BuyDig.com: LG 60PM6700 60" 1080p 3D Slim Bezel Plasma Smart HD TV - $1304 w/ FS AC

looks pretty nice.

takes up a lot of power compared to a LCD and LED right

Quote from juryrigger : takes up a lot of power compared to a LCD and LED right

sure yea if additional $1~$5 max per year is considered a lot to you.

Quote from juryrigger : takes up a lot of power compared to a LCD and LED right

More importantly, does anyone know if this tv has the highly reflective, mirror-like screen like most plasmas or does it have an anti-glare coating to minimize reflections?

I believe 55" LCDs and LEDs cost about $15 a year to run as compared to $50 for plasma. Not sure what kind of hours that means though. I think I read it off CNET some time ago. So yes, considerably more relatively, but fairly inconsequential in terms of what you're spending through the year.

Quote from audiokingman : More importantly, does anyone know if this tv has the highly reflective, mirror-like screen like most plasmas or does it have an anti-glare coating to minimize reflections?

Per some reviewers, it has some significant glare issues, so if the protective screen coating has this feature, it must not help much. I didn't read anywhere that this anti-glare feature was on this set, and I would think they would promote that.

Quote from sliver99 : I believe 55" LCDs and LEDs cost about $15 a year to run as compared to $50 for plasma. Not sure what kind of hours that means though. I think I read it off CNET some time ago. So yes, considerably more relatively, but fairly inconsequential in terms of what you're spending through the year.

nope. This is just un-true.

Quote from yarnim : sure yea if additional $1~$5 max per year is considered a lot to you.

Depends on how much TV he watches. LG estimates 320kWh over the course of a year at 5 hours a day. A comparable LED TV will probably draw half that. Depending on what tier you're already at for electricity that can be between $17-$40+ difference per year. If you only watch a couple hours on the weekends, the difference is going to be negligible.

Quote from damnisthistaken : Per some reviewers, it has some significant glare issues, so if the protective screen coating has this feature, it must not help much. I didn't read anywhere that this anti-glare feature was on this set, and I would think they would promote that.

6700 series for lg in plasma and led this year is a solid 2 steps above entry level for lg with almost all the bells and whistles to suffice for most. if you want to get closer to top of the for lg plasama you should look at the LG 60PM9700 [buydig.com]. this set get lg's anti-glare filter and also the true blac filter. while its nice to have these extras they might be overkill/ simply not necessary to most.

The lowest consumption for a 55" led is $13 a year- I forgot which one it was but I havent seen one lower than that. The highest 55" plasma I seen is less than $30 for a no name brand. Pana is less than $20. Base on the energy guide.

Yes, plasma use more and the bigger the set obviously the more energy is require to light it. But even if your electric rate is more its will make no different to your wallet. That IS the yearly payment.

The only impact is if every one jump in plasma band wagon (unlikely) then US energy use will jump twice as it NEED to but that is now a much less amount than it was when plasma use 1000+ watt which was the idea of creating energy label for TVs. Has you look at one lately?

What is $1 a month more on an average $100-$200 electric bill? Are you really gona feel that impact. Why is this keep dragging on every time a plasma deal is mention?

I wonder the same thing about the consistent energy cost complaints. The power consumption difference for this TV is about $25 per year higher vs. a comparable LCD-LED. Big woop. The hundreds of dollars more that the equivalent LCD-LED costs consistently seems to get forgotten in this discussion - never mind the superior picture on the plasma.

I just got one of these delivered last Friday after I bought it through Amazon at a similar price. The deal I posted is here for reference: http://slickdeals.net/f/4263192-D...ee-Returns.
The Amazon deal included two pairs of glasses as well so it works out similar to this one, but without the extra cost if you don't want 3D yet. I'm still playing with the settings, but so far so good. Did some 3D sample movie streaming at Vudu and it looked pretty nice as well. It is in my basement so light reflectivity is a non-issue. With the 30 day free returns through Amazon, I figured there was no reason to not take a shot. But, the HD content so far looks quite a bit nicer than my LED-LCD that I have upstairs thanks to the better contrast/blacks. I was hesitant about the active 3D, but I only need 1-2 more glasses and they're currently selling for $49 which is a lot better than the $100+ ones from other manufacturers like Panasonic I saw when I first started TV shopping. Since Amazon will match TV prices, that might be worth seeing if they would price match this.


Only a couple of minor disappointments so far:

1) Browser does not seem able to stream HBO GO. It has Flash 10.1 and I can log in and get the HBO trailer and ratings screen to come up, but the movie/show never starts. Other flash content when browsing seems to work fine and the built-in apps are fine as well.

2) Amazon's website says this TV comes with the Magic Remote rather than being optional like LG's website and other retailers. I thought they might have had a special bundle. Well, the TV came without the special remote. Not a big surprise, but I did e-mail Amazon about this, and, since they do not yet carry it, they refunded me $80 since that is what Adorama is selling it for. That was some nice customer service! So, assuming I keep the TV I can get the Magic Remote separately. It will be nice to have for broswing, etc.

So, I definitely recommend the TV for the price on this deal, and expect that I will be keeping it once I've finished evaluating it over the next month. BTW, Amazon's delivery service worked great as well and the TV was in perfect shape. I definitely would not hesitate to order a large television again online.

Quote from tuan2 : The lowest consumption for a 55" led is $13 a year- I forgot which one it was but I havent seen one lower than that. The highest 55" plasma I seen is less than $30 for a no name brand. Pana is less than $20. Base on the energy guide. Yes, plasma use more and the bigger the set obviously the more energy is require to light it. But even if your electric rate is more its will make no different to your wallet. That IS the yearly payment. The only impact is if every one jump in plasma band wagon (unlikely) then US energy use will jump twice as it NEED to but that is now a much less amount than it was when plasma use 1000+ watt which was the idea of creating energy label for TVs. Has you look at one lately? What is $1 a month more on an average $100-$200 electric bill? Are you really gona feel that impact. Why is this keep dragging on every time a plasma deal is mention?

Quote from audiokingman : More importantly, does anyone know if this tv has the highly reflective, mirror-like screen like most plasmas or does it have an anti-glare coating to minimize reflections?

I have one, and you probably should either invest in some blinds or have it in a relatively dark room for maximum viewing pleasure. Works just fine without any direct light on it, but the glare (especially from the sun) can be almost unbearable. HOWEVER! If you have it in a movie/theater room, this will outshine many of the LED and LCD offerings. I can honestly tell you that the "darker darks" play a big role in that.

Quote from el_bajo : I wonder the same thing about the consistent energy cost complaints. The power consumption difference for this TV is about $25 per year higher vs. a comparable LCD-LED. Big woop. The hundreds of dollars more that the equivalent LCD-LED costs consistently seems to get forgotten in this discussion - never mind the superior picture on the plasma. I just got one of these delivered last Friday after I bought it through Amazon at a similar price. The deal I posted is here for reference: http://slickdeals.net/f/4263192-D...ee-Returns. The Amazon deal included two pairs of glasses as well so it works out similar to this one, but without the extra cost if you don't want 3D yet. I'm still playing with the settings, but so far so good. Did some 3D sample movie streaming at Vudu and it looked pretty nice as well. It is in my basement so light reflectivity is a non-issue. With the 30 day free returns through Amazon, I figured there was no reason to not take a shot. But, the HD content so far looks quite a bit nicer than my LED-LCD that I have upstairs thanks to the better contrast/blacks. I was hesitant about the active 3D, but I only need 1-2 more glasses and they're currently selling for $49 which is a lot better than the $100+ ones from other manufacturers like Panasonic I saw when I first started TV shopping. Since Amazon will match TV prices, that might be worth seeing if they would price match this. Only a couple of minor disappointments so far: 1) Browser does not seem able to stream HBO GO. It has Flash 10.1 and I can log in and get the HBO trailer and ratings screen to come up, but the movie/show never starts. Other flash content when browsing seems to work fine and the built-in apps are fine as well. 2) Amazon's website says this TV comes with the Magic Remote rather than being optional like LG's website and other retailers. I thought they might have had a special bundle. Well, the TV came without the special remote. Not a big surprise, but I did e-mail Amazon about this, and, since they do not yet carry it, they refunded me $80 since that is what Adorama is selling it for. That was some nice customer service! So, assuming I keep the TV I can get the Magic Remote separately. It will be nice to have for broswing, etc. So, I definitely recommend the TV for the price on this deal, and expect that I will be keeping it once I've finished evaluating it over the next month. BTW, Amazon's delivery service worked great as well and the TV was in perfect shape. I definitely would not hesitate to order a large television again online.

By the way, I don't know if you've tried the magic remote, but you might consider doing without. I find it pretty annoying most of the time. If you happen to have an android phone, LG actually has a pretty slick remote control app for it which will allow you to do the same thing (minus a couple buttons). Try that and save $80? I would if I had a do-over.