Refunds for 2015 Regular BCBS and 2015 Prop

Sure, but I have no idea how to upload photo's on BA. I've tried several ways, but doesn't work.
Drop me a PM if you know an easy way.

Otherwise, I'll gladly get the data and post it later tonight.

 

I agree 100%

I didn't submit my Coffee and Barleywine request for refunds since I got an awesome price on them. At the time the only two barley wines that I'd opened were perfect. Of my coffees however I was only one for four.

 

Open a Flickr account, upload pics, then copy and paste the BB Code from the pic page.

 

My bottles are all September 22nd, which isn't listed. I've drank some, traded some, and gave some away as extras. I've had the rest all cellaring away. Even though it isn't listed, I can't help worrying now since I had no idea regular had any issues until this recent release from Goose Island. I guess I'll have to chill and drink one to make sure another date doesn't need to be sent to them. I also find it bizarre after skimming through that some people with bottles dated with "bad" dates said it tasted fine and they noted no issues.

 

It has been a bit of time, but all of my bottles are out of a bad date, the one i drank tasted amazing. I have 2 left though and wasn't planning on opening for awhile.

 

I'm not trolling or being a jerk here, but why would it be helpful for him to do that? All the ones he drank that were good were from "good" dates, and the one that was bad was from a "bad" date, so it lines up with what GI thinks is going on. I am curious to know what more we can glean from the bottles...perhaps you're thinking the time stamp?

One reason why I ask that question is that I'd be hesitant for anyone to post pictures of bad bottles anymore, knowing that would easily allow some unscrupulous folks to use those pictures for a refund. Of course, there are already so many pictures of bad bottles floating around on this thread (and who knows where else on the web) that more pictures posted aren't likely to matter.

 

i had not contemplated the re-use factor. but i don't get down like that, so it didn't cross my mind in my asking here. besides the numerous photos circulating all over the web, well, actually, i'm not going to say more. in truth i think you just kibitzed something many of us realize but hold out hope for decency. i'm not going to risk giving the indecent any potential ideas.

i asked mainly because like many others contend, the date on my bottles is a day short of a string of dates affected. yet, mine appear to be spoiling. i was more interested in seeing what his dates are that are "good" vs which ones are bad. eventually i suspect we are going to hear more about believed good dates tipping the scales turning into overwhelmingly bad dates. i'm also curious to see whether his are dates in the middle of gaps in the affected ranges or are far from those already acknowledged bad dates.

 

I did think about whether bringing that idea up was good/bad to "publicize", but I figured those with bad intentions already have ideas like that in their heads (and are willing to take action on them). Of course, they also probably don't need the photos from this thread either, as you alluded to, so posting another picture in here probably doesn't move the needle.

As far as the dates go on these bottles and being a day before/after the "bad" dates, I just assume it's a risky outcome for those bottles. But, if you've opened multiple bottles from a particular date that were all in a similar case with good results, I feel like that gives a better chance at a good outcome for the remaining bottles. That could just be me being hopeful that the 11/6 bottles I have continue to show very well, despite the 11/5 date being a bad date.

 

I was randomly thinking about this as a place was promoting an upcoming beer dinner on facebook.

The same place has a small store with food, beers, etc, a bar, and an upper scale restaurant. If you called them before black friday they said they'd have bourbon county. Then I called them the day of "Ummmmm... no we are holding it all for a beer dinner, we haven't set a date yet." Well as far as I know they never had one, and most likely they ended up with a lot of infected beer as they should have gotten Barleywine, and our area mostly got an infected group of regular now. Just makes me laugh a bit.

 

Saw something interesting today. A price letter from an AB distributor in another state with a price to retail on Regal Rye of $185.00 for 12 16.9oz bottles.

Assuming Regal and Prop were the same price to retail (since they had the same price to consumer), this is a per bottle cost of $15.42 just to retail. To claim that the MSRP was $14.99 is complete bullshit (or the distributor jacked these up, but considering how their entire livelihood is from AB, I doubt they charged anything other than the guidance they received from AB). Glad they upped the rebate on Prop to $25, but annoyed at their constant claims of a $14.99 MSRP, it is complete bullshit.

 

Well, actually it may not be a safe assumption that the distributor did not "jack up" the price. Nor is it safe to assume that the distributor simply tows the line on the MSRP set by GI for their beers. Most AB distributors are independently owned and operated and so have distribution contracts with other brewers as well. Also, by the time they distribute the beer they are the owners of the beer, not GI or AB, and so they can set any retail price they choose.

For an example of an AB distributor, check out how many brands/labels are handled by this PA AB distributor.

http://www.beerscenemag.com/2015/12/penn-beer-distributors/

 

What you are saying is true, they own the beer after they take delivery and can do whatever they want, but in practice distributors aren't going to do that. Want to lose or see a big reduction in your allocation of Bourbon County brands next year? Jacking up the price beyond their recommended price to retail is a great way to accomplish that.

Hell, want to lose your rights to distribute AB brands altogether? I know you need "due cause" in a lot of states to terminate a distribution contract, but do you really think AB doesn't have the power to get around that and basically do whatever they want? They surely have enough politicians in the pocket in every state to switch distributors very easily which brings me back to my main point: distributors aren't going to do this on a brand with such minuscule volume and monetary rewards to risk pissing off AB (this particular brewer is almost exclusively AB and only additionally carries some tiny in state craft brewers that they could no way survive off of).

 

Hard to say about your local case, since that clearly does not apply to the general situation everywhere. For example, it is quite clear here in PA that ABInBev doesn't have enough politicians in their pocket to have that level of control in the state. We have at least a couple of laws in place that they've been unhappy with and wanted to see chaged for years. Here in PA (at least a few years back when I last saw the numbers) we have the 2nd lowest Bud sales in the country, with only AK selling less. Also by your metric they clearly don't have the distributor I linked to in their pocket. Seems not to fit your case at all.

Also, I also really don't understand, if AB has so much power, how it happens that they have, in the past, had to publicly create and promote two different incentive programs to be based on brand loyalty among their distributors nationally. With all that power why would they have to create them at all and why did one of them fail and the more recent had distributors posting here to predict it wouldn't work, they themselves weren't giving up their profits from carrying small breweries?

If most of what you are speculating is true where you live, I'd guess you really need to look to your local politicians then if you want to solve the problem.

Good Luck!

 

PA is an outlier with some of the most unique (and asinine) alcohol laws in the country, not really fair to use it as an example for the rest of the country.

Anyway, I think AB should be able to dump a distributor who inflates their prices and takes unreasonable margins (though again I don't think they are doing that since the profits on such a ridiculously low volume product such as Bourbon County are not worth the headache of pissing off AB and to think that they would do that is in my opinion, completely naive).

As for the brand loyalty programs, do you really think a large corporation like AB-InBev will ever be satisfied? They will always want more, especially the corporate execs who need to justify their salaries and jobs. They will do everything they can to squeeze the last drop of blood out of the turnip. Also, persuading distributors to drop craft suppliers under the facade of "brand loyalty" is easier, faster, and most of all way cheaper than fighting with the distributors (as they would have no leg to stand on here legally, vs. the potential claim of damaging their name/brand through inflated prices).

However, we are getting off point, jacking up prices well beyond their recommended price to retail is a far more egregious act more likely to piss off AB than carrying some other suppliers (and probably easier to act upon legally). One is borderline hostile while the other is just a supplier conducting their normal business. I highly doubt any distributor did this as it just isn't worth the trouble. I mean what are we talking here, thousands of dollars on the tiny Bourbon county volume? That is nothing to a large AB distributor (in this case the largest one in the state I am referring to).

I am drawing the conclusion that $14.99 was never the MSRP on Regal and/or Prop. It just makes way more sense that they either lied or the idiot in charge of the GI social media was misinformed than some distributor conspiracy to jack up Bourbon County prices for extremely non-material financial gains. But that's just like my opinion, man. This isn't a court of law and I don't need irrefutable evidence. Feel free to believe otherwise, but I think that is naive.

 

I guess I'm not sure what basis there is for people expecting a process that is unique and rare to be identical from time to time.

GI is having to make this up as they go along. No other brewery has ever had to deal with infection on this scale, nor have they had to deal with this particular type of infection, which has proved hard to find for a variety of previously stated reasons.

It's been mentioned already, but having the actual packaging of a recalled product is a pretty universal standard requirement for getting a refund for that product. Rather than being miffed that such is the case this time around, people should marvel at the fact that GI didn't require it the first time around.

 

Also, GI on their social media blamed retailers not distributors. Based on the prices charged to retail, the prices charged to consumers by retail in this particular state were justified.

 

I know as a fact that no brewer has that much control over what a distributor charges for their product. I assure you, there are many wholesalers of all brands which give the finger to brewer recommended prices, etc. I actually know of one distributor in Georgia which will file trespassing charges against any ABI employee who sets foot on the property without prior written permission. If ABI hasn't or can't drop them, your argument is invalid.

 

I had a dream last night that I got a letter back from GI saying some of my bottles I claimed for refund were denied. I think it's time for me to stop following this thread...but I won't.

 

I stated that I, also, was surprised at how "open" they made their first round of refunds.

To that point, the same company is offering refunds from the same product line that was released at the same time, just a couple months later. In most industries it would be odd to restrict further or change the requirements between the two with only a couple of months being between them. That's all.

Again, I don't think they are asking TOO much, in fact I think they should have asked for this physical proof the first round too. However, I was only pointing out that since they didn't the first time that they are surely open to criticism from those that didn't keep their bottles assuming they wouldn't need to should another refund/recall happen. Cheers

 

I'm wit ya. Wish I could get Paul Simon's "Kodachrome" outta my skull.