Jump to content

Wine Laws -- Shipping, To-Go, and More


Recommended Posts

My understanding with VA is 2 cases per winery per month is the limit.
That's correct. I might be wrong, but this three tier shipping situation seems to be a recent development (e.g. in the past year). You know things are bad when Copain (one of my favorite wineries), will now ship to MD, but not DC. Torture...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 142
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

You can get more bottles shipped to Virginia, but there are certain wines that you cannot have shipped to Virginia, so the selection is smaller. I used to always have my wine shipped to a friends house in DC, I think that shipping to DC almost doubled or tripled my choices from wine.com, but that scam I was pulling ended a year or so ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was wondering about this as I received a call from a California producer whose mailing list I've been on for several years now. They wanted to let me know that they couldn't ship my entire three pack at the same time. I thought it might be the new ownership just being a stickler for the rules, as I hadn't heard of the one-bottle-per-month restriction before. Guess not. As it turns out, they've decided to send the entire shipment at once. We'll see if it actually gets here.

Meanwhile, I just took delivery of two cases from a certain New Jersey retailer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't run into a problem yet except with a winery in CA that I have since dropped. The last time they shipped me a sixpack, they asked me for six names and technically shipped one bottle to each person, all in the same box. Otherwise, everyone has been willing to ship as much as I order. It may help that they are shipping to a business address.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can get more bottles shipped to Virginia, but there are certain wines that you cannot have shipped to Virginia, so the selection is smaller. I used to always have my wine shipped to a friends house in DC, I think that shipping to DC almost doubled or tripled my choices from wine.com, but that scam I was pulling ended a year or so ago.

In reference to the shipping of wine to VA., I was recently informed that VA is a permit state, and that the Winery, wherever it may be in the US, has to pay a Tax Permit in order to ship wine to you. Therefore most of the smaller wineries will not do that, so they use private shipping comapanies, and then you get charged out the *** for shipping costs. Best bet is to make nice with a Restauranteur, and get them to let you ship it there. Or to DC instead. Makes the mailing lists even more expensive than they already are

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've had 15 shipments of 1-3 cases this year to dc. fedex delivers. wine declaration on outside of box.

signed

confused.

Welcome to DR.com, mysterymeat! I am confused by this issue as well. I have one winery that will not ship to me here in DC, but every other mailing list I am on will gladly ship, as will zachy's, premier cru, etc. All told, I probably have had 15-20 cases shipped to me in DC this year. But, one winery comes three tier (shipped to Schneider's, then to me), and one will not ship to me, period. I have a friend in VA. who is nice enough to take delivery for me.

It's frustrating, but not as bad as MoCo...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The one bottle limit is clear in the law, but its enforcement is unclear fromthe evidence here. Ridge will not ship more than a bottle to DC while other wineries I know will so do. It all depends on how risk averse you are.

For example, it is illegal to ship wine from Italy to the US without a custom's broker etc involved. Yet 100's of people get shipments from various wine shops in Italy every year. However I personally know of 2 people who has cases of wine stopped and put in bond, One instance was to LA and one to MD. The MD case just resulted inthe wine being destroyed by government officials. In the other, they had to go get a custom's broker and pay huge amounts of money to get their wine released. The worst part about it was that the wine was stored in a non temperature controlled area and it arrived ruined and they could not get a claim wither from the shipper, seller or their own insurance policies because it was an illegal transaction. When you are talking about 2 cases of Brunello that is a lot of dough just for the wine, not to mention the $500 for the customs broker!

The upshot is that when you talk shipping, you pay your money and you take your chances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pleased to report that the NorCal winery whose new owners were afraid to ship more than a single bottle to DC per month wound up sending the full three-pack, which arrived just fine --- sandwiched, as it was, between full-case shipments from Seattle, Sonoma and Springfield, NJ. Take THAT, DC wine police!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do state-wide Maryland issues/legislation belong here and MoCo specific issues here?

Does anyone know the prognosis for the bills noted in ShipCompliant Blog?

House Bill 1260 and its companion, Senate Bill 616, would establish a system where permitted wineries and wine retailers could ship directly to Maryland residents.

The bills are endorsed by Maryland consumers, Maryland wineries, out-of-state wineries, and out-of-state retailers. But, these groups need help and are calling for action because the wholesaler lobby will fight the bills fiercely.

Their website includes a call to action. If these bills are passed will it "fix" the MoCo Conundrum too?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Death Notice for House Bill 1260

There's unfortunate news in yesterday's Balto Sun:

Panel corks bill on buying wine via Internet

House committee kills plan to allow online purchases

By Gadi Dechter | sun reporter

March 8, 2008

A House of Delegates committee yesterday rejected a bill that would let Maryland consumers buy wine directly from Internet merchants and wineries, as is permitted in at least 35 other states.

The bill was also debated yesterday in the Senate, though its chance of passage appears slim.

<snip>

Sen. Jamie B. Raskin, the Montgomery County Democrat sponsoring the bill, yesterday railed against "antiquated economic protectionism" that benefits liquor distributors and merchants. Though a self-described "teetotaler," Raskin exhorted his colleagues to "create a free market in wine. ... Free the grapes!"

Bruce C. Bereano, a lobbyist representing the Licensed Beverage Distributors of Maryland, argued that Raskin's bill would hurt Maryland wineries, reduce distribution-related jobs in the state, hamper tax collection and make it easier for minors to obtain alcohol.

"If you make it so profoundly easy for national wine brands to get their product directly to consumers, they're going to take out Maryland wineries," Bereano said.

The association representing state wineries disagrees.

"The ability to ship wine to a consumer is one of many methods provided by law in other states to encourage the growth and prosperity of small wineries," said Maryland Wineries Association executive director Kevin M. Atticks in his written testimony. Maryland's current laws are "frustrating for consumers and almost impossible to explain to customers," he said.

<snip>

Raskin testified that "tens of thousands" of Marylanders currently evade the law by having Internet wine purchases delivered to Washington or Virginia, costing the state potential sales tax revenue.

Comptroller Peter Franchot provided written testimony in support of the bill.

<snip>

Because of current law, Maryland consumers are prevented from gaining access to "more than 90 percent" of the wine produced in the United States, according to Raskin.

But he acknowledged before yesterday's hearing that his bill would be a hard sell in the General Assembly. "It's always a tough fight when a majority of people stand up for the common good against entrenched special interests."

Thank you Sen. Raskin for sponsoring this bill. I'm sorry it was "corked" and that the Washington Post, the newspaper read by many of your constituents, hasn't covered this story. Without an alert from a lurker :mellow: , I'd have missed this article.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard this morning that the DC Council has adopted legislation that will allow patrons to take unfinished bottles of wine with them, putting the District on a par with Virginia in this regard. Anyone know more about this -- e.g. when will it become effective?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard that Proof restaurant is offering doggy bags for wine, in compliance with DC's recent "merlot to go" law. One unfinished bottle of wine per person. Are any other DC restaurants doing this yet? This has to be good for restaurateurs, since customers may be more likely to buy a nicer bottle of wine if they can take the unfinished portions home, rather than feel compelled to drink the whole bottle or leave it behind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard that Proof restaurant is offering doggy bags for wine, in compliance with DC's recent "merlot to go" law. One unfinished bottle of wine per person. Are any other DC restaurants doing this yet? This has to be good for restaurateurs, since customers may be more likely to buy a nicer bottle of wine if they can take the unfinished portions home, rather than feel compelled to drink the whole bottle or leave it behind.
We are offering the wine dogie bags as well. Be sure that the restaurant puts the receipt in the bag with the bottle so you won't get in trouble with the open container law. Technically, the doggie bags are only for wine bought in the restaurant and so cannot be used for wines you brought in for corkage!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those who order from wine.com, they have a promotion of 15% on an order of six bottles of wine. Just enter code SUPERSALE at checkout. Ends 1/31/2009.

There is fantastic discounting on the internet right now. Wine Library, Wine Chateau and a host of others are offering 25-30% off including WS top 100 wines if you are willing to buy by the case. Many stores such as Cecile's, Schneider's and Arrowine will seriously consider matching their price. Recently I've found that Wade's wines in Simi Valley north of L. A. will go 25% off on most CA cabs and are very dependable in shipping them here. Grapes in CT. will similarly negotiate on case or more purchases of better wine. Cecile's gave me 20% off on two cases of 2006 Querciabella a couple of weeks ago. My point is that if you are willing to buy in some volume you can go almost anywhere and negotiate. Deals are there today on wine that a year ago didn't exist. Less of a hassle is buying from Costco who vary from ten to twenty + per cent off on a fairly limited but interesting selection of wine. Total has some value, too, on more popular wine as does Calvert Woodley, Circle and Chevy Chase buy you are going to pay almost 10% D. C. sales tax.

Also check out www.winezap.com and www.wine-searcher.com Both are especially valuable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard that Proof restaurant is offering doggy bags for wine, in compliance with DC's recent "merlot to go" law. One unfinished bottle of wine per person. Are any other DC restaurants doing this yet? This has to be good for restaurateurs, since customers may be more likely to buy a nicer bottle of wine if they can take the unfinished portions home, rather than feel compelled to drink the whole bottle or leave it behind.

That's true... Proof restaurant (as well as many others) offers "Wine To Go" bags from http://www.togobrand.com. I am the owner of Togobrand.com - and if your favorite restaurant isn't offering our wine-to-go-bags, please let them know where to get them. I'd also like to offer to answer any questions about this specific legislation and similar laws that have been passed in over 30 states now...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did the Maryland-model inspire this Congressional bill?

Proposed Law Would Limit Interstate Wine Shipping

<snip>

Yet as welcome as these lifelines are, they may be threatened by a bill introduced earlier this year before the House of Representatives, the Comprehensive Alcohol Regulatory Effectiveness Act of 2010, or H.R. 5034, which has the potential to severely restrict direct interstate shipping of wine by retailers. Direct sales from wineries could be threatened, too, although the current language of the bill appears to focus more directly on retailers.

Proponents, including beer and wine wholesalers, say that that is not the intention of the bill, which would make it far more difficult for wineries and retailers to challenge state laws in the federal courts. Instead, they say, it would merely reaffirm the authority of the states to regulate alcohol sales, and diminish the authority of federal courts, which they say have been confusing and inconsistent. They also suggest that they are trying to prevent minors from illegally obtaining alcohol.

Opponents, however, including wine and beer producers, retail shops and importers, assert that states already have ample regulatory authority. They say the bill is meant to protect beer and wine wholesalers, who have been cut out of the loop by the rise of direct sales. Wholesalers have set their well-financed lobby to work for the bill and have liberally doled out campaign contributions to supporters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really. This bill was drafted by the beer wholesalers lobby, which is afraid lawsuits will allow big box stores such as Walmart to buy beer directly from breweries - something that would obviously be beneficial to Walmart, Anheuser-Busch, and Michelob lovers everywhere. As written, it could make it exceedingly difficult to challenge state laws that restrict direct shipping of any alcohol beverages, including wine. That's why nearly everyone in the industry except the National Beer Wholesalers of America and the Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America is opposed to this bill. And several state attorneys general who are tired of defending their discriminatory laws from challenges.

Yet despite all the opposition, the bill seems to keep gaining co-sponsors ... funny how that works in an election year when the wholesaler lobbies pour donations into campaign coffers faster than you can say "spit bucket."

I wrote about this legislation in The Post back in May, as well as in my regular Thursday entry on the All We Can Eat blog.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Supreme Court has just ruled (5-4) that laws banning the shipment of wine between states are invalid.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority, "States have broad power to regulate liquor. This power, however, does not allow states to ban, or severely limit, the direct shipment of out-of-state wine while simultaneously authorizing direct shipment by in-state producers."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/scotus_wine_shipments

good to know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to the offical report to the People's Republic of Maryland Comptroller Commissar:

The chief principle of these and other similar organizations is “consumer choice,” which is at odds with the purposes of the three- tier distribution system: (1) obedience to law; (2) orderly distribution of alcoholic beverages; and (3) temperance.

Paging Mr. Orwell...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I say this every year it seems, but this year has the best chance so far of passing.

That said, I am a realist. I will not believe it until I see it.

Tom Wark has a posted a lot of information on this topic at his blog Fermentation. He lives in California but I think that he has testified in a number of state legislatures, including Maryland's, on this issue. This is a link to one post, but there are others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom Wark has a posted a lot of information on this topic at his blog Fermentation. He lives in California but I think that he has testified in a number of state legislatures, including Maryland's, on this issue. This is a link to one post, but there are others.

I follow that blog regularly...thanks for posting the specific link. I think it is a mistake that, if MD passes a law to allow direct shipping at all (still a big if), it will exclude out of state retailers and auction houses. But, it'd still be progress. One step at a time I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I follow that blog regularly...thanks for posting the specific link. I think it is a mistake that, if MD passes a law to allow direct shipping at all (still a big if), it will exclude out of state retailers and auction houses. But, it'd still be progress. One step at a time I guess.

Here is some more from Tom Wark today about proposed Maryland direct shipping legislation. For a guy who lives in California, he sure knows a lot about Maryland. He does not seem to be very optimistic about a decent law getting passed this year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And that is sad considering the speaker of the house is a sponsor... I looked to make sure the delegates I worked during my time there are all signed on (they are) or I was going to call them up and yell at them. I am tired of going to Western Maryland and drinking crappy wine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He does not seem to be very optimistic about a decent law getting passed this year.

Yikes! Scott Graham's article in yesterday's Baltimore Business Journal really hangs the black crêpe paper:

A funny thing happened on the way to swift approval this year of direct shipment of wine to Marylanders — the state’s powerful alcoholic beverage lobby got involved.

<snip>

Since Raskin and Ivey filed their companion bills in late January, two other lawmakers in the House have submitted similar — yet also very different — direct wine shipping legislation.

Del. Charles E. Barkley, a Montgomery County Democrat, filed a bill that would allow in-state and out-of-state wineries to ship to individuals. But his bill wouldn’t allow retailers to ship wine directly.

Barkley said House Bill 1175 is in response to concerns he has heard from retailers who are worried they might lose business to larger out-of-state wineries or wine merchants.

“We’ve had [no direct shipping] up to now, but the sentiment is to start slowly and see where this goes,” he said.

Meanwhile, Del. Tom Hucker, another Montgomery Democrat, has introduced another direct shipping bill that would permit in-state retailers to mail wine, but not allow out-of-state retailers to ship to Marylanders.“

It just makes sense to give in-state retailers a leg up on the out-of-state retailers like Wine.com,” Hucker said. “And helping the in-state retailers helps to raise taxes and create jobs for the state.”

Hucker, whose bill would permit in-state and out-of-state wineries to ship directly, said his legislation also places tougher restrictions on the labeling and mailing of the product. House Bill 1079 also sets a higher direct wine shipper’s permit fee — $300 versus $100.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has everyone written to their representatives in support of the bill (being heard on Friday). You have today and tomorrow to do so. Easy link.

Wow! Your link now updates the recent Maryland House & Senate vote:

House Bill 1175 and Senate Bill 248 were voted on the floor today and both bills passed.

A more extensive article in today's WaPo, by Ann E. Marimow and John Wagner, includes an interesting reason the General Assembly is getting to these bills:

Maryland consumers soon could be allowed to order wine from out-of-state vineyards. They likely could see new restrictions on the kinds of toys and infant formula containers they can buy. And before long, residents may be able to take their dogs to outdoor restaurants.

With barely two weeks remaining, this year’s session of the Maryland General Assembly could well be remembered not for any signature initiative but for a raft of modest bills, meant to help consumers, that affect day-to-day routines.

<snip>

House Majority Leader Kumar P. Barve (D-Montgomery) said some of the action on consumer legislation amounted to “cheap liberalism,” while other movement has come on bills “that have been hanging around for a long time and were overdue.”

<snip>

The House also approved a bill Saturday that would allow residents to ship bottles of wine from vineyards to their homes. To the delight of wine aficionados, Maryland appears poised to join the District, Virginia and 36 other jurisdictions nationwide that allow such shipments.

The House approved the bill 135 to 1, and a similar measure is pending in the Senate.

"It's going to pass, and it's going to help our consumers," said Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr. (D-Calvert).

Wine connoisseurs have long complained about not being able to order rare vintages from other states. Suburban Washington residents have skirted the rules by shipping bottles to their offices in the District or to the homes of friends in neighboring Virginia.

Despite years of opposition from the powerful alcohol industry, the General Assembly has advanced legislation in both chambers that would make it legal to ship 18 cases of wine per year, per household.

In a compromise with the industry, legislators eliminated a provision that would have allowed consumers to ship wine from specialty retail stores and Web sites.

<snip>

On a lighter note, the House has approved legislation that would authorize restaurant owners with outdoor seating areas to allow customers to bring their dogs along.

The measure, dubbed the "Dining Out Growth Act of 2011," passed 124 to 8 on Friday, and several delegates "woofed" in acceptance.

Any ideas about which Maryland restaurants would allow canine connoiseurs to dine al fresco?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The day is finally coming: wine shipping in Maryland becomes legal on Friday.

Alas, only 11 wineries have applied for the ridiculous 200 dollar permit. But I'll celebrate with a case of Pride or something.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/bs-md-wine-shipping-20110620,0,794487.story?page=1

If you're a winery and even thinking about getting a permit: step-by-step directions

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alas, only 11 wineries have applied for the ridiculous 200 dollar permit. But I'll celebrate with a case of Pride or something.

More than 150 wineries have now applied and about 78 of them are through the process!

So, who are they? Go to Maryland Tax system website's Permit Database

On the search page's query fields select:

> Permit Type drop down menu: DW – Direct Wine Shippers

at the bottom of the same screen

> Permit Status: Active

> Page Size – Drop down number >100 results per page.

> Hit the SEARCH button and give thanks.

In the results page, click on the blue permit number for winery contact information.

Next wish: that the STATE drop-down menu will allow selection of any individual state. Currently, list only includes the Mid-Atlantic region's states and isn't a lot of help for California or Washington state travel planning.

When in a west coast tasting room, I'd just like to answer the question "where are you from" without being met with a facial expression that says "you poor dear, it must be so difficult living in a cultural backwater."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It should be noted that it is now legal for Maryland residents to have wine from domestic USA wineries ship to you. Not sure about international shipments from wineries abroad.  What I do know is that it is still illegal for a Maryland resident to find a deal on a good wine online via a retailer and have it shipped to them. This is nuts, not sop much for wines that are purchasable locally, but mores for wines that simply are NOT stocked by Maryland retailers (which really means not stocked by the couple of major Maryland distributors).

<sigh>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...