Why is the 72" one less expensive tham the 60" one?
636426
My guess is that it may be from two different sellers. If not, maybe because the larger one is heavier and not as portable for those that take a mat with them to an exercise class, etc away from home.
960441
Same with the 42 inch white one. Whats the story. Not very reliable, would now hesitate to order even if it was available
2272513
No - I bought the 72" version and I don't see how you would be able to shorten it. Each end has some hardware in it and it would be very difficult / impossible to cleanly remove it then cut the whole thing to be 66".
1386591
Thanks, T., that's good information. I wish I had the space (and cash) for one of those, especially the 42PZ700, but I'll still probably grab a 42PX60U. I did see a couple of sites with specs on the 75U models that showed them slightly wider than the 42PX60U (and a bit too wide for me.)I wonder about all the sites which are advertising these TVs (the 75U in particular) and claiming to have them in stock.
1857160
I am sure the quality of both are the same. The reason for buying the 48 inch was to be able to hold a piece of plywood, depending on your circumstances I would buy the 48 inch. Thank You Eric
770165
I'm not sure why it's less expensive. I would contact the supplier for that. The only thing I can think of is the 4x4 is more popular
836259
The 554 has a higher refresh rate 480Hz vs 240Hz.From what I've found the 554 won't be available until early 2011.Btw, the 72" model has been canceled, maybe they'll have a 65" model available but again we won't know until early 2011.
1685545
While you can put some cables together, there is a 60" cable that you should be able to buy already made.
1651458
I wonder why the less expensive one is less expensive...are the differences in feel, materials, quality and/or size?
2021882
Yes it is, but they only have the 55" model i believe and up, not 46". Its also worth mentioning I bought mine new from Amazon for $1300 last October when the original price was $2200. If you purchase it, you won't regret it worth every penny in my opinion.
1410957
Thats almost laughable to consider a 92" tv priced at 4k as too expensive. If you cant afford it the 73" models can be found around 1k now though... I currently am using a 73838, but will be soon upgrading to this 92" and the price for a screen this size is unbeatable. If you really need 92" just wait a couple years and they will drop in price, but in the mean time you will be missing out and IMHO the extra grand or two you will spend now is well worth not having to wait.
322101
There is no difference in the product or amount received. The difference is in the seller and shipping. The $59 one is not charging for shipping, while the other one sells for less but then charges for shipping. Hope that helps.
2032324
Thanks for your input I was wondering why this is so, I was worried whether there was a reason like the 42" was manufactured some place different and perhaps had less quality, or it was something like you're saying, they just have more 42" TVs and need to sell them. Hopefully it's the latter.
1440516
I would recommend the 60 inch, but according to their website, 72 inch is suitable as well. You can view it here on page 222: http://www.minkagroup.net/ecatalog/AIR2015/html5/index.html?page=1
1365526
I bought mine (50" G25) for $991 Oct. 4. The 46" was $999. So I went with the larger one. And it is massive. Purchased from Amazon and delivery was amazing. They took it out of the box, attached its stand, lifted it to the TV stand, hooked up the cable and tested it. Even offered to dispose of the packing (which I kept just in case).
503607
There is no difference. Not sure why you are seeing it as more expensive. I'd just try to get the larger one at the lowest price you can find.
551697
That makes sense since we have seen some tv's that say 1,300:1 that look better than the 7,000:1 sitting right next to them. I just found out Sears keeps these in their showroom so I figure we will go check it out and order later tonight. Thanks.