you speak for me when you say thank you lol. i thought it was a completly childish video from the accusations to the language and attacks at a company.Quote:
Originally Posted by Browns7213
Printable View
you speak for me when you say thank you lol. i thought it was a completly childish video from the accusations to the language and attacks at a company.Quote:
Originally Posted by Browns7213
You speak for me too. I'm not going to get into bashing him too much and tread jack, but he strikes me as a arrogant clown.Quote:
Originally Posted by Browns7213
Actually if Cigars International threatened to sue Byran Glynn and he backed down, then that makes both parties look terrible.
First off, CI has the shadiest marketing and advertising practices I've ever seen on the internet, with perhaps the exception of some eBay merchants from Hong Kong. For example, calling cigars "90 Rated Masterpieces!!" when in reality the cigar merely uses the same band as a cigar that was rated 90 a decade ago, strikes me as outrageous (and likely illegal). Implying that the Greycliff cigars you see on Cbid are rolled in the Bahamas. Etc etc etc. I could go on and on.
If I were Glynn, and CI threatened to sue me, I'd gladly let them, and then use the discovery process to gather information about their marketing practices and ship it all to the feds. Then I'd hit 'em with an anti-SLAPP countersuit and collect legal fees. Might even turn it into a class-action and then retire. But then I'm an attorney, not a lot of people have the stomach for that.
Anyway, the point is that Glynn was either wrong or he's a pansy. And Cigars International was either unfairly accused or it's a morally degenerate bully. I'd like to know which, and the fact that nobody will talk about it makes me believe they're all corrupt.
"You seem to have more than the average share of intelligence for a man of your background," sneered the lawyer at a witness on the stand.
"If I wasn't under oath, I'd return the compliment," replied the witness.
God decided to take the devil to court and settle their differences once and for all.
When Satan heard this, he laughed and said, "And where do you think you're going to find a lawyer?"
A man walks into a friend and sees that his friend's car is total loss and covered with leaves, grass, branches, dirt and blood. He asks his friend, "What's happened to your car?" "Well," the friend responds, "I ran into a lawyer." "OK," says the man, "that explains the blood... But what about the leaves, the grass, the branches and the dirt?" "Well, I had to chase him all through the park."
http://www.lumixfreunde.de/lumixfreu...miley_rofl.gif
^^^^ until you need one, my friend, until you need one ;)
I had a large hard stem inside of a Padron 64 Anniversary. Emailed Padron a couple times but never even got a response. I smoked it, and it was delicious. I hope the next one I smoke has a big ol' stem in it too :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Skeat5353
Truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ropey
I think all of these scenarios have some truth to them. On one hand, BG was wrong about calling the products "fakes," and I wouldn't blame CI for feeling aggrieved. But as you said, CI has some questionable marketing practices, and while I don't agree with how he went about it, BG's actions did serve to highlight some of those practices. I think there's legitimate beef with CI here, and anyone who has purchased from them has the right to air that grievance publicly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ropey
But you have to remember BG has this CO enterprise, where people around the world send him free cigars, and he does what he does. Many of us may think he's a clown, but to a specific subset of the cigar community, he has a good reputation. He also has business outside the cigar industry. I could see where he may not want this fight with CI, in deference to his other interests. Does that make him a pansy? Well, probably. I'm not saying I agree with him, but I understand.
Oh I am aware... trust me on that. Unfortunately 'the law' is more corrupt than the lawyers could hope to be. Talk about an old boy's club! My go-to attorney retired and the guy who took his place is a crook. Does nothing and charges $500 for saying 'Hi'. He's one I'd chase thru the park.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ropey
Ah but in all truth the reason we need lawyers is that they wrote the laws...Quote:
Originally Posted by Ropey
Amen!!! I'm like you. It's not that I like lawsuits over the tiniest infractions, but I love justice with all my heart and soul, just because there is so much injustice in the world. So if CI is a scam that practices fraudulent marketing strategies, and Glynn has a half decent attorney, he should go after them. It's worth a try. Just because CI is some big online retailer with deep pockets, they can bully some little dope on Youtube who opened up a cigar they sold to him, shut him down, humiliate him, shame him and, for all intents and purposes, utterly undermine his credibility; that doesn't seem right at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ropey
I'm not a big fan of petty litigation. If some dipshit rearends me at 35 MPH and my neck and back are a little sore, I'll shake it off. I literally love-tapped a guy in a parking lot once. No damage to either car. Gave him my information. A week later I get a call from an attorney, telling me I'm liable for injuries. The guy all of a sudden developed a herniated disk (yeah right) and I needed to pay for it.
But I think in this case, Ropey, you are correct. I'm so tired of the big guy bullying the little guy in this country. America, at one time, was all about the success of the little guy. Now these big corporations with their Ivy-league legal teams are pushing everyone into the same corner. Where's Uncle Joe who owned Uncle Joe's Hardware store on Main St.? He's working for $8 an hour at Home Depot because he didn't have the power to fight back. And before you know it, Uncle Joe's gonna be eating spicy Won Ton soup in Beijing because he can't find work in his own country at a decent, livable wage.
Okay, done extrapolating here. Bryan Glynn, if you have half a brain and half a pair, go after these scum and take them down. Expose them for what they are: a fraudulent organization that peddles garbage for the same price as gold. But I really like the class-action idea. Brilliant. I've ordered from them. Where can I sign?
I don't see how CI looks terrible here. If they're unfairly accused, then they're not a morally degenerate bully. If they're fairly accused, maybe Glynn would stand up to them. Either way, at best CI looks fine, and at worst we don't know anything more than we knew last week.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ropey
As far as everyone wanting to sue the retailer, what? Did CI manufacture the product? I doubt they dissect anything, let alone samples of everything they sell. If Glynn had gotten that infamous stem-filled Padron from CI, should CI be sued for that too? I don't see how anyone is so damaged by this episode that anyone needs to go to court for a few years and a couple hundred thousand bucks. I know everyone wants to take shots at the big guy and win the lottery (thus, in this case, driving up cigar prices for the rest of us by the way), but come on. We're talking about a $1.50 cigar, not an exploding vehicle gas tank.
I guess you are right. A prolonged legal battle over $1.20 cigar is silly. However, I think that CI forcing him to remove the video with legal repercussions is wrong. I try always to support the small guy. I buy local, I buy from smaller online retailers. I like to support small businesses. Sure you pay a little more, but to me that's just an investment in a healthy local economic climate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cardinal
I like to still believe this is a free country. If a 'self-obsessed' dope like Bryan Glynn (nod to Emperor Zurg! LOL) wants to show his viewers a cigar that was marketed as 'premium' but turned out to be scraps from the rolling room floor, he should have that right. If I'm paying $2 for a cigar, when really it should cost 50 cents and when it's being marketed as 'premium' (which implies a cigar of $8-10 value), so that I am fooled into believing I'm getting an $8 cigar for $2 and I should really only be paying 50 cents for it, well then I have been deceived by the company selling it. Period.
If I want to then make a Youtube video exposing the marketing scam, I should have the right to do so, so long as my claims are not libelous or false. If CI did indeed sell a $2 cigar under the guise that it was 'premium' (thus implying a higher value than what it's currently retailing for) and if it was indeed not 'premium', then I should have the right to expose the marketing scam to people. It follows along the same lines as "THE LEMON LAWS" now in place in most states to protect suckers like me from getting swindled and fleeced by sleezy carsalesmen.
But I remember when I first started out. I opened up all the catalogs in the mail and read about this brand and that brand. In an attempt to save money and at the same time pursue a cigar hobby, I just figured a 'premium' was a 'premium.' Why spend $8 for a 'premium' cigar, when I could just as easily spend $2 and get the same product. A good friend of mine likes to say, "You don't know a good cigar until you've had a bad one." So here I am buying awful cigars that taste like crap and thinking all along they're 'premium.' Then, finally, I splurge on a 15-dollar cigar and BOOM. You know what the first thing I said to myself was? How can that website pass off that crap as 'premium.' It's fine to sell crappy cigars for $2. But to market them as if they are the same quality as an 8-dollar cigar is, in my humble opinion, wrong.
So here's Bryan Glynn. A dope with a cigar show. Great. Wonderful. He wants to show his more inexperienced viewers that CI is selling subpar product under the title 'premium.' It's no different than a used-car salesman selling you a lemon. He told me the transmission had been replaced recently, but it crapped out after 1000 miles. Well, CI is selling me a 2-dollar 'premium' cigar that isn't 'premium' at all. In fact, it's probably only worth 50 cents. But because I don't know any better, I think I'm getting a deal. Some of those cheap cigars are so harsh and awful, it surprises me they even sell for more than 10 frickin' cents.
Anyway, Bryan Glynn--dope that he is--still has a right to say whatever he wants, so long as he is not providing false and libelous information. Was the cigar marketed as 'premium'? Yes. Was it 'premium'? No. That's where it begins and ends for CI or any other cigar retailer trying to pass off crap as 'premium.' Like Ropey alluded to, these cigar retailers fall into an unregulated grey area and, until the FDA creates standards for the industry, any and all cigars could be considered 'premium.' All the FDA would have to do is create a standard like in the meat industry: Premium has this type of tobacco, Non-premiums has that kind of tobacco, etc., etc., etc. Until that day comes, cigars smokers will be buying shite and thinking it's 'premium.'
I'm not sure where you buy gold for $1.50, but I want IN.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skeat5353
The problem I have is that we're arguing over a $1.50 stick. Sure, CI makes outrageous description, but who in here takes that claim seriously? I think the bigger problem is the slandering of cigars that didn't need slandering. I think "unsmokable", "total crap", "floor sweeping", and top it off with "fake cigar" mentioned in the video is a bit much. Is there any merit to his mention? It's unprofessional and quite frankly upsetting when he knows he has quite a respectable cigar smoking audience in hand that takes reviews seriously. Let's not forget, having the attitude of getting something for nothing is what gets this economy in trouble in the first place. What is to be gained by doing that video? It could have been done with much more class.
I agree. Bryan Glynn has a wide audience. So what he says on his webcast has some influence on consumers. If he did call the cigar 'fake' because it contained short filler, then he is technically wrong on his part. Whether it is false or libelous is another question entirely. But again, Glynn is dealing in a gray area. What defines 'premium'? Has anyone ever seen cigars, cheap or otherwise, marketed as 'non-premium'? There's no such category. For Glynn to say that a cigar is 'fake' exposes him as someone who is uninformed in the tactics of marketing. CI has done nothing wrong other than sell a 'non-premium' cigar advertised as 'premium.' Fake, I don't think so. Misleading, perhaps.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tman
Marketing a cigar as 'premium' places it in the same group of real, high-end cigars, like Davidoff, My Father, Padron, Fuente, etc. That's where the deception lies. When CI tells you a cigar made with short filler is 'premium,' it doesn't mean that cigar is 'fake' as Glynn claims. It's just 'non-premium.' I think what we're talking about here is false advertising. When I watch a Carl's Jr. commercial and there's a super-model in a bikini with huge tits eating a massive 1/4 pound hamburger loaded with fat, I don't believe it. That's just common sense kicking in. But if I go buy that product and consume it, that's on me--not on Carls Jr. The same idea applies to Budweiser commercials. There's a bunch of hot chicks sucking down bottles of beer and everyone's having a great time. But when I go to my local bar, there's only sad, fat alcoholics sucking down Budweisers.
Until the Federal Government passes laws on the way cigars are marketed, CI is well within its legal bounds to market 'non-premium' garbage in the same market with genuine 'premium' cigars. Really it's up to us, the consumer, to discriminate. Nevertheless, Bryan Glynn has every right to make a video showing people what's in a cheap cigar marketed as 'premium.' That just protects the consumers of his audience. By the same token, until laws say otherwise, CI is well within its rights to market a 'non-premium' cigar as a 'premium' one.
Like the great P.T. Barnum said, "There's a sucker born every minute."
I agree. We're all better by being more well informed and we can all smoke a quality cigar together!
CI never sold it as a "premium cigar" its description said it was made with "premium tobacco". If you bought this cigar expecting Davidoff quality and premiumness for $1.60, you need your head examined.
I think there's a little bit of a difference between overhyping a crap cigar and buying a brand with a decent reputation, then selling crap cigars under that brand. That's what it appears, at least to me, CI is doing. We know they do that with Gurkha, and it seems like that's what happened here with at least the Los Blancos. I guess it's a fact of the industry, and they're probably not the only ones doing it. Just seems like a bait and switch, which to me is more sinister than simply referring to a shit cigar as "premium."
tons of things you buy are made by one company and rebranded as something else, and the descriptions for each is completely different, some touting that there product is better than the others, but in reality they are made by the same place and just have a different label on it. BIG one that comes to mind in the whole Porsche/VW/Audi thing, take some of the trim panels off of a Porsche Cheyenne (sp)and they have VW markings on the back, same parts that are made for the Toureg... Anybody going to sue Porsche because its not made with all Porsche parts? I don't think so.Quote:
Originally Posted by wabashcr
Even if they bought the rights to the Los Blancos brand, I believe they were 5-6 buck sticks before CI bought them, now the are sub 2 dollars.... I would think that that would raise an eyebrow before you put it in your cart. BG doesnt like CI, now CI doesnt like BG.... is what it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1979
Both very good points. But the use of the word 'premium' places the cigar in a different class. If I go to the butcher and he sells me a 'Prime' cut of beef for $2 a pound, when it really should be $10 a pound, I'm excited. But if that beef I bought is really 'Select' under the guise of 'Prime', then the butcher has deceived me. If the FDA finds out of this practice, then he will be fined and lose his license. Why are the same standards not in place for cigar retailers and consumers? If I buy what is advertised as a 'premium' cigar, then it should not contain 'non-premium' tobacco. The same way the butcher can't sell me 'Select' beef under the guise of 'Prime.' There should be standards, just like in the meat industry.Quote:
Originally Posted by wabashcr
When I buy a premium cigar, the band shouldn't matter. The tobacco under the wrapper is all that matters. And it should all be graded, because clearly there is a difference between the leaf used in a Padron '26 and $2 shit rocket. But there is no standard, other than the discerning palate, to place a rating on that difference. There is no way that a 2-dollar shit rocket should be branded under the same 'premium' umbrella as the Padron. But they are. To the uninformed consumer, they see 'premium' as the only standard, whether it's a high-end Tatuaje or low-end piece of garbage like the one Glynn dissected.
I need a typist.
*edit read it wrong* again it was not sold as a premium cigar, no where did it say that. Los Blancos Premiere is the name. it said it was made with premium tobacco, which in someones opinion it might be, in most peoples its not, im not debating the fact that the description is overly done, but so are 90% of the ones you see on ALL products, lotion, cars, food, beer, electronics, etc...Quote:
Originally Posted by Skeat5353
And isn't it nice to know that? Glynn was letting people know that about CI's crap sticks.Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1979
Glynn wasn't threatening to sue them. He just made a video showing that the cigar was trash with a formerly decent brand's label on it.Quote:
Anybody going to sue Porsche because its not made with all Porsche parts? I don't think so.
Let's take your analogy further. Suppose nobody knew that Porsches were actually mostly VW parts. So you made a video "tak[ing] some of the trim panels off of a Porsche Cheyenne (sp)and [and showing] they have VW markings on the back." And Porsche's lawyer called you and told you to take it down or else.
Would that be fair?
Again, would noobs necessarily know this? Not until they watch Glynn's (former) video :)Quote:
Even if they bought the rights to the Los Blancos brand, I believe they were 5-6 buck sticks before CI bought them, now the are sub 2 dollars.... I would think that that would raise an eyebrow before you put it in your cart.
Justin, I find your commentary very honest, stimulating, and sincere. I looked at the Los Blancos advertisement on CI and, yes, there is no mention of 'premium' any where on the page. But have a look at a few links here:Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1979
http://www.cigarsinternational.com/s...ment/#p-162826
http://www.cigarsinternational.com/c...-premium-2nds/
http://www.cigarsinternational.com/s...-box/#p-150816
http://www.cigarsinternational.com/s...r-iv/#p-140501
By the use of the word 'premium', CI is putting these cigars under the same umbrella as real premium cigars. I'm not bashing CI. They are well within their rights to market these cigars as such. But to the uninformed and uninitiated, these cigars are 'premium.' Cut them open, and you'll know how premium they are. The tobacco of these cigars is by no means 'premium' at all--not certainly in the same class as genuine premium cigars, like Fuente, Tatuaje, Padron, Davidoff, etc. But they're marketed under this umbrella. That doesn't mean they're fake, as Glynn claimed in his stupid webcast. But they are not 'premium' in any way.
I guess we can just agree to disagree. My FDA meat grade analogy was a bit off, only because there is not the same grading system in place for tobacco, like you indicated. But my point was that there should be a 'grading' system for cigar tobacco. There's no way that retailers should be able to slap a 'premium' label on a shit rocket and sell it for 10 times its true value. If some shlub with a Youtube web channel decides to expose that, it just doesn't seem right that CI can threaten him with legal repercussions and force him to remove a video. Again, it goes back to my small guy vs. big guy analogy above.
Like Ropey was alluding to in his post, I would've stood my ground and forced CI to reveal their shady marketing practices through discovery. And then settled out of court. I would've then taken the money and bought real premium cigars from a dealer in Hong Kong or Geneva! LOL
Don't mistake me at all. Bryan Glynn is a goofball. What amazes me is that he's had industry professionals on his shows, master blenders, industry execs, etc. He's got 10,000+ subscribers on Youtube. I can't watch him though. He has no personality whatever. Not a joke, not a laugh, no intelligence, just a boring loser in his backyard. I don't know why people watch him in the first place. But he still has a right to make his videos without legal pressure from some giant online retailer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Demuths1770
Hey, hey, hey! Let's not bring common sense into this argument :DQuote:
Originally Posted by jp1979
1. Dude, they were crap sticks before he cut them open, and still are after. Who cares.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ropey
2. See what you did there Mr. Glynn Jr? I never said "mostly VW parts" I said "not all Porsche parts". If they had to choose between us they would probably call you first.. my point is its all over the place.
3. is some one who buys and smokes dollar cigars really going to give a shit? Do you think that the quality of that cigar is any worse than other 1 dollar cigars, I doubt it....
I agree with ya, SkeatQuote:
Originally Posted by Skeat5353
He has every right to make his videos and post his arrogant opinions. More power to him. Hooray for Bryan (insert sarcastic clapping) He does not have the right to make things up and spread libelous accusations. "CI sells this as a long filler cigar" is just plain false. Slander and libel are illegal and kudos to CI for standing up to the jackass.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-QEl57twO5e...2Bjackass.jpeg
I can't believe this discussion has gone on for 11 pages...
Yep.Quote:
I can't believe this discussion has gone on for 11 pages...
I know this is all about a $2 stick, and it's pointless, but the bigger picture is what interests me. So if you'll indulge me, I'd change your analogy a bit. To me it's more like Porsche has a model, say the old 928, that they no longer want to support. Sales are down, and they have moved on to other projects. But then say a dealer in the US who has several Porsche dealerships, let's call him Ashley Schaeffer, decides to buy the 928 brand/label from Porsche, decides to continue making them in Viet Nam, and sells them as Porsche 928s at his dealerships for $20k. Obviously car people in the know would be aware of what's going on, and with the internet, it would be a lot more difficult to hide that from unsuspecting buyers. But selling them as Porsche 928s, like they were actually made by Porsche, seems flat out wrong to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1979
The last thing I want anyone to think is that I'm a Brian Glynn supporter. I'm not. I think he botched this from the beginning, and when it looked like it could backfire and affect his personal interests, he deleted everything and pretended like it never happened. But I still think we're left with a pretty shady and underhanded practice by CI. BG being a douche shouldn't let CI off the hook.
Ashley Schaeffer! You nailed it.Quote:
Originally Posted by wabashcr
http://i1329.photobucket.com/albums/...psxhkxu7o7.gif
Are you arguing that the cigar Bryan cut apart was only really worth being sold for $0.10-0.20?Quote:
Originally Posted by Skeat5353
What should machine-made cigars go for?
Porsche would never sell their brand because they wouldn't want their name tarnished, obviously David Blanco didn't care about that. If Padron did it, it would be an issue for me, but they like Porsche would never do it. I get everybody's big picture gripe, MY point and MY opinion is that this happens so much with so many other products that it just isn't an issue for me personally.Quote:
Originally Posted by wabashcr
Here is a description of what happened from David Blanco of Blanco Cigars. He presented this in a recent video:
“We changed the name of our company from Los Blancos to Blanco Cigars. We had left over boxes and bands and CI and I came to an agreement that they would be happy to take off my hands the packaging keeping the original thought in mind with regard to the blending profile, but for a much more reasonable price to allow it to be accessible in the mass market.
So, that was the agreement and the deal that we had, for which they held up their part of the agreement.
What CI told me was that the first shipment they received from the manufacturer that they contracted in the Dominican Republic was fine. Subsequent shipments for delivery have had problem issues that they are addressing and I have been assured that they are being addressed. But for those of you that got product that were substandard or not smokable...If you received anything of it from CI, or CBid or any of their other sites, please call customer service <Blanco Cigars> and they will take care of you, hands down.
Substandard product and product that is cracked or has beetles or anything else is unacceptable, I don’t care what band is on it.
So this is a problem they are having with the manufacturer they contracted with out of the DR, which I will not name because it would be very unprofessional of me and may be isolated. The product that they did have up there and I was present for had no problems. It was a lesser quality tobacco, but it is reflected in the pricing relative to what we charge for the Premier line that we have.”
I don’t think I would call this false advertising. If you see a $6-8 cigar suddenly selling for $2 and the company’s name has changed, I think you would figure out that they are not the same.
I don't know what actually happened here or how the cigar was advertised. To be fair I do remember seeing a little bit of long filler in the center though a majority was short. I guess what bothers me about this mentality, if someone were to plan and commit petty theft 20xs a day, do you think they wouldn't be facing a felony if caught? By consequence it's less lethal for a business, (perhaps not the insurance company) but for some reason I don't think the law would view this as a stack of misdemeanors no matter what state you're in. If these were truly bait and switched by CI, which I don't believe to be the case, even if the consumers were forgiving, I don't see the law being so blind unless there were a double standard providing immunity.Quote:
3. is some one who buys and smokes dollar cigars really going to give a shit? Do you think that the quality of that cigar is any worse than other 1 dollar cigars, I doubt it....
I believe this issue has roots a bit further back for BG. In a video a couple years back he discussed a common practice in the cigar industry (supposedly based on "insider" information that he received.). A manufacturer creates a premium cigar line that is a hit with consumers. They milk it for awhile until sales start fading or they run through their supply of that particular blend. Then the mfg sells off the line (including the name) and any remaining supplies to a "big box" type of retailer / wholesaler. The big box folks then highly discount the price and run with it. If it's a sales hit, they contract some OEM cigar mfg to make a decent replica at a price that will still be profitable at the lower price point. For certain price points this obviously means the mixed use of long, short and scrap fillers.
So in car terms, you wind up with a vehicle made from misc good and rejected parts with VW emblems and sold as new.
I don't understand the point of your post.Quote:
Originally Posted by herman
This is a great popcorn thread!
http://www.kappit.com/img/pics/201409_2045_cbhdd_sm.jpg
More of an observation. That actually made me post. I was hesitant to post or read any further, cause I really didn't care. I mean it was just a $2.00 cigar.
I actually didn't see lapithicus's post.
Thanks for the info.