RUDY KURNIAWAN & GLOBAL WINE AUCTION FRAUD THREAD (MERGED)

[Russell_Faulkner]

Wouldn’t the ‘true owner’ just sell to a different person just before the sale, how do you legislate against that other than requiring all wine sales to be recorded?

[k_s_h_i_n]

@D Jorgenson

Don, it’s good to see your efforts receive explicit and public recognition from DRC.

Kevin, I understand your concern re government involvement but I agree with earlier points in this thread that the issue of counterfeit wines is not isolated to the very top of the value spectrum, and even if it were, that pricing activity at te top does have an economic effect on the rest of the market. It seems to me that additional transparency in the wine auction marketplace might benefit all of us in at least some small way.

I think one must carry out due diligence. I always prefer the real cellar, one owner slowly accumulated over time, a few DRCs and Jayers and etc but other Burgundies as well. I mostly deal with three auction houses but I also think HDH seems to be doing good work. I often reminisce about Butterfield and Butterfield days. I had a little to spend but bought some interesting stuff.

[Bruce_Leiser_owitz]

The start of the solution, it seems to me, is to have the industry standardize a disclosure form that ALL consignors must fill out for each lot before the wine is submitted to an auction house. The disclosure would have to include some basic information relevant to both authenticity and storage conditions. Just for example, a consignor should be required to disclose if they are aware that any of the wines being offered for consignment have been rejected or questioned before for authenticity.

If possible, there also needs to be some sort of uniform system of identifying/cataloging bottles that auction houses have rejected due to authenticity concerns. If Auction House A rejects a particular consignment lot because it’s highly suspicious, then there ought to be some way of identifying and cataloging those bottles so that they don’t simply get passed along to another wine auction house a few years later.

I think that if the various auction houses were able to work together to develop a uniform disclosure system that is as transparent as possible to both consignors and potential bidders, that might go a LONG way towards solving the problem.

Bruce

[Lewis_Dawson]

Beware what you ask for… I’m from the government; I’m here to help you…

[BuffaloLou_Saad]

Coming to a theater new you: “Don Cornwell: The Authenticator”

Congrats on a job well done, Don!

[Kim_Caldwell]

@RRosania

Folks,

I have refrained from commenting herein, albeit I have watched the theatre of this unfold over the last few days. Let me address the following:

The 1945 Romanee Conti which Allen Meadows rated 100 points was in fact from my cellar and I opened it at a dinner in Los Angeles with some friends, and especially with Allen in attendance. A few weeks thereafter, a “sister” bottle of 1945 Romanee Conti was sold at my champagne auction in NYC at Cru. The gentlemen (European) who purchased the wine was in attendance (as was the underbidder, who previously posted herein). The underbidder whos is a MASTER of burgundy for decades bid on the bottle b/c of what he heard from Allen. Nevertheless, he was outbid at the last by Mr. European.

A short time ago, a friend from Europe attended a dinner with “Mr. European” and Aubert de Villaine, where this bottle was opened. Again, i was NOT in attendance, nor have I spoken to Mr. European about it, but ou mutual frined said the following: “Upon drinking the 45 RC from your cellar, Aubert declared this was simply the GREATEST bottle of wine he had EVER drank”. Draw whatever conclusions you choose from that statement (and there are others who can independently corroborate that story), but it would be hard to think anything other than Aubert, Mr. European, Allen, Jon and I were drinking 45 RC. The REAL 45 RC.

While i have experienced the issue Doug alluded to in his post some time ago in this thread, and those experiences are crest falling, there is NO experience (great or awful) like opening up these beautiful treasures and getting the experience alluded to above. Those of you who know me, know that I have always believed in opening what i own, regardless of it’s theoretical or lack of theoretical value, i have always acribed to the theory the wine is meant to be drunk. As a result, and let’s not forget for all he is ACCUSED of, Rudy was among the most generous openers of wine the world has known, anyone who opens alot, inevitably is let down for a variety of reasons, only one of which is incorrect label to wine presentation. As Doug correctly points out, unless the wine has NEVER left the Domaine, and that Domaine is BEYOND REPROACH, there is absolutely NO way to certify these old bottles are absolutely legitimate. There are COUNTLESS examples of receipts since purchase held by the original owner and the wine turns out to NOT be what the label or reciept makes it out to be. COUNTLESS. Furthermore, as someone else noted, there is NO WAY to prove a negative without a) a reference standard (they don’t exist) and b) destructuve testing.

Recently, at the Mt. Sinai wine charity event which i Chair in memory of my father who died of inoperable, pancreatic cancer on December 10, 2005 (the same morning I attended a wine auction of Acker’s at Cru), I opened a Methusaleh of 1978 Romanee Conti, which 2 auction houses had rejected for “fear of the large format”, albeit NO fear about anything suspicious about the bottle. Since I DO NOT plan on posting any photos of the bottle online, and there were REAL Burgundy experts as well as “wine consultants” there who are impeccable in their reputations, I can say two things: a) the label DOES NOT resemble the one in the photo posted from the internet, and b) it was EASILY the best 78 RC anyone present had ever had. I am sure there are those of you who know who was present and can ask them independently, but open nosing and drinking the wine, one of the folks said “well, there is ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT this is 78 RC”.

My point in all this is to address the tenor of this thread which is days old and frankly overwhelmingly, repetitively negative.

Wine is a BEAUTIFUL thing, and it is a “gentlemen’s business” at this level - meaning when there is an issue it should be addressed directly and privately, instead of screaming from the rooftops. I am in no way, shape or form criticizing Don for his alert, please understand that; however, we have gone from innocent until proven guilty to automatically guilty and even by association - that is truly un-American. Yes, there are those wines which dissapoint immensely, and there are those which do so from bad intent, but in the last 5 years, the world of wine has gone from one of ENJOYMENT to one of DISGUST. I think i can state without fear of contradiction, that whenever I have opened wine, regardless of value, rarity or desireability, I have shared with whomever was there to the xtent humanly possible. I believe MOST of you whether I have personally met you or not have the same spirit of generosity and core desire to share what you have again regardless of value. Maybe sometimes, you are interested in or not interested in what others have to share with you, but nevertheless, i dont believe the “general tenor” of typical wine consumers at this level is absent of sharing. Thats what we do. Some have more to share, some have less, but sharing isnt about the quantity, it is about the desire.

However, I remember years ago at events like Paulee, when sharing was simple - here is my 59 Richebourg Jeroboam, let’s drink, and people JUST DRANK. They didn’t spend 15 minutes reviewing the bottle, looking at the pundt, checking out the label, feeling the cork and generally “snooping” into the legitimacy of the wines appearance from the EXTERNAL perspective. They enjoyed the wine. They liked it or didn’t, but the first assumption wasn’t “Is it real” ? Today, that is NO LONGER the case. Anything of remote rarity or format rarity is scrutinized like each drinker were purchasing the entire bottle and being put on trial regarding it’s veracity, and as a result, the ENJOYMENT of the wine turns into anything but that PURELY. It’s like walking down the street in Rome, fingering the keyboard of your blackberry eyes focused downward, as you pass the Coliseum. The ageless wonder is besmirched by the attitude of anything other than adoration and AWE at what it is. REAGRDLESS of what it is. Clearly, if it isn’t awe inspiring, there will be no AWE, if it is, there will be.

This is the predominate reason I have decided NOT to attend Paulee SF this year. 2 Years ago, i brought an UNDENIABLE Jeroboam of 1962 Romanee Conti (among others) to the dinner, the bottle of which i still possess signed by Allen Meadows after he said “I have NEVER had 1962 Romanee Conti as good as this”, and yet, despite a “benchmark” individual ascribing it’s veracity who has had as close to reference standard as exists, PLENTY of people started a hub-a-bub, the bottle was fughese. They were thrilled to try it, but not thrilled to admit it could actually be the real thing. This is one of a myriad examples which counter-act the examples which are mentioned herein about wines NOT being what they should be. Last year at Paulee NYC, I opened a Jeroboam of 49 LaTache, which of course according to all the “experts” doesn’t exist" (except the only one who REALLY Matters, AdV, who said “No question thats 49 LaTache”), and it was corked. I was crest fallen, as you can imagine. Nevertheless, there were some who didn’t believe it was corked, albeit I agreed with my friend who was handling the wine (a master sommelier) as did a number of others on this board. That risk i am TOTALLY willing to take, although, I must admit, I was quite devastated. No-one questioned the veracity of the LT Jero, even without AdV in attendance attesting to it’s bulletproof accuracy, BUT also since the wine sat in a decanter for the rest of the night, also no-one drank it, so there was no room for “speculation”…

Here is my simple point: Let’s remember there are NO WINE POLICE (although those of you who know my children, know there are “Whining Police”), and there is NO reference standard. Let’s go back to enjoying the beauty of wine, the scarcity of it, the thrill of Victory when an incredible bottle is opened, and instead of having a thread focused on 15 pages of negativity, let’s have one focused on 15 pages of positive wine loving experiences on a single thread.

I have never, and likely will never post here again, so do with this as you choose, BUT, remember, wine is about joy; champagne about celebration. Life is full of thrills and disappointments, let’s focus more on the thrills. Makes everything more thrilling.

Rob

I find this post disturbing on so many levels – but – I’ve never posted in this thread before, and likely, will never post in it again.

[Kim_Caldwell]

@RRosania

Folks,

I have refrained from commenting herein, albeit I have watched the theatre of this unfold over the last few days. Let me address the following:

The 1945 Romanee Conti which Allen Meadows rated 100 points was in fact from my cellar and I opened it at a dinner in Los Angeles with some friends, and especially with Allen in attendance. A few weeks thereafter, a “sister” bottle of 1945 Romanee Conti was sold at my champagne auction in NYC at Cru. The gentlemen (European) who purchased the wine was in attendance (as was the underbidder, who previously posted herein). The underbidder whos is a MASTER of burgundy for decades bid on the bottle b/c of what he heard from Allen. Nevertheless, he was outbid at the last by Mr. European.

A short time ago, a friend from Europe attended a dinner with “Mr. European” and Aubert de Villaine, where this bottle was opened. Again, i was NOT in attendance, nor have I spoken to Mr. European about it, but ou mutual frined said the following: “Upon drinking the 45 RC from your cellar, Aubert declared this was simply the GREATEST bottle of wine he had EVER drank”. Draw whatever conclusions you choose from that statement (and there are others who can independently corroborate that story), but it would be hard to think anything other than Aubert, Mr. European, Allen, Jon and I were drinking 45 RC. The REAL 45 RC.

While i have experienced the issue Doug alluded to in his post some time ago in this thread, and those experiences are crest falling, there is NO experience (great or awful) like opening up these beautiful treasures and getting the experience alluded to above. Those of you who know me, know that I have always believed in opening what i own, regardless of it’s theoretical or lack of theoretical value, i have always acribed to the theory the wine is meant to be drunk. As a result, and let’s not forget for all he is ACCUSED of, Rudy was among the most generous openers of wine the world has known, anyone who opens alot, inevitably is let down for a variety of reasons, only one of which is incorrect label to wine presentation. As Doug correctly points out, unless the wine has NEVER left the Domaine, and that Domaine is BEYOND REPROACH, there is absolutely NO way to certify these old bottles are absolutely legitimate. There are COUNTLESS examples of receipts since purchase held by the original owner and the wine turns out to NOT be what the label or reciept makes it out to be. COUNTLESS. Furthermore, as someone else noted, there is NO WAY to prove a negative without a) a reference standard (they don’t exist) and b) destructuve testing.

Recently, at the Mt. Sinai wine charity event which i Chair in memory of my father who died of inoperable, pancreatic cancer on December 10, 2005 (the same morning I attended a wine auction of Acker’s at Cru), I opened a Methusaleh of 1978 Romanee Conti, which 2 auction houses had rejected for “fear of the large format”, albeit NO fear about anything suspicious about the bottle. Since I DO NOT plan on posting any photos of the bottle online, and there were REAL Burgundy experts as well as “wine consultants” there who are impeccable in their reputations, I can say two things: a) the label DOES NOT resemble the one in the photo posted from the internet, and b) it was EASILY the best 78 RC anyone present had ever had. I am sure there are those of you who know who was present and can ask them independently, but open nosing and drinking the wine, one of the folks said “well, there is ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT this is 78 RC”.

My point in all this is to address the tenor of this thread which is days old and frankly overwhelmingly, repetitively negative.

Wine is a BEAUTIFUL thing, and it is a “gentlemen’s business” at this level - meaning when there is an issue it should be addressed directly and privately, instead of screaming from the rooftops. I am in no way, shape or form criticizing Don for his alert, please understand that; however, we have gone from innocent until proven guilty to automatically guilty and even by association - that is truly un-American. Yes, there are those wines which dissapoint immensely, and there are those which do so from bad intent, but in the last 5 years, the world of wine has gone from one of ENJOYMENT to one of DISGUST. I think i can state without fear of contradiction, that whenever I have opened wine, regardless of value, rarity or desireability, I have shared with whomever was there to the xtent humanly possible. I believe MOST of you whether I have personally met you or not have the same spirit of generosity and core desire to share what you have again regardless of value. Maybe sometimes, you are interested in or not interested in what others have to share with you, but nevertheless, i dont believe the “general tenor” of typical wine consumers at this level is absent of sharing. Thats what we do. Some have more to share, some have less, but sharing isnt about the quantity, it is about the desire.

However, I remember years ago at events like Paulee, when sharing was simple - here is my 59 Richebourg Jeroboam, let’s drink, and people JUST DRANK. They didn’t spend 15 minutes reviewing the bottle, looking at the pundt, checking out the label, feeling the cork and generally “snooping” into the legitimacy of the wines appearance from the EXTERNAL perspective. They enjoyed the wine. They liked it or didn’t, but the first assumption wasn’t “Is it real” ? Today, that is NO LONGER the case. Anything of remote rarity or format rarity is scrutinized like each drinker were purchasing the entire bottle and being put on trial regarding it’s veracity, and as a result, the ENJOYMENT of the wine turns into anything but that PURELY. It’s like walking down the street in Rome, fingering the keyboard of your blackberry eyes focused downward, as you pass the Coliseum. The ageless wonder is besmirched by the attitude of anything other than adoration and AWE at what it is. REAGRDLESS of what it is. Clearly, if it isn’t awe inspiring, there will be no AWE, if it is, there will be.

This is the predominate reason I have decided NOT to attend Paulee SF this year. 2 Years ago, i brought an UNDENIABLE Jeroboam of 1962 Romanee Conti (among others) to the dinner, the bottle of which i still possess signed by Allen Meadows after he said “I have NEVER had 1962 Romanee Conti as good as this”, and yet, despite a “benchmark” individual ascribing it’s veracity who has had as close to reference standard as exists, PLENTY of people started a hub-a-bub, the bottle was fughese. They were thrilled to try it, but not thrilled to admit it could actually be the real thing. This is one of a myriad examples which counter-act the examples which are mentioned herein about wines NOT being what they should be. Last year at Paulee NYC, I opened a Jeroboam of 49 LaTache, which of course according to all the “experts” doesn’t exist" (except the only one who REALLY Matters, AdV, who said “No question thats 49 LaTache”), and it was corked. I was crest fallen, as you can imagine. Nevertheless, there were some who didn’t believe it was corked, albeit I agreed with my friend who was handling the wine (a master sommelier) as did a number of others on this board. That risk i am TOTALLY willing to take, although, I must admit, I was quite devastated. No-one questioned the veracity of the LT Jero, even without AdV in attendance attesting to it’s bulletproof accuracy, BUT also since the wine sat in a decanter for the rest of the night, also no-one drank it, so there was no room for “speculation”…

Here is my simple point: Let’s remember there are NO WINE POLICE (although those of you who know my children, know there are “Whining Police”), and there is NO reference standard. Let’s go back to enjoying the beauty of wine, the scarcity of it, the thrill of Victory when an incredible bottle is opened, and instead of having a thread focused on 15 pages of negativity, let’s have one focused on 15 pages of positive wine loving experiences on a single thread.

I have never, and likely will never post here again, so do with this as you choose, BUT, remember, wine is about joy; champagne about celebration. Life is full of thrills and disappointments, let’s focus more on the thrills. Makes everything more thrilling.

Rob

I find this post disturbing on so many levels – but – I’ve never posted in this thread before, and likely, will never post in it again.

[C_0_R_E_Y_M]

@Kim Caldwell

I find this post disturbing on so many levels – but – I’ve never posted in this thread before, and likely, will never post in it again.

Rather ironic time for a double post.

[Bill_Tex_Landreth]

@Corey Miller

@Kim Caldwell

I find this post disturbing on so many levels – but – I’ve never posted in this thread before, and likely, will never post in it again.

Rather ironic time for a double post.

[Tom_Blach]

@todd waldmann

On a side note: If you were going to go to all the trouble of faking a bottle of high-end wine by making sure the capsules looked appropriate, the label was “aged”, the wine was of an expected color, the bottle was the right style, how much more work would it take to make sure spelling & accents were accurate? I mean, seriously?

Not that I’m suggesting anything Todd, but imagine if you had to do that in Chinese, Greek or Hindi.

[todd_waldmann]

@Tom Blach

@todd waldmann

On a side note: If you were going to go to all the trouble of faking a bottle of high-end wine by making sure the capsules looked appropriate, the label was “aged”, the wine was of an expected color, the bottle was the right style, how much more work would it take to make sure spelling & accents were accurate? I mean, seriously?

Not that I’m suggesting anything Todd, but imagine if you had to do that in Chinese, Greek or Hindi.

Understood All the more reason I’d make sure my fake matched the original character for character. When we’re talking about thousands or tens of thousands of dollars, I’d sure try & make every detail correct. Hmmmm. Maybe I’d be better at this than some of the folks out there doing it…

[Tom_Reddick]

.

[WvanGorp]

An ITB friend of mine told me the story of serving some big boy wines a few years ago. He pulled the cork from a legendary bottle to gasps by those watching. The gasps were not because of the legendary wine; rather, they were because the cork said “Charles Shaw.” True story. (Obviously, not just a fake but a statement by the forger as to what he/she thought of those paying for such a ‘legend.’)

[Ken_V]

@WvanGorp

An ITB friend of mine told me the story of serving some big boy wines a few years ago. He pulled the cork from a legendary bottle to gasps by those watching. The gasps were not because of the legendary wine; rather, they were because the cork said “Charles Shaw.” True story. (Obviously, not just a fake but a statement by the forger as to what he/she thought of those paying for such a ‘legend.’)

Charles Shaw Pinot Noir is actually excess Romanee Conti that has been sold off in bulk.

[Maureen_Downey]

Don and I have discussed this issue at length in person and on the phone over the last several years. We respectfully disagree but continue to hear each other out and continue to debate the matter in the hopes of learning new perspectives. … . I think it valuable to share with you the concerns I have about a “govt regulated intervention” into consignor reporting…

I have to admit that I disagree with Don that auction houses have to eliminate completely the ability of consignors to remain anonymous. As long as the house has receipts and can SUBSTANTIATE provenance - I see no reason that consignors who are upstanding and have no history of selling fakes should have to be made public. I have clients who do not need their thousands of employees to know that they are buying or selling wine at this level. In America we prize our privacy, and I see this as a matter of privacy. Further - this government FORCED disclosure will only serve to crush the auction market and turn brokers & retailers who can be even less scrupulous and with less oversight than auction houses sell the same wines.

Simply - making consignors names required public information cannot be government regulated without destroying the wine auction market.

I would prefer to see a strong consortium of scrupulous vendors agree to meet some standard- and then actually do it. BUT MOST importantly - consumers have to give a crap. The reason that fraud has been able to continue is mostly because of a lack of outrage from consumers - and an acceptance of poor practices and accepting fakes as ‘part of the risk’.

Maureen

[krehberg]

Transparency is the only way you achieve full value Maureen!!!2

I love all the Rosania ass kissing that goes on here since he refuses to call Rudy out. He’s made lots of auction $$ being friends of Rudy desire the fact he might have real bottles.

distance yourself from Rudy, Rob and I’ll support you. If you don’t, I just consider you a high end purveyor of fake wines.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[Sean_Moore]

@WvanGorp

An ITB friend of mine told me the story of serving some big boy wines a few years ago. He pulled the cork from a legendary bottle to gasps by those watching. The gasps were not because of the legendary wine; rather, they were because the cork said “Charles Shaw.” True story. (Obviously, not just a fake but a statement by the forger as to what he/she thought of those paying for such a ‘legend.’)

What a fool am I to spend the extra coin on Bogle when Charles Shaw would do!

[JonoBeagle]

Don’s statement from Corney’s brings to light some disturbing facts…

What is worse is that, the 52 RCs in the auction had no serial numbers and no H. De Villaine signature and were all sold. Now the labels were something akin to the modern labels as oppose to the 40s style.

I raised this with Don by asking a question, not because I thought he had been negligent (he simply ran out of time in the few days between flagging and the auction), but because I wanted to know for future reference, as I do not wish to come across and sell fakes, any information is gold-dust and used as a cross-reference. Don mentioned that every DRC would have a signature or the proprietors name.

Surely these are not correct? However they were sold… As such I very much doubt any inspector or authenticator actually even glanced at the flagged bottles in question, and this is a shame as there were plenty of genuine lots that looked pristine (albeit with no provenance) which would have been good buys and genuine consignors who simply wanted to sell their wines have perhaps not realised the full value of their wines due to the dampened atmosphere placed on the auction by the houses negligence and actions that lead to distrust.

[Lionel_Nierop]

@JonoBeagle

Don’s statement from Corney’s brings to light some disturbing facts…

What is worse is that, the 52 RCs in the auction had no serial numbers and no H. De Villaine signature and were all sold. Now the labels were something akin to the modern labels as oppose to the 40s style.

I raised this with Don by asking a question, not because I thought he had been negligent (he simply ran out of time in the few days between flagging and the auction), but because I wanted to know for future reference, as I do not wish to come across and sell fakes, any information is gold-dust and used as a cross-reference. Don mentioned that every DRC would have a signature or the proprietors name.

Surely these are not correct? However they were sold… As such I very much doubt any inspector or authenticator actually even glanced at the flagged bottles in question, and this is a shame as there were plenty of genuine lots that looked pristine (albeit with no provenance) which would have been good buys and genuine consignors who simply wanted to sell their wines have perhaps not realised the full value of their wines due to the dampened atmosphere placed on the auction by the houses negligence and actions that lead to distrust.

Pure supposition on my part but Interdiction Exporter aux USA et UK? Should it not be Etats-Unis (EU?) and Royaume-Uni or Grand Bretagne (RU or GB?)

[Robert.A.Jr]

A friend just sent me this link (no comment):

http://www.colgincellars.com/article?billionaire_winos