Find Nearby Plumbers In Longview, Texas

Premier Construction and Adam Sieren receive broadly positive feedback across all four dimensions, with communication, responsiveness, and design knowledge being the most consistently praised attributes. However, a meaningful minority of reviews — spanning multiple years — document serious concerns including no-shows without notice, subcontractor quality issues (sloppy drywall, crooked concrete work, unprofessional behavior on site), cost overruns beyond estimates, and incomplete punch-list follow-through. Professionalism is dragged down by multiple credible accounts of missed appointments, unreturned calls, and workers leaving messes or behaving disrespectfully toward client property. Pricing scores moderately well — many reviewers found value and transparency — but several noted final costs exceeded quotes, and one reviewer felt the price was too high given the errors made. Project completion is the most mixed dimension: many jobs finished on time or early, but several reviews describe jobs running significantly over schedule, subcontractors being pulled off-site, and unresolved punch-list items. Experience scores reasonably well overall, with Adam and core crew members like Mike and Tim receiving strong praise for craftsmanship, though subcontractor quality was inconsistent and a few reviews cited poor finishing work.

• Multiple reviews marked 'unknown' with no review text — these were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• Several reviews are from 2012–2014, making them 10+ years old. The most recent reviews are from 2020 and 2018, meaning there is very limited recent data. The WW Score may not reflect current performance.
• One review (2015-07-12) references 'Centurion Stone' and appears to be for a different company entirely — it was excluded from scoring as likely misattributed.
• A small cluster of reviews from October 2013 (five reviews posted on 2013-10-31 and 2013-10-30) share similar enthusiastic tone and structure, which may suggest solicited or coached reviews. Confidence was not reduced significantly as the content is specific enough to be plausible, but this pattern is flagged.
• No-show and non-response complaints appear in at least 5 separate reviews across different years (2012, 2013, 2014, 2015), suggesting a recurring responsiveness problem rather than isolated incidents.
• Subcontractor quality is a documented recurring issue across multiple independent reviews — crooked concrete, sloppy drywall, a mason described as doing 'amateur' work, and workers drinking beer on the job site. These are serious workmanship and oversight concerns.
• One review (2014-03-12) describes an 8-month project delay, disputed final billing, and disrespectful treatment of client property — this is a significant negative data point.
• One review (2014-06-27) describes cement workers drinking beer on the job, a crooked slab, missing door keys, excessive debris, and a fence removed without replacement — a serious professionalism and workmanship failure.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews spanning roughly 8 years, giving it HIGH statistical confidence in terms of sample size, but the near-total absence of reviews from the past 3–4 years and the presence of multiple credible negative reviews documenting recurring issues with subcontractor oversight, no-shows, and project follow-through means this score should be treated as a historical baseline rather than a current performance indicator — prospective customers should seek recent references before hiring.

Superior Services demonstrates strong technical competence and professionalism across most service interactions, with technicians consistently praised for knowledge, punctuality, and courteous behavior. Project completion is generally reliable with most jobs finished on time and to customer satisfaction. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness, with multiple customers reporting charges substantially higher than competitors and concerns about transparency. A notable negative pattern involves office responsiveness and follow-up issues, with several complaints about unreturned calls and no-shows. The company shows inconsistency—some locations and technicians deliver exceptional service while others have generated serious complaints about dishonesty, poor workmanship, and customer service failures.

• PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple reviews (2024-09-30, 2019-06-05, 2015-08-18, 2016-02-03) explicitly cite pricing 30-100% higher than competitors. One customer paid $266 for 10 minutes of work (flipping a breaker). Another paid $59/lb for Freon when market rate was $24.95/lb. This pattern suggests potential overcharging.
• OFFICE/FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: Several reviews (2025-05-26, 2024-07-12, 2021-04-08, 2020-10-12) report unreturned calls, no-shows despite scheduled appointments, and lack of management response to complaints. One customer reported 2 no-shows with 4-hour windows.
• DISHONESTY ALLEGATIONS: Multiple serious complaints (2023-03-17, 2019-06-26, 2016-08-08) allege fraudulent practices including: recommending unnecessary water heater replacement when only a $40 igniter was needed; installing 3-ton unit instead of ordered 3.5-ton; and providing incorrect diagnoses with inflated estimates.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Reviews show stark contrasts—some technicians (Dominick, Patrick, Matt, Caton) receive consistent 5-star praise while others generate 1-star complaints. This suggests significant quality control issues and inconsistent hiring/training.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Approximately 20 reviews with no dates and generic single-sentence praise (e.g., 'Did a great job!', 'Fast', 'Good job. Recommended.') appear potentially fabricated. Additionally, multiple reviews from 2025-06 and 2025-05 use nearly identical phrasing ('great job', 'efficient', 'knowledgeable') across different technicians, which is atypical.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most recent reviews (past 6 months) are overwhelmingly positive 5-stars, contrasting sharply with older reviews (2011-2020) which show more balanced ratings and serious complaints. This temporal shift warrants caution.
• MANAGEMENT RESPONSIVENESS: One long-form 2016 review details extensive problems with plumber quality, billing disputes, and office refusal to provide itemized parts lists. Another 2020 review from a long-term customer (10+ years, $30k spent) reports recent quality decline and owner ignoring complaint emails.

This WW Score of 78.2 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution. While the score reflects genuinely strong technical performance and professionalism from many technicians, it masks serious underlying issues: (1) pricing practices that appear systematically above-market and potentially predatory; (2) documented dishonesty allegations in multiple reviews; (3) significant office/management failures in responsiveness and follow-up; and (4) suspicious clustering of generic 5-star reviews without dates that may inflate the overall score. The company appears to deliver good technical work but has serious business practice and integrity concerns that the WW Score alone does not fully capture. Customers should independently verify pricing against competitors and carefully review contracts before engaging.

J Rowe Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistently punctual, courteous, and knowledgeable technicians across 68 reviews. Technical expertise is solid with 28 mentions of skilled workmanship and problem-solving. However, project completion reliability is a concern, with 35 mentions revealing multiple instances of no-shows, incomplete work requiring callbacks, and follow-up failures. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with 22 explicit complaints about excessive charges, hidden fees, and quotes significantly higher than competitors, though some reviews praise fair pricing. The company shows inconsistency: excellent service in many cases contrasts sharply with serious failures including a tankless water heater installation that failed inspection, repeated drain repairs that didn't solve the problem, and elderly customers charged $590 for work requiring a return visit.

• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Multiple reviews cite excessive charges ($590 for toilet repair, $900 for grill repair, $200+ for 15-minute work, $3300-$3600 vs. $1875 for same job). This suggests either inconsistent pricing practices or significant overcharging of certain customers.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: At least 8 reviews document no-shows, incomplete work, or failed callbacks. Examples include: customer waited all day for promised Monday installation (never came), 20+ unanswered calls before house sale deadline, 4-day delay for water heater with no hot water during winter, and drain repairs requiring 4 separate visits over months.
• MAJOR QUALITY FAILURES: Two 1-star reviews describe catastrophic failures: (1) Tankless water heater installation that failed city inspection, required State Board of Plumbers intervention, and caused 3-week ordeal with 4 days without heat/hot water in winter; (2) Water heater repairs that required 3 separate visits and ultimately necessitated replacement by another company, costing customer additional $2000.
• ELDERLY CUSTOMER EXPLOITATION: Review from 2024-10-03 alleges $590 charge for toilet handle/internals replacement on 92-year-old customer with required return visit. Reviewer states 'they took advantage of her' and work should cost half as much.
• COMMUNICATION PROBLEMS: Multiple reviews cite poor responsiveness: unanswered calls, voicemail avoidance, missed scheduled appointments, and lack of follow-up on promised callbacks.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY ACROSS CREWS: Some reviews praise specific technicians (Jason, Duffy, Brandon, Wesley) while others describe poor work from different crews, suggesting quality varies significantly by team.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Several reviews contain only generic praise ('Outstanding', 'Great', 'Fantastic') with no specific details. However, most detailed reviews are substantive and credible, so fake review prevalence appears limited.

This WW Score of 78.2 is reliable but reflects a company with significant inconsistency: strong professionalism and technical knowledge are undermined by serious project completion failures, pricing concerns, and documented instances of poor follow-through. The HIGH overall confidence is justified by the large sample size (125 reviews) and consistent patterns across dimensions, but potential customers should be aware that while many experiences are positive, the company has demonstrated capacity for major failures including failed inspections, repeated incomplete repairs, and no-shows. Recent reviews (2024) show both excellent service and serious problems, indicating ongoing inconsistency.

Pither Plumbing earns strong marks for professionalism and responsiveness across a large volume of recent reviews, with many customers praising prompt arrivals, courteous technicians, and clear communication. Experience and workmanship are generally well-regarded, with multiple reviewers noting skilled, knowledgeable technicians who resolved problems efficiently. However, pricing is a notable weak point: multiple reviews across different years cite price gouging, hidden fees, charges significantly higher than competitors, and at least one serious allegation of targeting elderly customers with inflated bills. Project completion is solid overall but is dragged down by a handful of reviews describing incomplete work, no-shows without notice, and at least one case where the chief complaint was not resolved. The score reflects a contractor with genuine strengths in responsiveness and professionalism but meaningful and recurring concerns around pricing transparency and occasional execution failures.

• PRICING CONCERN — RECURRING: Multiple reviews across different years (2009, 2012, 2013, 2022, 2023, 2025) independently cite overcharging, hidden fees, or prices significantly above competitors. This is a persistent pattern, not an isolated incident.
• SERIOUS ALLEGATION (2025-03-11, 1-star): Reviewer alleges price gouging targeting elderly grandparents — over $800 for a gas valve repair plus unexplained $200 city inspection fee, with damaged brickwork. This is a recent, specific, and detailed complaint that materially impacts the pricing score.
• NO-SHOW / COMMUNICATION FAILURES: At least two reviews (2012, 2021) describe repeated no-shows with no courtesy call, and one review (2013) describes a failure to return a callback. These directly impact professionalism and project completion scores.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: One review (2012-07-12) states the issue was never fixed and another plumber was needed. One review (2020-08-21) states the chief complaint still had trouble after service. These are weighted against project completion.
• WORKMANSHIP ISSUE (2025-03-11, 1-star): Reviewer posted a photo alleging destroyed brickwork during a gas valve repair, citing unacceptable workmanship.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of negative reviews regarding pricing and no-shows span from 2009 to 2023. The most recent reviews (2025) are predominantly positive, suggesting possible improvement, but the 2025 price-gouging allegation indicates pricing concerns have not fully resolved.
• BLANK REVIEWS: 8 reviews contained no text (rating only). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — LOW: While there is a high volume of 5-star reviews, most contain specific names, details, and varied language. Risk of systematic fake reviews is assessed as low, though the volume of brief generic 5-star reviews (e.g., 'Efficient and Professional. Highly recommend.') slightly reduces confidence in the upper end of scores.
• RECENCY NOTE: Several reviews date back to 2009–2015 and carry reduced weight. The bulk of scoreable data comes from 2020–2025, which is treated as primary.

This WW Score is based on a substantial volume of reviews (65 total, 57 with usable data) spanning over a decade, with strong recent data from 2025, giving the score HIGH overall confidence; however, the persistent and multi-year pattern of pricing complaints and the serious 2025 price-gouging allegation mean prospective customers should treat the pricing dimension score with particular caution and request detailed written quotes before engaging this contractor.

Superior Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and professionalism in execution, with technicians consistently praised for knowledge, punctuality, and courteous behavior. However, the company is significantly undermined by widespread pricing concerns—numerous customers report excessive charges, hidden fees (dispatch/service charges not applied to work), and quotes that are double or triple competitor rates. Project completion is generally solid with good follow-through, though some customers report callback issues and unresolved problems. The disparity between positive service quality reviews and negative pricing/billing reviews creates a polarized customer experience.

• PRICING PATTERN: Extremely high volume of complaints (60+ reviews) about overcharging, excessive dispatch fees ($62-$89 not credited to work), and quotes significantly above market rates. This is the dominant negative theme across the dataset.
• FAKE REVIEW DETECTION: Approximately 40-50 reviews from June 2025 show identical or near-identical phrasing (e.g., multiple reviews with 'Tyler D.', 'Seth', 'Andrew' using nearly word-for-word descriptions). These appear clustered in a 2-week period and lack specificity. Confidence in recent 5-star reviews is reduced.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most recent reviews (June 2025) are overwhelmingly 5-star with suspicious similarity. Reviews from 2019-2024 show much more balanced distribution with significant 1-star complaints. Recent data may not be representative.
• MANAGEMENT/CUSTOMER SERVICE: Multiple reviews cite rude office staff, managers who hang up on customers, refusal to honor warranties, and poor callback responsiveness. This suggests systemic customer service issues beyond individual technician performance.
• DISPATCH FEE CONTROVERSY: Repeated complaint that $62-$89 dispatch fee is charged in addition to work costs, not credited toward the job—this practice is explicitly called out as deceptive in 15+ reviews.
• WARRANTY DISPUTES: Several customers report company refusing to honor stated warranties or charging full price for warranty work, creating trust issues.

This WW Score of 72.8 should be interpreted with caution: while technician professionalism and experience are genuinely strong (HIGH confidence), the pricing dimension is severely problematic and represents a major value concern that significantly drags down the overall score. The recent cluster of identical 5-star reviews suggests potential review manipulation, reducing confidence in the most recent data. Customers should expect quality work but should obtain detailed written estimates upfront and verify pricing with competitors before committing, as overcharging complaints are pervasive and credible across multiple years.

This aggregated review set covers multiple businesses operating under the 'American Plumbing' name across different regions, which significantly complicates scoring. The majority of reviews are strongly positive, praising responsive technicians, professional conduct, and quality workmanship — with many named employees (Seth, Josh, Matt, Charlie, Felix, Luis, Zeke, and others) receiving repeated commendation. However, a substantial minority of negative reviews — roughly 15-20% of substantive reviews — describe serious issues including rude staff, no-shows, billing disputes, price gouging, incomplete work, and failed inspections, which meaningfully drag down all four dimensions. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple credible complaints about bait-and-switch quotes, unexplained charges, and prices significantly above competitors, though many other reviewers found pricing fair or even below-market. Project completion scores moderately well overall but is penalized by recurring complaints about jobs left unfinished, callbacks not honored, and work failing inspection.

• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: Reviews appear to span multiple distinct businesses operating under the 'American Plumbing' name across different U.S. regions (California, Florida, Texas, Louisiana, Ohio, etc.). Scores reflect an aggregate that may not represent any single business accurately.
• FAKE REVIEW CLUSTER DETECTED: A cluster of 1-star reviews dated 2022-06-07 with no review text (approximately 8-10 blank 1-star reviews) and several with near-identical short phrases ('Unprofessional', 'Very unprofessional', 'Very unprofessional and disrespectful') posted on the same date strongly suggests a coordinated negative review attack. These were noted but their impact was moderated given the pattern.
• BLANK REVIEWS EXCLUDED FROM SCORING: Approximately 25-30 reviews contained no text and only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from approximately 2006 to June 2025. The most recent 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) are heavily weighted and show a predominantly positive trend, though the detailed negative review from June 2025 regarding permit failures and unprofessional conduct is significant.
• REPEATED REVIEW DETECTED: The review praising Matt and Richard of American Plumbing Laguna Beach appears to be posted twice with slightly different dates (2025-04-10 and 2025-04-07). Only counted once.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE CREDIBLE AND SPECIFIC: Multiple negative pricing reviews include specific dollar amounts, named employees, and detailed circumstances, lending them high credibility. These are not generic complaints and meaningfully reduce the pricing score.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: Multiple independent reviews across different years describe missed appointments without notification, which is a recurring operational pattern that reduces the professionalism and project completion scores.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but its reliability as a guide to any single business is LIMITED because the reviews demonstrably cover multiple distinct companies sharing the 'American Plumbing' name; prospective customers should seek reviews specific to their local branch before making a hiring decision.