i bought 1 for £100 only downfall there aint a volume switch.
Mind you at that price i couldnt turn it down

They do offer to beat any price, internet or shop

Sony are just starting a TV scrapage scheme which may interest you

rlhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1207543/Now-scrappage-scheme-TV--150-set.htmlrl

apologies for linking to the Daily Aslyum Seeker Mail

Have a look on these 2 sites. If the models haven't already been discussed you can post a question and ask an AV geek instead of asking rugby geeks

rlhttp://www.avforums.com/rl

rlhttp://www.digitalspy.co.uk/rl

And whilst you're there, ask them if they can understand why Agar is still in a job.

STAY WELL CLEAR OF LG!!!!! Samsung are better the brands like Sony!

But, to be honest you need to not let specifications fool you.you can only compare them within the same brand as they are all measured differently!!

Panasonic are in a league of their own and regardless of Plasma/LCD they are the best... Go for Plasma at 42" upwards, don't worry about 1080p as you won't be putting that signal into it anyway!! HTH

I had a good look on those when I got ours last year, they really know their stuff. Both on there and everyone else I spoke to, the consistent theme was that in terms of best performance for money, Panasonic and Samsung were the daddies.

Very few people seem to be able to agree on LCD vs Plasma and the 100hz issue though.

One benefit is that they will cover the TV for 5 years for 10% of the price of the telly IIRC.

Unless you have a PS3, XBox360, or BlueRay player you mean.

Those forums are where I researched my TV and as you say they're very good.

The 100Hz thing depends on the panel. My Sony needed the 100Hz as the panel wasn't that quick. My Samsung actually looks better with it switched off as the panel is super-quick anyway.

I went for a Panasonic, and unfortunately the 2 models I was looking at either had it or didn't, with the 100hz model not having the option to disable it. The reviews and forums said that both have drawbacks, if you don't have 100hz motion tracking is not as good, but conversely if the input isn't 100hz and you have it enabled (which the vast majority of what goes through your TV probably won't), the TV tries to emulate it by effectively guessing the inbetween images so you can end up with 'artefacts' ghosting across the image.

I was also told it depends on the individual, and their eyesight. Some people have 'fast eyes' and can see screen flicker at 60hz, whereas others don't notice it and can't tell the difference between 60hz and 100hz. I sat myself in front of both and couldn't honestly pick them out, so came to the conclusion that although it's probably a scientifically superior performance, for about £100 difference I'd bloody well want to see where the extra money went so didn't bother.

It still looks the puppy's privates.

Depends how close to the screen you are. The mistake most people make is either sitting too close, or getting too big a screen for their room (apparently the 'working class test' according to a stand up I saw recently 4.83447265625:5