From the New York Times:
I knew a guy like this in the wine business once- though he operated on a far smaller scale. Went from job to job in retail and restaurants, always with a bunch of BS stories about his background, always acting snobby and making his co-workers miserable, and then at inventory time each year after he had left a job the inevitable 1 bottle of each of a bunch of expensive wines had disappeared. He finally left town- and I heard nothing of him after.
I am sorry to see the NYT romanticize the tale of a serial common thief. In the personal situation I noted above, at one point early in the “game” I was the unwitting buyer of bottles that later turned out to have been stolen from a good friend. It happened to others too. Not much fun figuring that out and- being the unromantic and boring honest person- tell your friend what happened and personally try to make amends for someone else’s crime.
That Mr. Demeyer chose to commit the ultimate sin in the end is a terrible thing for which he must answer to a higher power- but I have no sympathetic or romantic notions about what drives the person who lives such a life, and the reality is many- if not most- of the people around him will be better off now.
+1000.
The idea from the article that he was “a hero for the age of inequality” is complete and utter BS. This guy lived the high life by stealing from other people. He was not some sort of Robin Hood, but a thief who envied what others had and stole to live their lifestyle. If you want to demonize Solomon and his excesses, go for it. I’ll be right there with you. But this guy was not a saint, just a common grifter.
Read the entire article yourself and decide whether it took the wrong tone.
To me, the article did not romanticize the thief or describe him as a saint. There was mention of the Robin Hood aspects, particularly in interviews with his friends, but the overall tone focused on his many falsehoods and his tragic suicide. An excellent article, in my opinion, but decide for yourself.
Phil Jones
The article seemed balanced to me. The aspects around his mother didn’t seem developed enough. Was she another enabler? or was she collateral damage to his pathos?
So in 2008, Mr. DeMeyer got with the times and pledged fealty to one of the city’s financial barons.
This is garbage. Where does one go to find their financial baron and pledge fealty? He got with the times?? From the article the guy was a grifter since he was old enough to drive and clearly not comfortable in his own skin or name for that matter.
There is absolutely nothing new in this article from the several written before it so I have no idea why it was written. Earlier stories highlight that the family treated him with respect and gave him a well paid job. He stole their assets, violated their trust. Just because they have money doesn’t make that ok or any less of a crime.
Their is no correlation between wealth and integrity, but the undertones of classicsm or us vs. them, poor against rich, yellow jackets vs the govt is a very bad trend.
Who writes like this?
"the whole city operates on avaricious class aspirational indentured servitude,”
So many big words.
Also may want to merge threads…
The other thing I was thinking about – from the mothers perspective – every time someone googles up her kid this story about how he was a bon vivant traveling thief will be the first thing that pops up.
That’s a crummy epitaph.
Good point. The fact that he committed suicide is pretty crummy, too.
On the whole, a very sad story for all concerned, but particularly sad for the thief and his family.
I had not heard the story before, so I am glad the New York Times published the article, if one can be glad to read a sad story.
Phil Jones
But he wasn’t “a grifter since he was old enough to drive”. There is zero evidence in the story that he did anything illegal before he was exposed to this multi-million dollar wine collection and started stealing from it. The story tries to cast this vague cloud of glamour and suspicion around him but he appears to have had a rather ordinary life. Playing it like he had fancy parents when he was in college seems about the extent of it before he started stealing wine.
The whole thing is very sad. Like a lot of crime stories it is more pathetic than glamorous. I feel sorry for his parents.
This.
Guy was a dick and a thief, good thing about jumping he saved taxpayer money for jail. He was a grown man who deceived and stole. All this liberal crap is nonsense, just because someone doesnt miss something because they are wealthy it does not make theft anyless of a crime
I do not understand why this article has triggered so much venom. People seem to be picking at nothing, or picking at quotes contained in the article and pretending that the entire article supports those quotes, or picking at particular words that the author chose to use. The article seemed pretty normal to me. Why all this venomous criticism? Since when is it appropriate to say that someone’s suicide is “a good thing”? Do people have too much time on their hands? Are they frustrated writers who are jealous that someone else is writing for the New York Times? Did someone once steal a bottle of wine from them? Where is all of this coming from?
Phil Jones
I don’t think the piece called De Meyer a saint and there was no “romantization” of him at all. If anything, it’s the story of a sad person perhaps mixed about his identity with illusions of grandeur.
Sign of the times, Philip, sign of the times. These are the same people who will say what a great bro you are for sharing that Chambertin with the exquisite perfume with them while living materially well in this life but then turn like snakes on you if nick their labels/capsules or if someone else received their limited allocation instead of them. Compassion is sorely lacking.
Such compassion.
I read the entire piece and would generally agree that was not the overall tenor of the article, but you must admit that a subtitle that asks whether he was a “hero for the age of inequality” certainly has an air of romantiziation.
Sorry, i have compassion for people who steal food to survive or similar. No compassion for someone who steals to provide themselves a lavish lifestyle at someone elses expense, once maybe but over years, that does not deserve compassion.
You missed the point entirely. No one is asking for compassion for the theft. But compassion for someone who committed suicide is not too much to ask. Good grief.
Phil Jones