I like that terminology, Don!
Baghera has had some serious problems in the past that I have posted about in this thread. The problems have been so significant that, in my personal opinion, I have zero level of trust in any Baghera auction. Too many issues, too many times.
The 1971 Rousseau Clos de Beze that you mention does, in many respects, seem “too good to be true” in the absence of further explanation of the provenance which is notably absent. The labels, which are unitary labels from the UK importer O.W. Loeb [correct UK importer], are extremely pristine. They don’t bear any signs of dirt, wear, mold, paper oxidation, etc. The levels are all 2.5 cm or better which is astonishingly good for six bottles of 1971 forty-seven years after bottling. The wines are NOT in their original OWC, which certainly adds a question about how the labels could possibly be so new-looking. I see some dark coloration bleeding issues on the crown shown on each of the Baghera labels which give me pause when compared to the 1971 Rousseau Beze labels (US) and the one exemplar I have seen of an OW Loeb 1971 magnum label, but the photo on the Baghera site is not good enough to say anything definitive. The bottle glass color appears superficially correct (but it’s difficult to be certain from a photo). There appear to be Rousseau branded capsules on the bottles, but the photo, even on maximum enlargement is not distinct enough to permit proper comparison with known exemplars.
There are other bottles that in the Baghera offering that in my opinion are not credible. E.g. Lot 144, a purported magnum of 1945 Vogue Musigny VV, which has a purported rewaxed wax capsule (Vogue’s magnums had metal capsules). The Baghera label is a completely new-appearing, unoxdized label whose text matches none of the 1945 Vogue exemplars that I have. The Baghera label also has a series of small folds suggesting it was hand glued. Most of the 1945 Vogue labels had the date printed, not punched in. The only example I have seen with a punched in vintage (a photo from my colleague Geoff Troy from his father’s collection) don’t match what’s shown in the Baghera photograph either. The signature on the Baghera label does not match the signature on any other verified 1945 exemplar. The 1945 labels did not have the word Domaine before Comte Georges de Vogue. There was no “Produce of France” on any 1945 Vogue labels I have ever seen before (other than a similar suspected counterfeit magnum offered in 2013.)
The text on the Baghera 1945 magnum matches only one photo I have seen – of a magnum offered at auction in 2013 that had a printed metal capsule from the post-1970 era, with a different type of punched in vintage date, which I have long suspected to be fake because it matched no other known 1945 exemplar.
1 Like
I am guessing this has probably already been linked in this thread, but it’s difficult to know.
So just in case: a second Rudy documentary can be found on YouTube:
some new people interviewed a few new details. It seems to have been a production for a French channel, but this edition is narrated for an English language audience.
Thanks for the link. They used my photo of RK without permission and now I’ve got to track them down
Aside from the claim by Laurent Ponsot that Rudy had multiple passports (of which I have no knowledge and which was not mentioned at the trial), there’s nothing really new here. But there were a couple of glaring inaccuracies. At one point the film claims that Rudy “launched his scam” in 2006. That’s clearly false. Rudy started selling counterfeit wines at auction by no later than April of 2002 and likely earlier than that. Peter Hellman, the journalist who wrote articles for Wine Spectator, is listed over and over again as Paul Hellman.
The role of Laurent Ponsot in the investigation was considerably embellished.
Mel,
It might help you track them down if you search for the French language original, also on YouTube. The name of the production company seems to be 13e Rue and the title of the series is Criminel 2.0. Philippe Bas is the presenter.
Don,
Agree and disagree.
It is pretty clear this documentary was made for a French speaking audience as several people interviewed speak excellent English instead speak in their native French. Plus the French language version has a 2 minute or so intro. So it isn’t too surprising that the role of M Ponsot is expanded. Perhaps most interesting was the (to my knowledge) previously unreported attendance of John Kapon at the lunch meeting of Rudy, M Ponsot and Doug Barzelay. Ponsot’s description of Kapon’s reaction to the essential question was interesting.
I thought it was interesting to get bits and pieces of opinion from other people who weren’t interviewed for Sour Grapes. Christophe Roumier, Doug Barzelay, etc. Essentially a parallax view. That view was useful in reinforcing the nature of Rudy’s long con, as you have so thoroughly documented. And, as I see it, the claim that “Rudy got away with it” for almost 10 years is the essential big lie of all the documentaries. As soon as he sprung the ‘big’ pay day of his long con he got caught.
So let’s establish a timeline which you can beat like a piñata:
1-Young Rudy wants acclaim and money
2-Rudy discovers wine
3-Rudy notices something that everybody who tastes truly old wine (and isn’t a gullible member of the 12 Loud Fools) notices: it is a very problematic area of refinement. Lots of dud bottles and a general lack of referential knowledge.
Rudy puts 1-2-3 together.
4-Rudy needs to establish an air of verisimilitude.
A-enter the 12 Loud Fools
B-Rudy spends his seed money on lots of authentic bottles and loudly announces this
C-Rudy likes and displays the bling-bling. In terms of the long con, this is a vice and a virtue
5-As you (Don Cornwell) point out, Rudy indeed starts faking bottles early on, but these are mostly for ‘proof of concept’. The 12 Loud Fools actually believe they are drinking '59 La Tâche. Hey presto.
6-Rudy almost certainly is aware of the path finder, Hardy Meinhard Kruger Görke Rodenstock. The final step in authenticating Rudy Kurniawan is landing the Big Tuna. Will two bottles of somewhat old, somewhat generic Pomerol successfully pass off as a 1920s magnum of Château Petrus? Big Tuna says oui! Hey presto, deuxième fois.
7-Rudy spends on the bling. Who can deny he is a big roller? But his indebtedness to Kapon (inter alia) screws his con. This is the part he doesn’t manage well.
8-Now time to spring the trap with an enormous auction.
It seems to me there are two essential points remaining. The question: did the bling cause the sting or vice versa? Did Rudy’s desire for acclaim and riches force him to mass produce 1959 Ponsot Clos St Denis vv? Or did he always plan the con? My view is that the enormous attention to detail is clearly proof of malice of forethought. And the lie: 'Rudy fooled everybody for 10 years." It is frequently repeated but almost the opposite of the truth. Rudy fooled some people some of the time, in ways many might be fooled. That bottle of '61 Margaux (not difficult to find) was probably real. After several hours and much alcohol, who can tell if the thoroughly improbable bottles from l’année de la victoire are fakes? But hundred of bottles of old Maison Patriarche masquerading as various bottles of 1920-1960 grand cru don’t pass Go. Doug Barzelay’s tasting group immediately spots the fakes, the first large auction of Rudy wine is put back on the market, etc.
I’m sure I have some details wrong, but I like the theory.
Follow on: I’m glad John Kapon has put it all in the past:
John Kapon, president and chief executive of Acker Merrall & Condit, said the specter of wine forger Rudy Kurniawan is the past and he is looking to the future.
Well, then, that settles it!
A bit like Lucretia Borgia now only buying from Whole Foods
Oh the irony!
HOpe you get it sorted easily. . . .
Matt:
Your point about this being a French made film and therefore promoting the local hero is well taken.
Yes, the fact that Doug Barzelay appears on film here is excellent. They shot film of Doug and Geoff Troy for Sour Grapes but it was edited out. That was one of my criticisms of the movie. Laurent did tell the story about the lunch with Rudy and Kapon after the auction in the Sour Grapes film. (It was also discussed here in the thread, and in my report from the trial as well, but that was several years ago now.)
The sales at auction in 2002 were admittedly in smaller quantities of one or two or three bottles of a given wine at a time. I’m sure Rudy wanted to test to make sure he could get away with selling them initially. As he found it worked, he got bolder, and the quantities of each wine offered increased. He ramped up his sales of counterfeit wines each year. On the auction side, initially he was selling wines through Acker Merrall, Winebid, and Christies (that we have verified). There are well documented significant private sales of counterfeit wines starting at least as early as February 26, 2003. Victims Brian Devine and David Doyle, who were among those to whom criminal restitution was ordered, bought counterfeits from Rudy in 2003. Eric Greenberg, who was later himself found civilly liable for intentionally selling counterfeit wine, complained in an email to Winebid dated December 28, 2003 that he had purchased 5 lots of counterfeit wine that were consigned by Rudy Kurniawan. Later, as you may remember, Greenberg began buying wines from Rudy in quantity and once claimed to “partner” with Rudy in selling rare wines.
Rudy continued selling counterfeit wines at auction in 2004 and 2005 and the sales of counterfeit wines to individuals also ramped up a lot. Between 2003 and 2005 there were more than $4.5 million in private sales that were documented.
There has been prior discussion in the thread about the genesis of the sale of the fake Ponsot wines in April 2008. As you may recall, the Kurniawan wines (from Ponsot, Roumier and Rousseau) were offered in the middle of an auction catalog of Rob Rosania wines. The Roumier and Rousseau wines offered by Kurniawan in the April 2008 auction were also counterfeit – but because there were no glaring errors in those wines, the sale of those wines went forward. The reason for the April 2008 sale of wines by Rudy was that Rudy owed Acker Merrall nearly $10 million at that point owing to refunds that Acker had to make due returns of suspected counterfeits from the Cellar I and Cellar II auctions. The April 2008 auction, and another apparently to follow, were supposed to get Acker paid back. As you saw in the interview of with Christophe Roumier, Rudy had gotten fairly sloppy with his research by the time of the Cellar I and Cellar II sales. Rudy created multiple Roumier Bonnes Mares labels containing the language Ancien Domaine Belorgey on the label, despite the fact that Roumier did not acquire that parcel until 1952.
To the best of my knowledge, the old Patriarche bottles were used as a source of old glass bottles that would be consistent with the alleged old vintages being offered and the contents may have been used as parts of the blends made by Rudy, rather than being simply relabeled.
1 Like
I thought it was cases of stuff that was from “A Ponsot”, not “THE Ponsot”. Wasn’t it like Paul Ponsot? (the other name is escaping me right now).
Ian:
No, I think you’re mixing up two different components of the story. Rudy made three large purchases of old Patriarche burgundies, at cheap prices, which we believe were purchased to obtain glass bottles from the 20’s through the 50s. The wine contents might possibly have been used as blending feedstock as well, though if you’ve ever had any old Patriarche burgundies you know they’re pretty awful.
The story about Ponsot is different – Rudy purchased a single bottle of the “wrong” Ponsot. But Rudy didn’t know what he had purchased, didn’t inspect the bottle apparently, and arguably ended up in prison because of it. To explain:
There was once a negociant named Christine Ponsot, from the town of Chalon sur Saone. The firm has long been out of business. (It is my understanding that Christine Ponsot was not related to Laurent Ponsot or his family.)
On September 9, 2005 Rudy attended an Acker auction and purchased a single bottle of what was described in the catalog as “Lot 837 Clos St. Denis - Vintage 1947 Ponsot lbsl, outstanding color and condition.” Rudy got into a bidding war for the bottle and paid $14,220 for it. But Rudy apparently never inspected the bottle or found out that it was from Christine Ponsot, not Domaine Ponsot as Rudy must have assumed.
As Doug Barzelay explained to Geoff Troy and I in an email sent February 20, 2012:
… [V]ery soon after the 4/25/08 auction, in a conversation I had with Rudy (I think it was at the lunch with Laurent Ponsot and John Kapon, at which Rudy promised to give Laurent the name of the person who sold him the wine!), Rudy asked me something like “don’t you remember the bottle of '47 Ponsot Clos St. Denis a few years ago that Don (Stott) and I were bidding against each other on, that I won? So don’t there have to be old Ponsot Clos St. Denis?” He seemed rather taken aback when I told him I did remember that bottle, but it was from Christine Ponsot and she was no relation to Laurent. Obviously, he had never looked at the bottle he bought.
Incidentally, I had the '47 Echezeaux from Christine Ponsot last fall and it was pretty good.
By the way, Rudy Kurniawan, now age 43, was transferred from the Federal prison near Taft California to the Reeves I & II prison facility, which is operated by a Federal contractor, in Pecos Texas. According to the Bureau of Prisons website, Rudy is scheduled to be released on November 7, 2020. Rudy was sentenced to ten years in prison but was given credit for the time he was in jail (bail was denied as he was deemed a flight risk). Rudy was arrested in March of 2012, so he has apparently obtained sufficient good time credits so as to be released about 16 months early.
Under the terms of the prior Federal judgments in the immigration case that was discussed in the criminal trial, Rudy is supposed to be deported after his release from prison. However, as you may recall, after Rudy had exhausted all of his appeals seeking asylum etc., he was ordered to be deported in 2003. Rudy never left the country and the former INS apparently lost track of Rudy until was arrested in March of 2012. Hopefully, he’ll be turned over to Homeland Security directly from Federal prison.
Given he is being released from Federal prison, pretty much 100%. Otherwise, not so much.
I knew there was another, unrelated Ponsot, just couldn’t remember the connection to Rudy. I know a few people that have drunk bottles of Christine Ponsot and thoroughly enjoyed them.
Does anybody know what happened to the mother of Rudy who lived in the house with him? Did she has a clue what Rudy produce in his “factory” and where all the money was coming from? I mean if my son buys a Lamborghini I am a bit curious, no?
Furthermore: Laurent Ponsot claimed he is absolutely sure that Rudy was not alone due to the sheer number of fake bottles he sold and the time needed for faking a bottle (1 hour at least?). I think or hope this question was on the table during the trial. Was Rudy a one man show?
On one side it might be physically impossible to counterfeit the volume of wines he was doing alone. So it is plausible to assume that he had help in some degree.
On the other side, why wouldn’t Rudy name any accomplices? He got 10 years (first ever sentencing for wine counterfeit in USA I believe), plus he is getting deported back to Indonesia. On top of that he owes $28.4 million in restitution. I only see him protecting people if it was his family.
Big fan of Sour Grapes and In Vino Duplicitas. This thread is actually my first introduction to WB a few years ago.
Jürgen:
As far as I know, Rudy’s mother, Lenywati Tan, is still living in the same house in Arcadia California (part of the Los Angeles metropolitan area.) The ownership of the home has not changed.
If you look at the photos that the FBI released, it would be absolutely impossible for Rudy’s mother to have lived in that house and not know that counterfeit wines were being produced by her son in massive quantities.
No one really knows how long it took Rudy “per bottle,” but there is certainly reason to believe that he had help. There was evidence introduced at the trial that Rudy had help from his brother in Indonesia and that Rudy was sourcing many of the labels from Indonesia. I have long suspected that Rudy had local help from someone to help produce the bottles, but I never had proof. The day before Rudy’s home was raided I met with the FBI and the prosecutor, Jason Hernandez, here in Los Angeles. They asked me if I had any ideas about where Rudy was producing the counterfeits. We discussed my speculation about possible locations, but I told them that the one thing I was virtually certain of was that Rudy was not manufacturing the counterfeits at his home, because he seemed much too smart for that. Boy, was I wrong.
Thanks for the answers. Yes - it is surprising that Rudy manufactured fakes at home. I guess the only reasonable answer is that he felt pretty confident and safe. But rumors about the possibility that Rudys wines are not real were in the world for quite a while. And if my recollection does not fool me Rudy even got some warnings from people who were visited by the FBI asking questions about him. At the end he was less smart as it seemed for some time.
On the other hand: Maybe his confidence grew when he realized that he could fool almost anybody with his fakes at tastings. The same with Meinhard Görke alias Hardy Rodenstock, the guy from Poland who stated he is German. In one of his famous tastings he poured Jeroboams of Petrus from the 20th last century and Robert Parker was enthusiastic about their quality. Even after the Moueix family said that those bottles were never produced because Petrus was an almost unknown farmhouse then and Pomerol was not fancy at the time.
1 Like