Find Nearby Plumbers In Allentown, Pennsylvania

Essig receives a critically low WW Score of 32.8, driven primarily by severe and consistent pricing complaints across 22 reviews. Customers repeatedly report being quoted exorbitant amounts for simple repairs (e.g., $1,100 for a faucet, $250 for a $25 thermostat, $12,000+ for routine maintenance), with many discovering they were massively overcharged after obtaining competing quotes. Project completion issues are also significant, with multiple customers reporting unresolved problems after multiple service calls and abandoned work. While professionalism shows moderate strength (courteous staff, responsive communication in some cases), this is heavily undermined by aggressive upselling tactics and lack of transparency. A few technicians (Joe Wolf, Mike W., Phil) receive individual praise, but company-wide practices appear predatory.

• CRITICAL: Systematic pricing abuse pattern — 22 of 35 reviews explicitly mention egregious overcharging, with customers consistently finding 50-90% price reductions from competitors for identical work. This is not isolated; it is structural.
• AGGRESSIVE UPSELLING: Multiple reviews describe high-pressure sales tactics, unnecessary system replacements recommended during routine inspections, and failure to diagnose actual problems before recommending expensive solutions.
• PROJECT ABANDONMENT: At least 4 reviews document unresolved issues after multiple service calls, refusals to return and complete work, and customers forced to hire competitors.
• EMERGENCY SERVICE FAILURES: 3 reviews detail refusal to provide emergency service on weekends despite customer emergency contracts, forcing customers to hire competitors.
• DECEPTIVE PRACTICES: Evidence of lying about repair reasons (stripped threads claim when threads were intact), deliberately disabling equipment to force sales (water conditioner switched off), and misrepresenting part costs.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Strong individual technician performance (Joe Wolf, Mike W., Phil) contrasts sharply with poor performance from other technicians, suggesting quality control issues.
• RECENCY: Most damaging reviews are from 2015-2024 (past 9 years), with recent 2024 reviews showing no improvement in core issues (emergency service refusal, overcharging).
• SERVICE MANAGER DISMISSIVENESS: One 2023 review documents service manager refusing to address pricing concerns or provide itemized quotes, showing institutional indifference to customer complaints.

This WW Score is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on 35 detailed reviews with consistent, corroborating evidence across all four dimensions. The pricing dimension alone is supported by 22 independent accounts of overcharging, with specific dollar amounts and competitor comparisons. The pattern is too systematic and repeated to be coincidental or fake; it reflects genuine customer harm. The score conservatively reflects the severity of documented issues.

The review set paints a predominantly negative picture of Guy M. Cooper across all four scored dimensions. Professionalism is severely damaged by multiple accounts of managers going silent, lying about zoning contractors, refusing to honor warranty work, and failing to return calls — with only two reviews offering positive notes about polite technicians. Pricing is a consistent concern, with reviewers citing a near-$5,000 well pump job, a $250 thermostat replacement, and allegations of upselling unnecessary parts and services. Project completion suffers from a pattern of abandoned or unresolved work, including a failed HVAC system replacement, a furnace repair that left a family freezing for three days, and a plumbing job that was never started despite promises. Experience scores slightly higher due to a few positive reviews describing successful generator installation and pipe rerouting, but is undercut by a tech replacing an unbroken part and failing to source a furnace component that a competitor found locally the same day. One review does note the company attempted to make a situation right after a negative review, which provides a small mitigating signal.

• Most negative reviews are detailed and specific, lending them high credibility. The positive reviews (2019, 2020) are notably generic with little operational detail, which raises mild concern about their authenticity.
• Several reviews describe an identical behavioral pattern — company goes silent, stops returning calls, and refuses to accept responsibility — suggesting a systemic issue rather than isolated incidents.
• The majority of reviews with usable data are from 2016–2018, making them 5–7+ years old. Only one review (2023) is within the past 12 months, and it is strongly negative. Recency weighting favors the negative signal.
• The 2016 review (Rating: 4.0) describes the company making amends after discovering a negative review, which is a positive signal but also implies the company monitors and responds to reviews selectively rather than proactively.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall confidence due to a reasonable volume of reviews (10), but reliability is tempered by the age of most reviews, a thin base of positive data, and a recency signal (2023) that is exclusively negative.

This contractor's reviews paint a deeply concerning picture across nearly every dimension. Pricing is the most heavily criticized area, with four separate reviews describing charges that customers and third parties considered extreme, deceptive, or inconsistent with phone quotes — including a documented bait-and-switch on a drain snake job and a PRV part marked up nearly 6x retail cost. Project completion is also problematic: one technician broke a customer's pipe and then quoted $1,100 to fix damage they caused, and another contractor refused to return for a callback on unresolved work within the same month. Professionalism scores are dragged down by the refusal to honor a callback, deceptive pricing practices, and the company's dismissive written responses to complaints, though two positive reviews do note courteous and knowledgeable technicians. Experience receives a middling score because while two reviewers praised technical knowledge, a third-party plumber explicitly stated the wrong tool was used on the drain snake job, indicating a meaningful skill or judgment failure.

• PRICING CONCERN: Multiple reviews independently describe pricing that appears significantly above market rate. One review documents a PRV part quoted as part of an $824 job when the part retails for $144. Another review documents a $500 kitchen faucet installation under 45 minutes. A third documents a bait-and-switch from a $180 phone quote to a $450 on-site quote.
• WORKMANSHIP CONCERN: A third-party plumber reviewed the broken pipe incident and stated the snake used was far too powerful for the PVC pipe, suggesting a technical error by the technician.
• CALLBACK FAILURE: One reviewer explicitly states the contractor refused to return to address the same problem that recurred within one month of the original service visit.
• RECENCY NOTE: Two of the most negative reviews (kitchen faucet overcharge and callback refusal) are from 2022 and 2019 respectively, which reduces their weight slightly. However, the PRV pricing complaint and the broken pipe incident are both from late 2023, indicating these issues are ongoing and not historical.
• POSSIBLE GENERIC POSITIVE REVIEW: The 5-star review from 2023-01-09 contains no specific job details, no technician names, no description of work performed, and reads as promotional in tone ('Do not hesitate to contact them'). This review was included in scoring but treated with reduced evidentiary weight.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 6 total reviews are available. While the WW Score has been calculated, the small sample size limits reliability. Scores should be interpreted cautiously.

This WW Score is based on only 6 reviews spanning 5 years, which limits statistical reliability; however, the consistency of serious complaints across pricing, workmanship, and follow-through — corroborated by third-party accounts within the reviews themselves — gives moderate confidence that the low score reflects genuine patterns rather than isolated incidents.

This contractor exhibits severe and consistent performance failures across multiple critical dimensions. Three recent reviews (May 2024, April 2024, April 2024) document catastrophic project abandonment, missed appointments, deposit theft, poor workmanship, and hostile communication. Two older positive reviews (2023, 2022) praise professionalism and pricing, but are substantially outweighed by recent evidence of systemic failure. The dramatic reversal in quality and the severity of documented issues (5 missed appointments, $1,300 deposit taken without service, incomplete well pump work requiring partner intervention) indicate either business collapse or fundamental integrity problems. Professionalism and project completion scores are critically low due to explicit mentions of missed appointments, raised voice, poor communication, incomplete work, and non-responsiveness.

• CRITICAL: Three recent reviews (April-May 2024) document severe contractor failure including deposit theft, 5 missed appointments, and abandoned work. These are detailed, specific, and credible complaints with dates and amounts.
• CRITICAL: One review explicitly states the contractor's partner walked away and started his own business due to frustration with receiving unfinished jobs from this contractor.
• CRITICAL: Recency issue — positive reviews are from 2022-2023 (1-2+ years old), while negative reviews are from April-May 2024 (current). This suggests significant recent deterioration in service quality.
• MODERATE: Two positive reviews lack specificity and detail compared to negative reviews, though they are not identical in language and appear genuine.
• The contractor appears to have removed his website per one reviewer's statement, which may indicate business distress or reputation management.

This WW Score should be trusted with MODERATE-to-HIGH confidence. The recent negative reviews are detailed, specific, credible, and consistent in documenting systemic failures (missed appointments, incomplete work, poor communication, deposit issues). The older positive reviews cannot override the severity and recency of documented failures. This contractor presents significant risk.

Curtis Total Service receives overwhelmingly negative reviews across nearly all dimensions, with pricing being the single most damaging factor — the vast majority of reviewers explicitly describe charges they consider grossly excessive, often citing markups of 3x to 10x compared to competitors or retail part costs. Professionalism is severely undermined by repeated accounts of no-shows, missed appointment windows, rude managers, dishonest technicians, and aggressive billing practices including attorney letters for disputed charges. Project completion is a serious concern, with multiple reviewers describing abandoned or incomplete work, jobs not done to code, and failures to honor callbacks or service contracts. Experience scores slightly higher due to a handful of positive reviews praising specific technicians by name, but these are heavily outweighed by accounts of misdiagnosis, unnecessary repair recommendations, and work that failed shortly after completion. The small number of positive reviews (approximately 12 out of 54) tend to be brief and generic, while negative reviews are detailed, specific, and span over a decade of consistent complaints.

• PRICING ABUSE PATTERN: An overwhelming majority of reviewers (30+ out of 54) explicitly cite extreme overcharging — often 3x to 10x competitor prices — for parts and labor. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• PREDATORY TARGETING: Multiple reviews independently allege that elderly or disabled customers were specifically targeted with inflated quotes, which is a serious ethical and potentially legal concern.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — POSITIVE REVIEWS: Several 5-star reviews are brief, generic, and lack specific detail (e.g., 'great company,' 'highly recommend'). Some positive reviews mention the same employee name 'Matt' in glowing terms, while negative reviews also name 'Matt' as a source of deception and dishonest sales tactics — this inconsistency warrants scrutiny.
• LEGAL DISPUTES: Multiple reviewers report being sent attorney letters for disputed or unauthorized charges, including at least one case involving a sheriff's sale. This suggests an aggressive collections practice that goes beyond normal business conduct.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: At least 3 reviews describe jobs that were started but not finished, with the company then demanding additional payment or refusing to return.
• MISDIAGNOSIS PATTERN: At least 4 reviews describe technicians recommending full system replacements (furnaces, AC units, boilers) that second-opinion contractors confirmed were unnecessary — suggesting either incompetence or deliberate upselling.
• RECENCY NOTE: Negative reviews span from 2011 through 2024, indicating these are not isolated historical issues. The most recent reviews (2023–2024) continue to reflect the same pricing and professionalism complaints, suggesting no meaningful improvement over time.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least 3 reviews describe scheduled appointments where technicians never arrived, with no proactive communication from the company.

This WW Score is based on 54 reviews spanning over a decade with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, and the score of 28.1 should be considered a reliable and conservative reflection of this contractor's overall service quality — the volume, specificity, and consistency of negative reviews across pricing, professionalism, and project completion make this one of the lowest-trust profiles possible.

This contractor has a deeply mixed and largely negative review profile across all four dimensions. Professionalism is dragged down significantly by two reviews describing poor communication, an excessively long lunch break during an active job, and an unresponsive owner unwilling to resolve billing disputes. Project completion is severely impacted by one review explicitly stating the drain was still clogged after the visit, requiring a second plumber, and another describing a drawn-out repair for a trivial fix. Pricing received the lowest score, with two of three reviewers explicitly calling out charges as outrageous or criminal relative to the work performed. The one positive review does highlight responsiveness and problem-solving ability, which slightly elevates the experience score, but it is insufficient to offset the pattern of negative feedback.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is statistically unreliable and should be treated with extreme caution.
• All reviews are older than 10 years (2005–2013) — this data is severely outdated and may not reflect current business practices.
• Two of three reviews are 1-star with specific, detailed complaints — this is a meaningful negative signal despite the small sample size.
• The single 5-star review is brief and lacks specifics beyond responsiveness and one problem-solving instance — limited positive evidence.
• No reviews from the past 12 months — recency weighting cannot be applied favorably.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, all more than a decade old, and should be considered highly unreliable — do not use this score as a primary basis for hiring decisions without seeking current references or more recent reviews.