futronic posted:

You're honestly asking for transparency from the LCBO?

Yeah I know it might be a bit too much to ask for but at the end they are a Clown (sorry Crown) Operation and accountable to the Ministry of Finance. Public access to records should be granted under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

futronic posted:

Anyway, I didn't get any of the bourbon from the recent allocated offer. Disappointed I didn't get any Weller's 12, as I'm running low.

Same here.

 
 

It seems to be common knowledge (and I’ve heard it from a few people in the industry) that certain big spenders get their bottles of these low allocation wines prior to the “random selection” for the general public. As for the supposed random process: who knows? Drawing names out of a hat?

sunnylea57 posted:

It seems to be common knowledge (and I’ve heard it from a few people in the industry) that certain big spenders get their bottles of these low allocation wines prior to the “random selection” for the general public. As for the supposed random process: who knows? Drawing names out of a hat?

That is the big question how random their random selection is. How come the winners are never announced? They can basically act as they please.

vinelouse posted:
futronic posted:

You're honestly asking for transparency from the LCBO?

 Public access to records should be granted under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. 

This act isn't applicable to what individuals purchased, how they paid etc.  It's not carte blanche to go and snoop through the KGBO's treasure trove of data. 

i didn't get shit for the bourbons.... 3 people i know in town between the wine club and my office got Elmer T.... i wonder who got the big dog?.... i find it quite odd the LCBO process, i spend thousands and thousands per year at Vintages and have horrible luck with the LCBO lottery, others in my wine club will randomly enter a draw once in a blue moon, never buy anything from vintages and win! drives me nuts.

All I know is that they don't seem to allocate products as much to out of provincers. I got none of my orders of Chave or DRC. They seem to exclude non-Ontario addresses.

While I understand, I still think that's BS because I'm sure Ontarians can get limited SAQ courrier vinicole orders

futronic posted:

I definitely don't think the LCBO should be publishing what people were allocated and purchased. That's going *way* too far.

There's a huge difference between having an honest and equal allocation process and telling the world what someone purchased.

Totally agree. But a note  along 

Peter from Mississauga got a bottle of ...

would suffice and not harm anyones privacy. Not interested to trace down individuals, just looking for more transparency or a way that insider or buddy transaction would come to light. Open for other suggestions.

csm posted:
vinelouse posted:
futronic posted:

You're honestly asking for transparency from the LCBO?

 Public access to records should be granted under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. 

This act isn't applicable to what individuals purchased, how they paid etc.  It's not carte blanche to go and snoop through the KGBO's treasure trove of data. 

Fair enough. I can get info on my personal data which is collected by the LCBO but in what way can you find out that their allocation process is fair and square?

vinelouse posted:
futronic posted:

I definitely don't think the LCBO should be publishing what people were allocated and purchased. That's going *way* too far.

There's a huge difference between having an honest and equal allocation process and telling the world what someone purchased.

Totally agree. But a note  along 

Peter from Mississauga got a bottle of ...

would suffice and not harm anyones privacy. Not interested to trace down individuals, just looking for more transparency or a way that insider or buddy transaction would come to light. Open for other suggestions.

I still disagree with your statement. It's nobody's business what I purchase or get allocated. If I choose to tell someone what I bought, that's a different story.

To Sunny's point, if the process was made public, that's a different story.

I remember years and years ago, someone I talked to at Vintages said that they would print out all the Classics order and basically put them in piles/boxes for allocated items and physically pull one at random at a time and keep doing so until all of the product was gone. Agents also got a small percentage off the top too.

The whole format is so ripe for kickbacks, bribes, misappropriation and outright theft. I've had an employee tell me at First Canadian Place location that they always get at least a bottle of Pappy each year. 

The Double eagle sells for $38k in the US. That's such a huge delta there is no way that someone hasn't offered a little sweetener to get the bottle that was "held back in case of breakage."

Even just 5 years ago I would always get one bottle of DRC. So would my dad. Weirdly I no longer get anything, but my dad still gets one bottle of DRC each time.

I remember reading an article at one point about how in the recent bourbon craze among young and technically inclined buyers the LCBO had a massive number of fake Vintages Shop Online accounts created to increase peoples odds. The LCBO needed to take measures to weed out the fake ones. I'd speculate they removed all accounts from allocations that had been registered an an IP address shared by any other account. Around the time I stopped getting my DRC allocation I registered my wife for an account. I suspect I was flagged and now no longer get allocated offers. My father has always only ever used his own account and I'd guess that's allowed him to continue to get allocations. Maybe people on this board are suffering from the same problem?

 

winecanuck posted:

Even just 5 years ago I would always get one bottle of DRC. So would my dad. Weirdly I no longer get anything, but my dad still gets one bottle of DRC each time.

I remember reading an article at one point about how in the recent bourbon craze among young and technically inclined buyers the LCBO had a massive number of fake Vintages Shop Online accounts created to increase peoples odds. The LCBO needed to take measures to weed out the fake ones. I'd speculate they removed all accounts from allocations that had been registered an an IP address shared by any other account. Around the time I stopped getting my DRC allocation I registered my wife for an account. I suspect I was flagged and now no longer get allocated offers. My father has always only ever used his own account and I'd guess that's allowed him to continue to get allocations. Maybe people on this board are suffering from the same problem?

 

I have a similar suspicion. Here or there I wold get the occasional bottle but after my wife and adult son signed up (same IP address) it is dead silence. Nowhere in any of their statements it is mentioned that only one account per IP address is permitted. Again lack of transparency which leads to a lot of speculations. How is it possible that they can act as they please?

Have you called HelloLCBO and asked about their policy on allocated offers?

Also have a look at this:

VSO T&C of Sale

Specifically, section 4:

ORDER QUANTITIES

The LCBO reserves the right to limit order quantities. The LCBO may reject an order if it appears that you are attempting to circumvent an order limit including, without limitation, where multiple orders are submitted with the same customer information.

 

------

Now, what the LCBO deems as "... the same customer information" could be many different things, such as the same billing address, same credit card used, etc. You'd have to ask them.

If you're that concerned about it, then have a second account with different billing address (i.e., your office), different CC, and tether your laptop to your cell phone to have a different IP (or remote into the office to have a different IP, if you're really that concerned about it). I find it unlikely that the LCBO is tracking IP addresses on orders, but it's not out of the realm of possibility. I think the customer/billing details are a more likely culprit.

Also, in Section 15:

ALLOCATION ORDERS

Certain Products are available in limited quantities. The LCBO may indicate on the Website that the available inventory of such Products will be allocated among the orders (referred to as “Allocation Orders”) it receives prior to the ordering deadline. The LCBO reserves the right to allocate available inventory among Allocation Orders in such proportions as it deems fit, in its sole discretion. Accordingly, the quantity specified by you in an Allocation Order may be reduced by the LCBO, in its sole discretion. The LCBO will notify you regarding the quantity of Products that is allocated to you.

----

Basically, you'll get what they say you'll get, so deal with it. That has always been the overarching policy.

futronic posted:

Have you called HelloLCBO and asked about their policy on allocated offers?

Also have a look at this:

VSO T&C of Sale

Specifically, section 4:

ORDER QUANTITIES

The LCBO reserves the right to limit order quantities. The LCBO may reject an order if it appears that you are attempting to circumvent an order limit including, without limitation, where multiple orders are submitted with the same customer information.

 

------

Now, what the LCBO deems as "... the same customer information" could be many different things, such as the same billing address, same credit card used, etc. You'd have to ask them.

If you're that concerned about it, then have a second account with different billing address (i.e., your office), different CC, and tether your laptop to your cell phone to have a different IP (or remote into the office to have a different IP, if you're really that concerned about it). I find it unlikely that the LCBO is tracking IP addresses on orders, but it's not out of the realm of possibility. I think the customer/billing details are a more likely culprit.

Also, in Section 15:

ALLOCATION ORDERS

Certain Products are available in limited quantities. The LCBO may indicate on the Website that the available inventory of such Products will be allocated among the orders (referred to as “Allocation Orders”) it receives prior to the ordering deadline. The LCBO reserves the right to allocate available inventory among Allocation Orders in such proportions as it deems fit, in its sole discretion. Accordingly, the quantity specified by you in an Allocation Order may be reduced by the LCBO, in its sole discretion. The LCBO will notify you regarding the quantity of Products that is allocated to you.

----

Basically, you'll get what they say you'll get, so deal with it. That has always been the overarching policy.

Sounds fair. How else would you want them to allocate the wines? With someone ordering all the bottles on a first come first serve basis?

vinelouse posted:
winecanuck posted:

Even just 5 years ago I would always get one bottle of DRC. So would my dad. Weirdly I no longer get anything, but my dad still gets one bottle of DRC each time.

I remember reading an article at one point about how in the recent bourbon craze among young and technically inclined buyers the LCBO had a massive number of fake Vintages Shop Online accounts created to increase peoples odds. The LCBO needed to take measures to weed out the fake ones. I'd speculate they removed all accounts from allocations that had been registered an an IP address shared by any other account. Around the time I stopped getting my DRC allocation I registered my wife for an account. I suspect I was flagged and now no longer get allocated offers. My father has always only ever used his own account and I'd guess that's allowed him to continue to get allocations. Maybe people on this board are suffering from the same problem?

 

I have a similar suspicion. Here or there I wold get the occasional bottle but after my wife and adult son signed up (same IP address) it is dead silence. Nowhere in any of their statements it is mentioned that only one account per IP address is permitted. Again lack of transparency which leads to a lot of speculations. How is it possible that they can act as they please?

this is pure BS and if the case, very wrong... at the end of the day in a household, every member of the family over 19 years old has a right to enter the lottery. having multiple accounts under one name is wrong, but ultimately every Ontario resident over 19 has a right to enter. so if me and my wife both drink wine we might be blacklisted for trying to each get a bottle or DRC or Meo-Camuzet?

mimik posted:
futronic posted:

 

*snip*

ALLOCATION ORDERS

Certain Products are available in limited quantities. The LCBO may indicate on the Website that the available inventory of such Products will be allocated among the orders (referred to as “Allocation Orders”) it receives prior to the ordering deadline. The LCBO reserves the right to allocate available inventory among Allocation Orders in such proportions as it deems fit, in its sole discretion. Accordingly, the quantity specified by you in an Allocation Order may be reduced by the LCBO, in its sole discretion. The LCBO will notify you regarding the quantity of Products that is allocated to you.

----

Basically, you'll get what they say you'll get, so deal with it. That has always been the overarching policy.

Sounds fair. How else would you want them to allocate the wines? With someone ordering all the bottles on a first come first serve basis?

Is this question for me, Mim?

Add Reply

Likes (0)
×
×
×
×