Vinomofo Wine Deals

[burmans]

'
The wine is whatever it is, regardless of whether they put 5 Red Stars or 5 Stars on the webpage. It just makes it a little bit harder to figure out what it is. Anyway, they've fixed it.

If such a thing is such a deal breaker for you, then just don't buy from them. And in the event that you really wanted a wine from a 5 Red Star producer (regardless of what it is), you can always send it back for free no questions asked.

Methinks this is really #firstworldproblems

Yes, have to agree with this, I don't think you can complain too much a description of a wine that is intentionally a bit opaque, on the basis that this descriptions is well "a bit opaque". If you want certainty go to your (expensive) local store.

 

[Dr Ralph]

Methinks this is really #firstworldproblems

If you regard consumer protection law and the possibility of going to gaol for breaching section 29 of the ACL as a first world problem, then make sure you tell that to the judge right before sentencing.

COMPETITION AND CONSUMER ACT 2010 - SCHEDULE 2 The Australian Consumer Law

 

[AnonymousCoward]

If you regard consumer protection law and the possibility of going to gaol for breaching section 29 of the ACL as a first world problem, then make sure you tell that to the judge right before sentencing.

COMPETITION AND CONSUMER ACT 2010 - SCHEDULE 2 The Australian Consumer Law

No one's going to jail for unintentional mistakes. Lots of shops make mistakes all the time. Heck, lots put E&EO disclaimers on the bottom of their advertising.

My point about #firstworldproblems, in any case, wasn't problems VM might face, but the rather excessive (IMHO) wailing and gnashing of teeth from customers. I think there's bigger things to get worked up about. And if you really do think it's a big deal, then there's lot of other places to source wine from.

 

[pilatus]

Yes, have to agree with this, I don't think you can complain too much a description of a wine that is intentionally a bit opaque, on the basis that this descriptions is well "a bit opaque". If you want certainty go to your (expensive) local store.

I didn't know there were different rules for expensive retailers and discounted retailers?

 

[Dr Ralph]

No one's going to jail for unintentional mistakes.

It appears that you are not a lawyer.

You might want to do some reserach about the ACL and the differences between sections 18 and 29.

I stated section 29, not section 18.

Section 29 IS a criminal offence.

Factors which would determine the punishment for breaches of sections 18 and 29 are the frequency of the events. VM are no strangers to providing false and misleading information in their advertisements.

Heck, lots put E&EO disclaimers on the bottom of their advertising.

Disclaimers are acceptable and are covered by other sections of the ACL.

 

[Dr Ralph]

I didn't know there were different rules for expensive retailers and discounted retailers?

Have a close look at section 18 of the ACL, it does not distinguish between business types (unlike the previous equivalent sections of the TPA):

COMPETITION AND CONSUMER ACT 2010 - SCHEDULE 2 The Australian Consumer Law

 

[Dr Ralph]

My point about #firstworldproblems, in any case, wasn't problems VM might face, but the rather excessive (IMHO) wailing and gnashing of teeth from customers.

You obviously aren't a supporter of consumer protection law. And that's fine. Although I hope you don't mind being electrocuted when you buy your next toaster or USB cable.


You can't selective have some of the benefits of the ACL without understanding and appreciating all of the benefits which flow from that statute to you and perhaps other member of the public who can't be so selective about where they shop.

Caveat venditor and caveat emptor are very different ideals.

I state again for you that a breach of section 29 constitutes a criminal offence. Claiming that you couldn't go to gaol for accidently committing a crime is not correct. That would be akin to claiming that you didn't intend to kill someone - it's still at the very least manslaughter.

 

[buzz]

Honestly, I have never known any use for James Halliday reviews until finding Vinomofo and the black market deal clues. JH's reviews themselves are utterly useless. IMO anyone who buys wine on a JH review really needs to look a little further.

 

[AnonymousCoward]

It appears that you are not a lawyer.

You might want to do some reserach about the ACL and the differences between sections 18 and 29.

I stated section 29, not section 18.

Section 29 IS a criminal offence.

Factors which would determine the punishment for breaches of sections 18 and 29 are the frequency of the events. VM are no strangers to providing false and misleading information in their advertisements.




Disclaimers are acceptable and are covered by other sections of the ACL.

This is rapidly going off-topic. I know enough from law school (yes, I studied law a long time ago) - no one's going to jail for unintential mistakes (well, there's no such rule, but generally criminal offences require intention, and unintentional mistakes, reckless indifference aside, do not attract criminal sanction). And especially not the accidental substitution of "red 5 stars" for "5 stars". And if anyone was mistakenly induced into purchasing such wine, VM will take it back without question, at their cost. So, time aside, no one's really suffering any damage or injury as an outcome. Storm in a teacup methinks.

You obviously aren't a supporter of consumer protection law.

Just because I have a *different opinion* to you doesn't make a non-supporter of consumer protection law. I certainly am. But I'm not in favour of ongoing posts complaining about VM's mistakes here. There are too many posts here (again IMHO) that are no more than "VM always makes mistakes". That doesn't contribute anything (it's not even pointing out what the mistakes are, or helping people figure out the wine), it's just complaining. You've made your point before. You don't need to make it over and over again.

 

[davegus]

Agreed. Either take them to court or the ACCC if you feel so strongly, and/or start another thread that is just 100% complaining about VM, and don't buy their stuff. Or call VM and tell them you think they are breaking the law, and tell them you can assist them in not breaking the law and will take payment in *correctly and legally* advertised alcoholic beverages of your choice.

 

[The Director]

This is rapidly going off-topic. I know enough from law school (yes, I studied law a long time ago) - no one's going to jail for unintential mistakes (well, there's no such rule, but generally criminal offences require intention, and unintentional mistakes, reckless indifference aside, do not attract criminal sanction). And especially not the accidental substitution of "red 5 stars" for "5 stars". And if anyone was mistakenly induced into purchasing such wine, VM will take it back without question, at their cost. So, time aside, no one's really suffering any damage or injury as an outcome. Storm in a teacup methinks.



Just because I have a *different opinion* to you doesn't make a non-supporter of consumer protection law. I certainly am. But I'm not in favour of ongoing posts complaining about VM's mistakes here. There are too many posts here (again IMHO) that are no more than "VM always makes mistakes". That doesn't contribute anything (it's not even pointing out what the mistakes are, or helping people figure out the wine), it's just complaining. You've made your point before. You don't need to make it over and over again.

Well said - I just want to know what the wines are if I cannot find out myself - I have a choice then to decide whether I buy or not - no one forcing me to

Ps - I also hope the Cabernet today is the Fox Gordon that Beefarmer raved about

 

[redbigot]

Agreed. Either take them to court or the ACCC if you feel so strongly, and/or start another thread that is just 100% complaining about VM, and don't buy their stuff. Or call VM and tell them you think they are breaking the law, and tell them you can assist them in not breaking the law and will take payment in *correctly and legally* advertised alcoholic beverages of your choice.

If all the merchants who made misleading claims or who had errors in their adverts went to jail there would not be many left. Look at what Get Wines Direct have been able to get away with over the years.

And the distributors/producers who call up merchants to lean on them to increase prices because they think they are too cheap.

Or the case where a winemaker blended leftovers of two medal winning wines and told the merchant they could claim the medals from the two wines for this completely different wine. I have a copy of the email from the winemaker to the merchant on this.

Have you heard of the "black snake" used quite a bit in warm vintages in warm climate wine areas?

Get real, if pollies who clearly admit to breaking the law don't get prosecuted, small stuff like VM making (too many) relatively minor mistakes will be greeted by polite platitudes and laughter when you hang up.

There is some really dodgy stuff happing in the wine industry from production to sales, but proportionally it's pretty small and not too many people get hurt because generally you can get a refund for faulty wine or wine not matching a detailed description.

I'm still waiting for my Mitolo Cantiniere Shiraz 2013 to arrive, that's potentially more of a VM and Mitolo credibility issue from early reports.

 

[AnonymousCoward]

Ps - I also hope the Cabernet today is the Fox Gordon that Beefarmer raved about

Cab Sauv 2014 is the Fox Gordon Brothers and Sisters.
The Cab Malbec blend is Jeanneret Westward We Went

HTH

 

[The Director]

Cab Sauv 2014 is the Fox Gordon Brothers and Sisters.
The Cab Malbec blend is Jeanneret Westward We Went

HTH

Thanks for confirming "AnonymousCoward" - I bought some - I do like some Barossa Cabernets.

 

[buzz]

Hey all, my Westward We Went arrived today and it is a cracker. Lovely berry fruit on the nose, nice mouthfeel with some firm, but not too intrusive tannin, good acidity and moderate length to boot. Would age for a few years if you could be bothered but drinking quite nicely now. An absolute bargain at $8.10 a bottle. I mean, what else are you going to drink at this price point?!

 

[AnonymousCoward]

Good to know it's good, especially since I took a punt on this today myself Fox Creek Fox and Hounds is my fav quaffer at the moment. I think it was a similar price IIRC

 

[buzz]

I would rate it as close to the Fox and Hounds shiraz cabernet 2013 (although F&H probably has a better pedigree and ageing potential) and the Glenlofty 2012 shiraz (which I personally think is a drink now or within 24 months). We are splitting hairs largely given the quality of these wines at these absurd prices. So many more wines I would like to buy given deeper pockets! I know there is a fair bit of "down" views of VM at the moment, but from the perspective of someone who never saw "the good ole days" I am in love!

 

[buzz]

It is also significantly better drinking than the Fox and Hounds straight cabernet right now, although I think that will come into it's own in 3-5 years.

 

[beefarmer]

Anyone going to jump on todays black market deal or pass on it?

I am going to open a Mitolo tonight and will report back my thoughts

Well said - I just want to know what the wines are if I cannot find out myself - I have a choice then to decide whether I buy or not - no one forcing me to

Ps - I also hope the Cabernet today is the Fox Gordon that Beefarmer raved about

Hi Director, I had to use the search window to find my review of the Fox Gordon 2014 cabernet. That's todays one as people have said. I can still remember me bringing one to Pete's place, cracking it and Pete saying "Geez it's smooth". A young wine that will last a decade as they say on their label. I absolutely loved it and everyone who buys it will also. Looking forward to a lot of reviews from everyones recent Fo purchases.

Talk of the Mitolos' character certainly makes me think of the Winemakers Reserve Tomich pinot. Surely this is a way to ruin your credibility putting out such inferior wine. First they dump the I-777 because it was prematurely oxidising. Luckily my bottles tasted incredibly well, but..... and secondly, Randall drops this Winemakers Pinot on us with words on the label espousing 'our finest, and other such adjectives." Surely this is bollocks to people who know their game, but could they delude some mug cask wine drinker ? You bet. Someone who sees the inflated 'was so much'price tag and now it's a bargain. Thankfully we can send all the cough back because that's what it is. But rubbish for some is Salvation case for others. God help those !

 

[Rocket09]

Is the Mitolo causing some issues? I thought I had only seen positive responses by those who have tried it on this forum?