I received a response to my email from François Thienpont of Vieux Chateau Certan, who had previously referred my question about the word Récolte being displayed on the same line as the vintage 1949 on the label in the auction to his cousin Alexandre, who has been in charge of Vieux Chateau Certan since the 1986 vintage. François’ response:
“Hi,
Just spoke to my cousin [Alexandre]. He didn’t recall to ever seen “récolte 1949” printed on the same line. Therefore he suggest not to bid on this lot.
Best regards
François”
I don’t want to speak for Don, but in my experience, Frank Martell treats him with outright contempt. When Don emailed Martell about some suspect DRC, Frank’s response was : “I am not going to engage in any dialog regarding our findings, nor do we aspire to earn your validation on what we do and do not decide to sell.”
I am generally a very private person and had hoped to offer these wines without controversy, but I want to set the record straight.
The bottles in question have been in my personal cellar since my father’s passing. To suggest they are fraudulent is deeply painful to me.
For anyone who truly wants to understand the history of the 1870, I encourage you to read the Houston Chronicle from Thursday, October 11, 1984. It clearly documents that the 1870 purchased at auction was a Jeroboam, not a 750ml bottle. In addition, a member of the Rothschild family was present at that dinner to share the wine — it doesn’t get much more authentic than that.
In closing, I want to affirm that to the best of my knowledge, all of these wines are entirely genuine. I hope this helps clarify some of the questions that have been raised.
I never got that sense that the consigner was trying to knowingly sell counterfeit wine. However, it sounds like some of the information on the provenance may have gone through a few layers and many years until today. Bottles with claims that can’t be verified should not be marketed at such.
After all, most every family has some priceless heirloom with a great backstory that turned out to be something mass produced. We’ve all seen enough Antique Roadshows to know that.
Thank you for responding and for clarifying that the bottle referred to in your father’s obituary was a jeroboam (which makes much more sense with 52 people consuming the wine at the dinner). I understand that it is difficult for you to have the bottles questioned. Nevertheless, as the former President of a wine importer, I’m sure you understand why the description of the wine and its provenance is critically important in today’s wine auction market – particularly after Hardy Rodenstock and Rudy Kurniawan.
Here, the auction house is claiming that the 1870 Mouton, 1874 Mouton and 1945 Lafite were “reconditioned by chateau.” In two of three instances, no date is offered. There is no evidence offered (even in response to my repeated questions to Heritage) to confirm the claim of reconditioning by the chateau. In the case of the 1874 Mouton, the capsule does not appear to be a chateau-issued capsule. Per the strip label attached, the bottle originated from Whitwhams, which is absolutely infamous for doing their own recorking. In the case of the 1945 Lafite, which is claimed to have been reconditioned by the chateau in 1989, the back label that should be there if the bottle was recorked by the chateau is apparently missing. Heritage refused to answer my questions about whether there is auch a back label or any other evidence to support the claim that the two Mouton bottles were rebouchaged by the Chateau. Heritage elected not to cut the capsules on the three bottles in order to attempt to verify the corks and the claim that the bottles were rebouchaged by the chateau. (The capsule on the 1949 Vieux Chateau Certan was already removed once by someone, but Heritage apparently elected not to examine the cork.)
With respect to the 1949 Vieux Chateau Certan, Alexandre Thienpont, the director of the chateau stated that he “didn’t recall to ever seen “récolte 1949” printed on the same line. Therefore he suggest not to bid on this lot.”
To be clear, neither I nor any of the other posters here are accusing you of acting fraudulently. But what I am suggesting is that there is no objective evidence which has been offered to support the claim made by Heritage in the catalog that the three bottles were “reconditioned by [the] chateau.” In my view, an auction house should not offer bottles which it claims were “reconditioned by chateau” without some type of objective evidence to support such a claim. No such evidence is suggested or offered here.
With respect to the 1949 Chateau Vieux Chateau Certan, the chateau itself questions the authenticity of the bottle. As someone who was in the wine trade, I’m sure you are well aware of bottles that were sold in the Dallas market even in the 1970s that turned out not be authentic. See, e.g. Wine Fraud of the Vine: You can’t judge a wine by its label. It might be counterfeit. D Magazine, May 1, 1980. https://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/1980/may/wine-fraud-of-the-vine/
Without proof that the 1945 Lafite has the chateau-supplied rebouchage back label, and/or the chateau-supplied rebouchage cork, I believe the proper answer is “unbelievable” provenance.
I think another way to summarize what has been discussed here is not that we per se believe James did anyrthing wrong but It’s possible the bottles his family acquired were not authentic - in particular the 1949 VCC.
The Moutons with their more current capsules and claims of being reconditioned - apparently during the tenure during which the LaBarbas possessed the bottles - have additional questions.
Perhaps you are looking at something different, but when I looked at the results, it showed all four bottles were sold and lists the prices for each bottle.
