![\"user-pic\"](\"/css/images/default.gif\")
noticed this myself recently, since I'm sort of in the market. I've seen a couple of ones that are 42 1/16\" as a 42\" class as well, but by far the larger portion is smaller models.
noticed this myself recently, since I'm sort of in the market. I've seen a couple of ones that are 42 1/16\" as a 42\" class as well, but by far the larger portion is smaller models.
Hrm - I always thought when they said \"Class\", that it was referencing the 720p or 1080p...
Anyway, I thought this was standard practice for TV Manuafacturers...kind of how a 2x4 stud is not really 2\" x 4\"...
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-266414-100x100.png\")
@SashiCurry: actually, if you went down to your local Home Depot with a ruler, you would see that a 2 x 4 really is 2\" by 4\" depth and width with a varying length. I can see how this could be confusing for some.
/sarcasm
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-157517-100x100.png\")
@verazula: 2X4s have not been 2\" by 4\" for several decades. I have an old house (built in 1915), where the 2X4s are really 2 by really 4, and it means that things like insulation, electrical fixture boxes, etc. don't fit right.
@verazula:
Um, I don't know what crackpot sort of Home Depot you go to, but a 2 x 4 is NOT 2 x 4; it is 1 1/2\" x 3 1/2\". Believe me, I've struggled with fractions in set construction shop class enough to know this as a fact.
When a technical designer for theatre (and I assume architects in traditional design) want you to use a piece of wood that is ACTUALLY 2x4, they write 2x4 T (for True) on the blueprints.
Maybe your tape measure needs calibrated?
/better sarcasm
So does this mean if I buy something for $100 at Best Buy I can give them 4 $20's and a $10 and call it even? After all $90 is 100 'class'. Its in the same ballpark right?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-23360-100x100.png\")
Computer monitors used to be advertised as the corner to corner measurement of the glass, not the image size. I still have a monitor from Compaq that claims to be 14 inches while the image is somewhat less than 13 inches.
LCD monitors have always been honestly sized so a 14 inch LCD would frequently have a larger image than a 15 inch CRT.
About 10 years ago I went to buy a TV. On the box it said it was a 25 inch diagonal TV, unless you were in Canada it was considered a 27 inch TV. Apparently someone in the US government made the manufacturer quote the size based on the image while the Canadian government hadn't caught up to the shenanigans.
Most likely, this kind of \"32 inch class\" for a 31.5 inch screen would be illegal if done by the manufacturer base on the observation in the paragraph above. Maybe it is legal for a retailer but I would expect some lawsuits and \"promises to never do it again even though we didn't do anything wrong\" real soon.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-492077-100x100.png\")
yea its rather shady for them to switch back to dishonest measurements now. i'm surprised its no longer an honest measurement:(
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-357874-100x100.png\")
About 10 years ago I went to buy a TV. On the box it said it was a 25 inch diagonal TV, unless you were in Canada it was considered a 27 inch TV.That's fantastic. It's like an exchange rate!
@ColoradoShark: There was a class-action settlement related to those computer monitors in...1994, IIRC. Of course, this is from the days where a 14\" VGA screen cost what a 32\" LCD TV now costs.
The 'class' on the TV is not a big deal, IMO. As long as the actual size is stated; no one will notice the difference between 31.5\" and 32\". Now if they said 32\" Class and the TV was 29\", I'd have a problem.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-58139-100x100.png\")
@spazztastic: like i said above, if it isnt a big deal, then they wouldnt be doing it in the first place.
Buy the TV and then return it citing the inaccurate screen measurement. Be sure to distress the packaging sufficiently so the TV can't be sold as new again.
Was I the only one who thought this referred to the length of a TV show as commercials increased? You have to love Fringe for telling you how long till the show is back on.
@Wowwee, a Zeppelin! SteveDave:
I love fringe, but I think this is just a gimmick to try and get people to watch, or think it's special. I'm afraid it will go away once they can actually sell ads for the show.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-237394-100x100.png\")
@Wowwee, a Zeppelin! SteveDave: I thought the same thing. And, considering the 1 episode of Fringe I watched, I do remember that being the only thing about it I loved...
@Wowwee, a Zeppelin! SteveDave: Fringe is an extra six minutes long, too. It's amazing, how much difference that six minutes makes.
From the examples given, it seems that the difference may come from converting from metric to imperial. 31.5\" = 80.01 cm, and 18.9\" = 48.006 cm. I'm not sure why the reporter had such a hard time getting the straight truth if that's the case, though.
I first saw this about a month.
I think it started at Best Buy.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-72509-100x100.png\")
Sounds ripe for a class action suit!
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-159178-100x100.png\")
I am not sure where the companies benefit from making and selling tv's have an inch smaller. The cost of material and production can't be that much different over 1/2 an inch of screen size.
So, who is benefiting from this? Is this just us not being metric?
@failurate: That 1/2 inch is 3.2% or the total surface area. The cost of manufacturing LCD's increases faster than the surface area increases. (but I don't know how much faster)
A 3% (at least) cost savings is significant. Especially if you can trick the user to comparing it to real 32\" sets. (glancing at prices for 32\" LCD's, that would allow them to be ~$15-$20 cheaper than all the competition...)
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-6798-100x100.png\")
@failurate: Making one TV one half-inch smaller won't make that much difference in production cost, no. But they don't make them one at a time.
@failurate: It's penny pinching. reduce the number of olives by 1 in every single serving of salad and after a million customers, you've saved quite a bit.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-37033-100x100.png\")
I wondered what the fuck that meant, and why some TVs had that label and some didn't.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-229990-100x100.png\")
Sharp's 65\" Aquos LCD tv is in fact 64.5\" if you look on their website. It's advertised as 65\" though. Gotta love marketing.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-24620-100x100.png\")
I learned back in the CRT days to take my own tape measure with me when shopping and do my own darn measuring. Read the resolution specs, too, because bigger monitors/TVs with inadequate resolution look like good deals until you get them home and discover they look like crap. A friend of mine bought his new flat panel TV by taking his own portable DVD player in and using it as a standard video source. Some stores apparently manipulate the signals going to the devices to make them look better than they really are.
@Keter: I heard about this too, if they don't let the customer test it out with their own video source or if they are edgy about letting a customer do that then they are probably trying to hide something, either that or they really don't want the sale. There are lots of portable devices you could use as a video source.
I can totally see the retailer manipulating the settings and video source so they can show you how much better a more expensive TV looks.. or to make a crappy TV look much better than it really is.
Overall if I had to buy a TV it would be from a place with a good return policy, because a house has very different lighting from that of a retail store and you won't be able to really see how it looks until you have it in your own viewing environment.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-614980-100x100.png\")
@Outrun1986: Best Buy in particular is well known for doing that. They'll have two TVs side-by-side touting one's superior image quality because of its associated hardware or their completely useless \"screen calibration\" when all they did was pipe one an HD signal and the other an SD signal.
Bought a 20\" Dynex for my bedroom.It was super cheap,but it turns out to be a great set...
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-348745-100x100.png\")
Don't worry... I use American class dollars.
Well this is not something retailers are doing to \"confuse\" or \"mislead\" customers. As of August 2008 the Federal Trade Commission required all manufacturers and retailers to list the actual size on the TV. They basically revised the old rule on the way screen measurements are made since the change to flat panels. All TV's how now class size. Basically the TV can be within 1/2 inch of the stated size to fall in to a size. Some manufactures are doing to exact size ie 32 inch some like Sony screens are really 31.5 inches in size. The rule basically forces the retailer to advertise the EXACT size of the tv not the closest whole number. I know this because I work in retail and had to reprint several dozen signs to make us compliant. Tomorrow when I am at work I will attempt to find the exact rule number.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-75647-100x100.png\")
Hmmm. I wonder what would happen if Best Buy credit card holders started sending in the same 'class' of payment.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-222420-100x100.png\")
If you insist on going to Best Buy, bring a tape measure with you to measure just how big the screen is. Take the actual size of the screen and divide by the size on the box. Then multiply that result by the price they advertise and offer to pay them that amount. Do not buy the extended warranty. Do not buy any cable from them, Monster or no monster. Do not pay to have them calibrate anything. Just take it home yourself.
Sounds like Best Buy is pocketing the price difference between 31.5\" and 32\"; manufacturers need to start putting huge labels on the boxes saying 32.000\" Super-class. Of course manufacturers will all start making 31.5\" screens, so I don't see the advantage in trying to trick people.
I can't even imagine how shaving a half inch off a TV set even saves them money...
@kman13:
Same way making a smaller \"class\" TV saves them money, except they don't have to lower the price.
Funny, my wife got me a 22\" LCD monitor for X-mas and for the hell of it I measured diagonally and it was 21 1/2\".. After I finished punching her in the crotch I kicked the dog.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-5245-100x100.png\")
So is this class thing kind of like McDonald's changing the definition of a double cheeseburger by removing a piece of cheese and calling it a McDouble?
Am I the only one that still thinks a 32\" TV with only a 720p resolution is kinda dumb? IMO any HD TV with a screen bigger than 26 inches should be a 1080p... If only...
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-129219-100x100.png\")
@Zeniq: Depends how close you sit to your TV. For me the 720p cutoff is around 40\" because I sit a good distance away from any TV I watch. Now, monitors are a different story. A 28\" monitor with 1680x1050 or therabouts isn't worth the money compared to one with 1900x1200 or higher.
I work in advertising and most LCD TV's are listed in the product description as \"CLASS\", whatever that means. This has been going on for years. If you get out a tape measure on any old CRT screen you will see that a 17\" CRT means 17\" from diagonal corner to corner and has absolutely nothing to do with viewing area. In fact I just measured my '17\"' CRT and the width is actually 13\" and the diagonal measurement is 16\". I have no idea who regulates this kind of thing but it boils down to a large bending of the truth. The viewing area is very different from the quoted size in real life.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-83146-100x100.png\")
If you read the comments in the article you will find that the reason for all of this is in the manufacturing process. This is not another boring shrink ray story.
Hey! Great news! I'm a 6-foot class man!
Sounds MUCH better than \"I'm 5'8\".
No big deal. Just look for the info on the 'veiwable' size. They can call it whatever 'class' they want. Just read the other info carefully.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-665153-100x100.png\")
I just bought a small 19\" TV and was going to buy a Sharp model when I noticed that the diagonal measurement was actually 18.5\". So I went with another brand that was the real 19\" size. Good customers will notice this difference, but some may not read the fine print.
They stole half an inch!
Burn them to the ground!
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-219008-100x100.png\")
As long as the majority of consumers do not demand truth in advertising or the end to shrinking packages, companies will get away with whatever they can. It is a war out there and the consumers are losing.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-587956-100x100.png\")
Pure BS.
I always thought it was pure BS that CRTs had the \"viewable area\" in fine print, or not at all.
The same way that a few years ago TVs were being sold as 1080i \"capable\". (.. by down-converting).
Pure BS.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-605077-100x100.png\")
My take on it is that the TVs were probably short a half inch anyway, but they decided to add \"class\" so that some enterprising lawyer didn't start suing their asses because of that missing half inch. If they are truly starting to screw the customer, they will probably start saying that the class measurement is not the screen size, but is the size including the frame. That would allow them to take another inch off the screen.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-8575-100x100.png\")
Since pretty much all sets are manufactured elsewhere, it would make sense that they're also spec'd out elsewhere.
The rest of the world uses the metric system, not the English system of measurement, so a 31.5\" TV would be about an 80cm set anywhere else in the world, and a 40\" TV would be a 100cm set elsewhere.
Manufacturers are just putting the closest measurements in the language the consumers understand, and that happens to be in inches.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-291961-100x100.png\")
Isn't it awesome when companies make up words to explain things without telling people what they mean? Class-y.
@unobservant: If \"it might not seem like a big deal\" then they wouldn't be making up this bullshit definition to deceive people in the first place.