Can Anyone Confirm These McC Discontinuations?

[alan73]

Conjecture can be accurate sometimes and other times not so much.
I've also heard that when the McNiel's retire, it is likely that's the end of newly produced McClelland tobaccos. Something about not wanting his baby ruined by someone else, who was solely focused on profit, rather than high quality blends. Could be total BS, add that to the list of questions if Brian ever does an interview with him.
All that I know definitively, is that these type of posts drive actual sales of product.
Maybe it's all a marketing strategy to push sales in the here and now.

 

[mikestanley]

I sent an e-mail to Mary McNeil this evening. She has responded before, maybe she will again. If she does, I'll post it here.
Mike S.

 

[perdurabo]

I'm with Lazar on this one.

 

[perdurabo]

Alan, I assume a profit is the point of business. This ain't making music or writing a book.

 

[jguss]

Profit is the point of music and books too. Sam Johnson famously said "No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money."

 

[lazar]

[/quote]Profit is the point of music and books too. Sam Johnson famously said "No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money."

Tell that to all those people who play music or write poetry or stories without a hope in hell of it ever being released to the wider world, let alone making a dime.

 

[alan73]

Profit is definitely the goal. Or should be. It seems that tobacco blending could be considered an art form. Some blenders seem very willing to walk away from the market or chronically undersupply it.
I wish I could sit down with the heads of 4-5 tobacco houses and really find out what the hell is going on.
My dream list would be: Scandinavian Tobacco Group, Gawith Hogarth/Samuel Gawith, McClelland, the Germaine’s Esoterica people, and Universal (the dominant leaf buyer-broker in the world) . Two of these are large public companies.

 

[sablebrush52]

As it stands, there's nothing to prevent a 2018 Christmas Cheer (other than leaf shortage)

That would require them to have a recorded sale prior to August 8th 2016. Otherwise they would have to go through the damned Deeming process. So if there wasn't a recorded transaction for a Christmas Cheer 2018, 2019, etc, prior to 8/8/16, they would be in a tough spot. Recording a sale doesn't mean that the blend was in existence, ready to ship, just that there was a paid order for it. Hindsight is always 20/20.

 

[sablebrush52]

Tell that to all those people who play music or write poetry or stories without a hope in hell of it ever being released to the wider world, let alone making a dime.

Well, if you're going to make writing or music your profession, you better be making a profit at it, have someone supporting you, or be a trust fund baby. Doing something for the sheer pleasure and love of it is fine, but it doesn't pay the bills.

 

[aquadoc]

Jesse, could they release a Christmas Cheer 2016 since it made the cut? Obviously, it could be looked at as simply Christmas Cheer, a seasonal release.

 

[mikestanley]

Do you mean in addition to the 2016 they did release? Like naming all Christmas Cheer releases CC 2016?

Mike S.

 

[sablebrush52]

Jesse, could they release a Christmas Cheer 2016 since it made the cut? Obviously, it could be looked at as simply Christmas Cheer, a seasonal release.

Good question! I don't know. It would seem to defeat the whole point of the Christmas Cheer line, since every one was supposed to be an individual celebration of a particularly good single crop.
For all I know, they could have taken some of those reds intended for future Christmas Cheer releases and used them to create the 40th Anniversary blend.
It's a mystery...

 

[Chasing Embers]

For all I know, they could have taken some of those reds intended for future Christmas Cheer releases and used them to create the 40th Anniversary blend.

That was my take as well.

 

[aquadoc]

Well they could still do so, yes? As long as the ratios of the constituents is the same as the original recipe. And name changes are allowed, I think, under the deeming rules. I was just curious and I would bet it has been explored or discussed considering the popularity of the Cheer blends.

 

[lazar]

Well, if you're going to make writing or music your profession, you better be making a profit at it, have someone supporting you, or be a trust fund baby. Doing something for the sheer pleasure and love of it is fine, but it doesn't pay the bills.

True, I just meant money is not "the point" of art, and plenty of people do it for no money, which is why we have so many damn starving artists.

That would require them to have a recorded sale prior to August 8th 2016. Otherwise they would have to go through the damned Deeming process.

I guess I misunderstood because I thought the deeming regs and everything else was pushed back to 2021?
In any case, Christmas Cheer has been around since 1992? The actual name of the blend is Christmas Cheer, not Christmas Cheer 2017 etc., so I don't really understand the issue. Is it that the contents of each specific year would have to go through a testing process? :puffpipe: It will not be the first time government regs are perversely confusing.

 

[balkisobrains]

I think that McClelland called 40th a predicate blend in relation to any future CC releases, depending on what happens with the regs. So then they just have to worry about keeping the quality of the same constituents consistent over time.

 

[sablebrush52]

True, I just meant money is not "the point" of art, and plenty of people do it for no money, which is why we have so many damn starving artists.

The idea of "art for art's sake" is a fairly recent development. In the past, artists were very much businessmen, seeking out commissions, having a shop with assistants to handle the work flow, being members of guilds to help build business connections, or working essentially as servants in wealthy households.

In any case, Christmas Cheer has been around since 1992? The actual name of the blend is Christmas Cheer, not Christmas Cheer 2017 etc., so I don't really understand the issue.

The issue is that each edition is unique and each edition is a vintage composed from a different single crop (yes, red Virginia, but not THE SAME red Virginia), so under the benighted FDA rules these don't qualify as being in continuous production since prior to 2/15/07, and so don't get grandfathered in.

 

[aquadoc]

Ahh, well that sucks.

 

[metalheadycigarguy]

I've heard/read this suggestion on this forum many times, and I will echo that now.
Cellar Wide... Cellar Deep!!! The sooner the better.

 

[perdurabo]

Damn, SmokingPipes.com is out of some of these blends already. Unicorn race has begun.