While I suspect that the reverberations from the Spectrum/Vanquish auction will continue for some time, it also makes sense, as several posts have, to ask what can be done to minimize the amount of fraudulent wine that reaches the auction market.
The question for the auction houses is simple: do they not have a responsibility to their customers (buyers), from a business standpoint at a minimum, to take reasonable measures to assure the quality and authenticity of what they sell? Certainly, they all concur in wanting us as buyers to think they do, with their staffs of “specialists” and their vivid catalog descriptions of long hours examining dusty bottles. With few exceptions, this remains more in the realm of puffing than of actuality. Nevertheless, the issue is not going to go away, and the auction houses need to face up to it themselves, or the regulatory and legal systems will in time force them to do so. While I don’t profess to have a neat set of answers, I thought that, in the interests of starting a dialogue, it could be useful to proffer a few observations and suggestions. I’ve written at more length on this subject in a blog post (www.oldvinenotes.com), but in summary:
–If the auction houses want to get serious about this issue, then at a minimum, they need to hire a truly independent (and experienced) third party to vet the expensive/questionable bottles. Because of its widespread use in the art world, the idea of independent expert review will certainly not be a novelty to the large auction houses. For it to work properly, however, there would need to be far greater cooperation from the producers. Building a reliable database of information is going to be key to any such effort.
–Once the obvious fakes are excluded, there still can and should be a market for those bottles that are neither of impeccable provenance, nor counterfeit—but that may still provide great drinking experiences. It just has to be a market in which they find their own level. The possible model for achieving this is one that takes its cue from the securities industry: full disclosure of all material facts that would affect a reasonable buyer’s decision. Presumably, if everything relevant about provenance, condition and storage, is disclosed, then informed buyers can make their own decisions, and bottles will find different price levels depending on the perceived risk. Real due diligence has to be a cornerstone of this approach, and I would advocate this be overseen by truly independent third parties, as a part of the independent expert review process mentioned above, and not by in-house personnel or “captive” third parties.
– There will be several challenges for the auction houses in adopting such an approach, which I address in my blog post for those who are interested. In summary, none of the objections that will inevitably be raised poses an insuperable obstacle, and I think that a system can be worked out to prevent most frauds—provided a critical mass of auction houses would be willing to do so. If I’m right, then given their current reluctance to step up, what the auction houses may need is a little “gentle” encouragement from us, their customers—by making our preferences known through platforms such as this, or in direct conversation, but also in the way they will best understand, through our patronage of those who will stand up and do the right thing, and refusal to do business—any business–with those who won’t.
