Not the worshiping type. The article you linked used the term “star manager” to describe him. Just wanted to give some back ground on the guy suing for fake wine.
Keeping the focus on the subject at hand, the answer to me is no, we have not seen the last of wine fraud. In fact, comments from Maureen and Don and others lead me to believe we will see a lot more of these types of articles in the future. And there is little most of us will be able to do to prevent this happening.
Not only that, but I have to believe as more baby boomers get into finer wines and start looking for things like birth year wines, we will see more counterfeiting taking place in the future, and not just those trophy wines as we’ve seen in the past.
I fundamentally do not understand the immediate jump to blame the victim.
You immediately blame the victim over the vendor!?!
It really, really, really baffles me that anyone who wants to see the issue of vendors selling counterfeit wines taken seriously and perhaps stopped - would attack the victim who unwittingly purchased counterfeits. And then you attack him personally & malign him professionally. Really? What side of this issue are you on? Looks like pro-fraud to me.
Please realize that all you are doing by attacking the victim is encouraging less people to be willing to help consumers fight the blight of wine fraud by coming forward. This is why most people, as in 99.9% of wine fraud victims, just take the offered, under-market refund, sign the NDA, and return the bottles to the sketch vendors (to be resold…).
Seriously, shame on you.
![[swearing.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/8/8a0d3f3461d40641d294442fc2be78039bf94d19.gif "[swearing.gif]"){kind=small}
Maureen,
To a point I agree with you and others. Then I disagree.
In this day and age when any serious wine collector knows full well about fake bottles of wine, yet they still keep buying things that are obviously too good to be true and without any true due diligence on their part they deserve some of the blame as well. These are, by almost all accounts, very intelligent and very very wealthy people. Their problem is they want to have what the other rich guy has because of their egos and the need to feel that they also need to have that highly rated old wine to be part of “the club.” It’s a vicious circle that exists at all social and economic levels. Obviously the total monetary stakes are higher the wealthier one is.
Let me put this another way. Say I like cars and I know there are only two 1935 Car A’s left in the world and they are worth a fair bit of money. People have been scouring the world looking for them for decades and can’t find any more. Then someone “finds” six more of these cars in short order. I buy one and later find out it was a fake. Who do you blame? Yes, the person who faked it, the vendor for looking past the fact that it’s damn near impossible for someone to find that many in short order, and the person who bought it also knowing it’s damn near impossible for someone to find that many in short order when no one else ever has.
Now lets apply this to wine. When people are knowing buying more of an old wine than has ever been produced, I blame everyone involved. That includes the supposed “victim.” It’s called common sense. Unfortunately when it comes to expensive things and people with a ton of money to blow they don’t always use common sense and in that respect they become part of the problem as well.
Yes, blame the vendors. At some point one also has to blame the “victim” when the “victim” knows full well they are getting something that is too good to be true.
I would agree were the purchases without any hesitation. But when, as according to the complaint, the buyer was reassured repeatedly that what they were getting was authentic as a result of repeated questions about authenticity and provenance…
How much more can a buyer do?
Do you now have to be an expert in authentication to purchase any old or rare wine? Should this not be the job, and the expectation of the vendor?
Why is the onus on the buyer, when vendors claim they are vetting the wines?
Whilst in normal circumstances, it’s very much up to the buyer to take reasonable precautions, if the vendor is claiming to verify the wines’ authenticity, then presumably there is a premium paid for this service. With that premium, comes a higher expectation, plus greater vendor credibility at risk. It would be great to see buyers put their faith in auction houses / shops / other sources who take verification seriously, and allow them a larger premium for this (earned) reputation. As for others such as those that enabled Rudy, it is a huge shame that people still do business with them, but also a huge risk to them that I would not be prepared to take given the fakes that have been through that channel.
You provide a service. A service that is, IMO, invaluable to combat a rising problem. When a wealthy person buys a rare artifact for hundreds of thousands of dollars, or millions or more they usually have an independent inspector examine it to make sure what they are buying isn’t fake. Yet for wine, they don’t apply the same standard. They simply take the word of someone (the wine seller) they’ve probably never met in person before. They don’t do any due diligence of their own. Do you see the problem there? I do.
These are the same people who if they were to buy a $2 million dollar helicptor they would have an independent inspector look at it to make sure it’s ok. With wine, they don’t and then they cry later when they find out they got taken. Actually, most of them don’t say anything and simply put it back on the market to avoid embarrassment. So sorry, at some point they stop being victims and become part of the problem.
I watched a Netflix movie the other night that was produced by the Treasury Secretary. So that was pretty cool.
It must be hard work to sign ten dollar bills all day, and then deal with prima donna actors and directors in the evening.
But I guess that’s what a Renaissance man, multi tasker has to do, when they are blessed with artistic and money counting skills.
Come on. Most busy &/or successful people need to trust their service providers and vendors.
For example - how many people stop what they are doing to become a tax expert to verify that their tax attny and accountant are doing their jobs to the max? Do you stop your life to study global currency/commodity/bond markets before allowing your stock broker/investment manager to make an investment - or do you listen to their advice and accept that they are the experts? Do you go to a doctor, or do you quit everything and go to medical school so you can give a self-prognosis to your ailments? I don’t think anyone would expect a normal person to do any of these things.
I do what I do, and I expect that others are experts in their fields. If you don’t blame a victim of medical malpractice or financial fraud, why blame a victim of wine fraud?
Why can people not expect MORE from their wine vendors. They are, after all, often spending more money on wine than at any of the above mentioned providers. So why can’t we expect that wine vendors who sell 1945 Mouton know what the they are doing?
Look - If a vendor wants to play in this league - they better know what they are doing. Education is available. But too many just want to be ballers - and think they can “cool-guy” through it. When they harm buyers and the markets - they should get called out on it.
No one learns how to authenticate wines by osmosis. People cannot tell authentic from real simply because they grew up in the business, or are a 3rd generation wine merchant, or because they drink “the best of the best” all the time… If this were the case, many of these wine vendors should be in jail for complicity - but they claim ignorance. So are you complicit, or ignorant? If you are ignorant - you have no business in these waters!
People are busy, and should be able to trust vendors, especially those that reassure them of authenticity and provenance. The longer you victim blame - the less people will come forward and the more counterfeits will keep being put back into circulation.
Fortunately, we will have the Chai Vault deployed soon, and the “word” of the vendor will no longer be necessary - and al of this will be moot.
New flash: Most fine wine collectors do not read wine boards. So let’s not be so smug.
Victim shaming is wrong.
Your first sentence answers your own question…if they don’t have the time themselves then they should hire an independent expert (such as yourself) to step in and do the work for them to protect their interests.
I say I own a bridge, I want to sell it to you. I swear it’s there and in great shape. Just give me a million bucks and it’s yours. Will you give me the money for it without doing ANY research yourself OR having an independent person that either already works for you or you’ve retained to examine it first? Of course you would not. No rational person would. It’s called common sense. Somehow for wine that doesn’t apply and people trust the word of people they don’t know who stand to profit a great deal from the sale.
And I also agree that vendors are also part of the issue and they also should retain TRUE independent inspectors/experts.
(EDIT: I want to be clear that I am not speaking specifically about one particular case. My comments are of a general overall nature.)
Don’t trust him Maureen. He convinced some sucker to buy ‘London bridge’, whilst letting them think it was this
Let’s just say Andy has a ‘reputation’ in bridge buying circles. ![[wink.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/04707e6a7bbb03e0153e349d8a9270d30e1e9525.gif "wink"){kind=small}
![[rofl.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/a/a7452fcd8e675af869f8da01174474a545b03944.gif "rofl"){kind=small}
Andy, the “bridge” argument isn’t even close to equivalent. What I think you’re really arguing here is whether the buyer’s reliance was justified. While I would want to know exactly what representations and guarantees were made, based on what I know I would have no problem at all taking the case on behalf of the buyer against the vendor. Can’t wait for the vendor to argue that the buyer’s reliance on their representations was unjustified. If they’re going to claim that the buyer “should have” made further inquiries, that’s pretty easy to turn back against them. The question to my mind is whether the vendor actually knew or should have known (intentional versus negligent misrepresentation). It it’s intentional, then punitive damages come into play. I should add that blaming the victim is usually – though not always – a losing argument in court. And when it backfires, it can backfire in a big way.
Notice I didn’t say WHICH London Bridge. Why one needs to do their homework, LOL 
Oh, give me a break.
Neither I nor Andy is blaming the victim. If Gundlach said to Soutirage, “Geez, I’ve read that a lot of wines like these trophies are fakes,” and they said, “No, really, these are real! We guarantee it,” I’ll be cheering him on all the way.
If he didn’t ask any questions and they misled him then, fine, he’s got his law suit. But I’m not required to sympathize with him.
He doesn’t have to read the wine boards. But perhaps the WSJ, The New York Times, The Financial Times, The New Yorker, Vanity Fair or Slate – any of the many news outlets that featured big stories on wine fraud?
If he’s sophisticated about wines, he should know that Latour 1928, Haut-Brion 1945, Cheval-Blanc 1947, Lafleur 1947, Lafite Rothschild 1953, Mouton-Rothschild 1959 and Pétrus 1961 are high up on the list of most frequently faked wines. I would guess the odds of finding a real first growth '45 or '47 are very low these days.
If he’s just rich and decided he wanted to get into wine and wanted some trophy bottles, then maybe he’s got a better legal case for relying on Soutirage, but that doesn’t excite my sympathy either. It’s like buying a vintage Ferrari without having an expert check it out. If the buyer misled you and you can sue, fine, but I’m still entitled to think you’re a dolt.
My post about Gundlach’s fund performance was prompted by Terry’s posting, which seemed fawning/worshipful. I’ve been a financial journalist for 17 years and I don’t attributed generalized wisdom to successful bond traders.
Is Victor shaming still okay?
Depends on what of the week it is.
In the fake and failing wine businesses discussed here, there has been a series of warning signs, questions and complaints. Haven’t seen any feedback on Soutirage that I recall, nor have I researched it. I don’t know the entire workings/model of Soutirage but I’m under the impression they source wine for buyers and don’t have any/much wine in stock retail. If so, they would be scouring the earth to come up with near non-existent or hard to find wines. If you were a victim of Rudy, Soutirage could be the vehicle to recover some of your money. I also appears Soutirage caters to the class above most of us.
Has anybody heard any feedback on Soutirage?
With a little research I found one negative comment about Soutirage dated Monday July 31 :
Which still means only a law suit and no other complaints, suspicions or negative comments.