I was thinking the other day that it had been awhile since I had dug into my stash of old Consumer Reports magazines. Pretty interesting reading, I think. I thought some might find it interesting how some old tv sets rated way back when. I don't have a way to post the whole articles, but can give a run-down of the results. The ones I have range from the early 50s to modern times, but they are real hit or miss. I'll start out with some of the older ones, later I can post some for late 60s/early 70s color sets as well, if interested.

June 1951 report on 17" sets:
The RCA 7-T-112 ($359.50)was top rated, though it posed a shock hazard if the chassis wasn't grounded.
Admiral 17K12N ($260.85)was next, dealt good with interference. (I have one of these, a tough old set)
The DuMont RA117-A7($429.95)-they didn't like, poor contrast and the continous style tuner was disliked.
Bottom rated set was the Philco 51-T-1800($318.89);biggest complaint was the picture getting a "bas-relief character" on some channels.

The next month they tested some more, listed in order of quality(includes those in the earlier test):
Hoffman 637,$319.95 (high rated but with reliabilty problems-said 2 of the 3 they bought needed to be repaired right out of the box)
Stromberg-Carlson 317-TM,$306.45, best at being unaffected by spark interference
GE 17C105, $358.95,lots of compliments for a good picture, good contrast/brightness
Airline 15BR-3053B,$305.95
Capehart 320A,$347.70
RCA 7-T-112, $359.50
GE 17T2,$298.95
Zenith H2252,$378.95
Admiral 17K12N,$260.85
Hallicrafters 17-804-CN,$287.95
Magnavox MV31J-2,$298.50
DuMont RA117-A7,$429.95
Hallicrafters 17-815-H,$327.95 "with printed-circuit tuner", poor picture quality
Philco 51-T-1800, $318.89
Westinghouse H-641K17, $369.95, poor picture, very snowy


The next report I have is from '53, if anyone is interested.

Wow, these sets were real money in 1951. I just ran a comparison and $350 1951 dollars equates to about $2,500 2004 dollars. $450 1951 dollars equates to about $3,300 2004 dollars. That's getting into Plasma TV territory.

- Pete

would love to see how the color sets rated. Especially some roundies, and how the Zenith Chromacolor fared in the 70's!!!!

...

I also found a bunch of old CR magazines at an estate sale (They said I could have them if I carried them out of the basement!). These were mostly from the 70s.

I would term most of the information as useless. For example, if you cannot decide for yourself whether you prefer secondary user controls on the side, or in plain view; you are an idiot. During a review of 70s luxury coupes, (Monte Carlo, Cordoba, T-bird) they began the article by implying that any one who would suffer the inconveince of a two door model over the ease of a sedan is just someone who needs an ego boost. How's that for unbiased?

Note that the TV review makes no mention of the handwired chassis, and its advantages over PC boards. They also seem to think a CRT-killing "quick warm-up" feature is a plus, in the middle of an energy crisis!

It's so glaringly obvious that CR is written by those who know very little about the technology of what they are testing. This really comes out during their automotive reviews, which fail to distinguish between a serious defect, or a paint scratch.

If you'd like to read about the statistical problems with CR's reader surveys, click the link below. Although it deals largely with automobiles, I believe the same biased mindset applies to all of their testing.

http://www.allpar.com/cr.html

Also note that CR, those advocates of consumer rights and presumably free speech, like to sue the hell out of anyone who dares to say something negative about their magazine; saying that any type of quote is a violation of copyright laws. While I understand this zealous approach if their quotes were used for advertising, keep in mind that they also sue anyone who dares to question their testing techniques, and mentions specific results.

As far as I can tell there was not a full report on color sets until the 60s. They did have articles from time to time, but most just stated that color tv was "not ready for primetime". In April 54 they had a good overview of the Westinghouse color set, and then a short bit about the CT-100 in the June issue. They definately didn't recommend these sets. They complained mostly about how the Westinghouse took up the space of a refrigerator and it's color-hold control was fussy. They only liked the RCA a little better.

The first full report I could find off hand on color sets (I have some other magazines & buying guides in another box somewhere) is from January '67. Now, here is a good issue: they test full-size cars (I own a 67 Impala) but of course they don't speak too well of my ride. (Ratings, top to bottom:Catalina,Galaxie,Fury,Impala,Ambassador) Then they test soldering equipment (Weller won, along with some Wards Powr-Kraft's made by Weller) and then "Large Screen Color TV".

Quality control was a big issue; they said that if anything it was getting worse. The article goes on to say "...makers have virtually abandoned the round picture tube, which had been used in their lowest-priced large-screen sets, frequently the table models. This year, five manufacturers no longer make large-screen table-models. Those that do seem to put greater promotional (and production) emphasis on their consoles. You may have trouble finding any large-screen table models. "

7 sets arrived defective: Sylvania,Admiral,Motorola,GE,Sears and both tested RCA's. The Magnavox broke in short order. The ratings:
RCA GH-692W $650 good reception
GE M980CWD (believe it or not, a GE in second place!) $699.95
Philco 6436 PC $699.95, they liked the tuning eye
Sylvania 25LC109W $589.95
Silvertone 7181 $549.95
(below group judged lower in overall quality than those preceding)
Admiral LK5521 $579.95 lack of sharpness in pic
Zenith 25X4517W (how did it get way down here?!) $569.95 some lack of detail in pic, fine tuning too hard to turn
Magnavox 3-T521 $650 lack of sharpness and detail, the did like the AFC
Emerson 25C09 $595 lack of sharpness and detail
Westinghouse CT23A470 $489.95 lack of sharpness and detail
Airline 7477 $549.95 lack of sharpness and detail, not as bright as the others
(last, and least)
Motorola CU332BW $529.95 lack of sharpness and detail, considerable pincushion distortion,color picture pleasing but did not accurately match industry standards for color reproduction

I will agree that CR's word is not law; they sometimes give great advice but some of it is pretty sour. Regardless, I think looking back it gives a good snapshot at how things were when our sets were new. I'll post more when I can, if there are no objections.

...

I've got almost every Consumer Reports buying guide issue from 1950-2000, and have copies of almost every magazine article they've done on TVs or radios from roughly 1940-1975. While I don't care much for the 'modern' CU, I find old issues of Consumer Reports oftentimes rather interesting, and sometimes helpful in identifying sets or finding rough dates of manufacture.

I disagree with Carmine's general point of view, though. Some of those examples are a bit out-of-context, such as the praise of "quick-warm-up." In fact, if you look again, you'll find that while they sorta liked it in the very early 70's, they did a quick 180-degree turn on that within about two years (as the "energy crisis" worsened), and even started praising manufactures that *stopped* using that feature. So, if you wanna complain about CU in that respect, complain about them not being *consistent*. :) As for not mentioning Zenith's handwired circuit, I'm not sure which articles you've read, but many of CU's TV ratings contained notes like "printed circuit" or "wired circuit" to identify the type of construction. They also often made some vague evaluation of "ease of servicing" for TVs, though the criteria for that sometimes seemed a bit arbitrary.

Anyway, I think the "best" era for CU at least for 'technology'-type products (TV/radio/etc.) was probably about 1946-1960.
I'd agree that they really started to get weak in the 1980's and later.

There were a few funny bits, though, such as their glowing praise for the CBS color system in the early 50's (and their demands that the FCC should approve it over RCA's proposed 'compatible' system); again, CU did a flip-flop on that just a few years later... :-) Also, some of their general consumer-advocacy articles were a bit odd, such as their articles from the 40's about how nickel-cadmium automobile batteries should be on the market, but are being somehow blocked by the big lead-acid battery manufacturers.

I can't speak for their automobile ratings, since I'm not really a gearhead. However, my general feeling about any ratings article in CU is that you should always 'filter' it based on what *you* find important. If you prefer 2-door cars, then fine! Don't worry about the commentary, just read the evaluation. I often mentally change the order of items in CU articles based on what *I* happen to find important or unimportant.

Now, if you really want something to look at and shake your head, take a look at some older issues of CU's lower-rent counterpart, Consumer's Resarch (previously Consumer's Research Bulletin). Just as a quick example, when the first color TVs were introduced, at least CU bothered to actully *buy* one and test it. Consumer's Resarch did an article on one of those first NTSC color sets too, but instead of buying one, they simply headed over to a local tavern that had just gotten one of these sets, and wrote up their "evaluation" based on waching TV with the other bar patrons... :)