squire Posted December 5, 2014 Share Posted December 5, 2014 Not sure what you mean by this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jvd99 Posted December 5, 2014 Share Posted December 5, 2014 What I meant is that the general public will probably never get the details an actual trial would have revealed. All of the details that were never put into the public discourse will remain unknown to us. That's a significant factor why litigants settle a dispute - because they do not want other people knowing those dirty little secrets that do not conform to the narrative put out by their lawyers, press people or their own biased opinions. This is especially true when there is public interest in the story which is applicable here. It should go without saying that Winston and the other distillery workers probably have more insight into what went on, but I doubt we'll get an expose by any of them. They have jobs and reputations that need to be maintained and taking a public stance for one side or the other, and potentially burning bridges, is probably not a wise course of action. To say that the products will remain completely unchanaged when a key member of the team is removed - when that person founded the company and no doubt contributed meaningfully to the processes that resulted in the products' quality - is a bit shortsighted. That's like saying that the Denver Broncos would be the same team without Peyton Manning because they have the same 10 other offensive players, the same coaches and are running the same plays. Also, eventually moving from a whole slate of truly craft products to a more industrialized operation with all new stills and equipment, operating on a much larger scale, could also be a factor in the future - whether good, bad or indifferent - is yet to be seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garbanzobean Posted December 5, 2014 Share Posted December 5, 2014 It's a shame you guys banned Jimbo. His dissertations were the most accurate of any speculation I read anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wadewood Posted December 7, 2014 Author Share Posted December 7, 2014 I think the whiskey will change no matter if Chip was there or not. You don't have an expansion that increases production ten fold without change regardless of who's in charge. Also, their products were already constantly changing, much like most craft distilleries. If you tasted a Baby Blue from 1st year of production to this year, that would be very apparent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaycamm Posted December 7, 2014 Share Posted December 7, 2014 Wade has made some great points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balcones Winston Posted December 8, 2014 Share Posted December 8, 2014 I'll let the whisky speak for itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaycamm Posted December 8, 2014 Share Posted December 8, 2014 I'll let the whisky speak for itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry in WashDC Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 FWIW - Went to the store I know carries VOB BIB regularly (it's rare in WashDC) to load up @ $16 plus tax and to pick up a BT or two (on sale for $20 plus tax). Saw a Stagg Jr. so picked it up, too. The top shelf also had one each of the current Balcones offerings - each "on sale" @ about $3 of the regular store price. I shop there even though it's not close because (a) they usually have VOB, ( sometimes have rare stuff I like, and © ALWAYS sell (a) and ( at reasonable prices. Didn't buy any mostly because I saw them only on my way out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cowdery Posted December 12, 2014 Share Posted December 12, 2014 My attitude is that the parties have settled their dispute, what was said was said, you can't unring a bell, but there is nothing to be gained by rehashing it or trying to dredge up new details. There is nothing to be gained by knowing more except to satisfy our voyeurism, which is a pretty small benefit for speculation and commentary that will inevitably be very hurtful to people who deserve more respect from us than that.I think it's fair to say a Tate-less Balcones is a fundamentally different company. It should be judged on what it does going forward, just as Chip should be judged on what he does going forward. What they did together is on the record. It's what is to come that matters now. All of the parties are to be commended for bringing it to a conclusion quickly and not compounding the damage already done. The most supportive thing we can do as fans is look to the future and hope both parties will do the same and thrive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jvd99 Posted December 12, 2014 Share Posted December 12, 2014 Well said Chuck - time to put this one to bed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squire Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 As a coda perhaps, recorded interviews with both Chip Tate and Greg Allen following the settlement:http://whiskycast.com/episode-510-december-8-2014/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garbanzobean Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 It actually looks like things are heating up again:http://www.wacotrib.com/news/business/balcones-founder-tate-alleges-debt-defamation-in-lawsuit/article_1379e1b3-6f99-5db4-9bf5-e8d72d217722.htmlI really hope this is the last of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TunnelTiger Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 Jeez what a continuing soap opera! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 It's just ugliness now. I don't see how this suit helps anybody. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jvd99 Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 Yeah, this is getting stupid. Tate will spend more that $10K in attorneys fees even if the lawsuit was only about the debt. He should think objectively and just pay the money back because it's probably the cheapest option. The defamation suit is also strange because Tate is arguably a public figure, an argument his opponent will argue vociferously. If the judge rules that he is a public figure, not only would Chip have to prove that the alleged statements were false, he would have to prove that the false statements were made with intent and actual malice, which is a high hurdle (as opposed to merely proving negligence in making a false statement which is a lot easier if he were a non-public figure). Defamation suits brought by public figures are exceeding difficult to win. I like Chip's work, but he's showing himself to be a serial litigator who doesn't care about the money wasted in such endeavors. It's all very unfortunate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paddy Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 I'm to the point of.........yawn:22: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HighHorse Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 I'm to the point of.........yawn:22:^^ that.wake me when it's over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danz Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Yeah, this is getting stupid. Tate will spend more that $10K in attorneys fees even if the lawsuit was only about the debt. He should think objectively and just pay the money back because it's probably the cheapest option. The defamation suit is also strange because Tate is arguably a public figure, an argument his opponent will argue vociferously. If the judge rules that he is a public figure, not only would Chip have to prove that the alleged statements were false, he would have to prove that the false statements were made with intent and actual malice, which is a high hurdle (as opposed to merely proving negligence in making a false statement which is a lot easier if he were a non-public figure). Defamation suits brought by public figures are exceeding difficult to win. I like Chip's work, but he's showing himself to be a serial litigator who doesn't care about the money wasted in such endeavors. It's all very unfortunate. [emphasis added]I don't know from this story whether Chip is the instigator in the latest drama, although it doesn't seem like good publicity for him - unless he actually is angling to be a reality TV personality. (I also don't agree with the saying that all publicity is good publicity.) Beyond the public figure context, if the relevant statements were made in court proceedings, I recall it being even more difficult to obtain damages than the generally high hurdle for defamation claims.I haven't been following the story actively for a while, but I do recall seeing some provocative statements from Chip and his friends about a month ago. I understand feelings are raw, but I don't see how that path can lead to a good outcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jvd99 Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 I don't know from this story whether Chip is the instigator in the latest drama, although it doesn't seem like good publicity for him - unless he actually is angling to be a reality TV personality. (I also don't agree with the saying that all publicity is good publicity.) Beyond the public figure context, if the relevant statements were made in court proceedings, I recall it being even more difficult to obtain damages than the generally high hurdle for defamation claims.I haven't been following the story actively for a while, but I do recall seeing some provocative statements from Chip and his friends about a month ago. I understand feelings are raw, but I don't see how that path can lead to a good outcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danz Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 Looks like Chip filed the new lawsuit. You are correct that statements made in court proceedings are generally not actionable, however, this may vary state to state.What I was saying is that, even if Chip filed the lawsuit, that doesn't mean he provoked the situation or that he is in the wrong by filing it, which the term "serial litigator" implies. I can't tell from the story who has the moral low ground in the latest dispute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jvd99 Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 "Moral low ground" - I love it. That's what this has devolved to, figuring out who is more in the wrong I would say that by filing a lawsuit, Chip certainly provoked and escalated the latest situation. At this point, I really couldn't care less. I'm losing interest in Chip, Balcones and the whole lot pretty fast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balcones Winston Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 "Moral low ground" - I love it. That's what this has devolved to, figuring out who is more in the wrong I would say that by filing a lawsuit, Chip certainly provoked and escalated the latest situation. At this point, I really couldn't care less. I'm losing interest in Chip, Balcones and the whole lot pretty fast. Can't say any of us wanted this to happen. We're hoping it's over soon, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jvd99 Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 Winston - I'd have to say you guys still at the distillery are collateral damage in all of this which is pretty unfair. The actions of others, at least for me, are are a downer. It would be great if everyone went their separate ways and did their thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garbanzobean Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 Finally have some good news to report:http://www.bizjournals.com/baltimore/blog/charm-city-flavor/2015/02/chip-tate-whiskey-buying-heavy-seas-equipment.htmlThis is pretty cool. I love Heavy Seas beer, and have done Hugh Sisson's tour, given that they are just right down the road. Maybe there will be a future collaboration? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TunnelTiger Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 Well you have to admire his ambition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts