Wine-Searcher article now up re this crediting Don on berserkers. Buy of course Acker says it was due to their final diligent inspection that they caught this, forgetting to mention they missed the previous one . . .
Acker probably has a custom made dartboard with Don’s face on it.
+1, but I know of a local group in TX that pooled their wines to get the consignment over a certain $ amount; as this results in a lower seller’s commission. After shopping around, they felt that they would get the highest return on their wines with Acker, despite my imploring two of the parties not to.
Wild that it was brought to Maureen by an anonymous person on Twitter…
I haven’t looked at an Acker Catalog in a while and I realize that this auction already took place and the wine already sold ($5,580), but Lot 810 looks very worrisome to me. Lot 810 is a Magnum of 1955 Krug (shown on page 255) and just about every part of the label seems off - spacing, fonts, sizes, layout, etc…
- Starting with the neck foil that has Great Britian written on it: Normally the words/letters Great and Britain would be center aligned and not bottom aligned
- The Krug & Co. Shield on the neck foil has lines in the illustration and spacing that is not consistent with bottles I have seen
- On the neck foil, just under the Krug Shield metioned above, the Private Cuvee lettering on the flag does not seem to have the normal letter thickness or word curvature
- On the neck foil, just under the Private Cuvee flag, the Extra Sec label is not spaced as normal in regards to the placement of the year ‘1955’
- On the main label, all of the words in red and the N.M. code seem to be in an incorrect font and their placement is slightly off in terms of normal layout
- The Krug illustration on the main label has more curved lines and the lines are longer/more extended than normal
- The overall condition of the red neck label and main label compared to some other aspects of the bottle also has me worried
Maybe there is a good explanation for the above and if so, I would love to hear it.
In the past Acker has sold a number of fake or very suspect older Krug bottles. This one falls into that same category to me. The picture of this bottle raises all sorts of red flags to me and I would have a lot of questions that needed answers before even considering buyinig. The funny thing is that Acker keeps putting big pictures of problematic bottles in their catalogs. I guess we should thank them for that, but it just seems odd. It would also lead me to wonder what do the bottles that they don’t show pictures of look like.
1 Like
Thanks Brad. Much appreciated!
For those that don’t recall, some years ago Brad and I (and it was mostly Brad) identified several apparently counterfeit champagnes consigned by Rob Rosania to an auction in Hong Kong. Much like what Brad has listed above, there were multiple discrepancies on a number of very rare older champagnes. One of the bottles that Brad flagged as apparently counterfeit was 1947 Krug, and Brad explained why in detail. In response, Acker claimed that the 1947 Krug had been authenticated by Krug. That was absolutely false. Moët Hennessy ended up filing a lawsuit in Hong Kong against Acker claiming that their trademarks had been infringed and that the company had suffered damage caused by Acker “passing off” the counterfeit 1947 Krug as authentic. In 2017, Acker entered into a settlement and stipulated judgment in favor of Moët Hennessy.
I was trying to process how the hell Acker can get judgments against them, then just keep on doing the same thing. But I was watching SUCCESSION last night, and some character threatened Siobhan, the titular head of the mega-news conglomerate, by saying “We’re going to expose what you’re doing and embarrass you.” She laughs, “We never feel embarrassed.”
2 Likes
It seems that this happens because none of the plaintiffs have the interest, or the intestinal fortitude, to go for the jugular when getting Acker to enter into a settlement. The plaintiffs should attack, insisting on things like no longer handling any of the labels that we currently own, not allowing Kapon to be involved in the business, etc. Getting a few bucks out of Acker and having them pull the suspect bottles is silly. Acker must be laughing their butts off after they leave those meetings with the lawyers.
I think someone should publicly challenge Acker - I will buy wines for you, but if they’re determined by a reputable third party to be fake you must pay me 5x the hammer price as liquidated damages. If they agree, that could be fun. If they do not agree, well…
Oh yeah! That’s going to happen! ![[rofl.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/a/a7452fcd8e675af869f8da01174474a545b03944.gif "rofl"){kind=small}
Not to divert but yikes!
Label on that Roumier doesn’t look right. Wrong paper.
Yikes, that label looks like an obvious fake
The problem is that except for the obvious wear marks on that particular label, which can happen in storage when bottles are pulled in or out, that label is good enough to fool almost anyone unless you have a known authentic bottle to compare side-by-side. This looks a lot like one of the counterfeit bottles that resulted in the 2016 conviction in France of couple of Belgian guys who got caught selling counterfeits of high end Roumier, Rouget and Dugat-Py. The counterfeits were very sophisticated, but the low level people who got caught selling the bottles were not. See this post for the scary side-by-side photos and you’ll see what I mean. https://www.wineberserkers.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2120462#p2120462
A lot of attention was paid to getting the color of the lettering right and using the Morey St. Denis bottle allows you to get the glass and capsule right – except the 2007 Morey St. Denis would not have carried a Proof Tag that would have been on the Bonnes Mares. The fact that the counterfeiter was producing fakes from the 2007 vintage also tells you that the claim that only the best vintages are faked isn’t true either. They will fake anything they think that they can readily sell. Yikes indeed.
WARNING – CHARLES-WINN, LLC CHARGED WITH RUNNING FRAUDULENT WINE INVESTMENT SCHEME BY SEVEN STATES
Charles-Winn, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company formed on August 3, 2017, has been found by six different state securities agencies since October of 2020 to be offering unregistered and fraudulent wine investments. Cease and Desist Orders have been issued by the States of Texas (October 22, 2020), Washington (January 7, 2021), Illinois (March 16, 2021), Michigan (April 21, 2021), Wisconsin (July 28, 2021) and California (October 5, 2021). In addition, the State of Oklahoma had an investigation underway as of May 2021.
As summarized in the State of Washington’s Cease and Decist Order dated January 7, 2021:
Charles Winn and its sales agents have engaged in a cold-calling scheme to target investors throughout the United States to invest in its wine brokerage program. Charles Winn claims it will identify and purchase a portfolio of fine wines on behalf of investors, which will be held in a bonded warehouse until sold for a profit. > Charles Winn raised at least $5 million dollars from investors nationwide. > Between approximately January 2018 and October 2020, four Washington residents invested approximately $68,000 in Charles Winn’s wine brokerage program. The Washington residents received repeated cold-call solicitations and were told they could make a lucrative return on an investment. To date, none of the investors have received a return on their investment. (Emphasis added)
Virtually every stated fact about the company contained on its website (www.charles-winn.com) or stated in its sales brochure, is false and fraudulent. The company is allegedly operated by a UK resident, Charlie Jake Smith, who has registered multiple apparently related UK entities – Winn Charles Ltd. (dissolved March 2021), Winn USA Ltd (dissolved March 2021), Wynn Management Ltd (dissolved Oct 2020). All three companies were shut down by the UK Companies House for having failed to file the required financial statements.
Charles-Winn, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, was formed on August 3, 2017. The company’s website falsely claims that the company was “established in 2006.” As the Texas State Securities Board found October 22, 2020:
Respondents are representing that Respondent Charles Winn, LLC, has been in business for 14 years. This representation is materially misleading or otherwise likely to deceive the public in light of the fact that Respondent Charles Winn, LLC, has only been a limited liability company registered in Delaware since August 3, 2017.
Charles-Winn represents on its website (www.charles-winn.com), and in published brochures, that it maintains an office at 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 210, Wilmington, Delaware 19801. According to the Texas Cease and Desist Order, “300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 210, Wilmington, Delaware 19801, is a virtual office site with no physical presence by Respondent Charles Winn, LLC…. Respondents are in fact located in the United Kingdom.”
The managing member of Charles-Winn, LLC is Charlie Jake Smith, a UK citizen allegedly residing at 23 Lawrence Road, Romford RM2 5SS United Kingdom. According to my UK wine fraud counterpart Jim Budd, there is no one named Charlie Jake Smith at that address, but there is a Jack Smith who allegedly operates a UK video company. As noted above, all three UK entities of which Charlie Jake Smith was listed as a director, have been shut down the UK government.
Beginning at least as early as January of 2018, Charles-Winn, LLC and its sales agents offered and sold securities, in the form of an investment contract called a “wine portfolio program” throughout the United States. Sales are accomplished by cold-calling or through contacts initiated through the company’s website. The sales are obtained by team of salespeople operating under aliases. According to the Order of the Texas State Securities Board dated October 22, 2020, the known sales team at that time included
- Oscar Valentine
Christian Fonte Aka Chris Font
Casey Farrell
Joe Adams
Helen Stanley and
Michael Jones.
All of these names are apparently aliases. The Texas Cease and Desist Order finds that Charles-Winn was guilty of “misrepresenting the identities of the agents of Respondent Charles Winn, LLC, and this constitutes a misrepresentation of a relevant fact.” Another story about the scam reported on Jamie Goode’s UK wine blog Wine Anorak in June 2019 reported that one of the purported salesmen, operating under the name “Christian Carter,” made multiple insistent phone calls urging the recipient to invest. He claimed to be located in Delaware but was communicating from a cell phone in the Dallas area with the number 214-256-4489, which was answered by various different people when the recipient dialed the number
Prospective investors receiving the calls are typically informed that wine investments are outperforming all other asset classes, that Charles-Winn invests in only the top 2% of wines in the wine market, and that by investing in wine with Charles-Winn, the investor will receive a projected return of 15 to 45% on their investment. Some investors were provided with a Charles Winn company brochure. The brochure included a chart depicting price performance of wine compared to other items such as gold and oil from 1988 to 2020. The Charles-Winn website lists “our wines” as consisting of the eight first growth Bordeaux vineyards plus Chateau Le Pin. The five burgundies listed are limited to wines from DRC: Romanée Conti, La Tâche, Richebourg, Romanée St. Vivant and Grands Échézeaux.
As explained in the Temporary Order of Prohibition issued by the Illinois Securities Department on March 16, 2021:
Charles-Winn through a sales team offered to sell investments in fine wines whereby the investor could invest in single bottles of wine, a collection of wines, or in a certain vintage of wines. Charles Winn offered to store these wines and eventually procure a purchaser for them. [Charles-Winn] would keep 10% of the sales price and the investor would receive the balance less expenses.
A very similar description of the compensation allegedly to be received by Charles-Winn is contained in the Cease and Decist Order issued by the State of Michigan dated April 21, 2021, with the notable addition that: “Respondent’s share of the profits would be ten percent (10%) of any profits; however, Respondents would receive no compensation if the wine failed to sell for a profit.”
The sales force making the fraudulent presentations represented that the investors would earn between 15% and 45% per year – and the claims became more embellished as time passed. In the solicitations described in the Texas Cease and Desist Order, between 2018 and October 2020, seven different salespeople “collectively claim[ed] investments in Respondent Charles Winn, LLC’s wine brokerage program produce returns between 15 and 27 percent per year.” In the Illinois Cease and Desist order dated March 16, 2021, “The salesman stated that [the] Investor could expect to make between 17% and 20% profit on his investment.” According to the Cease and Decist Order issued by the California Department of Financial Protection And Innovation on October 5, 2021:
Charles Winn and its agents made material misrepresentations to potential investors, including that investors would receive a projected return of 15 to 40% as a result of the investment. However, investors did not receive the promised return….
After making their initial investments, many investors were repeatedly contacted by Charles Winn sales agents and asked to purchase more wines for their portfolio. According to a May 2021 civil enforcement complaint filed by the Oklahoma Dept. of Securities, “Based on information received by the Department, in February 2021 CWL [Charles-Winn, LLC] sold an investment to an Oklahoma resident. To entice a second investment, CWL represented to the Oklahoma investor that an investment of $250,483 would yield a tax-free return of at least 45%. The Oklahoma investor has not received any return on his investment or of his principal.” (Emphasis added.)
When investors stated that they wanted to sell the wine portfolios they had had allegedly purchased, they were told that they could not do so. According to the Texas cease and desist order, “after investors purchased investments in the wine brokerage program, Respondents told investors that in order to sell their fine wines, the investors needed to purchase additional fine wines to diversify and make their portfolios more attractive to buyers.” Similarly, the Washington State Cease and Desist Order dated January 7, 2021 recites that
Over two years after his initial investment, one investor asked to sell the case of wine that he purchased. Charles Winn sales agents represented to this investor that he did not have a large enough portfolio of wine to sell, and that he needed to invest more funds to increase the value of his portfolio, which he could then combine with other investor portfolios to sell. The investor agreed to invest additional funds, and between August and October 2020, the resident invested an additional $46,180 with Charles Winn. The investor made payment via cashier’s check and wire transfers. Charles Winn sales agents represented to the investor that his additional investment was for the purchase of seven cases of wine.
In short, the people associated with Charles-Winn LLC offered unregistered securities and took investors’ money for a fraudulent wine investment scheme and delivered neither wine nor the promised investment returns. This UK-based wine investment scam is simply the latest in a long line of them. Previous incarnations include Bordeaux Cellars, Ltd. (see https://www.wineberserkers.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=3064130#p3064130)
If you know of victims of the Charles-Winn fraud scam, please contact me.
They (Charles-Winn) called me multiple times.
Thanks …Don.
It never fails to amaze me how people that have amassed a ton of money can still be pretty stupid. If I had tens or hundreds of thousands to invest in wine, why wouldn’t I just buy the wine myself, and then sell it myself? With all the fakery going on with wines right now, anything that smells like this Winn entity is likely fake as well.
Was he surrounded by any of the other Angry Fools? Did they have more bottles of '45 Mouton? If not, it was only une petite grande fête.