WineXpert Wine Kit Volume Discrepancy?

[crushday]

I was noticing a wine kit volume discrepancy between Winexpert and RJS 8L kits today. See the images below:

WE lists 8L as 2.11 gallons of must - which is the actual volume of eight liters.

RJS list 8L as 3.17 gallons of must. I thought maybe the difference might be the flavor pack added for an off-dry kit. However, the volume is actually listed on dry red wine kits.

Does anyone have an explanation?

 

[She’sgonnakillme]

I was noticing a wine kit volume discrepancy between Winexpert and RJS 8L kits today. See the images below:

WE lists 8L as 2.11 gallons of must - which is the actual volume of eight liters.

RJS list 8L as 3.17 gallons of must. I thought maybe the difference might be the flavor pack added for an off-dry kit. However, the volume is actually listed on dry red wine kits.

Does anyone have an explanation?

View attachment 86886

View attachment 86887

that's a head scratcher for sure!

 

[sour_grapes]

I was noticing a wine kit volume discrepancy between Winexpert and RJS 8L kits today. See the images below:

WE lists 8L as 2.11 gallons of must - which is the actual volume of eight liters.

RJS list 8L as 3.17 gallons of must. I thought maybe the difference might be the flavor pack added for an off-dry kit. However, the volume is actually listed on dry red wine kits.

Does anyone have an explanation?

View attachment 86886

View attachment 86887

My explanation: Math is hard!

On a more serious note, 3.17 US gallons is exactly 12L. I imagine is was a simple oversight in the labeling.

 

[Rocky]

My explanation: Math is hard!

On a more serious note, 3.17 US gallons is exactly 12L. I imagine is was a simple oversight in the labeling.

I have a theory that expands on Paul's thought. My first job out of college was as an IE with Westinghouse in the Printing Division. We did work only for Westinghouse. Reprints, which were subsequent printings of a job, were very common when more of the printed product was needed by the customer. Instead of starting every job from scratch, we would keep the film used to burn the offset printing plate. If the job were a straight re-print, no changes would be made. However, there were a number of jobs that had a lot of similarities in the print, and we would only make the relevant changes to the film layout. What I suspect happened here is the film for a 12L kit box was picked up and the stripper (the person who laid out film or made changes to existing film) was supposed to change the 12L to 8L, which he apparently did, and change the 3.17 to 2.11, which he did not. Things like this happened all the time.

 

[cmason1957]

My explanation: Math is hard!

On a more serious note, 3.17 US gallons is exactly 12L. I imagine is was a simple oversight in the labeling.

I have a theory that expands on Paul's thought. My first job out of college was as an IE with Westinghouse in the Printing Division. We did work only for Westinghouse. Reprints, which were subsequent printings of a job, were very common when more of the printed product was needed by the customer. Instead of starting every job from scratch, we would keep the film used to burn the offset printing plate. If the job were a straight re-print, no changes would be made. However, there were a number of jobs that had a lot of similarities in the print, and we would only make the relevant changes to the film layout. What I suspect happened here is the film for a 12L kit box was picked up and the stripper (the person who laid out film or made changes to existing film) was supposed to change the 12L to 8L, which he apparently did, and change the 3.17 to 2.11, which he did not. Things like this happened all the time.

I tend to agree with Rocky, except I think the 8L was correctly changed and the 3.17 US Gallon wasn't changed to 2.11.

Another data point the Cru Select is labeled as 12 L, 3.17 US Gallon.

 

[sour_grapes]

I tend to agree with Rocky, except I think the 8L was correctly changed and the 3.17 US Gallon wasn't changed to 2.11.

Uhhh, that is exactly what @Rocky said!

 

[cmason1957]

Uhhh, that is exactly what @Rocky said!

Doh!! I read his to fast late last night.

 

[Rocky]

Doh!! I read his to fast late last night.

Soma time Imma no writa de Englisha too good!

 

[cmason1957]

Soma time Imma no writa de Englisha too good!

Can I help it that Fortran, Assembler, C, C++, C-Sharp, Java, Javascript, HTML, SQL, Prolog, and Lisp are my first languages. English is much to hard for someone with as simple a brain as mine.

 

[winemaker81]

Can I help it that Fortran, Assembler, C, C++, C-Sharp, Java, Javascript, HTML, SQL, Prolog, and Lisp are my first languages. English is much to hard for someone with as simple a brain as mine.

Lisp? Did therapy help?

 

[cmason1957]

Lisp? Did therapy help?

Nope, but Lots Of Ignorant Stupid Parenthesis did.

(Actually, Lisp is one of the older higher level languages still in use developed in 1958, the name comes from LISt Processing.) I did a fairly significant amount of Artificial Intelligence programming at one point. Even tried to get a robot to program itself or at least learn where it was supposed to be drilling holes based on the tooling around it. Never really did work out.

 

[winemaker81]

Nope, but Lots Of Ignorant Stupid Parenthesis did.

(Actually, Lisp is one of the older higher level languages still in use developed in 1958, the name comes from LISt Processing.) I did a fairly significant amount of Artificial Intelligence programming at one point. Even tried to get a robot to program itself or at least learn where it was supposed to be drilling holes based on the tooling around it. Never really did work out.

I used a couple of versions of LISP in college ... which ensured I'd never do it again! Gotta have a great editor to track the parenthesis.