FWIW, speaking of 1948 DRC, the GE from that year out of mag is one of the best wines I’ve had. Actually 2 bottles, one very good and the other profound. I’ve also had the 1950 La Tache. Quite delicate and nice but nothing more. The only wine made by DRC that year I think.
Edit: Just saw Don and Kevin mentioned the '48 GE above. A truly great wine that we shared.
Any interesting factoids about 1949 DRC GE?
I note Jancis tweeted that Acker-Merrel have removed all the old auction catalogues from their website.
Trying to avoid a revisionist appraisal of their lots…?
Interesting.
I wonder if Don has received any correspondence from any Feb. 8 auction buyers since the auction’s conclusion wherein they express concern about the authenticity of their purchase(s). How many?
All DRC fakes should be sealed with a Domaine Serene cork.
In regards to the Bollinger VVF vines, they tend to average 25-40 years of age and none of them get much older. Bollinger has regular replanting intervals every ten years. The en foule vines really do have density of 30,000 vines/ha which compares with normal planting in Champagne where you normally don’t see more than 7,000 vines/ha. Still, the VVF vines don’t yield any more (and yield even less depending on how you prune). It is also important to note that of the two remaining vineyards Clos St. Jacques and Clos Chaudes Terres, Clos St. Jacques is planted half en foule and half the more traditional way (done to compare the results of the two methods). As mentioned above, a 3rd vineyard, Croix Rouge succumbed to phylloxera in 2005 and is no longer in production. However, trials are going on for other ungrafted vine sites and one in particular looks very promising so a 3rd vineyard may come back on line soon.
Also of note about the Bollinger vines is that what makes them special isn’t so much the ungrafted rootstock, but the location where the ungrafted rootstock has thrived for so long. All around these small plots are areas where phylloxera took hold, but for various reasons (none of which are soil), these spots didn’t get hit. Ungrafted vines in areas where phylloxera never hit are certainly not common in Champagne, but there are a number of them. Normally these sites are in sandy soils where the louse couldn’t thrive. It is quite abnormal to see spots like Bollinger’s where the soil normally invites attacks.
*edited for poor grammar and spelling
Thanks Brad.
I find it very interesting that Acker, at this particular time, would remove their older catalogues from their web site. Certainly not customer friendly move at a time when their valued clients have concerns about authenticity of bottles nor a thoughtful public relations move by John.
In answer to the question asked, I’ve received no further communications from Spectrum since Saturday Feb. 4.
For those of you who may have purchased DRC wines in this auction and are now looking in for more news, I regret to have to say that there is more to tell.
As I’ve mentioned previously, we simply didn’t have sufficient time to look at every single picture and comprehensively evaluate each one for inconsistencies with bottles known to have good provenance before the auction began. So we’ve continued to work on completing our detailed analysis of each lot of DRC wines and have now completed that task.
As for the “we” reference, many of you already know by virtue of an article by John Tilson that I’ve been working on this matter with my colleagues Geoffrey Troy and Doug Barzelay since they first called me to ask my impressions of the Spectrum catalog. They are both dedicated professionals and they are both unbelievably thorough in wanting to evaluate and re-check each item carefully before arriving at a conclusion. We all share a common desire to see the auction market cleaned up and the sale of counterfeit wines stopped. My sincere thanks to both of them for the countless hours that each has devoted to this task.
Our analysis has been limited to the DRC burgundies, the Vogue burgundies and the Dujac burgundies. We’ve not made any comprehensive attempt to evaluate any other wines in the catalog. The Vogue items we referred to the Domaine, who requested that the sale of the Vogue items be stopped. Dujac has also looked at the three lots of their wines in the auction (two of which were not ulitmately sold) and Dujac has not found any notable discrepancies based on the photographs. So the list below is limited solely to additional discrepancies we have discovered on the DRC lots.
We hope full disclosure of these additional discrepanciesare will further the public debate about the wines offered by Messrs. Kurniawan and Castanos and whether wines from these gentlemen should be considered by auction houses for future sale. We also hope the list will contribute to a better understanding of the level of “expertise” applied by Spectrum and Vanquish in vetting these wines before the auction. Finally, we also hope that this list will provide material assistance to any of the purchasers of DRC lots at the auction who may wish to seek cancellation of the sales and prompt refunds.
Additional Discrepancies We Have Found
Lot 14 [La Tâche 1962-2 Bottles]
(1) The 62 is aligned above the 19 on the date. Compare the Spectrum photos of Lot 14 with the consistently aligned bottles shown in “The Legendary Collection of Robert Caine,” Zachy’s February 11, 2011 (Lot 1441 at page 85) and “Wines from the Legendary Cellar of Wolfgang Grünewald,” Acker-Merrall Oct 16, 2008 (Lot 646 photo at page 174).
(2) The font on the bottle numbers on the Spectrum bottles does not match the Bates-stamped type fonts on the bottle numbers shown in the Caine Collection catalog and the Grünewald catalog. See the photos of the bottle numbers on the 1962 DRC wines in the Caine Collection catalog (at page 85) and the Grünewald catalog (Grand Echezaux at page 168, La Tache at page 174 and Richebourg at page 180.)
(3) The capsule on Lot 14 appears to have been removed and reapplied.
Lot 15 [La Tâche 1962-Magnum]
(1) The 62 is clearly aligned above the 19 on the date. Compare this with the photos of the consistently aligned 1962 in the Caine Collection catalog at page 85 and the Grünewald catalog at page 174.
(2) The three-digit bottle number on this magnum conflicts with five-digit numbers on Lot 14 and the four-digit number on Lot 16. As shown on the Grünewald magnums and the Caine 750ml bottles mentioned above, the correct number of digits is five. See also “Magnificent Bordeaux and Burgundy from an Important Private Cellar,” Sotheby’s NY April 10, 2008 (Lots 111-112 at page 34 - which includes both magnum and jeroboam).
(3) None of the digits of the Spectrum bottle number align with one another (impossible with a Bates-stamp), suggesting that someone applied each number separately. Compare the consistently aligned five digits on the Caine 750s, the Grünewald magnums and the Sotheby’s “Magnificent” magnum and jeroboam.
(4) The capsule has been cut (apparently before it was received by Spectrum) and may have been reapplied.
Lot 16 [La Tâche 1962-Jeroboam]:
(1) The 62 is clearly aligned above the 19 on the date and, on the Jeroboam, the vertical alignment is skewed slightly. Compare this with the photos of the consistently aligned 1962 in the Caine Collection catalog at page 85, the Grünewald catalog at page 174 and the Sotheby’s “Magnificent” magnums and jeroboam at Lots 111-112 at page 34.
(2) The Wildman strip label does not match the one on the Grünewald magnums. The Spectrum bottle strip label incorrectly says “Produce of France.” It should say “Product of France.” The font on “Burgundy Red Wine” on the strip label on the Spectrum bottle is much too large. It should be the same-sized font as the “Product of France” immediately below it. On the right side of the strip label someone has previously seen that the strip label stated a fluid content inconsistent with a Jeroboam (6 pints, 4 ounces) and has scribbled over the errant entries and written in the correct entries in ink. There are 10 other Wildman strip labels in the Spectrum catalog that say “Product.” See also Caine Collection catalog at page 85 (62 La Tâche) and Grünewald catalog at pages 174 (62 La Tâche magnums) and 182 (66 Richebourg)
(3) The four digit hand-stamped numbers don’t match the three digit Spectrum magnum (Lot 15) or five digit 750s (Lot 14). The correct number should be five digits based on the 750s in the Caine catalog, the magnum in the Grünewald catalog and the magnums and jeroboam in the Sotheby’s “Magnificent” catalog.
(4) None of the numerals in the bottle number align with each other either horizontally or vertically. This suggests the numbers were applied by hand, rather than a Bates-stamp machine. Compare the photo of this jeroboam with the consistently-sloped five digit Bates-stamped bottle numbers on the Caine, Grünewald and Sotheby’s “Magnificent” bottles.
(5) The top of the wax capsule appears to have been removed, which could have allowed replacement of the branded cork.
(6) This jeroboam was being offered without the original wood case in which it came packed. It is worth noting here that Rudy Kurniawan sold three jeroboams of 62 La Tache at the Cellar II auction in October 2006 – all without their original wooden cases – and another jeroboam of 1962 was sold at the Rosania/Kurniawan sale on April 25, 2008 at Acker Merrall, which was also without its original wooden case.
Lots 37-43 [Romanée Conti 1990-7 Bottles, 1 Bottle, Magnum, Magnum, Magnum, Jeroboam and Methuselah]:
(1) The 90 does not align with the 19 on the dates on any of these bottles. Additionally, on lots 40 and 41, the 90 is skewed slightly to the left on higher magnification, whereas on Lot 42 the 90 skews slightly right on higher magnification. Compare the photos of these lots on high magnification with the photos of the evenly aligned bottles and magnums of 1990 in the Zachys/Wally’s Late Spring Auction catalog, June 21, 2008 (at pages 168 and 178), Sotheby’s “The Ultimate Cellar,” April 2-3, 2011 (at page 50) and Acker-Merrall Hong Kong I, May 31, 2008 (at pages 169 and 181).
(2) The domaine-imprinted portion of the capsules on lots 37 and 38 were cut off before Spectrum’s inspection.
(3) Both the Jeroboam and the Methuselah were offered without their original wooden cases.
(4) Jeroboam No. 00008 was sold previously at Acker-Merrall’s November 5, 2008 auction in Hong Kong (Lot 490). The bottle was sold without its original wooden case and was described as having a cracked capsule. Rudy Kurniawan is known to have sold one jeroboam of 1990 Romanée Conti in the Cellar II auction on October 20, 2006 (Lot 2226), but the bottle number of that jeroboam is not specified in the catalog and the photos are no longer available on Acker’s website. There are three other auction sales of 1990 Romanée Conti Jeroboams by Acker between 2004 and 2007, in each case sold without an OWC, for which the bottle number is not identified and the seller is presently unknown.
.
Lot 88 [Romanée Conti 1988-2 Bottles]:
(1) The domaine-imprinted portion of the capsules were cut off before inspection. Why would anyone accept DRC bottles for auction where this has been consistently done? And done with no explanation and no provenance provided?
(2) The Wilson-Daniels slip label is missing the required bottle size and the usual second line of data. Compare the slip label with Lots 89 and 93.
Lot 89 [Romanée Conti 1985-5 Bottles]:
(1) The domaine-imprinted portion of the capsules were cut off before inspection. This is unheard of (except recently at Spectrum).
(2) If you look at the cork in the bottle near the neck on higher magnification, it is apparent that the cork was previously removed. There is a clear line of debris on the glass about 3/8ths of an inch below the cork on the left side where the former cork extended. Right above that line there also appears to be a ghost image of :”1 9 8 7” left on the glass, which I would surmise was from the original cork. What look to be crystals between the glass bottle neck and the cork seem impossible to explain except by cork removal and reinsertion.
Lot 93 [Romanée Conti 1980-3 Bottles]: The domaine-imprinted portion of the capsules were cut off before inspection.
Lot 95 [Romanée Conti 1978-3 Bottles]:
(1) The domaine-imprinted portion of the capsules were cut off before inspection.
(2) Sackville Street is misspelled again as “Sackvilee” on the Percy Fox strip label (just like Lot 94, which was withdrawn.)
(3) There are irregular white margins around the Percy Fox neck label which suggest that this one was handcut (use 200% magnification). Compare the neck label on Lot 94.
Lot 98 [Romanée Conti 1972-2 Bottles]:
(1) This label contains an Aigu emphasis mark over the first e in Propriétaire, but should not in this vintage.
(2) The domaine-imprinted portion of the capsules were cut off before inspection.
Lot 99 [Romanée Conti 1971-2 Bottles (already withdrawn)]:
In addition to the defects for this lot which were listed previously, and resulted in the wine being withdrawn, the Lebègue-Bichot neck labels on this lot appear to be incorrect. Lebègue changed the firm name and its city location became exclusively London prior to the release of the 1966 vintage. See the discussion in connection with Lots 119-120 below.
Lots 119 and 120 [Romanée Conti 1966-3 Magnums and 1 Magnum]:
(1) The labels for both lots contain an Aigu emphasis mark over the first e in Propriétaire, but should not in the 1966 vintage.
(2) The label on Lot 120 lacks an Aigu emphasis mark over the first e in Romanée on the green-colored Appellation Controlée line.
(3) Lot 119 has a hand-stamped four digit bottle number, but there is a five digit bottle number on Lot 120 and also on Lot 118 (previously withdrawn). The correct number is five digits. See for example the photo of the 1966 Romanee Conti in the Grünewald auction (discussed above) at page 184.
(4) The Lebègue neck label shown in the photos of Lots 119 and 120 is totally inconsistent with the Lebegue neck label actually in use at the time, which is shown on the bottle of 66 RC in the Grünewald catalogat page 184. The neck label on Lots 120-121 reads:
J.-L.-P. LEBĒGUE – BICHOT & Cie
BEAUNE & LONDRES
In contrast, the Lebegue neck labels on the Grünewald bottles of 66 Romanee Conti say:
J.-L.-P. LEBÈGUE & Co Ltd
LONDON
The latter is correct from 1966 onward. Ironically, the photos on the Spectrum website for Lot 66 (the second lot of DRC Montrachet) and 100-101 (1971 Romanée Conti) actually show the appropriate Lebègue neck labels for the time period when the 1966 vintage was released. [Correction: The Spectrum bottles incorrectly include modern Ampersands where the original Lebegue label included the old stylized &.] On the other hand, the photos shown in the catalog for Lots 65 and 66 had the same incorrect neck label as Lots 119 and 120.
Follow up note: The fonts used on Wine Berserkers don’t tell the full story here. Our local font turns modern Ampersands into the old style French &. The Spectrum bottles have modern Ampersands. The real label had the old style French &. Here’s an example of the Spectrum label. The modern Ampersand is clearly incorrect.
(5) In addition to the fact that the Lebègue company name and business location had changed as of the time the 1966 vintage was released, the producer of the neck label used on Lots 65, 99, 119 and 120 put an incorrect emphasis mark on the E in the name Lebègue.
(6) The capsule on Lot 119 has multiple folds and small cuts suggesting it has been removed. The cut and taped capsule on Lot 120 is not a Domaine capsule.
Lots 122, 125 and 126 [Romanée Conti 1962-6 Bottles, Magnum, Jeroboam]:
(1) The 62 clearly does not align with the 19 on the date, but it should. See for example “Magnificent Bordeaux and Burgundy from an Important Private Cellar,” Sotheby’s NY April 10, 2008 (Lot 113) at page 34, an enlarged area of which is shown below.
(2) The purported Jeroboam (Lot 126) has a four digit number with bottle number 0027, while Lot 125, a purported magnum of the same wine, has a five digit bottle number and also is bottle number 00027. (Lot 124 which was withdrawn also had five digits.) The correct number of digits for 62 Romanée Conti is five. See for example “Magnificent Bordeaux and Burgundy from an Important Private Cellar,” Sotheby’s NY April 10, 2008 (Lots 111-113) at page 34. That’s true for all of the 1962 DRC wines as well. See the Caine Collection catalog (La Tâche at page 85) and the Grünewald catalog (Grand Echezaux at page 168, La Tâche at page 174 and Richebourg at page 180.)
(3) All three lots have capsule problems. On lot 122, the folds and cuts on the capsule suggest possible tampering. Similarly, on lot 125 the capsule has many tears top to bottom and has obviously been removed and put back on. On Lot 126 the wax capsule does not appear to an original DRC wax capsule
(4) The 62 Jeroboam is once again being offered without its OWC. That’s pretty strange except for instances where the wines are sold by Rudy Kurniawan.
Lot 128 [Romanée Conti 1959-5 Bottles]:
(1) This label lacks an Aigu emphasis mark over the first e in Romanée on the green colored Appellation Controlée line.
(2) There is way too much space between the 9 and the 5 in 1959 and the 5 is improperly aligned too high. As above the date should be evenly aligned.
(3) The long folds on both sides of the capsule suggest the capsule may have been removed and reattached.
More amazing detective work once again Don.
Looking worse and worse for all those involved in this (and in some other) sales…
The silence from Spectrum is deafening…
Could not agree more, excellent work Don! However, do you really think the silence is deafening Paul?
I think it speaks volumes!!! ![[wink.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/04707e6a7bbb03e0153e349d8a9270d30e1e9525.gif "wink"){kind=small}
Once again, great work, Don. Incredible really. Do you know if all these DRC’s were consigned by Rudy? And what about the Vogues, which I gather you (your team) pointed out discrepancies to the domaine? Or did the domaine separately reach its conclusions that the bottles should be withdrawn?
It is pretty amazing to think that Spectrum rejected 60 or more lots from Rudy, but these bottles are the ones that were accepted for consignment.
The link in post 712 is still active (Acker Merrall & Condit Fine Wine Auctions April 25, 2008)
/Claus
Don, the effort you have put into this is absolutely astounding.
It is however, interesting that the points coming up now are on the whole much more refined and perhaps difficult to point out without spending lots of time and equipment and perhaps money… Perhaps it would show with the bottles to hand more easily but this is a fantastic body of work…
Thank you.
Thanks Claus - so they didn’t physically remove the catalogues - bookmarks still work - they just removed the menu item to find them.
Re the 1962 RC photo published above - in the bottle serial no the ‘5’ looks higher than all the others - is that the Sothebys bt?
jono, yesterday I received an invite from Spectrum for a Palmer tasting in Beverley Hills on March 13th. Tastings include 1961, 1995, 1996, 1999, 2000, 2005 and 2009.
I wonder if those glasses will be taste of soap also. ![[snort.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/b/bdc3944606213c4dca6c1169cf0a166c8bc4f8c9.gif "snort.gif"){kind=small}
I also got the invitation. $295 per person, an excellent deal.
Did Don get the invitation too?
I guess they love him just as much as RMP loves ‘this blogger’