A TV that pretends to be a painting. Interiors writers who bought one are the most useful reviewers here, and their verdicts split hard between loving the look and regretting the picture.
This entry is written from the 4 sources listed at the bottom of the page. The numbers are our editorial estimates drawn from that material, not measurements, and no statistical sample sits behind them.
It depends on how you will use it. 58% would buy it again, which means roughly 42% would not. Serious film and sport watchers notice the picture compromise every time.
The look keeps delivering and the picture keeps disappointing — which half wins depends entirely on why it was bought.
Serious film and sport watchers notice the picture compromise every time. Art subscription costs recur if you want variety. Resale is weaker than mainstream sets.
Worth it for: Rooms where the TV is the focal point when off; People who care more about decor than picture; Anyone mounting it on a prominent wall. Think twice if: You watch films in a dark room; Picture quality per dollar matters; You won't pay for extra artwork.
Our reading of how sentiment moves across an ownership period, drawn from the sources below. It is an editorial estimate, not tracked longitudinal data.
| At purchase | 7.9 / 10 |
|---|---|
| First week | 8.4 / 10 |
| One month | 7.5 / 10 |
| Six months | 6.9 / 10 |
| One year | 6.7 / 10 |
| Two years or more | 6.7 / 10 |
Owner reviews move this score. The researched figure stays visible next to it, so you can always see what the sources said before anyone voted.
Leave a review on the live pageEvery complaint and every piece of praise above traces back to these. The summaries are ours; nothing is quoted, and no link, quote or username anywhere on this site is invented.
Owner review arguing the picture compromise outweighs the aesthetic benefit.
Long-term owner account from an interiors perspective.
Updated multi-year review of living with the set in a real room.
Editor review weighing the art mode against the cost.