John,
Don is an expert [and is recognized as such] in these types of matters and has set forth why he believes it is fake. While nothing in life is a sure thing except death, Unless proven otherwise, I would go with Don, as he is very very knowledgeable in this matter.
I know Don is an expert in these matters. But nothing is absolute on stuff like this until the trail is followed completely. There seem to be enough anomalies in this thing that I think more info is to come before making that declaration. My point was that I hope we can see all the information come out before this thing gets settled, just so we have more data for next time.
Yes Don is an expert, but but as John notes, nobody has perfect knowledge - that said, a magnum of this wine should strain everybody’s credulity, however that bottle is presented. Were some magnums bottled? Maybe yes, maybe no - the winemakers surely knew they had something special, and such is the extended family of the owners that ‘their’ bottles could have been any size and shape - even if accurate records existed, they would be contested.
It seems that unless you catch a faker actually in the process of applying their home-made label, such actions are desperately hard to prove…
Good post, Bill. I agree. The alleged great critical palates and greatest (or at least wealthiest and often most gullible) collectors of our time have been fooled by Rudy and “Hardy”. Wine reviewing is a Johnny-come-lately endeavor in the larger history of wine, and outing fake bottles for money a brand-new business (discounting, as one must, the overall track record of auction houses in that enterprise). I give Don all the credit in the world for all that he has done here and on the premox front, and I know that Maureen Downey has done some good work, too, but I also see at times a bit too much missionary zeal, too. It is indeed an area where absolute expertise is impossible. Too many producers lack adequate records, and 100% verifiable exemplars become harder and harder to come by the further back in time one goes. You add to that the bulk-purchase/private-label bottlings of many great wines (admittedly at least easy to distinguish from chateau/domaine bottlings), and much knowledge is lost in the sands of time. Except in cases of fairly obvious fraud, it seems to me impossible to prove a fake unless you can first prove that your exemplars are authentic, or unless you can use proven science and technology. That should in no way discourage those who take on the exercise as hobby or profession, but it should give one pause before pronouncing something real or fake…
I don’t feel any particular need to defend myself here, but if you take a look at Post 118 on Page 4 of this thread, you’ll be reminded of why this bottle is counterfeit. In addition my laundry list of what’s wrong with the label and capsule, and Aubert’s statements that this magnum is not authentic, there’s the fact that Adventures in Wine says they never imported any 1945 Romanee Conti in any size and that there is no way this bottle could legitimately have the yellow strip label on it. There are also statements from Aubert and Wilson-Daniels that Wilson-Daniels never received any 1945 Romanee Conti, so they couldn’t have sold any to the Chicago distributor for Wilson-Daniels as claimed by Charlie Trotter’s.
Reading some of the back thread and noticed this question. I can’t speak for the law in Illinois, but in New York two of the elements of fraud are that the victim must have relied on the false statement and that the reliance must have been reasonable. Despite my comment above about the frequency of getting scammed, I believe that Don Cornwell has made a very strong case in his Post 114 that any reliance by the victims in this case would have been unreasonable. That analysis presupposes a common law fraud claim only. There may be a lot of possible statutory claims (I skimmed the complaint but do not recall whether any were made) that may not require that a victim show a standard of reasonableness.
I didn’t contest any of that Don, that’s why I added the caveat ‘however that wine is presented’ - it seems an open and shut case to the right-minded. Yet, the above ‘proves’ only that the ‘current labelling’ is incorrect - or maybe not as I know of domaines (not DRC) that say bottles are false / could not exist, but due to generational changes and lack of info, actually got it wrong! - I still wonder if this is the same as proving beyond doubt that the contents of the bottle are also false, maybe only reasonable doubt is required in this case…(?) I don’t know, it’s your system 
I do know that I wouldn’t touch it with a bargepole, indeed somebody else’s bargepole!
Don, to my mind, there is no need to defend yourself, as the above strikes me as more general commentary on the business of determining fraudulent wines rather than poking holes at your analysis in this case. Certainly that was my intent, and the bottle seems phony to me. However, as lawyers, we both know that any conclusion can be collaterally attacked, and as you know, a few of the other people that do this for a living have made fools of themselves publicly by forcefully stating totally erroneous conclusions…
+1. My intent as well.
Just a little reality check here, in terms of burden of proof. Unlike a certain now-infamous pending criminal case, the plaintiff in a civil case (at least with respect to a claim such as breach of contract) only has to prove his case by a preponderance of evidence. In other words, the plaintiff doesn’t have to negate every hypothetical possibility; he/she only has to prove that his/her facts are more likely than not to be correct.
So, is it more likely than not that this particular “magnum” is counterfeit? Based on what we’ve seen so far, that’s a slam dunk for the plaintiff, but obviously there has been no discovery, no depositions, no trial, etc.
There may be all sorts of other considerations at play here, but based on the publicly-available facts to date, this case seems like an obvious candidate for settlement before both sides spend lots more $$$'s…
Bruce
a 750ml bottle of DRC 45 says Bruce is correct
…this case seems like an obvious candidate for settlement before both sides spend lots more $$$'s…
Exactly. Once someone sits down with Charlie and talks the case through…he’ll come around and settle.
This is not a simple breach of contract case but includes a prayer for damage in excess of $75,000.00 including costs, punitive damages and attorney fees [which may be recoverable under the various causes for action for breach of warranty and consumer fraud].
Thus it may not be easy at all to resolved this matter.
Hmm. I would have thought this one rather simple. Add up estimated legal bills for the other side, add the cost of the bottle, add miscellaneous costs. Offer some percentage of that based on how strong your defense is, or how long you are willing to pay your own legal costs. Its done all the time and with facts and circumstances that have much greater complexity. This, after all, is really about making them whole on the bottle. And maybe recovering some costs to pursue the claim. Opportunity costs is crap. And the rest is ornament.
Possible barriers to settlement include ego (“what do you mean accusing me of selling fake DRC!?!?!”) and whether the defendant(s) have assets to make any meaningful settlement offer (given that the restaurant has been closed for a while). Nevertheless, this case isn’t rocket science in terms of commercial litigation, and both sides would be well-served by a fairly prompt settlement at this juncture. Of course, people’s perceptions are certainly going to differ on that one.
Bruce
Seems like a weak defense based upon what Don has posted. Not all that familiar with the specific consumer protection laws but if they do not all require common law reasonable reliance, and attorney fees are recoverable, then Mr. Trotter could end up paying way more in legal costs than the cost of the bottle.
Also there may a willingness on the part of the plaintiffs [depending on how wealthy they are] to pursue this action to the end on principal and to make a point in the wine world.
Who really knows.
But this is not a simple breach of contract case according the complaint.
At $500 to $1000 an hour, won’t take long to rack up the legal costs. While I get the ego thing, I assume CT is a business man and will want this to go away versus having it all public. Additionally, its possible CT may have some sort of insurance coverage, if so, they are going to want to get this settled long before it even smells of going to trial.
Jay, I would say that the very fact that these guys put down the amount of money they did - whether or not it seems too good to be true to us - is going to get you a long way towards reasonble reliance with the average juror. This case has problems up and down for both sides if it were actually to progress towards trial, but I honestly don’t think that the issues of reasonableness of reliance are the biggest problems for the plaintiffs. Also, as you allude to, reasonable reliance is not included in the Illinois consumer protection statute claim.
A question for Don that could well be answered elswhere on this board, what kind of scientific lab testing is being done on bottles to show forgery? To me if you want to actually make a good case for issues about legitimacy of bottles nto jurors, things like lab samples of glue, ink, wax, and paper that may not have existed back then are going to be your most effective evidence.
I didn’t mean to intimate that the case is simple, although it ain’t that complicated. But rather the settlement should be simple.
My point is, that this could all go away with an offer to settle. And that number is not hard to figure out or get to, nor is it very high relative to what complex, or even non-complex, litigation generally contemplates. As noted by others, the barrier to making this go away will be ego and anger, or in the case of C. Trotter, perhaps a stable enough perspective to understand that he likely has an uphill fight on the merits, will spend more to litigate than settle, and probably doesn’t want to invite scrutiny from tax folks, alcohol regulators or the press. In the case of the press, he seems to already have had his share.
Barry it is possible - and I have no evidence - that CT has other potential cases sitting in the wings. Settlement was an option - most likely - before litigation. Nothing probably changed but who knows for sure.