Gran Habano New STK Box distasteful

[maestrobasser]

The afterthought is claiming this was done to benefit a cause, not that the artist was used. I don't even know where you are trying to come from with that angle...doesn't make sense. No one questioned the, ahem, after reading Hendy's post, "artist" being involved. The question was not why the guy's work, sorry at this point I can't even put artist in quotes and italics and make it work, wasn't on the website, but why no mention whatsoever of this project was. When a major manufacturer works with a specific cause on something like this, they tend to get that cause involved in some way or other. It keeps things like this from happening, because I can pretty much guarantee that said group would have said, "uh, no thanks" had this project been presented to them as it is being handled.

There has been a press release stating that part of the proceeds will benefit a charity. Are you trying to suggest that won't actually happen, that it was only stated as some kind of cover? LOL.

Also, last time I checked wasn't a ton of love for anyone in the tobacco industry, nor is GH hardly considered a huge manufacturer IMHO, nor is this likely to bring in vast sums of money for the charity since these smokes are only supposed to be a limited run. So I can't necessarily agree with your assumptions about it not being posted on the charity's website. Sorry.

Bottom line, they released a clarification for the artwork, announced money would be donated to the charity, and it is what it is. I fail to see the need to be "suspect" or doubt it's purpose or the manufacturer. But then this isn't the first time people have bashed GH for whatever reason or reasons unbeknownst to me.

 

[sean]

You can give all the money to every charity in the world for all I care. I don't think an edgy rendition of a photo that features a teenage boy slinging an AK belongs on any cigar packaging. I don't care if it is on a box of GH, Tatuaje, or if Jesus Christ himself transcended the heavenly plane, rolled the cigars himself, and placed them in the box.

The suspicions arise when, initially, there was no hint at where the proceeds were going in any press releases. Later, a press release comes out saying they are giving money to Invisible Children. Invisible Children has no mention of the charity... I don't know what school of thought you follow, but this smells like rocky mountain oysters that spent too many days in the hot sun.

 

[Jwrussell]

There has been a press release stating that part of the proceeds will benefit a charity. Are you trying to suggest that won't actually happen, that it was only stated as some kind of cover? LOL.

Also, last time I checked wasn't a ton of love for anyone in the tobacco industry, nor is GH hardly considered a huge manufacturer IMHO, nor is this likely to bring in vast sums of money for the charity since these smokes are only supposed to be a limited run. So I can't necessarily agree with your assumptions about it not being posted on the charity's website. Sorry.

Bottom line, they released a clarification for the artwork, announced money would be donated to the charity, and it is what it is. I fail to see the need to be "suspect" or doubt it's purpose or the manufacturer. But then this isn't the first time people have bashed GH for whatever reason or reasons unbeknownst to me.

First of all, yes, sampling other songs to create new ones is art by theft. :tiphat:

Beyond that, I think you seem to be trying to take statements that are being made and make ludicrous jumps of il-logic with them. The man put out a press release stating some of the proceeds will go to the charity. It would be a completely moronic move not to now send some of the proceeds to said charity. My point, which I thought was fairly obvious, was that I doubted his intentions to do so from the start.

Doesn't matter really. I find the "artwork" offensive, I think the entire publicity process on this offering was bungled from the start, regardless of true intentions and I find the "artist's" work banal and unimaginative.

 

[jmatkins]

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://gallery.mailchimp.com/293f83e079a78278004bc5c34/images/zulu_zulu.jpg&imgrefurl=http://cigarcatadore.blogspot.com/2011/07/gran-habano-cigars-stk-zulu-zulu.html&usg=__-TbYo54NWZ5JrEgyn3vq1MTvXzQ=&h=332&w=423&sz=170&hl=en&start=5&zoom=1&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=P4zWufoTwajTjM:&tbnh=99&tbnw=126&prev=/search?q=Gran+Habano+STK+Zulu+Zulu+box+art&um=1&hl=en&sa=N&biw=1345&bih=544&tbm=isch&ei=xYQcTqKxLaar0AGjwqTdBw


Here is another article about the boxes that gives more meaning to what he was doing. Not sure if this was already posted.

 

[portercolin50]

yes i think that the box art is wrong on alot of levels

 

[portercolin50]

there are better ways to get charity

 

[strife]

This is silly, as silly as the Dion=Devil worship crap. I don't smoke boxes or cigar bands, I smoke cigars. Now if you told he had little kids working as slave labor making the cigars I could understand, but pissed at imagery? Seriously?

 

[JNT]

IMO he should donate all profits to the cause. To profit a penny off that type of advertising is wrong. Maybe next time he can donate to children who are exploited sexually, and put some inappropriate picture of an abused child on the box and really set off a firestorm for a 'good cause'.

 

[itallushrt]

This is silly, as silly as the Dion=Devil worship crap. I don't smoke boxes or cigar bands, I smoke cigars. Now if you told he had little kids working as slave labor making the cigars I could understand, but pissed at imagery? Seriously?

agree, 100%.

 

[Sin]

Took a survey at a college that I am at about this and the general response from people is that "big fat rich guys are marketing African child soldiers to sell their 'luxurious' cigars". Makes the cigar industry and us, as consumers, look pretty bad. I probably shouldn't have shown them the pictures in retrospect lol

 

[JNT]

Dion=Devil worship crap

I thought that had been proven like E=mc2

 

[itallushrt]

"big fat rich guys are marketing African child soldiers to sell their 'luxurious' cigars".

Stereotyping at its finest.

 

[Sin]

Tell me about it, ugh. Think I gave them the bullet to shoot me in the head with (good thing I didn't have my usual cigar in hand).

 

[tx_tuff]

Seriously though, how are the cigars?

George gave me one of these cigars a couple years ago, yes the same cigar, his personal lancero that he smokes and has made just for him.

The cigar lacked flavor for myself, and was mild to med in body. Not something I would smoke on a reg basis and not something I would buy. But if you like mild to med body cigars that lack flavor you may want to buy a box.

 

[Jwrussell]

Stereotyping at its finest.

Unfortunately, it is what it is. We either fight it or ignore it to our peril.

 

[maestrobasser]

First of all, yes, sampling other songs to create new ones is art by theft. :tiphat:

Beyond that, I think you seem to be trying to take statements that are being made and make ludicrous jumps of il-logic with them. The man put out a press release stating some of the proceeds will go to the charity. It would be a completely moronic move not to now send some of the proceeds to said charity. My point, which I thought was fairly obvious, was that I doubted his intentions to do so from the start.

Doesn't matter really. I find the "artwork" offensive, I think the entire publicity process on this offering was bungled from the start, regardless of true intentions and I find the "artist's" work banal and unimaginative.

The supreme court disagrees with your first opinion in more than one ruling. Sorry. :nono:

My attempts to point out the glaring holes in your comments make about as much sense as you insisting the whole thing was a sham from the begining and this is a cover up. No less of an "il-logic" jump, since you have ZERO proof of this being the case, and I can't really say I can see the logic of GH using this particular artwork on cigar boxes unless their intentions were to somehow bring attention to or tie into the charity initially... unless you think he's planning on selling these $9.00 cigars to "all the cool kids" because they have edgy artwork their parents would disapprove of. :rofl: You originally started out as suspicious because there was no explantion behind the artwork. Then when you get an explanation you basically started calling it a lie because you don't like the artwork being used as a marketing tool. Silly.

Lastly, while I'm no fan of the artwork myself I am a strong supporter of letting people retaining their various rights, and this falls under free speech- regardless of if you find the artwork offensive or not is of little relevance especially since there is nothing obscene or graphic about it. Poor taste, possibly. Did the lack of information from the start on the intent of the campaign maybe bite Rico in the ass? Could be. But your continued "YOU CANNOT LIKE WHAT I DON'T LIKE" mentality is something I find "banal and unimaginative" as well as insulting. You don't like it? Don't buy it. Don't tell me or others how "offensive" or "poor taste" or "evil" or "bad" it is if we choose to do so. That's a two sided blade and I would expect a BoTL to understand all about rights, choice, etc etc.

Your continued barking sounds way too much like the censorship and nonsmoking pundits that try to force their idologies down others throats, much like you have tried to do through this entire thread in regards to this stupid artwork and even more stupid argument.

 

[Le Buzz]

Just part of the latest trend for trying to make your cigar seem "badass." Uzis, weapons of mass destruction, m80's (not as much but still), etc etc.

Gimmicky and tasteless all of them are.... this one just happens to cross the line into inappropriate.

 

[strife]

"Politically correct cigar smokers". Oxymoron? :dunno:

 

[Craig Mac]

wow, all this over a cigar box......

 

[Jwrussell]

Wow, I'm not sure how you passed reading comprehension, but you really need to start paying better attention. I must like the feeling of banging my head against a wall, but I'll try one more time.

The supreme court disagrees with your first opinion in more than one ruling. Sorry. :nono:

Perhaps my smiley wasn't smiley enough for you. That was an O-PIN-ION. I wasn't arguing a legal point. The comment was meant to be light hearted.

My attempts to point out the glaring holes in your comments make about as much sense as you insisting the whole thing was a sham from the begining and this is a cover up.

Insisting? I've done no such thing. I've simply pointed out reasons that bring the entire deal into question in my mind. And I never said anything about it being a "sham from the beginning".

No less of an "il-logic" jump, since you have ZERO proof of this being the case, and I can't really say I can see the logic of GH using this particular artwork on cigar boxes unless their intentions were to somehow bring attention to or tie into the charity initially... unless you think he's planning on selling these $9.00 cigars to "all the cool kids" because they have edgy artwork their parents would disapprove of. :rofl:

I don't need "proof" to have an opinion, and GH's explanation is sketchy at best. It may be true, however it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. People do things that don't make sense to me all the time, but that is still my opinion of the matter.

You originally started out as suspicious because there was no explantion behind the artwork. Then when you get an explanation you basically started calling it a lie because you don't like the artwork being used as a marketing tool. Silly.

The first sentence of this quote is just about the only thing you have correct in this entire post when it comes to my positions. First, I haven't said it was a lie. I've said there are reasons to doubt the explanation. And the reasons have absolutely NOTHING to do with me not liking the artwork. That is a completely separate concept and an opinion I hold. The two really have nothing to do with the other. If they were linked, yes, it would indeed be silly.

Lastly, while I'm no fan of the artwork myself I am a strong supporter of letting people retaining their various rights, and this falls under free speech- regardless of if you find the artwork offensive or not is of little relevance especially since there is nothing obscene or graphic about it. Poor taste, possibly. Did the lack of information from the start on the intent of the campaign maybe bite Rico in the ass? Could be. But your continued "YOU CANNOT LIKE WHAT I DON'T LIKE" mentality is something I find "banal and unimaginative" as well as insulting. You don't like it? Don't buy it. Don't tell me or others how "offensive" or "poor taste" or "evil" or "bad" it is if we choose to do so. That's a two sided blade and I would expect a BoTL to understand all about rights, choice, etc etc.

And I would expect a BoTL to be able to understand the concepts he's railing about within his own post. I thought the above paragraph started out talking about the concept of free speech? Yet you end with wanting to tell me what I can and can't say? I've never said you couldn't like anything. I will however argue my point of view and opinion as much as I like. You are welcome to disagree and to not like my point of view as much as you like, but just as I won't tell you what to say, I expect you to do the same. You don't find it offensive or over the line? Fine, buy 'em up. You won't get any competition from me.

Your continued barking sounds way too much like the censorship and nonsmoking pundits that try to force their idologies down others throats, much like you have tried to do through this entire thread in regards to this stupid artwork and even more stupid argument.

No reason whatsoever for me to even bother rebutting this last statement. It pretty much stands as its own rebuttal.



You have a wonderful day now and I hope your next cigar is one to remember. :thumbsup: