The Bar Towel

Bobbyok wrote:And I don't mean to suggest that they don't have that responsibility. I just think this is more a situation where HOTD would have been better off saying no to the private order based on their size and circumstance, that's all. In part because they may not have the capacity to deal with issues such as those that came up with this order.

In which case we'd have a thread here complaining about how its the LCBOs fault we can't get anything in Ontario... sigh.

This guy makes excellent beer, but come ON....

All the sympathy about 'aww he's a small brewer, it's not his fault' - horse manure, guys!

He KNEW his bottle capper wasn't in the best shape for THIS order BEFORE sending these 60 cases to Canada!! THAT is the cause of ALL the problems here. I mean sure, now he's gonna be all self-righteously pissed about ever dealing with 'those troublesome Ontarians' ever again but the responsibility rests 100% on HOTD.

Making excellent beer is just one responsibility in distributing product -ie. if it can't be just normally shipped a few hundred miles and enjoyed by the end user, well then buddy you don't HAVE a product & are in violation of the agreement you made with the paying customers.

Why does everyone think they have an 'excuse?'

I do not think the LCBO should be involved. This is between me and the brewer. As I said, I would like to see the issue fixed and recommend rejecting any useless product. I will only know how much I have lost, if any, over time. But until I know I have a loss, I can't in good conscience demand repayment - especially as it is a great brewer with a limited capacity to make things right. So not an excuse but I have certain sympathies.

Agreed. I'm not sending mine back nor am I asking for a refund...HOWEVER I didn't get what I paid for and the bottles I have are all potentially ticking bombs until I can find a capper to properly seal them. I've addressed the issue with the brewer and recieved an unsatisfactory response so...the matter is done for me, lesson learned about HOTD. For those more adversely affected I fully support them asking for their money back or for replacements for the rejected cases. Both seem unlikely outcomes for all the reasons already stated.

Belgian wrote:All the sympathy about 'aww he's a small brewer, it's not his fault' - horse manure, guys!
...
Why does everyone think they have an 'excuse?'

I'm the only one who brought up anything about him being a small brewer. If you read my post more carefully, you will see I said nothing about it not being his fault, or making excuses. The first line of my first post was:

Not to excuse Hair of the Dog in all this...

And this line:

Belgian wrote:I mean sure, now he's gonna be all self-righteously pissed about ever dealing with 'those troublesome Ontarians' ever again...

Is exactly why I posted what I did. Because I don't with that sentiment. I'd say it's far more likely that he is distressed with the situation, and doesn't know what the best course of action to deal with it is. You're making the brewer out to be a demon when its as likely that they just made a mistake and may not fully have the means to rectify it.

I'd say it's far more likely that he is distressed with the situation, and doesn't know what the best course of action to deal with it is. You're making the brewer out to be a demon when its as likely that they just made a mistake and may not fully have the means to rectify it.

That's a fair speculation.

I got a response from HOTD regarding my negative e-mail about my cases (with pics):

*****
Those are some pictures. I have never seen damage like that, looks
like the trip was very hard. I have had work done on my capper,
sorry for the disappointment.
*****

Good luck getting 'anything' back from them...

That is a straight "rip".

*****
Those are some pictures. I have never seen damage like that, looks
like the trip was very hard. I have had work done on my capper,
sorry for the disappointment.
*****

Nice response. Way to own up to the problem... No more purchases from me regardless of a fixed capper or some new fabulous release.

Al of Kingston wrote:I do not think the LCBO should be involved. This is between me and the brewer. As I said, I would like to see the issue fixed and recommend rejecting any useless product. I will only know how much I have lost, if any, over time. But until I know I have a loss, I can't in good conscience demand repayment - especially as it is a great brewer with a limited capacity to make things right. So not an excuse but I have certain sympathies.

I disagree. The LCBO effects a local monopoly on acquring this beer, and takes a substantial profit for the sole duty of facilitiating the exchange. (They didnt have to store inventory, or front up front capital, or really do anything at all) The only value we get out of this as consumers is local representation. So yes, I believe the LCBO has a duty to correct this error with thier customers.

Re: the Email response:

[sarcasm]

That WAS some hard trip! I mean the LCBO imports millions of bottles all the way from Europe & Asia every year, and they generally have caps on them when they get here. So for sure the shippers are at fault just this time...

[/sarcasm]

(That's what I mean by total lack of accountability.)

Apparently the problem isn't with the capping according to HOTD. The problem was with the transportation. What, did they ship it in the back of this truck?

Bad shipping can cause damage, but other, totally clean cases have arrived with loose caps to various people.

Which means in spite of handling (we don't know) Frosken's order may not have been a loss if the caps had been reasonably well put on. The average person would have a hard time making a two-four explode like Frosken's two cases did!

Note there is no broken glass, and the cases are not deformed or punctured in any way - so where are the clear signs of mis-handling? I say the damage resulted principally from cap failure - a known defect.

Belgian wrote:Bad shipping can cause damage, but other, totally clean cases have arrived with loose caps to various people.

Which means in spite of handling (we don't know) Frosken's order may not have been a loss if the caps had been reasonably well put on. The average person would have a hard time making a two-four explode like Frosken's two cases did!

Note there is no broken glass, and the cases are not deformed or punctured in any way - so where are the clear signs of mis-handling? I say the damage resulted principally from cap failure - a known defect.

Ummm, I was making a joke? I posted about the loose caps almost a month ago.

Jon Walker wrote: Ummm, I was making a joke? I posted about the loose caps almost a month ago.

Yeah I enjoyed the joke. It's a ludicrous situation.