Archive

Wine tales: Another LCB mess | TribLIVE.com
Editorials

Wine tales: Another LCB mess

Excessive consumption can disprove the Latin proverb in vino veritas — (“in wine there is truth”). Perhaps that’s why top Liquor Control Board officials can’t get their stories straight about the LCB’s in-house TableLeaf wine brand.

Conflicting accounts of the brand’s origin from Joe Conti, executive director, and Jim Short, marketing director, suggest TableLeaf is yet another example of LCB mismanagement.

In February, Mr. Conti told the House Appropriations Committee that TableLeaf resulted from suppliers pitching the in-house brand idea during a grape-juice glut several years ago.

But Mr. Short told the Trib he approached two distributors about the idea. He said one declined participation, the other required an order too large for the LCB — so he then approached a broker representing the maker of Trader Joe’s in-house “Two Buck Chuck” wine.

Conti told the House panel that Wine and Spirits Advisory Council members tasted samples from multiple vendors. They say they weren’t involved.

But Conti now tells the Trib an LCB wine educator and outside sommelier (a wine steward) did the tasting. They deny doing so.

Short says mostly LCB employees tasted samples only from the “Two Buck Chuck” maker but the Pennsylvania Wine and Spirits Association was invited to participate. Its executive director says it played no role.

Any credibility the LCB had left is gone.


TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.