This right here, exactly.
2 Likes
Some people will believe what they wish was or is true.
1 Like
and if it tastes kinda off, easy to just say “probably a bad bottle/cork”
4 Likes
The thing that struck me is that all his bottles were reported to be fantastic. That should have been a tipoff. I never once read an account of a tasting where a bottle of his was so-so or flawed.
1 Like
But isn’t that the case with MOST wines these days? Finding ‘excuses’ if they don’t live up to expectations?
Cheers
6 Likes
Not sure what the relevance of that is to this conversation about Rudy and fake wines?
3 Likes
Agreed. Though I think there’s a bit of a bias there towards not wanting to be perceived as sticking your neck out / going against the crowd, and at the time the crowd perception was that Rudy and his wines were the thing.
5 Likes
New Maureen Downey interview
2 Likes
emperor’s new clothes. You dont want to look a fool going against the crowd
4 Likes
I have no idea to which tasting you are now referring to - I guess there might’ve been more than a few mentioned over the course of some 9300 past messages… 
Let us know when you’re done working through those 9300 posts.
4 Likes
You’re the only one that mentioned going through 9300 posts. Get to work.
1 Like
Leo - that was for the photo shoot. In reality we use digital; microscopes that hook up to laptops so we can take images and videos of paper characteristics/fiber and ink and print.
5 Likes
Yes - but a long time ago. Haven’t heard from her in a while.
2 Likes
Um, are you sure it was only once?
How do you feel about vendors compensating buyers when it turns out they have sold counterfeits? Particularly, counterfeit DRC? Do tell!
John:
To clarify, the published notes and commentary, which was mostly by John Kapon but in some cases by Allen Meadows, tended to be laudatory. Kapon certainly never commented negatively about Rudy’s bottles, because Rudy was Kapon’s meal ticket and he was shamelessly promoting Rudy. Allen Meadows’ comments were also generally very positive (and we always suspected that Rudy fed Allen mostly legitimate bottles to build his reputation) although Allen did make a few comments such as flagging the 1945 Romanee Conti bottles that Rudy brought to the New York Wine Experience as obviously fake (though he suggested or implied that Rudy was a victim purchaser.)
But here in LA there were certainly negative comments and even complaints from some of the members of the Burgwhores group about some of the duds and bad bottles that Rudy showed up with to tastings. But it appears that Rudy was using these dinners to see what would pass when sold to others.
3 Likes
Don,
that was the suspicion with Rodenstock / Parker too. I mean that Hardy probably poured the real thing at his tastings and sold the fakes later.
I too thought that this is the most logic explanation for a while. But I got sceptic after reading a Parker report on Squiers in which he wrote that at a fun dinner he attended a rich guy and collector (Park Smith???) opened 2 magnums of 1947 Lafleur and he thought one was ok but the other overwhelmingly good. In the discussion that followed on the Squires Board (if memory serve me well) I asked how it could be that someone has 2 Mags of the famed 47 Lafleur in his car though the Robin sisters – owners of Lafleur at that time – mentioned that only 5 were produced because they could not get more big bottles short after second world war. The simple answer of Parker was that some people (me included) are always too sceptic.
Parker complained in an other thread that Rodenstock always had the tendency of pouring the best (and most expensive) bottles at the end of the tastings. While nobody was allowed to spit the attendees were drunk at this moment. I guess this was the case too at the huge parties of the 12 angry men i.e. given the number of bottles that were opened at this events.
Who on earth is able to be objective and capable of tasting with a bottle of wine plus in his system. I guess this explains something. A more disappointing theory would be that the critics are not the super tasters we all thought they are. I mean it is important for the reputation of a critic that the audience respects his abilities. Since I was at several blind tastings with well known critics I know for sure that these people are not flawless. In fact it is naiv to think they are. We are all full of flaws. Without exception.
8 Likes
Great comments, all: thank you. Such an interesting topic.