Refunds for 2015 Regular BCBS and 2015 Prop

Nope not a lawyer at all. But I have had to listen to some of them and understand their thinking in several settings.

I'm just in the habit of exploring multipe possibilities before settling on a final conclusion. What I do for a living requires empirical evidence be provided to choose between those alternative possibilities until one or more can be ruled out. That requires not prejudging on the basis of incomplete information. e.g.,concluding they must have not done their testing because there were off flavors, when off flavors can occur for other reasons than infection and when even breweries with non barrel aging programs have shipped out beer that fit all their quality control critera (lab tests: clean, tasting panel says: beer is spot on, etc.) before shipping and even then still had problems and done refunds or replacement exchanges or recalled the whole production run.

If one runs a barrel aging program there is no way to be sure that something will not develop weeks after shipping. Except, of course, to not have a barrel aging program.

 

I'll open one of my BCBCS '15 and a BCBS '15 soon. Having had a few of each from my Orlando purchases, they were all fine.

This thread makes me thankful I keep my cellar beers in a large beer fridge at about 45-50 degrees. Being in FL, I can't count the times someone has opened a bottle at a share that was 'faded' or 'off a bit' simply because they store them in that 'FL beer cellar' aka a 75-78+ degree closet or pantry (specifically Cycle/FB adjunct bottles.)

 

Well that's a little disingenuous, is it not? You *know* the beer is not right. That's the entire point for leaving the review--to stick it to the company for failing to admit that the beer is off.

Doesn't change the fact that reviews are intended to be an evaluation of the intended beer. We all know damn well that BCBS is not intended to be sour or tart.

 

Than you are missing out on the wonders of aging, you think 2015 is good than you should try a cellared 2013 - it's mind blowing!

 

I haven't even had one from this year yet, but it will be my second beer today. So I don't *know* if it's tainted or not. The point is that if they say that what they sold is OK AS FAR AS THEY ARE CONCERNED, then what is in the bottle is subject to a fair and unbiased review...PERIOD.

 

I think every beer ever made was intended to be good. But that doesn't mean the beer always turns out that way. If GI says there is nothing wrong with this batch and buyers continue to have bad experiences, then the brewer made a bad beer. I see no reason why reviews shouldn't reflect this.

 

You're not saying that's the case, but here you are bringing it up.

I'm not sure what the point would be of doing that for a nationally distributed shelf beer that has little trade value.

More importantly, infection rumors hardly increase trade value, even if they are corrected later.

 

I think the issue with this is (assuming you're relatively sure the beer is infected) that it doesn't provide any insight into BCBS itself. The ratings here are, I assume, to be used as a general knowledgebase for the guys and gals on BA. If you know you have an infected bottle, especially if you can't account for how it got infected (ex.: did you buy it months after it was released, potentially from a store that left it un-refrigerated/in direct sunlight/heat/etc.?), that's not going to help someone else who is buying the beer fresh or from a place that keeps the beer in better conditions. I recently had a Central Waters BBS, and it was most definitely bad, but it was most likely because I left it un-refrigerated for months (the others I had from the same pack were fine when fresh). I'm not going to review the beer badly, because I know the beer doesn't actually taste like that.

I understand why some people will give infected beer bad reviews, but that's missing the point, to me. It's like reviewing a can of Heady Topper that's 8 months old; sure, you can argue that it's the brewer's fault it doesn't taste good forever, but you also know that you're much more likely to have a good product when fresh. I notice a lot of the noise about 'bad' BCBS batches is coming from Florida; I can't help wondering if part of it is just that you all are lucky to have better/warmer weather than a lot of us (as @Mangbus said), but which can be sub-optimal for beer storage.

Not calling anyone a liar, just giving my 2 paragraphs-worth of cents.

 

So you think Goose Island had the ability to prevent this and just decided not to?

As noted by @drtth, barrel-aging carries an inherent risk of infection/off flavors that will start to develop well after the brewer has any reasonable ability to catch it and proceed accordingly. I'd say the fact that BCBS is now starting to see reports of tartness 7 months after the release underscores that fact.

I guess it all boils down to an existential debate on "control". For the purposes of the BA guidelines on reviews, I think "control" means, could they have reasonably prevented this from getting to market in the current state? And I'm not sure the answer is a definitive "Yes" when it comes to infections resulting from barrel aged beers. Goose Island is practically the poster child for proof that there is an element of dice roll when it comes to this kind of thing--hell, as I noted above we're just now talking about tartness and off flavors in BCBS 7 months after it was released. Seems like expecting the brewer to have prevented and/or caught that is a pretty tall order.

Reviews are forever, whereas the beers that have seen potential infection issues are not. Reviews are an evaluation of the intended beer, imho. They are not warnings--case in point, no review posted today/tomorrow is going to help anyone. The vast majority of BCBS is gone from shelves.

 

I appreciate your perspective and I 100% agree that if a buyer has improperly stored beer or done anything else to compromise its integrity while in their hands, it should not be reviewed.

I think it's unfair, though, for reviews not to include a beer that a brewery says is fine but tastes bad. Reviews reflect a brewery's consistency and quality control. As a buyer, I want to know if a beer has a track record of inconsistency. Especially a beer that is $10/bottle.

Note: I LOVE this beer and have had no issues to date. I plan to open one of my bottles tonight dated 11/10/15 1124.

 

Drinking the Rare I was saving for my wedding, this saturday now...


Thanks Goose Island...

 

Oh no.. Some of my friends told me this just yesterday and I dismissed it but now that I see this post it seems the rumor is gaining steam..

I can only hope they are not bad because the few I have tasted thus far of the 2015 BCBS were lovely

 

I'm sorry, but this "well, GI says the beer is fine, so it must be!" feigned ignorance is silly. If you open a BCBS and taste tart and acidic flavors, you know damn well that the beer isn't supposed to be that way.

This isn't Yelp. Reviews are supposed to evaluate good faith efforts by brewers to release good products. And there is no reason to think that a beer that has only started to show isolated signs of infection seven months after being released was released in good faith.

 

It's not a rumor.. It's fact. There are infected bottles of BCBS dated 10/21 in the Tampa and Sarasota areas. Hopefully that is the limit of the issue.

 

I love this conspiracy theory however, there is so much Reg BCBS out there that I don't think demand in a few months will peak higher than that on Black Friday even with a diminished supply from people chugging their hordes.

 

I store all of my beer at 55 degrees and upright unless corked, including my BCBS and mine were all garbage. Just an FYI.

 

Sorry, but if people raise honest complaints to GI and they dismiss those comments out of hand, which is what they appear to be doing at the moment, to me they are showing bad faith and I have no sympathy whatsoever if reviewers want to rate the beer honestly. If there is an acknowledged issue that the brewer is working to correct, I may feel differently, but I certainly would like to know if there are consistent reports of infection that are going unaddressed through official channels. No one should have to scour the BA forums to find out that a beer is garbage just because in the past, in uninfected form, it has been good.

 

Fair enough, but I disagree with the part I bolded. People trade for this beer and I feel experiences need to be shared wherever possible in order for those who have never had it before to be made aware of the possibility of infection. Also, from an ethical point of view, if AB-InBev is taking the stance that it is indeed not infected and don't give refunds to those with infected bottles like they did with BCBCS, then why not give the beer a bad review if you don't like it when they say it's fine? Maybe it would be a bit premature to start posting negative reviews before the company gets a chance to fully catch wind of the situation, but I see nothing wrong with subjectively reviewing '15 BCBS if you've never had it before and giving your honest opinion, especially if they retain the position of it not being infected.

 

I'm not sure why you're getting so upset over this. GI is a phenomenal brewery, and they clearly have the ability to determine whether or not some of their beer has an issue. They've already demonstrated this with BCBCS. If they're unwilling to acknowledge something is wrong with this beer, please tell me what makes most buyers more qualified to make this determination?

 

I feel like I've made this pretty clear, but just in case it's not: my concern about the reviews has nothing to do with sympathy for GI. It's about having a standard framework for what beer reviews are.

The fact that there are arguments about why the infected beers should be reviewed that relate to the brewer's official response or whether or not they are doing something to correct it is underscoring my point. The reviews should be about the beer. Not the brewer's response. Not their corrective actions. By your reasoning, if GI was doing something, then that same infected beer that you are arguing needs to be reviewed no longer needs the review?