Refunds for 2015 Regular BCBS and 2015 Prop

If I don't, you know someone else will!

 

it took me almost two years to get any BC variant then when I finally got one it was the infected Prop, please send me a video of you smashing yours against the building

 

All 17 of mine are on the infected list. Three separate hauls with 3 separate dates. Plus the one coffee and 2 BW, brings me to grand total of 20 infected BCBS bottles. Only have 11 left and actually first 6 were all spot on perfection so I am not complaining. Opened one immediately after finding out all of mine were infected and was very happy it still tasted proper. Perhaps because they have been in the cellar? I immediately put the rest in the fridge as i really do not have any more plans on aging them. Very happy GI is addressing this and it really was not that long a process to take and print pix, rips labels, fill out a form, and send it. Guess I already know where the refund money will probably be going, back to GI for the 2016 lineup. Needless to say if it happens again, I will probably be done with BCBS. Lets hope that is not the case such a great BA beer.

 

thanks @nesarebad for sharing the source http://www.chicagotribune.com/dinin...re-bourbon-county-refunds-20160715-story.html and a tidbit i had not previously heard:

can someone who perhaps understands the scenario better offer us logical reasons why say the transport tanks would be contaminated 10/9/15 but clean 10/10 & 10/11 (assuming they bottled those days too) but back to contaminated 10/12/15, then clean again the 13th-20th and back to contaminated again 10/21-10/23/2015 etc?

 

One possibility might be that different transport tanks were used across all dates i.e., some tanks were affected & some were not. No idea if this is indeed the explanation however.

 

thanks. that's certainly a possibility. OTOH, as i anticipated, the number of people stating their bottles are spoiling, but display time stamps other than the listed, affected dates is growing. these testimonies suggest the gaps in affected dates are inaccurate.

 

One thing I don't get about the refund process... the back label doesn't have any sort of bottle ID that's unique on a per-bottle basis. I have two bottles with the exact same date + lot number, and all four of mine have the same barcode and everything. They're literally identical labels except for the dates+lot numbers (so two of the four have fully identical labels, as far as I can see).

I have seven bottles total, but three are from non-infected dates. So what's to prevent me from taking extra pictures of the labels, and then sending in the three extra top labels with the pics, so I get seven refunds? Unless the top labels have some sort of info on them, but I can't see anything there either.

 

Can't tell if you're joking, but for the last refund it seemed like they waited until after the deadline was over, then cut the checks all together.

 

If you cut of that tab you have proof of having the bottle. With the photgraph you have proof that it is one of the contaminated batches

There is nothing but your own conscience to prevent you from asking for refund on the good bottles by falsififying what you sene them.

 

Except what I was saying is that the tabs could be from a non-infected bottles, as long as you have a single infected bottle to take the pictures of.

 

As @drtth said, I still think that's on your conscience. There are always ways around the system. I'm sure if I submitted 24+ pictures of the same bottle time stamp (by using 23 additional neck tags from my good bottles...if I had that many), that might catch their attention. Like you, I had some bottles with the exact same date/time stamp, so as long as they refund me those, I'll be happy. The rest is for GI to figure out.

What if you had pictures of bottles that you drank that were bad, but didn't keep the actual bottles and therefore were missing a neck tag? Would it be unethical to take a neck tag from a good bottle and use that in conjunction with the bad bottle's picture to ensure a refund? I'd think not, but I'm sure there's someone out there who thinks otherwise.

I was very much joking.

 

okay, just surprised a company is putting something like that in the hands of peoples conscience.

 

They already did that once with the Coffee & BW refunds (i.e. leave it in the hands of people's conscience, since all you had to do was call and say you had some bottles). Maybe they got a good idea of how ethical people were acting through that process...or, they had no other solid refund option to make sure they at least had some proof of the batch.

 

thank god. with this thread i can't even tell anymore

 

My completely unsubstantiated, but somewhat scientific guess would be that that's just what they were able to reproduce in a lab and actually get bacteria to grow from bottles they've held back from those dates. They were probably unsuccessful in reproducing the bacteria (that is reportedly very hard to grow and/or detect anyway) in the other batches. It may be a bit cynical, but as an engineer that regularly has to figure out problems and the root cause, sometimes explanations get a bit hand-wavy when things are so complicated. I'd be interested to know how many reports there are of bad bottles from batches they've (thus far) deemed as ok vs. reports from the bad batches. I also wonder if they are continuing to test other "good" batches to find any more problems or if they're hoping this action will quell the backlash (or probably both).

Edit: I guess I'm saying that I don't really believe that they have a good idea of why a specific batch would be good and another would be bad, though the trucks may well be the culprit overall.

 

Anyone know the bottling dates for Rare and Regal?

 

This is kind of where I am. Glad they are doing something, but it kind of sucks that they first denied this, then specifically told people for weeks on FB to drink their bottles now to minimize the chances of off flavors, and now are basically saying "sorry if you took our advice, no refund for you." I'm sorry, but I just don't buy the argument that they somehow had no choice because they got massively ripped off during the first round of refunds. While I'm sure there were some people who took advantage, there were also many who missed out altogether due to the rather poor nature of how the deadline was communicated. I find it hard to believe that the overall net loss due to dishonest refunds was all that substantial. And even if some people did take advantage, that risk of loss should be placed on the company that made the mistake, not the consumer who legitimately bought bad product and may have other ways to prove it (e.g., photos, receipts) but didn't save an empty bottle for several months.

 

Has anyone actually received a check from them for bad bottles?

 

I have 4 bottles all with bad dates. I search and payed top dollar to get my hands on them. We pay at least 20 per here on the east coast

 

Great - two business days after the refund process is announced and we already have a question of whether anyone has received their money yet!