Site Performance Updates: We're aware of the nightly site outage, and working on resolving the issue.
Follow our progress ...
Discussion in 'Pacific' started by ModernTimesJacob, Feb 13, 2013.
Because he's been notified from some IP originating in the Alpine area?
They already have a bomb in the bombers (get it?), once they leave CA a sac inside that's full of diacetyl dissolves into the beer.
Not sure what happened over the weekend, but damn.
what do you mean?
I wanted to give folks a first-hand report back on the SD Brewers Guild meeting. Basically, there wasn't a discussion. Candace (Craft Beer Attorney) explained the new interpretation of the rules for those that weren't at the ABC Workshop, then Doug from Societe explained how they planned to approach it. I spoke in general terms about why I felt like we should embrace the change and go with blank growlers labelled with a zip-tie tag or something similar, why it would benefit beer drinkers and breweries, etc...Since there was no response or discussion, I have no idea what anyone else thinks or is planning to do.
I was really hoping there'd be some conversation about a holistic approach, but it seemed like the goal was to get the meeting over with as quickly as possible. There's really no other forum for SD brewers to discuss issues, so I guess this will end up being addressed casually on a brewery-by-brewery basis.
As for Modern Times, I'm planning to forge ahead with the plan to sell and fill blank growlers, although I am now planning to offer a branded growler for our 'reserve society'-type deal which will entitle the owner to special fills.
Jacob, I liked the first draft of your message much better. I was going to ask if MikeTen already reported you, but found nothing to quote.
Oh sure, you weren't rude to (and therefore hammering) me at all.... It was the tactics you had issues with.
Possibly. Which brewery does he work for? I have to admit I like his style (and Liked his post) though. Going ahead with blank growlers and incentivizing branded growlers = win.
EDIT, he said Modern Times. Never heard of them.
You must live in LA. Or be totally clueless. Keep up the good fight.
Jan 17, 2013 <== hiding behind troll account
Mike: would you tell any of the brewers of the breweries that you claim to have reported to the ABC to their face that you were the guy that reported them? Because otherwise your argument holds no weight.
No one here knows you either, and you refuse to back up your claims.
Let me take the side of logic here and say that whether or not MikeTen is being hypocritical has no bearing on whether or not his argument holds weight. The tu quoque fallacy is what holds no weight.
Like x 1billion
I may or may not, and if it irritates you that I'm avoiding the question, that's your problem.
I just take issue with someone suggesting it's wrong for me to be anonymous but okay for him to be anonymous. If honesty really mattered, DrtyBvrJuice would tell us his other screenname and which brewery he works for. I'd definitely look like a hypocrite then.
I'm totally fine if you think I'm making it up about reporting breweries to the ABC. I just wanted to let people know someone is at least doing something. YOU'RE WELCOME.
So much for protecting your anonymity. So which brewer are you going to deliver a Cubito Aequet (elbow of disdain) to?
I had a sneaking suspicion it was Damion Sandow behind the keyboard. It would make sense as he is the acting like the hero we need, not the hero we want.
Once again you're missing the point. In fact, I haven't said much but agree with MacNCheese, Jason Mason. Mrkrispy, sebowski, and errantnight.
This isn't a troll account (all the others are my troll accounts...ha! j/k), and I do not work for a brewery. The difference between our arguments is I'm just arguing on the internet...you took it a step further. Most of us want to give the breweries time to sort this mess out...and guess what...they are. But it was fast enough for you and despite all the arguments for why they should be given time you threw a tantrum and ratted to the ABC. This made myself and others a bit ticked off. Nobody gives a shit who I am...I'm not screwing with the breweries business...you are.
Your knowledge of the situation is also deeply flawed which leads you to unrealistic expectations. There is 1 woman who oversees label approval. There are 330 breweries in CA. On top of all the brewery logo/keg rings/bottle label approvals if every brewery submitted a new growler tag for approval the day the ABC clarified the law they would not all be approved by the imaginary acceptable timeline you've created for yourself.
On top of that, some breweries were waiting for a further clarification at the SD brewers guild meeting (60+ breweries) because they weren't all at the first meeting. To you this is unacceptable. Alesmith submitted a new label request and while the process usually takes 30 days they told us 60 because the whole process just might be backlogged. 22 days after MTjacob started this thread you reply that you've alerted the ABC. WTF? The guild meeting hadn't even happened yet. According to you, they're not working fast enough. Do you.mainline Arrogant Bastard or what? So yes, PSOE are ticked off at you and I'm one of them.
Further, I was replying to this thread before you got involved...so did I just start Inception-Trolling you or what? I didn't even know I could do that.
Nobody, other than you, is mad at me. Pulling your stunt was a dick move that may cause breweries issues with the ABC. I'm sure those breweries would like to thank you for the help since you clearly know their business better than they do.
I 'moustache' you a question . . . what happens first? A majority of CA breweries filling other growlers or a push for the Prime Time Players?
Either way, it'll result in MILLIONS OF DOLLARS!!!
I plan on playing the Prime Time Players theme song on repeat and drinking a bomber of beer one of these days.
That's what Heaven is. . . if the beer is good at least.
Anyone know what other states don't allow blank growler fills?
How many times do people have to say that they have no problem with what you are trying to achieve, but they have a problem with your (alleged) tactics? Some people even have no problem with your tactics themselves, just the haste at which you are applying them.
Until you let us know a few of the breweries you have reported, however, I'll be in the camp that think you are just blowing a lot of smoke. I am curious in which region you live, though, and which breweries you are allegedly targeting. I think we've established that you aren't in San Diego, and probably not even in Southern California.
Oregon and Nevada come to mind, I'm sure there are many others.
Nevada lets you fill anything. Go Nevada. Filled a Societe growler with DFH 90 minute, at a liquor store.
I should add - no covering up label, no adding a label, no tag - nothing. OH NOES WE HAVE TO LABEL: IT SO YOU KNOWS TAHERE IS BEER INSIDE#Q@%!%^#
I know it has been stated in here already, but that is the real issue people should be focussing n to make significant change. Breweries, bars, and Whole Foods, etc... should be able to fill any growler and not worry about labels like most other states. I'm afraid these blank growlers are going to end up being just an excuse for ABC to push aside the real issue of them demanding all their label requirements be met to begin with instead of making a real change to an asinine law.
MikeTen, why don't you leave your e-mail, phone number, and address so all of the brewers in CA can keep you up-to-date on their plans. Since apparently if they haven't kept you in the loop on their plans with this new information it means they are doing nothing.
So did you know about Alesmith's plans ahead of them announcing it? How about Modern Times? What about Societe as it appears from Jacob that they are going to take steps?
I am guessing there are a lot of breweries who are having discussions on how they can not only fill generic growlers but how they can be 100% legal in their fills. This involves planning, label design and approval, and possibly some discussion with lawyers.
You have been very egocentric this whole time. Just because you don't know what the breweries are doing does not mean they are doing nothing.
Oh god no. I don't want bars filling growlers. Can you imagine what a nightmare it'd be on a Friday night when bartenders are also trying to fill growlers while tending their patrons? I can't imagine that at Toronado or worse, them telling the idiots that they aren't filling any of their special kegs into growlers. I'd be fine with Whole Foods/ bottle shops et al, but not bars.
At this point, most of us agree that MikeTen's approach was premature and aggressive. Now can we get this thread back to the subject of filling growlers?
True, but bars in other places handle it. With extra to-go sales they might be able to hire another staff member. Or have a policy of growler fills only from 11am-5pm. Plus they can do what the Bruery does, put an "*" next to the beers available for growler fills.
Worse case scenario is busy places like Toro and Hamilton's don't fill growlers. But it should be the businesses' choice, not the government's.
You can always not go there on a Friday Night. I would love for bars with special beers to fill them. Take the party back home.
There's more misplaced blame in this thread than a union meeting.
We're waiting to hear what the breweries approach will be. So far Societe and Alesmith have made announcements, others have not. This is a wait & see approach.
Do growlers with tape, paper or stickers over the label constitute as blank? So long as there's not conflicting brewery/beer info on the growler it should be fine, right?
The law doesn't require a blank growler...just that it doesn't "bear" the name of another manufacturer.
This is a blank growler.
morebeer.com sells them for $8, plus shipping. Pizza Port sells them for $3 or 4, take warm sudsy water and a green scotch brite pad and you can create your own. Or convert an existing one at no cost.
You missed the point of my post, but thanks for continuing the jackass streak. I was beginning to doubt your candidacy for the BAsshole of the Year Award running against MikeTen.
According to the law, the growler doesn't have to be blank. And, it shouldn't have to. When breweries require blank growlers, it leads me to believe they don't understand the law. Hence my question.
Only I can award BAsshole Awards. And I'm the Grand Poohbah anyway. You can't award me my own award.
MTJacob pretty much summed it up in his post, he's going to sell and fill blank growlers. The law does state if the growler's marking are obscured another brewery can fill it, but I do not read that as an obscured growler = blank growler. Blank has no markings, even if they are obscured. Which is why I provided a picture and a How-To guide to making your own.
So Alesmith then? You're awfully privy to a lot of "insider" information for someone that doesn't work for the breweries.
Again, I just don't understand the brewery apologist stance. Any easy appeasing tact would have been to put out a notice in any of the thousands of emails, blog posts, facebook pages or even tweets that said "We heard about the new growler clarifications - looking into how we can make that work!"
And indeed, the clarification has pointed out that how they're selling growlers now is illegal. So we're supposed to be ignore the part of the law that benefits breweries, while being patient with the part that benefits consumers. Really?
MikeTen was a bit abrasive about it, but he wasn't wrong. Breweries are trying to have it both ways with the growler law right now, and they absolutely, 100% should be called out on it.
Also, just to be super clear, I don't have it out for any of the brewers out there. I just think that, by and large, they do a pretty terrible job with customer relations and customer service. We're past having to grovel and beg for good beer - there's a lot of providers out there nowadays. Lets stop excusing lousy customer service please!
Separate names with a comma.