Authenticity of Petrus Bottles

Dear All,

I am new to the forum but I have read and benefited a lot from the posts and chains here!

I am hoping to get your opinions on the authenticity of 3 bottles of Petrus from 1989, 1994 and 2000 which have been offered to me from a private cellar. The pictures are included below.

Your comments will be greatly appreciated! Merry Christmas All!

I am not an expert, but I don’t think Petrus started using cellophane until 2002

I see nothing.

Oh no, let me try to upload the pictures again later. They seem to be blocked.

Thanks for your time thus far!

Just re-uploaded the pictures again! It should be working fine now. Thanks!

unless they are really cheap, hard pass. First bottle looks like water damage. This ain’t from the 1940s. Why wrap cellophane around the other labels? Unless you may be trying to disguise some defect?

My guess is that the cellophane is simply in an effort to keep the already disintegrating labels somewhat intact. How well do you know the seller, and are you paying a premium for these?

Thanks Gents. Apparently these were auction bottles from Hong Kong in the late 2000s. Cellophane is meant to protect the labels from (further) damage.

I do not know the seller well and is paying a discount actually. Based on what I have read online, the labels seem to stack up against their vintages.

I see this a lot in Asia, particularly for high-end bottles where the collector/seller is trying to keep the label pristine

It’s pretty common, particularly if the label is already frayed. I’ve bought cellophane-wrapped bottles from Chambers Street. Never gave it a second thought.


I’d be much less worried about the cellophane (common as a preventative measure for label decay), and more about the provenance. The paper looks good and the capsules are the right Petrus red, but the only way you can really feel confident is by cutting the capsules and getting a look at the cork. If you’re very serious about buying, the seller may be willing to do this for you. If not, you shoot your shot and hope for the best.

I’m also not sure about when Petrus began branding the glass with their namesake, as it appears in the 2000 vintage above, but not the '94 or '89. Can anyone chime in on this? Possibly a domestic/export difference?

based on precisely no credentials whatsoever, the labels at least dont look obviously flawed to me.

That being said - why would anyone sell an 89 Petrus undervalued? That is a legendary 100 point wine. There’s no real reason to sell it under spec.

Can the person you’re buying it off provide any provenance paper trail?

Buying wine out of bond is such an Asian+American thing to do, I dont really get it.

Aren’t late 2000’s Hong Kong auctions exceptionally suspect? A lot of rejected Rudy bottles were making there way there, weren’t they?

Dunno why you’d touch them, tbh.

The grapevines on the bottom of the label look different on the 2000 vs the other vintages. Is that normal?

Not worth the risk. Most important thing about buying any wine, cheap or expensive, is provenance.

The whole label is actually pretty different if you look closely.


I just got in a case of 2000 Magdelaine in OWC, each bottle wrapped in cellophane. Was like, cool.

Care to elaborate? Not trying to defend these bottles, just genuinely curious to know what you see.

Between the '89 and '00 the tendrils curl in different shapes, the grape clusters are different shapes, the fleur de lis type curls next to both of his shoulders are different, the detail behind the character in the '89 is not there in the '00, his shroud is different, and the labels generally look like different print qualities. The closer I look, the more small changes there seem to be, really weird.