the
> manufacturer on all the availlable new cars, and avoid car X.
I should point out that I only recommend using the cost/frequency of
repair info from CR and *not* their actual reviews. I've seen enough
of those that downrate stuff for truly bizarre reasons that I don't waste
time on them. And, again, I only think people should use the data
as one point among many when looking for a car.
> > True, , it may not compare to some
> > other survey data well, but again, what other survey data is there?
> >
>
> I don't know either. JD power is availlable for short-term
> reliabillity. If you have a mechanic you trust, you could ask them.
> Your friends and neighbors might have some ideas.
JD Power is funded by the manufacturers, correct? They seem to
have an endless set of catgegories that allows every company to
be able to claim they are "best" in some narrowly defined way or
another.
>
> But as that article shows, the reliability info from Consumer Reports
> is unrelliable: it is based on self reporting. Self reporting is
> useless. I can give you health advice based on self reporting;
> regular consumption of Ice Cream protects you from heart attacks. I
> eat Ice Cream all the time, and I've never had a heart attack.
Ah, there is a difference between anecdotal and statistical evidence.
If a thousand people ate ice cream every day, and that group reported
fewer heart attacks than 'average', then you would have something
approaching the CR servey data. Not perfectly reliable, but
still better than nothing.
>
> As the article also shows, the subjective ratings may be useless.
The article you pointed to doesn't really "show" anything. It makes
some opinionated statements that you agree with. I agree with some
of it too. But, to *show* that CR info is useless would require some
statistical evidence from a reasonably good source, not a few anecdotal
examples. Everyone should be aware that even Rolls-Royce can
build a "lemon" on occasion and that there are probably a few people
around who never had a problem with their Yugo, but those are called
statistical outliers.
Bill Ranck
Blacksburg, Va.
|
|
|
| Alex Rast |
at Tue, 31 Aug 2004 23:10:43 GMT in
<rb0aj015n0r5o7gnv7h8fcpakndrfcjhbs@4ax.com>, bigc300@carolina.rr.com
(Bill) wrote :
>On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 22:05:26 -0000, ad.rast.7@nwnotlink.NOSPAM.com
>(Alex Rast) wrote:
>>>...
>>>The big issue I was pointing out about CR is that, not being a
>>>specialty magazine, they may not home in on or even be able to
>>>identify all the salient points that distinguish real quality in an
>>>item....
>>>
>>>The second problem about magazines like CR is that because of their
>>>general-purpose nature, they don't, and can't, assess as many
>>>different brands or models of a given item....
>>>
>>>In addition, given the limited space per article, they can't spend as
>>>much time explaining *why* certain criteria or features of a product
>>>are important. ...
>>>
>>Be aware furthermore that CR in particular seems to have a certain bias
>>towards low price....
>>
>>It is this combination of (mostly necessary and inevitable)
>>characteristics which makes most consumer-review magazines of a general
>>nature only of limited use when looking for quality in, for instance,
>>appliances....
>I enjoyed reading your response to my post Alex! I'm sure alot of us
>reading this are curious...tell us what you do for a living? Also, how
>has Consumers Union affected the way your company does business?
I'm Engineering VP for a small start-up company developing new processing
and communications technologies for, among other things, data-link
acceleration. CU and Consumer Reports hasn't afffected us, at least not
yet, because we're not yet selling a product. If they did, however, I'd
hope they'd be mercilessly critical and pick apart every weakness, no
matter how trivial, in our product. It's necessary to get outside feedback
because no matter how careful you are, you're not going to catch every
problem or inconvenience and having a third party review the product helps
you make improvements to go into the next generation.
>Do you work for a manufacturer of automobiles? What do you think about
>Consumers Union's stance against the basic "top heavy" design of sport
>utility vehicles...that they are poorly designed and very dangerous to
>ride in?
I agree. A lot of SUV's are as you imply, terribly top-heavy, which in
addition to being a hazard in everyday driving, I can't imagine would be
useful for real off-road travel, where you can't rely on a flat road
surface to provide stability. It's reprehensible that so large a percentage
of SUV's on the market are made in this way, and perhaps even more
reprehensible that such a large proportion aren't *really* designed to
handle the kinds of off-road conditions that are supposed to be their
raison d'etre.
at Tue, 31 Aug 2004 23:05:10 GMT in
<dabel-3108041605100001@ssu-64en129.sonoma.edu>, dabel@sonic.net (Dan
Abel) wrote :
>In article <9556903D0adrastnwnotlinkcom@216.168.3.44>,
>ad.rast.7@nwnotlink.NOSPAM.com (Alex Rast) wrote:
....
>> The big issue I was pointing out about CR is that, not being a
>> specialty magazine, they may not home in on or even be able to
>> identify all the salient points that distinguish real quality in an
>> item.
....
>You make some good points, but I still want to argue with you. Who
>cares? Evidently you do, and probably it is exactly those who subscribe
>to car magazines who really care about these issues. My wife judges
>cars by color. She likes blue, so blue cars are better than other cars.
> She doesn't care about performance, because she drives like a little
>old lady. In fact, after reading many years of CR, real quality is not
>their highest concern. Many times they will recommend a lower rated $50
>item over a higher rated $350 item, because they don't feel like the
>average person is getting $300 more value out of the higher rated item.
Some people care, others don't. This is the point I was making at the
outset. CR is fine for, as I say, those who don't really feel like spending
the time necessary to educate themselves so as to be able to make a fully-
informed decision themselves, and would rather have a recommendation to go
by. However, as I point out, this is a choice you make at the outset. If
your choice is that you don't want to spend the time learning, then don't
complain if, having bought something, it wasn't what you expected or
wanted. You *did* get what you wanted - namely the freedom from having to
make a difficult, complex decision.
....
>
>An additional factor is that CR *buys* the items they test, right in the
>same marketplace where the consumer buys them. The car magazines
>usually seem to get the cars they review from the maker. The car
>magazines know that the car the consumer buys is not going to be as
>carefully tuned as the ones they test, but they can't afford to buy cars
>off the lot.
They probably *can* afford it, but don't try, because they get them from
the manufacturer. However, this does mean that, as with any review, you
need to take their reviews with a grain of salt because they may be biassed
by the simple fact that they're receiving promotional vehicles. There isn't
*any* review, from *any* magazine whatsoever, that you should simply take
blindly at face value.
> As far as the high end stuff, again, who cares? People
>who buy the high end items are probably the ones who subscribe to the
>specialty magazines already. CR is aimed more at the average consumer.
>I think that they throw in a very limited number of high end models, not
>to help you decide which one, but to identify whether high end models
>are much better than cheaper ones.
As I also said, this is a poor strategy, because at the high end there is
much more product differentiation and so you are on much shakier ground
trying to find a "representative" brand or model. In order to determine
whether the high end brands were "much better" you'd have to know exactly
for what purpose the high end brand in question were designed, that is to
say which criteria were the ones they decided to optimise. Then you'd have
to pick the brands who had decided to optimise the criteria that you'd
chosen as the important ones. Otherwise you end up risking the possiblity
that you'd tested a model that performed excellently in applications or
areas that you could care less about.
....
>> In addition, given the limited space per article, they can't spend as
>> much time explaining *why* certain criteria or features of a product
>> are important.
....
>For the third time, who cares? Those who really care are reading the
>specialty magazines. The average consumer doesn't want much detail. I
>guess that's what you are saying anyway. I find that CR has as much as
>I want about most things that I buy.
....
Knowing why is the only way you can make informed decisions. If people
don't care, in an ultimate sense, they're saying they don't care about
making an informed decision - that they'd rather delegate the decision-
making to someone else. That's fine to do, but as I said, if you make that
choice, don't complain about the results.
--
Alex Rast
ad.rast.7@nwnotlink.NOSPAM.com
(remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply)
|
|
|
| Nancy Young |
Alex Rast wrote:
> Knowing why is the only way you can make informed decisions. If people
> don't care, in an ultimate sense, they're saying they don't care about
> making an informed decision - that they'd rather delegate the decision-
> making to someone else. That's fine to do, but as I said, if you make that
> choice, don't complain about the results.
I'm coming into this late, but I did want to say, CR has told me a
number of times what to look for in such and such product. Perfect
example, when I wanted to buy a CD player as a present years ago,
you could have whacked me with one and I would have said OWWWWWWWW
and what is that? (right after I slapped you across the room, of
course)
I read the article in CR, oh, I want a changer rather than a single
CD player, I want it to randomly play tracks if I wish, I want
4X oversampling (yes, it was that long ago), etc. Whatever they
recommended as the best, I don't know, but I knew going into the
store what features to insist on.
I value that. I don't know how most people just know stuff, but I
have to read it somewhere, and I really don't feel like buying the
latest issue of CD Players Today.
nancy
|
|
|
| Greg Zywicki |
I found little to quibble with, except this:
"Bill Ranck" <ranck@vt.edu> wrote in message news:<ch7fjc$36v$1@solaris.cc.vt.edu>...
> > As the article also shows, the subjective ratings may be useless.
>
> The article you pointed to doesn't really "show" anything. It makes
> some opinionated statements that you agree with.
> I agree with some
> of it too. But, to *show* that CR info is useless would require some
> statistical evidence from a reasonably good source,
The statments re who does the reviewing, where they're located, what
sort of driving they do, etc, are not opinions. They're a reporting
of conditions.
Statistics aren't the only way of proving or disproving something.
Highlighting the review methodology (which the article I cited does)
can show faulty methodology.
Greg Zywicki
|
|
|
| Gregory Morrow |
Nancy Young wrote:
[...]
> I value that. I don't know how most people just know stuff, but I
> have to read it somewhere, and I really don't feel like buying the
> latest issue of CD Players Today.
_CR_ is good for researching the features you want in a product,especially
if you are relatively ignorant about the kind of product you are considering
purchasing...if I were going to purchase a power saw or a dryer or whatever
I'd check them out first to get a general overview of what was out there...
I once on their recommendation bought their top - and - check - rated for
value VCR (a JVC). The thing crapped out on me exactly six months and six
days after I bought it (it had IIRC a six month warranty). But that may
have just been a fluke <shrug/>
If you really want to research a specific model of a product there all kinds
of groups, boards, listservs, etc. to go to for advice (if you have the
time, that is)...
--
Best
Greg
|
|
|
| EskWIRED@spamblock.panix.com |
In rec.food.cooking, Nancy Young <qwerty@monmouth.com> wrote:
> I'm coming into this late, but I did want to say, CR has told me a
> number of times what to look for in such and such product. Perfect
> example, when I wanted to buy a CD player as a present years ago,
Yeah - they tend to do that. For that, they are valuable.
But for the very most important stuff, like how it sounds, they are
useless.
For CD players, they will tell you they all sound alike. For coffee
makers, they will tell you they all make good coffee. Neither statement
is tue.
Read an article about a product which you are an expert on. Reel with
shock and dismay about the irrelevant criteria used by CR. Then query
why you ever trusted them on anything.
--
....I'm an air-conditioned gypsy...
- The Who
|
|
|
| EskWIRED@spamblock.panix.com |
In rec.food.cooking, Gregory Morrow <gregorymorrowLUCKBEALADYTONIGHT@earthlink.net> wrote:
> _CR_ is good for researching the features you want in a product,especially
> if you are relatively ignorant about the kind of product you are considering
> purchasing...if I were going to purchase a power saw or a dryer or whatever
> I'd check them out first to get a general overview of what was out there...
> I once on their recommendation bought their top - and - check - rated for
> value VCR (a JVC). The thing crapped out on me exactly six months and six
> days after I bought it (it had IIRC a six month warranty). But that may
> have just been a fluke <shrug/>
Coould have been a fluke, but for most products, they equate "lots of
bells and whistles and a low price" with "best buy".
Overall quality is foreign to them in most product categories.
--
....I'm an air-conditioned gypsy...
- The Who
|
|
|
| EskWIRED@spamblock.panix.com |
In rec.food.cooking, Dan Abel <dabel@sonic.net> wrote:
> I was reading their review of kitchen stoves, and they
> mentioned that the high end stoves they tested were actually less
> convenient to use and clean than mid-level stoves.
And I bet that they mentioned that all stoves cook pretty much the same.
But most folks here know better. Maximum BTU output? Precise regulation
of a low flame? Did they rate stoves on that?
I trust CR for low-level reports on non-technical stuff that I know
nothing about and care little about. But for expensive, technical stuff,
like, say, a digital camera or a computer monitor, I wouldn't even bother
to look.
--
....I'm an air-conditioned gypsy...
- The Who
|
|
|
| Wayne |
EskWIRED@spamblock.panix.com wrote in
news:ch9t5n$esa$9@reader1.panix.com:
> In rec.food.cooking, Dan Abel <dabel@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>> I was reading their review of kitchen stoves, and they
>> mentioned that the high end stoves they tested were actually less
>> convenient to use and clean than mid-level stoves.
>
> And I bet that they mentioned that all stoves cook pretty much the
> same. But most folks here know better. Maximum BTU output? Precise
> regulation of a low flame? Did they rate stoves on that?
>
> I trust CR for low-level reports on non-technical stuff that I know
> nothing about and care little about. But for expensive, technical
> stuff, like, say, a digital camera or a computer monitor, I wouldn't
> even bother to look.
>
They are, after all, "Consumers" Reports, and I think they have very few
truly expert staff who do the reviewing. Most of their reviewing is at
"consumer" level.
--
Wayne in Phoenix
unmunge as w-e-b
*If there's a nit to pick, some nitwit will pick it.
*A mind is a terrible thing to lose.
|
|
|
| EskWIRED@spamblock.panix.com |
In rec.food.cooking, Greg Zywicki <gregzywicki@cs.com> wrote:
> Has it occurred to anyone that the only evidence of quality we have on
> decades old products are the ones that lasted that long? Maybe
> products were made better, or maybe natural selection has weeded out
> all the bad models.
Excellent point. Look at classic cars, for example. You'd think that
all of them were as cool as Duesenbergs and Hudsons, unless you consider
that all of the Pintos are long since crushed and melted.
Old houses too - big, fine Queen Anne victorians are unlikely to be
typical of their era - the shacks that the common folks lived in are long
gone.
But in the meantime, I make coffee every day in a 1938 Silex, and toast
my bread in a Sunbeam T9 from the 40's. My Mom has a wonderful waffle
maker she got at a garage sale for a couple of bucks, which is obviously
MUCH better than the typical ones sold im Mall*Wart these days.
So despite the erroneous conclusion that all old stuff is better than all
new stuff, if you like good, cheap and funky, eBay and garage sales are
your best bet for appliances.
--
....I'm an air-conditioned gypsy...
- The Who
|
|
|
| PENMART01 |
> "Gregory Morrow" writes:
>
>Nancy Young wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>> I value that. I don't know how most people just know stuff, but I
>> have to read it somewhere, and I really don't feel like buying the
>> latest issue of CD Players Today.
>
>
>_CR_ is good for researching the features you want in a product,especially
>if you are relatively ignorant about the kind of product you are considering
>purchasing...if I were going to purchase a power saw or a dryer or whatever
>I'd check them out first to get a general overview of what was out there...
>
>I once on their recommendation bought their top - and - check - rated for
>value VCR (a JVC). The thing crapped out on me exactly six months and six
>days after I bought it (it had IIRC a six month warranty). But that may
>have just been a fluke <shrug/>
>
>If you really want to research a specific model of a product there all kinds
>of groups, boards, listservs, etc. to go to for advice (if you have the
>time, that is)...
I find reading through Eopinions.com Reviews from actual purchasers very
illuminating, far better than CR (btw, I don't believe CR isn't bought)...
anyone can research the tech specs on a product on their own (which is
essentially all CR provides) but feedback by actual users is far more
invaluable for determining if a product is suitable for a particular
individual... after reading through 50 personal Reviews on say a vacuum cleaner
one can get a pretty good idea about the product's pros/cons,
idiosyncrasies/quirks... I want to know what *real people* have to say, not
*salaried testers* (anytime you pay someone for their opinion it is never an
honest opinion). Many years ago I subscribed to CR but now with the limitless
reasearch one can do on the internet I think CR is a dinosaur.
---= BOYCOTT FRANCE (belgium) GERMANY--SPAIN =---
---= Move UNITED NATIONS To Paris =---
*********
"Life would be devoid of all meaning were it without tribulation."
Sheldon
````````````
|
|
|
| Nancy Young |
EskWIRED@spamblock.panix.com wrote:
>
> In rec.food.cooking, Nancy Young <qwerty@monmouth.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm coming into this late, but I did want to say, CR has told me a
> > number of times what to look for in such and such product. Perfect
> > example, when I wanted to buy a CD player as a present years ago,
>
> Yeah - they tend to do that. For that, they are valuable.
> Read an article about a product which you are an expert on. Reel with
> shock and dismay about the irrelevant criteria used by CR. Then query
> why you ever trusted them on anything.
Well, I don't just go to the ratings and choose their top rated
model. I read what they have to say, and as I already said, what
to look for, then I choose for myself.
Yes, one time they rated soaps, then they pointed out the price per
use of Clinique against that cheap Bouquet soap from the supermarket.
Hello, I am not washing my face with that harsh cheap soap. I
thought that was a really stupid comparison. What's next, look how
much you can save riding a bicycle rather than a Jaguar? No kidding.
nancy
|
|
|
| Bill Ranck |
"Nancy Young" <qwerty@monmouth.com> wrote in message
in reference to Consumer Reports:
>
> Well, I don't just go to the ratings and choose their top rated
> model. I read what they have to say, and as I already said, what
> to look for, then I choose for myself.
>
> Yes, one time they rated soaps, then they pointed out the price per
> use of Clinique against that cheap Bouquet soap from the supermarket.
> Hello, I am not washing my face with that harsh cheap soap. I
> thought that was a really stupid comparison. What's next, look how
> much you can save riding a bicycle rather than a Jaguar? No kidding.
This is exactly the reason I dropped my subscription about 25 years ago.
They will choose some off-the-wall criteria for no apparent reason to
downrate
some otherwise middle of the pack item, or completely ignore some basic
level of quality measure in order to uprate some cheap item.
I do not trust their reviews and ratings in their magazine articles. They
clearly have some agendas, and sometimes it's hard to see when they
are letting those agendas lead them astray. But if you read carefully and
make your own interpretations they can provide some useful information.
Bill Ranck
Blacksburg, Va.
|
|
|
| Dan Abel |
In article <ch9t5n$esa$9@reader1.panix.com>, EskWIRED@spamblock.panix.com wrote:
> In rec.food.cooking, Dan Abel <dabel@sonic.net> wrote:
>
> > I was reading their review of kitchen stoves, and they
> > mentioned that the high end stoves they tested were actually less
> > convenient to use and clean than mid-level stoves.
>
> And I bet that they mentioned that all stoves cook pretty much the same.
I've been using stoves for over 40 years, and they all cook pretty much
the same. They apply heat to the food.
> But most folks here know better. Maximum BTU output? Precise regulation
> of a low flame? Did they rate stoves on that?
Yes. They made the comment that most newer gas stoves are a lot better
about low flames than they used to be. I found this very true. With my
old stove, turning the knob all the way meant that the flame went out.
With the knob set to "low", there was way too much heat for a simmer. By
bending over and looking at the flame while I turned the knob some
incredibly small amount, I could get a fairly low flame. With my new
stove, when I turned it all the way I thought that the flame went out, but
it wasn't, it was just too low to see.
--
Dan Abel
Sonoma State University
AIS
dabel@sonic.net
|
|
|
| Scott |
In article <ch9t5n$esa$9@reader1.panix.com>,
EskWIRED@spamblock.panix.com wrote:
> I trust CR for low-level reports on non-technical stuff that I know
> nothing about and care little about. But for expensive, technical stuff,
> like, say, a digital camera or a computer monitor, I wouldn't even bother
> to look.
Sometime in the early 90's, I read a report they did on computers that
was full of factual errors--to the point where they misdefined basic
terms.
I sent them a rather detailed letter in and, to my surprise, they sent a
2-3 page (I forget just how long) personal response. Unfortunately, they
never actually addressed the substantive issues in my letter.
--
to respond, change "spamless.invalid" with "optonline.net"
please mail OT responses only
|
|
|
| EskWIRED@spamblock.panix.com |
In rec.food.cooking, Scott <heimdall@spamless.invalid> wrote:
> Sometime in the early 90's, I read a report they did on computers that
> was full of factual errors--to the point where they misdefined basic
> terms.
> I sent them a rather detailed letter in and, to my surprise, they sent a
> 2-3 page (I forget just how long) personal response. Unfortunately, they
> never actually addressed the substantive issues in my letter.
Just for yucks, I took a look at the 2004 Buying Guide, and flipped to
the section on BBQ Grills. CR has confirmed my impression with this
whopper: "Most gas or electric grills do a good job at grilling hotly and
evenly". IOW, only the price/feature ratio determines what to buy.
They know little or nothing about performance of the basic function of
the products they review. Either that, or they cannot reliably detect the
differences.
Here's some more:
[Stereo speakers] "Most models we've tested have been capable of
reasonable accuracy".
[TV Sets] "Most models we've tested do at least a good job"
[Film Cameras] "...nearly all can produce very pleasing snapshots..."
I could go on. But the point is that they gloss over the differences
concerning the basic function, and dwell on superfluous factors.
--
....I'm an air-conditioned gypsy...
- The Who
|
|
|
| blake murphy |
On Tue, 7 Sep 2004 12:35:18 +0000 (UTC), EskWIRED@spamblock.panix.com
wrote:
>In rec.food.cooking, Scott <heimdall@spamless.invalid> wrote:
>> Sometime in the early 90's, I read a report they did on computers that
>> was full of factual errors--to the point where they misdefined basic
>> terms.
>
>> I sent them a rather detailed letter in and, to my surprise, they sent a
>> 2-3 page (I forget just how long) personal response. Unfortunately, they
>> never actually addressed the substantive issues in my letter.
>
>Just for yucks, I took a look at the 2004 Buying Guide, and flipped to
>the section on BBQ Grills. CR has confirmed my impression with this
>whopper: "Most gas or electric grills do a good job at grilling hotly and
>evenly". IOW, only the price/feature ratio determines what to buy.
>
>They know little or nothing about performance of the basic function of
>the products they review. Either that, or they cannot reliably detect the
>differences.
>
>Here's some more:
>
>[Stereo speakers] "Most models we've tested have been capable of
>reasonable accuracy".
>
>[TV Sets] "Most models we've tested do at least a good job"
>
>[Film Cameras] "...nearly all can produce very pleasing snapshots..."
>
>I could go on. But the point is that they gloss over the differences
>concerning the basic function, and dwell on superfluous factors.
these claims don't seem to be outlandish to me, directed at your
typical mass consumer. but if you are particular (or have the money
to spend) you likely know of another source of info more suited to
you.
your pal,
blake
|
|
|
| Scott |
In article <chk9u6$ivk$1@reader1.panix.com>,
EskWIRED@spamblock.panix.com wrote:
> They know little or nothing about performance of the basic function of
> the products they review. Either that, or they cannot reliably detect the
> differences.
Back around 1980 or so, Bose Corp sued CU for product disparagement; the
CR review said that music played through the Bose speakers sounded like
it was "wander[ing] about the room," a defect.
When the reviewer testified, he made a sketch of the movement he claimed
to have heard, which actually depicted a movement of sound back and
forth along the wall between the two speakers--i.e., showing a
desirable stereo effect. A lower court found that CR acted with "actual
malice" in how they described the effect.
But the Supreme Court concluded that though the review's author gave an
obviously false description of the sound movement, Bose didn't show that
there was consciousness of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth,
and so found for CR.
--
to respond, change "spamless.invalid" with "optonline.net"
please mail OT responses only
|
|
|
|
