The auction is on Thursday; the lot is still there. Barring some Ponsot type intervention, some lucky person is likely to spend $20k on God knows what. Is there no authority in Hong Kong one can direct the doubts raised by Don here on Berserkers?
![[rofl.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/a/a7452fcd8e675af869f8da01174474a545b03944.gif "rofl"){kind=small}
Unfortunately, the authorities in Hong Kong now reside in Beijing. Sad state of affairs in one of the world’s most incredible cities.
It seems that Hong Kong is the perfect play ground for fraudsters.
Don, this sort of makes me think that we can’t really trust Zachy’s authentication either. In 2012 both Rodenstock and Rudy were widely exposed. So the purchase in 1984 might have been excusable, but assuming this bottle was ok in 2012 based on a 1984 receipt sure isn’t.
Wait - you can’t trust Acker authentication?
Mark:
One of my colleagues has notified the Hong Kong authorities that oversee wine auctions. However, Hong Kong generally will not intervene to remove bottles on the grounds that they are counterfeit unless the domaine or chateau in question gets directly involved and requests action from the government. The bottles would be seized under that scenario. We have notified DRC and their Hong Kong agents about the problem, and have received an acknowledgment from DRC’s Hong Kong agent.
It has been very difficult to get DRC involved in dealing with government agencies on matters relating to counterfeiting after the Alexander Iugov (a/k/a Alexander Anikin) case. As you may remember, Alexander Anikin ran a ring based in Russia and Italy that created and distributed counterfeit DRC wines. He was arrested by Interpol on a trip to France and was convicted for distributing counterfeit DRC wines on a significant scale. DRC devoted considerable time to that investigation and prosecution. Following his conviction the Judge sentenced him to time served while awaiting trial. I can assure you that Aubert was quite angry about that.
John:
My friend Geoffrey Troy became involved in authenticating the wines at Zachy’s in January of 2013. Zachy’s senior auction personnel have also changed. So things have gotten a lot more trustworthy at Zachy’s since the bottle in question was sold in 2012.
Don, I’m not sure if you’re comfortable naming names in a negative way, but as someone just barely dipping my feet into the auction world (which is probably where I’ll stay — in the shallow end), do you mind sharing which auction houses where you do trust their authentication team?
Only two auction houses would get my long-term seal of approval: Hart-Davis-Hart and Sotheby’s. I trust the Zachy’s authentication team since 2013 when Geoff Troy got involved in the authentication process there. However, I did have a major problem with Zachy’s management’s decision to sell additional wines from Eric Greenberg, who was found in the Koch v. Greenberg lawsuit to have knowingly and intentionally sold counterfeit wines at auction which were purchased by Bill Koch. The problem is that none of us are perfect and we can’t catch them all.
If that was intended as humor, it’s the post of the year.
Thanks Don. I can understand Aubert’s annoyance. Some rich guy getting suckered; it seems that the one constant is that it is almost being treated like a victimless crime. Sentences are ridiculously light (Rudy being the exception) and it obviously encourages others to fake.
.
The other side of that coin is a slap-on-the-wrist approach to white collar crime in general. It’s not like he was hungry and stole of loaf of bread, ya know…
1 Like
I was informed by a friend in Hong Kong that Lot 710 – the purported 1924 Romanee Conti – has been withdrawn from the Acker auction. I have received no communication from Acker in response to any of my emails. However, there was an article published on a Hong Kong wine website this morning, which contained confirmation from Acker Hong Kong’s Andrew Bigbee that the lot has been withdrawn: Acker withdraws DRC lot in upcoming Hong Kong auction
The article quotes Acker Hong Kong CEO Bigbee as stating that Lot 710 "was withdrawn from the auction last Thursday.” While I didn’t check the Acker website myself until late yesterday, Marc Golodetz reported on Sunday at 7:19 am Eastern Daylight time that Lot 710 was still there in the catalog. I have downloaded the PDF catalog again. The photograph of Lot 710 which was page 159 of the catalog has now been deleted - it is as though it was never there. Page 160 of the catalog, which provided the text describing the lot, has now been changed and the entry for Lot 710 simply says “No Lot.”
Oh, once Don lights a fire the smoke is visible around the globe.
People will see that post, by various means, and then the “inquiries” come flooding in.
The pressure will be on and inescapable.
It’ll get pulled
Don, these are clearly not the types of wines I buy in any case, but I have a lot of admiration for the amount of work you do in preventing wine fraud. For me, a number of years ago I stopped buying wine retail at Acker (or, of course, through auction). Why support their business when there are so many reputable retailers in the world. Even though I doubt they are committing fraud on the level of wines I would buy retail, I would feel dirty buying from them.
I think you should know by now that Kapon is not going to communicate with you. You didn’t really expect a response from him did you?
The outcome is exactly what I expected when you brought this up … Ignore you, but pull the lot.
Perhaps you’re right Mark. I am least glad that that lot was pulled. Sometimes in the past Acker simply went ahead and sold the lot in question anyway.
Wine Searcher’s W Blake Gray posted an article about Lot 710 today with quotes from Acker about the withdrawal of the 1924 Romanee Conti. DRC Withdrawn from Auction After Protest | Wine-Searcher News & Features Mr. Gray asks very thought provoking questions about anonymous lots like this one.