Get a 52-inch Vizio HDTV for $999.99

Here's your chance to score a 52-inch LCD for less than a grand.

(Credit: CompUSA)

You missed your chance to nab a big ol' TV in time for the Super Bowl, but March Madness is just around the corner (go Spartans!).

Here's a pretty sweet deal to satisfy your hoop dreams, Lost lust, and more: CompUSA has a 52-inch Vizio VX52LF LCD HDTV for $999.99.

That's a mighty big screen, folks. It's a refurbished model, meaning that its warranty expires after just 90 days. But given that new 52-inchers routinely sell in the neighborhood of $2,000, I'd say it's a risk worth taking.

The VX52LF is a 1080P LCD with three HDMI inputs, two component inputs, and a universal remote that can control a VCR, DVD player, and a cable box.

Too good to be true? Well, maybe. I can't find any trace of this model on Vizio's product pages (though it is listed in the Support section), and reviews are few and far between.

As it happens, I'm in the market for a new TV, and I've been seriously eyeballing this one. Also in contention: Vizio's 47-inch GV47LF, which CompUSA has for $749.96. It's also a refurb, but there are reviews aplenty, and they're mostly stellar.

Update: As of today, Feb. 10, the GV47F is down to $699.99. Think my decision just got a little easier.

Decisions, decisions. Either set will run me $99 for shipping. Is it worth $250 to make the jump from 47 inches to 52? That's the kind of question that keeps me up at night. If anyone owns either model, please hit the Comments pronto, and share your thoughts, please.

[DustinLH00]

The price now shows $959?????

[j_a_s_p_e_r]

It is common for manufacturers to change model numbers for refurb items, try searching by specs or by the first part of the model number for reviews. I think with the people's financial situations as they are most of us will still pass on this even though it is one of the best deals on a 52 inch I've seen

[DustinLH00]

I meant the price is now showing $959 for the 47" not $749. Why the $210 difference? Darn :(

[rickbroida]

Weird...I'm still seeing $749. Could be a regional thing. That seems to happen with CompUSA/TigerDirect quite a bit, unfortunately.

[DustinLH00]

OK, just checked Tiger Direct and the same TV is $749.96 on their website at this link: http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=3041309&CatId=3650
It's weird that Tiger has it but Comp gives me a different price....

[rickbroida]

Excellent! Thanks for sharing the info.

[daniels47]

It's a 22.4% increase in area for the 52 inch compared to the 47 inch. That's significant.

[bigfooteWA]

Thats what she said.

[anokaflash]

""(go Spartans!).""

I think my wife will now let me continue using this site. After the 1TB hard drive that I bought the other day, there was some debate *laughing*

[skimike4]

I bought the 42" Vizio LCD (refurb) in June from TigerDirect.com and it's been great. I paid $900 + shipping, seemed like an amazing deal back then.

[loose_screw]

The $999 is only a $300 savings (23%) from "original price?" I'd pass. If it was 50% off, I might consider it, but personally I'd pay a few hundred bucks more to get a top tier, non-refurbished TV since they are difficult to return.

If my budget was under $1000, I'd buy something like this Panasonic 50" plasma:

http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-Viera-TH-50PX80U-50-Inch-Plasma/dp/B00142MUDI/

It's only 720p but that doesn't matter if you're sitting sufficiently far enough from the screen. I personally prefer plasmas over LCDs (except for a bright room).

If I could spend a little more I'd buy this:

http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-Viera-TH-50PZ85U-1080p-Plasma/dp/B00142MUEM/

Just my $0.02. I'm sure further digging on sites like avsforum would yield even more options.

BTW, I love my 67" Samsung DLP that I got from Costco almost 3 years ago. This looks like a decent unit for just over $1k, judging by the reviews:

http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-HL56A650-56-Inch-1080p-Slim/dp/B001415FK4/

[Miko34]

Vizio TVs have great marketing, but make sub-par televisions. They use cheaper, older screens for their TVs. The reason they are selling so many are due to the ads and their low prices.
Follow the old adage: "you get what you pay for" and you'll be fine.
There's a reason why most 52-inch models are twice as much. They simply are better.
If you can't tell a difference or it doesn't matter to you, then I guess it doesn't matter.
As far as screen size goes, you should go into a store and compare them and see if it's worth the extra dough. It also makes a difference on where the TV is going to placed to make sure it will fit. I personally like the size of a 52" screen ... but I'm not going to buy a Vizio.

[rskipk1]

I have to respectfully disagree on the quality of Vizio. I have had my 42" Vizio LCD for over a year and it has been perfect. The picture is good,the tv itself feels sturdy and well made and the numerours menu functions and picture settings are very good. I was tempted to stick with Sony, whom I've always loved for tv's but the HDTV world is totally without a clear cut number one brand except for Pioneer with it's plasma Kuro. Vizio uses panels made bt PHillips, they have great customer service, and I have had many movie nights with friends and they all love the tv.

I know there are better known brands but after doing over a year of research and reading reviews I think Vizio deserves to be on anyone's shopping list. Just my opinion!

[w_bee]

Would you care to elaborate on what "cheaper, older screens" Vizio may be using?
I compared the image quality of Vizio TVs to other brand's TV at local Costco and they all looked similar.
Some brand's TVs have lower contrast ratio that did not looked as good; but those were not Vizio's.

[Miko34]

Smaller companies like Vizio or Olevia tend to use older screen panels in order to get the pricing low. Older screens don't last as long as newer ones. They also have a tendency to burn-in images over a shorter amount of time. This may have changed in recent years and perhaps they are buying better screens now.

You can't really judge how good a screen is by going to Costco. The lighting is different there than it is in your home and more often than not, the TVs aren't set up properly. Places like Magnolia are expensive, but the people usually know what they are talking about and the TVs should be set up correctly in similar lighting to a home. If you can't tell the difference, then it doesn't matter. It's kinda like enjoying a cheaper bottle of wine. If it tastes good to you, then it doesn't matter.

Also, contrast ratio is used as marketing like Megapixels are for digital cameras ... higher doesn't always mean better. If you like what you see, then by all means buy it. You can buy two Vizios for the price of one of the other TVs. I just know from people who bought cheaper TVs and they think they are great because it's better than their previous standard def TVs, then when they look at a higher end model ... they are like "Wow. There is a difference." The price is what stops people from buying the higher end models. If you are on a budget and you think the picture is fine, then a Vizio is fine. The question is ... will it still be fine 3 to 5 years from now?

I'm all for newer companies coming in to steal the thunder of name brands ... as long as they keep their product high in standards. I'm tired of companies putting out bad product just to make money. I think Vizio making TVs is like Ikea making furniture ... they are good for the price, but there are better things out there. If you're happy with Vizio, then great.

[aztec92154]

Vizio is an excellent American brand. Not to mention - the scam that was foreign lcd price fixing was corrected by capitalism via Vizio.

[Topspin14]

Miko you had me until you said burn-in...LCD panels unlike plasmas never suffer from burn in...doesn't matter how cheap the set is. I think you are confusing old plasma sets with LCD sets. These TVs are LCDs.

[Miko34]

LCDs can in fact produce burn-in, just not as much. Plasmas used to do it more often than LCDs. Older screens are more susceptible. Newer screens are better for both types. Of course, the screens on today's Vizio TVs might be better than before. I haven't bought any and haven't done tests on them. I say again, if you like the TV and it fits your budget, then get one.

You also have to consider the fast movement in sports and action movies. Is there blurring? Do you want a TV that uses 120 hz or higher or is 60 fine with you? How about 24p for movies? What about viewing angles? Does the screen wash out when not viewing it straight on? If none of these things concern you, then get whatever looks good to you. Use your eyes and not just reviews or these comments.

[DaveV]

The 47 would be a safer bet if you dont plan on attaching it to anything that has nice video processing. It will have a higher pixel density, and just look sharper off the bat. The bigger TVs will notice more blemishes up close, and just not perform as well because the dont have the video processing to do it. Especially if the content isn't 1080.

[jmjit]

Beware Of Vizio Tv,s they might look great but you just wait till something goes wrong
and you need help Good Luck...

[evenbone]

I would buy the larger of the two. Trust me, you'll always wish you had bought the larger screen if you settle for the smaller one.

[aztec92154]

Not if you live in a third story apartment (less room) and move year to year(weight is an issue).

[ThatIsWhatSheSaid]

Are you implying that first, second, and fourth story apartments have more room to accommodate a television of such grandeur? :)

[andrewrm]

I've been pleased with my Vizio 32" LCD I bought a year ago. The remote was cheap but most people end up popping for a universal remote. The Cnet reviews why not glowing have been overwhelmingly positive. My only concern is the resolution but for the price it looks like a good deal.

[ywkhgqo]

i bought a 22" vizio in august for around $370 ( a very reasonable price back then). There is a huge difference between a 22" and a 52" but the quality of the tv has been very good. HD OTA channels look great, and so does a 360 i have hooked up to it. Vizio's are very underrated in my opinion

[Stories84]

I don't think Vizio is overrated at all. I think Vizio is right where they deserve to be, a solid buy and good value. Nobody will ever place a Vizio against the big boys in the LCD market (Samsung and Sony), but they are a much better value for what you get in the set than the other two. For 90% of the world out there, a Vizio panel is a good fit. For those 10% of us out there that care about panel uniformity, deeper blacks, crisper whites, HDMI-CEC, we'll go with the big guns.

[neverforgetJeff]

Its only a great deal if it is a great TV, and I have yet to see a great Vizio (and I know that model definitely isn't). I would pick up a 46" Samsung for $1,100 on sale (often at best buy or sears) or a 50" panasonic plasma for $900-$1,000 (sears). Those are good TVs. While vizios might suffice for most, the color and black level are just too weak for the discerning eye.

I just bought a Vizio 42" XVT series - 1080p, 120Hz, 'recertified' - for $700 at Buy.com. I'd sacrifice the size for the 120Hz feature - its an amazing image, very life-like, almost 3D. Quality - not quantity! The only TV I've seen that matched it image-wise (including the gorgeous Panasonic plasmas and Sony Bravias) is a Samsung Series 8 LCD, and it is over twice the price. Since I bought it just before the Superbowl, I also was able to get a SquareTrade warranty for $77 for two years. While I still really enjoy my 50" Philips plasma also, the Vizio still has the superior image. I couldn't be happier with this set.

[ReesesLee]

A brand new 42 inch 1080p Vizio is $799 at costco but there is a $100 coupon which allows you to get it for $699.
You can also get a new Panasonic Viera 42in 720p Plasama from Sears for $599.

If we weren't expecting, I'd jump on one of these!

[BertGrendle]

I couldn't stand by and read this article/comments without saying something. So I signed up with cNet to chime in. First off Vizio is sub-par and if you say "its great" you have no idea what a good picture should be. You are simply getting a better picture then you had before and are pleased. I will admit Vizio can price very low and does help everyone else in the market for tv because prices are driven down a little. That being said you do get what you pay for. The best vizio couldnt hold a candle to a samsung/sony/sharp and even panny. Contrast ratio across brands really means nothing as we have discovered. Yes LCD screens can get burn in!, its science. What, our CRTs couldnt get burn in either right?

Do yourself the favor of doing research and not always going with the cheapest tv just so you can jump into the HD market. $999 for a 52" is a leader in price/size. But what are you getting? A refurbed Vizio, come on? I wouldnt even accept that for free. I just want everyone to get their best value when talking TVs because they are alot of money either way.

[rickbroida]

Welcome to the conversation, Bert! Glad you decided to chime in. That said, I respectfully disagree with your assessment. Picture quality is very subjective, and not everyone cares if, say, black levels aren't absolutely perfect or there's a hint of red push. High-def television is such a quantum leap over standard def, even the most mediocre set represents a huge improvement in picture quality.

I currently own a 46-inch Westinghouse model that's several years old. By most standards it's a cheap, low-end model, yet I absolutely love it. To my eyes, HD shows look fantastic. So what if Sharp/Sony/etc. are "better"? I'm not such a hardcore videophile that I'm willing to spend hundreds and hundreds more when I can be just as happy with an entry-level model.

Sometimes you get what you pay for, and sometimes you get more for less.

[scratchface]

Hi, I'm in the same boat as Rick here, I have an old school 37 inch Westinghouse with a great picture but it has no hdmi inputs and no tuner. I'm also in the market for an upgraded set but I'm not sure I trust Vizio on a refurb. The price may be comparatively low, but a thousand dollars is still, a thousand dollars and 3 month warranty just doesn't cut it for that much money. I'm seriously considering the Samsung PN50A450 at Amazon. It's new, ships free, has many positive ratings, and it's a Samsung.

http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-PN50A450-50-Inch-720p-Plasma/dp/B0015AV3XM

Does anyone see any reason why this wouldn't be a better buy, or at least a viable alternative?

[ywkhgqo]

"A refurbed Vizio, come on? I wouldnt even accept that for free."
Really? You wouldn't accept a 52" HDTV for FREE?
And how do you know what we went from in terms of picture quality? You have no idea to make a judgement. Get off your high horse. We get it, you like nice overly expensive things.
A friend of mine went from a 32" 720p vizio refurb to a brand new sony 42" 1080p and in terms of high def OTA signals, they look exactly the same in terms of picture quality. In terms of watching dvd's, again they are almost even. HD DVD looks AMAZING on the sony, but we haven't tried on the vizio. If my friend hadn't had a 60% off coupon from sony he would have never bought the tv. It was normally a $1400 tv. Quality is relative. One tv will look better to one person than it does to another. he got the vizio for $350 6 months ago.
So to respond to your comment. Yes, a vizio can hold a candle to a sony.