Find Nearby Plumbers In Medford, Oregon

Patterson Plumbing has a deeply mixed record across all four dimensions. On the positive side, many reviews — particularly from 2011–2014 and a handful from 2019–2024 — praise punctuality, friendliness, responsiveness, and clean, efficient work. However, serious negative reviews drag every dimension down significantly: multiple reviewers describe abandoned or incomplete jobs, shoddy workmanship with multiple return visits required, unlicensed workers, rude behavior from the owner, and deceptive pricing practices (notably a $500 add-on falsely described as a code requirement). Project completion is especially concerning, with at least four reviews describing work left unfinished, repeated no-shows, or jobs requiring significant rework. Pricing is similarly mixed — some reviewers praise fair or even zero-cost service, while others report overcharging, unclear billing, and deceptive upsells. The experience dimension is undermined by reviews citing improper installations, code violations, and work that created new problems rather than solving existing ones.

• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews are older than 3 years, with only 3 reviews from the past 12 months (2024). The bulk of data comes from 2011–2013, which may not reflect current service quality.
• SERIOUS WORKMANSHIP CONCERNS: At least 3 reviews (2013, 2021, 2024) describe installations that failed code inspection or were outright dangerous, including a gas water heater with disconnected venting leaking carbon monoxide into an attic.
• LICENSING CONCERN: One reviewer (2013) reported that the plumber's license appeared to have lapsed for 3 years per the state website. A separate reviewer (2023) stated 'none of the workers are licensed.'
• ABANDONMENT PATTERN: Multiple reviews (2015, 2015, 2012) describe a consistent pattern of taking payment or partial payment and then repeatedly canceling or failing to return to complete work — a significant red flag.
• DECEPTIVE PRICING FLAG: The 2024 review explicitly states a $500 add-on was falsely described as a code requirement, which the city inspector confirmed was not required. This is a serious ethical concern.
• OWNER CONDUCT: One review (2016) describes the owner Ron becoming verbally aggressive and 'blowing up' at a customer who raised a legitimate scheduling complaint.
• GENERIC POSITIVE REVIEWS: Several older 5-star reviews (2011–2013) are very brief and lack specific detail (e.g., 'Excellent, no problems with anything', 'They came they cut they glued & they left', 'unknown'). While not conclusively fake, these add limited evidentiary weight.
• MULTIPLE WORKERS NAMED: Reviews reference Dan, Danny, Reggie, Steve, Roy, Caleb, Ray, and Ron — suggesting either a larger team or significant staff turnover, making it difficult to assess consistency across the business as a whole.

This WW Score is based on a substantial volume of 44 reviews spanning over a decade, giving it HIGH statistical confidence, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given the serious and recurring nature of the negative reviews, the predominance of older data, credible licensing concerns, and a documented pattern of job abandonment and deceptive billing.

Brooks Plumbing has a deeply polarized review profile spanning over a decade. A substantial base of loyal, long-term customers consistently praise timely service, fair pricing, and skilled workmanship — particularly from technicians like Paul, Terry, Carlos, Oliver, and Phillip. However, a significant and recurring pattern of negative reviews specifically targets the owner John for rude, combative, and condescending behavior when customers question billing, which substantially drags down the professionalism and pricing scores. Pricing complaints are among the most serious and specific, with multiple reviewers citing charges they allege were inflated by 2x–4x compared to competitors, and at least two reviewers describing disputed charges during the February 2021 Texas winter storm. Project completion scores are moderate-to-good among those who saw jobs through, but several reviews describe abandoned follow-through, missed appointments, and unresolved callbacks that prevent a higher score.

• OWNER CONDUCT PATTERN: At least 12 separate reviews across multiple years explicitly name the owner (John/John Basalone) as rude, combative, condescending, or prone to hanging up on customers — this is a consistent and credible pattern, not isolated incidents.
• OVERCHARGING PATTERN: Multiple detailed, specific reviews across 2016–2021 allege significant overcharging with itemized examples (e.g., $700 for 2ft copper pipe, $125 permit that city confirmed costs $52, $1800 quote vs $500 competitor price). This is too specific and recurring to dismiss.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: A cluster of reviews dated exactly '2025-04-10', '2025-06-02', '2025-06-03', '2022-06-10', '2021-06-10', '2020-06-10', '2019-06-11', '2018-06-11', and '2023-06-10' contain no review text (rating only) or extremely generic praise with no specifics. These batch-dated blank or vague reviews inflate the star average and reduce confidence in the positive review pool.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2024–2025) are predominantly positive and suggest possible improvement in service quality or staff changes. However, a 1-star review from February 2025 still cites overcharging and an unfriendly technician, indicating the issues have not been fully resolved.
• RESPONSIVENESS FAILURES: At least 4 reviews describe being completely ignored after initial contact — no follow-up, no estimate delivered, no callback — suggesting systemic communication gaps.
• ABANDONED/INCOMPLETE WORK: The 2019 sewer pump review describes months of incomplete, repeatedly failing work with the owner eventually telling the customer to 'part ways.' A 2019 review also describes a no-show estimate appointment. A 2016 review describes a job delayed by incorrect diagnosis. These are serious project completion concerns.
• 21 reviews contained no text (rating only) and were excluded from dimension scoring but counted toward total reviews analyzed.

This WW Score of 68.2 is based on a large and diverse review set spanning 2011–2025 and carries HIGH overall confidence, but prospective customers should weigh the persistent and specific pattern of owner-related rudeness and overcharging complaints heavily, as these represent a structural risk that positive technician-level reviews do not fully offset.

Cowboy Plumbing has a mixed but somewhat positive track record across the reviews analyzed. Several customers praised responsiveness, punctuality, and courteous behavior, while two reviews explicitly described rude, unprofessional conduct and failure to complete agreed-upon work — significantly dragging down professionalism and project completion scores. Pricing received mostly positive mentions (reasonable cost, worked with schedules) but one serious complaint about dishonest pricing and billing for unfinished work tempers that dimension. Technical skill and workmanship were generally praised where mentioned, including detailed explanations and quality installations, supporting a moderately strong experience score. The presence of two detailed, credible negative reviews prevents any dimension from scoring in the high range.

• One review (2021-11-18) is explicitly a retraction of a misposted review for a different company (Mr. Rooter) and was excluded from scoring as it contains no usable data about Cowboy Plumbing.
• The review dated 2009-10-01 is over 14 years old and was given reduced weight due to age; it predates the negative reviews and may not reflect current service quality.
• Several positive reviews are generic in phrasing ('great service,' 'professional and courteous') with limited specifics, which slightly reduces confidence in those reviews.
• Two detailed 1-star reviews describe specific incidents of dishonesty, incomplete work, and rude behavior — these are credible negative signals that must be weighted seriously.
• Review spread spans 2009 to 2024, meaning the contractor's quality and consistency over time is difficult to assess reliably from this sample alone.
• Only 2 reviews are from the past 12 months (2023–2024), limiting recency confidence.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — the sample size is small (11 reviews), the date range spans 15 years, and two credible negative reviews introduce meaningful uncertainty about consistent service quality.

Beeler Excavation shows a mixed but generally positive track record across a very small review set. Three of four reviews praise staff by name for being knowledgeable, communicative, and customer-focused, which supports a moderate professionalism score. However, one significant negative review describes a technician who failed to complete a repair, claimed the company was not licensed for the work, and left physical damage to the property unrepaired — this meaningfully drags down both project completion and experience scores. Pricing was described as reasonable or transparent in three reviews, though the negative reviewer paid hundreds of dollars for a repair that failed within six months, introducing doubt about value. With only four reviews total, no dimension can be scored with high confidence, and the single negative review carries substantial weight in this small sample.

• Very small sample size of only 4 reviews — scores and WW Score should be treated as highly preliminary and not representative of consistent performance.
• The 1-star review raises a serious concern: a technician reportedly disclaimed licensure for a repair the company had previously charged for, and left property damage (cut grating secured only with a zip tie) unresolved. This is a significant red flag for both competency and accountability.
• Two of the three positive reviews are from early 2023, making them over 12 months old at time of analysis. Only one positive review (June 2024) and the negative review (June 2024) are recent, meaning recent data is split 1-for-1 positive/negative.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in detail, tone, and specificity. Language is not repetitive or suspiciously generic.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews and should be considered highly unreliable as a performance indicator — a minimum of 10–15 reviews would be needed to draw meaningful conclusions about this contractor.

Don receives genuinely positive feedback in several reviews for being responsive, friendly, and knowledgeable, including arriving early for an emergency and completing jobs like a water heater replacement efficiently. However, the review set is significantly dragged down by two serious negative reviews: one describing Don storming off the job, yelling at the customer, and potentially lacking the skills to complete the work, and another citing unexpected charges and misaligned workmanship on a shower valve replacement. Pricing is mixed — one reviewer praised it as reasonable while another felt overcharged for a trivial task. Project completion is also mixed, as one job was abandoned mid-service and another left the customer with additional repair costs. The combination of a small review pool and meaningful negative incidents across multiple dimensions warrants a conservative overall score.

• One review (1-star, 2023-05-15) alleges Don may not be a licensed plumber and describes him abandoning the job and yelling at the customer — this is a serious credibility and safety concern that significantly impacts scoring.
• The 2-star review (2023-06-03) raises a workmanship concern: new plumbing holes did not align with existing fixtures, leaving the customer with additional repair costs.
• With only 6 total reviews, the score carries limited statistical reliability. A single additional negative review could substantially shift all dimension scores.
• Two of the most recent reviews (2023) are negative or mixed, suggesting a possible decline in service quality compared to older positive reviews from 2022.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews contain specific details, varied language, and include both positive and negative experiences, suggesting authenticity.

This WW Score is based on only 6 reviews and should be treated with caution — the presence of two substantive negative reviews in a small dataset, including one alleging unprofessional conduct and possible unlicensed work, meaningfully limits confidence in this contractor's consistency.

PACE Supply receives deeply polarized feedback across a large review base spanning over a decade. Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension and is severely dragged down by a high volume of explicit complaints about rude phone interactions, hang-ups, dismissive counter staff, and a consistent pattern of refusing or discouraging service to homeowners and non-contractors. Pricing is a notable weakness, with multiple reviewers citing prices far above online or big-box alternatives, a controversial 25% restocking fee, and at least one report of an unexplained $150 admin fee. Project completion scores moderately, with some positive experiences of next-day delivery and follow-through, but offset by credible accounts of wrong orders, machined pipe defects causing major delays, unfulfilled warranty promises, and a billing error after a cancelled order. Experience scores highest among the four dimensions, as many reviews — particularly from contractors and professionals — praise staff knowledge, ability to source obscure parts, and technical guidance, though this is tempered by accounts of staff with poor product knowledge at some locations.

• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEW CLUSTER: Reviews dated 2023-05-09 through 2023-05-15 (approximately 7 reviews posted within 6 days) share nearly identical structure, vocabulary, and themes — including repeated references to 'well-stocked warehouse,' 'hydronic materials,' 'boilers,' 'solar thermal,' 'radiant,' 'pumps,' 'Takagi,' 'PEX,' 'fan coils,' 'reception,' and 'Carlos the manager.' These reviews read as templated marketing content rather than genuine customer experiences. Confidence in positive scores has been reduced accordingly.
• MULTI-LOCATION AMBIGUITY: This review set aggregates feedback from multiple PACE Supply branches across the Bay Area (Oakland, San Francisco, San Rafael, Santa Rosa, Santa Clara, San Jose, South Sacramento, etc.). Scores reflect the brand aggregate, not a single location. Individual branch quality varies significantly per reviewer testimony.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2009 to 2024. Approximately 40% of reviews are older than 3 years. The most recent reviews (2024) continue to show mixed professionalism signals, suggesting the pattern of inconsistent service has persisted over time.
• HOMEOWNER VS. CONTRACTOR BIAS: A statistically significant number of negative reviews explicitly cite differential treatment based on customer type (homeowner vs. licensed contractor). This is a structural service policy issue, not isolated incidents, and materially impacts professionalism and pricing scores.
• REVIEW dated 2024-07-23 ('Funny without stuling your oroder, food water, bathroom always clean. Thanks again Tracy BYRD 20') appears to be a misplaced review for a food establishment, not a plumbing supply store. It was excluded from scoring.
• REVIEW dated 2024-04-26 ('great tools and nice water containers, I really enjoy the color and the rebranding on the stanley originated containers') appears to reference Stanley-brand drinkware and is likely a misplaced review. It was excluded from scoring.

This WW Score is based on a large review volume (105 reviews) and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its directional accuracy, but should be interpreted cautiously due to a suspected cluster of fake positive reviews in May 2023, significant multi-location aggregation, and a well-documented structural policy of differential treatment toward homeowners versus contractors that skews negative sentiment disproportionately for non-trade customers.