smokinjoe Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 On November 24, 2016 at 0:28 PM, ken_mays said: As long as you're not putting misleading numbers on whiskey labels, I guess we can all agree to look the other way. Yes, but I have the "other way" already covered, and that's where I want you to look by design. Actually, there's a 3rd, 4th, and more doors that I will have you walk through as well when I feel the time is right... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulO Posted November 26, 2016 Share Posted November 26, 2016 Just my 2 cents, but when EC and KC dropped the age statements recently; there was no mistaking the new label. OC 8, and VOB -6- seem designed to fool people. I even recall another member of this site getting VOB -6- and thinking it was 6 year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaryT Posted November 26, 2016 Share Posted November 26, 2016 Yeah, I'm not going to lose sleep following this, but I do hope to see an end to the practice of big numbers on labels when they can reasonably be assumed to be conveying the age (especially when the same brand HAD a prior label with that SAME number which DID stand for the age). Has it happened for a while? Sure - but that don't mean it is right. Although - in all honesty - I can't remember the last time I bought a bottle of one of these (OC8, VOB6, etc), so not really a dog in the fight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaycamm Posted November 27, 2016 Share Posted November 27, 2016 I don't think the lawsuit is about the number 8 on the bottle. It was in regards to the term "matured for 8 seasons". This wording was on the aged stated label and remains on the NAS version. The 10 year age stated version used the term "matured for 10 seasons". So for this brand, "season" was synonymous with "year". If the aged stated OC and the NAS OC were both aged for 8 seasons they must both have been aged for 8 years. If not, then this is a legitimate fraud complaint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTaylor Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 I don't know about that... "Season" is clearly defined in 27 CFR labeling requirements as six months. "Season. The period from January 1 through June 30, is the spring season and the period from July 1 through December 31 is the fall season". Aged or matured or whatever... for 8 "seasons" equals 4 years... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martian Posted May 25, 2017 Share Posted May 25, 2017 I have been a label reader all my life. I never purchase a product that has a deceptive label. Some consider Benchmark's label deceptive. To me this one is OK. The label clearly states " Old No. 8 Brand". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jvd99 Posted May 25, 2017 Share Posted May 25, 2017 On 11/23/2016 at 8:12 AM, Richnimrod said: I am of two minds on this lawsuit. On one hand I hate to see the blatantly misleading labeling, and wonder if a lesson for Sazerac and maybe by extension others watching, might be a good thing. On the other hand I hate to see any quality Bourbon distiller de-funded to enrich someone (or maybe many people) who really haven't been harmed to any great degree. These kinds of labeling/packaging lawsuits are pretty common in general and aren't just limited to distilled spirits. People actually weigh crackers and cereals, count box contents etc and if they don't equal exactly what's on the label, they file a lawsuit claiming its fraudulent. They are usually nuisance type lawsuits for these huge companies and any settlement or adverse outcome is typically di minimus to them monitarily and may or may not involve adjustment to the label or packaging. No spirit distillery or parent conglomerate will ever be substantially defunded because of these types of lawsuits. The lawyers will get paid of course, but that's just part of doing business on a worldwide scale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyfish Posted May 25, 2017 Share Posted May 25, 2017 I enjoy the Beam White ads with the pretty girl proclaiming it is aged for four whole years. Nothing at all deceptive about the claim except that her tone of voice suggests this is some sort of monumental achievement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richnimrod Posted May 26, 2017 Share Posted May 26, 2017 8 hours ago, jvd99 said: These kinds of labeling/packaging lawsuits are pretty common in general and aren't just limited to distilled spirits. People actually weigh crackers and cereals, count box contents etc and if they don't equal exactly what's on the label, they file a lawsuit claiming its fraudulent. They are usually nuisance type lawsuits for these huge companies and any settlement or adverse outcome is typically di minimus to them monitarily and may or may not involve adjustment to the label or packaging. No spirit distillery or parent conglomerate will ever be substantially defunded because of these types of lawsuits. The lawyers will get paid of course, but that's just part of doing business on a worldwide scale. I never imagined a 'substantial' amount of money being separated from the offender; but any amount more than a pittance is better in the hands of the distilleries (IMHO) than some clod looking to get paid for not working. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b1gcountry Posted May 26, 2017 Share Posted May 26, 2017 I enjoy the Beam White ads with the pretty girl proclaiming it is aged for four whole years. Nothing at all deceptive about the claim except that her tone of voice suggests this is some sort of monumental achievement. 4 years is a large portion of her life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeTerp Posted May 26, 2017 Share Posted May 26, 2017 I kind of wish they both could lose. I like the idea of the distilleries being responsible enough not to blatantly mislead consumers, but I wish they didn't have to reward the lawyers for what is pretty much a nuisance suit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jvd99 Posted May 26, 2017 Share Posted May 26, 2017 12 hours ago, JoeTerp said: I kind of wish they both could lose. I like the idea of the distilleries being responsible enough not to blatantly mislead consumers, but I wish they didn't have to reward the lawyers for what is pretty much a nuisance suit. If left unchecked with no prospect of accountability, either civilly or criminally, the distilleries would probably be just as underhanded and duplicitous as any stereotype you have of lawyers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeTerp Posted May 26, 2017 Share Posted May 26, 2017 3 minutes ago, jvd99 said: If left unchecked with no prospect of accountability, either civilly or criminally, the distilleries would probably be just as underhanded and duplicitous as any stereotype you have of lawyers It wasn't trying to make a blanket statement on the profession, but rather the individuals who brought suit here. I do wish there was a better mechanism to bring some accountability because as you point out I do believe a lot of the distilleries are trying to mislead their consumers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amg Posted May 26, 2017 Share Posted May 26, 2017 I've noticed that newer bottles of VOB no longer have the "-6-" on the neck label, so maybe *some* good came of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCFan Posted May 29, 2017 Share Posted May 29, 2017 On 5/25/2017 at 11:36 AM, jvd99 said: These kinds of labeling/packaging lawsuits are pretty common in general and aren't just limited to distilled spirits. People actually weigh crackers and cereals, count box contents etc and if they don't equal exactly what's on the label, they file a lawsuit claiming its fraudulent. Case in point Subway caught some heat a few years ago because their foot long subs were only 11 inches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Limegoldconvertible68 Posted May 29, 2017 Share Posted May 29, 2017 On 5/26/2017 at 2:30 PM, amg said: I've noticed that newer bottles of VOB no longer have the "-6-" on the neck label, so maybe *some* good came of this. The new BIB bottles showed up in my store. The neck band has 100 on it now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts