Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

Hello HARDSELL:

Same old same old from a former dyson user who sold his DC07, took the proceeds and bought a new DC14 from SEARS, returned it for a refund because it was unsatisfactory and bought a bagged Royal Eminence for $299.  And then rags on the Royal but praises the dyson.  Still has and uses the Royal!  Doesn't have a dyson and won't buy another one. 

I don't believe anonymous negative ORECK reviews like yours.  I trust my own judgment based on my personal usage and my professional experience with ORECK-s after 40 plus years in the vacuum business.  I factor in those of other ORECK users who I know personally and professionally.  And the positive reviews from Consumer Reports and the Rug Institute of America for ORECK.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

You once referenced the forum to the Oreck site to read all the positive reviews.  Duh, talk about a D A.  I trust professionals to report positive on what benefits them the most,  similar to the Oreck posts on the Oreck site.

You're right HS. It was the Rug Institute of America which recommends ORECK and has a link to its Web Site for vacuums.  Not dysons tho.  Not recommended and no link.  Best RIA did for dyson was to use the DC07 pictured in its Web Site.  I learned the story behind it and laughed.   This reminded me.  Inside RIA joke.  Not to be shared with dyson fans.

I'll share it with you off-line in a private message only if you promise not to divulge to others and buy a new dyson.  So I can laugh again. 

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:
I checked the RIA website and didn't find any reference to Oreck, or Dyson for that matter. Does this mean Oreck isn't performing like it used to?  I somehow doubt it (seeing as it hasn't really changed in 40 years) but I am suspect of any institute that allows for submission of product and charges the company for testing.  Can a company really be unbiased when they are accepting money from the same people they are testing?  Highly unlikely.

Dusty

Hello Dusty:

ORECK probably is absent from the RIA site for the same reason it was not included in the MArch 2008 Consumer Reports edition covering vacuums.  I opine that the new Deluxe series of ORECK models recently launched were too late for the CR deadline.  These are probably being tested and updated to the RIA site.  ORECK has long been a RIA certifed and recommended upright vacuum.

Perhaps you will tell us what is the signature dyson vacuum?  The greater dyson? 

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

DIB:

This got pushed to the back after some lengthy posts by HS.  I wanted to make sure you see it since you were kind enough to post the Forbes links about dyson.  I subscribed to Forbes years ago.  No more.  Not after father Forbes passed.  Steve Forbes, his son, is okay.  Not a good presidential candidate and politician.  But not like his Harley riding Dad.  May his soul rest in peace.

Any thoughts?  Please tell us which dyson you consider to be the signature model.  Thanks.

BTW, the ubend airway joint kow towed in importance by dyson fans:  Without it and in most cases it was missing and never made it out of the box, caused the DC07 not to have any suction in the tool mode.   Buck item.  Poor design and function.

Carmine D.

dusty wrote:

Dusty:

Good point.  Unfortunately, all companies and profesional associations and organizations have to accept fees to stay in business.  It's the nature of the beast.  Consumers are free to accept/reject the recommendations and certs. 

Ironic you are a believer and quoter of the authenticity of the Asthma and Allergy cert for dysons.  But not RIA?  Did the organization accept a fee from dyson to test and certify?  Or is it free?  Maybe you can find out and tell us.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:
I'm just a quoter for arguments sake.  I take all recommendations with a grain of salt, especially Consumer Reports who claim to be completely unbiased and never receive freebies from the manufacturer.  I

Dusty

CarmineD wrote:

Carmine D.I.B. not going to give you an answer,because dyson can not figure out which is the greater dyson.

AFTER 16 million prototypes we still cant figure it out.

But our marketing department is the best that money can buy................

MOLE

CarmineD wrote:

Dusty:

Good point.  Unfortunately, all companies and professional associations and organizations have to accept fees to stay in business.  It's the nature of the beast.  Consumers are free to accept/reject the recommendations and certs. 

Ironic you are a believer and quoter of the authenticity of the Asthma and Allergy cert for dysons.  But not RIA?  Did the organization accept a fee from dyson to test and certify?  Or is it free?  Maybe you can find out and tell us.

Carmine D.

I'm just a quoter for arguments sake.  I take all recommendations with a grain of salt, especially Consumer Reports who claim to be completely unbiased and never receive freebies from the manufacturer. 

Dusty

dusty wrote on June 9, 2008:

Hello Dusty:

I posted your quotes in red to stand out.  

Once again, you are back pedalling.  You are the most conflicted and confused poster on this Forum.  You sell dysons [presumably for the profit] but your heart is with RICCAR and SEBO.  

About a week ago you proclaimed the authenticity of the Asthma and Allergy Foundation certs for dyson vacuums in the US and CAN.  Yesterday, you did an about face.  You said all certs by the RIA are biased because they are granted for a fee for service.  Today, I point out your contradictory posts.  You then say you take certs/approvals with a grain of salt.  Three different positions on certs/approvals in one week.  For, against, and neutral.  You can't have it three ways!  Unless you are running for President.   

Indeed if you believe and post that certs/approvals are useless because they are biased in accepting fees, then it's true for all certs/approvals that charge fees.  Including the Asthma and Allergy Foundation certs in the USA and Canada for dysons.  Right?  That's deductive reasoning.  It's self-evident. 

You are either so conflicted and confused or, like many of the dyson fans who post here, you provide proof for my statement.  Where one stands oftentimes depends on where he/she sits.  Chose your poison and swallow gingerly!

Carmine D.