Wine fraud movie: "Sour Grapes"

D_Zurcher · November 27, 2016, 2:34pm

I believe the house was the lab, but the large scale bottling was elsewhere…

Snipped from the other Rudy thread:

Don Cornwell wrote:
I just found an old Dun & Bradstreet Report that I requested on Terroir LLC on August 3, 2008, a couple of months after I first reported Mr. Kurniawan to the FBI. The report says that the business is also known as The Wine Hotel and is located at 5800 West Third Street in Los Angeles. But the business description from the D&B report is an all-time classic:

Line of Business: MFG WINES/BRANDY/SPIRITS
Industry Group: MANUFACTURING
Primary SIC: 2084 WINES, BRANDY, AND BRANDY SPIRITS, NSK 20840100 WINES
Business Is A: MANUFACTURING LOCATION

Russell_Faulkner · November 27, 2016, 2:39pm

One thing I don’t get is how come the little mistake creep in. It seems much easier to do a straight reproduction than to potentially misspell sackville st.

Bob_Davis · November 27, 2016, 3:17pm

I still have the vivid memory of Rudy holding up his paddle and never putting it down until he won the SQN lot.

CWun · November 28, 2016, 11:42pm

Probably better to make “perfect” clean versions, and then uniquely dirty and age them.

Michael_Martin · November 30, 2016, 3:04am

Just watched it. Great movie. Lots of “interesting” characters. Kudos to all the board members involved.

larry_schaffer · November 30, 2016, 4:47pm

I finally had a chance to watch the movie last night. I thought it was a well-made movie and it was amazing how many Clips they had of Rudy.

A quick question for those more in the know that I am. When he was buying all the wines that he did, did it truly appear that he was cornering the market on these wines?

As others have pointed out, it’s scary to think of how many of his fake wines, and those created by others, are floating around out there. And it’s scary to think of how many people will open these, enjoy them, and have no clue.

In many ways, this goes to show how subjective line continues to be.

larry_schaffer · November 30, 2016, 4:50pm

And one other point. The scene at Wally’s was Illuminating in so many ways. The folks who brought the wines were convinced that they were real. Others who tried them thought that they were great. Christian from Wally’s was convinced that the wine was a fake. Why? Because it did not taste the way the wine had tasted to him in the past.

But this in itself is not a good reason to consider a lot of fake, is it? There are so many threads on this board that describe a wine so differently than others have done so in the past. Whether it be bottle variation or taster variation, there is always the case that a real one will not taste as real to others that have had in the past.

Just something else to think about.

Cheers!

Jorge_B · November 30, 2016, 6:47pm

andy velebil:

J. Migone:

He might have had someone producing the labels (hired it out), and helping collecting corks, etc. Then he could have it shipped to the US to produce. Also, let’s remember that labor in foreign countries is cheap, and going through garbage to look for stuff (bottles) at restaurants can be hired out on the cheap. Those people would not put two and two together. He could have even purchased some things from eBay. The hardest part would be getting the blend right. Plus one you convince a bunch of rich people as well as connoisseurs that the fakes are the real thing, your blend becomes the real thing (afterall, who has tasted these wines enough, there could be bottle variation and wines age differently based on storage). Once that is done, then he is golden. Filling takes no time and labeling a few days once a system is down.

I would disagree. The easy part is the blending. Start with good wine, blend with other good wine, and you generally get good wine. Most people can’t taste the difference due to label bias, never tasted that vintage or wine before, or they only had previous faked bottles.

I’d say the harder part is getting the bottle, label, and capsule as accurate possible. That’s something people can easily spend time comparing to other exemplars.

+1

We’ve all been there - someone opens a wine with a special label, and we automatically give it 10 extra points. Nobody wants to call a DRC or Petrus past its prime. You can also attribute anything in the bottle to bottle variation. Someone mentioned upthread how “Christian” nailed the Guigal as a fake, but I call BS on that just as much as I call BS on them swearing its authentic. Especially the way he described the wine. That could be fake, or it could be an off bottle.

I’d venture to say it’s extremely difficult to call a bottle as a fake based on taste - especially once a wine has 20, 30, 50 years on it. If you open a 1947 Petrus and it looks and tastes old, you’d be extremely hard pressed to call it “fake” by the taste of it. Even if you’ve had the '47 Petrus dozens of times, whose to say this one tastes off because it’s fake? Maybe this one wasn’t stored as well? Cork wasn’t as tight? Hell, there was some VA going on, or just any other number of defects could have impacted the taste of the wine.

Now getting the label wrong, there’s no recourse there IMO

larry_schaffer · November 30, 2016, 7:54pm

That place still exists, but is a wine retailer and wine storage facility. Just an FYI.

ToddFrench · November 30, 2016, 7:56pm

I love the discussion in this thread, as it brings up a huge number of topics that deserve discussion for us wine geeks.

To the above quote, I’d also point out the scenario with the young woman who tasted it. She was poured a wine that was brought over under great pomp and circumstance - herein lies a great and valuable wine, would you like to try it? Of course, her expectations are mile high at this point, for there is almost a ceremony around it. She then hears a grossly suggestive comment/question (it was more a comment than a question, as the question was meant by the asker to be rhetorical, one assumes) ‘isn’t it amazing?’. Of course she replies in the affirmative, as most would, under the pressure of watchful eyes around her. Most of us have likely fallen victim to this suggestion as well - not only labels can influence us but the pomp and circumstance, the perceived value or rarity of the wine served to us, particularly if a gang of folks is presuming the result of our tasting will agree with their lofty goal.

I encourage as much blind tasting as possible, since we’ve ALL fell victim to label whoring in the past, and likely will in the future. Blind tasting is a fantastic exercise to see what you truly like, what you truly know about wine.

Michael_Martin · November 30, 2016, 8:05pm

For all his millions, Rudy’s house looked like a 90’s tract home.

Thomas_Bougetz · November 30, 2016, 8:46pm

Likewise, just watched this past week with wine loving family members in town. Was amazed at how much original footage was in existence!

Poppy_Davis · November 30, 2016, 8:57pm

That “tract” home is worth $1.4M.

He also had an $8M home in Bel Air that he was renovating.

Gary_Schulte · November 30, 2016, 9:13pm

Hopefully the distribution makes it past Netflix in the near future. Would very much like to see the movie.

AJ_Thornton · November 30, 2016, 9:18pm

Todd F r e n c h:

larry schaffer:

And one other point. The scene at Wally’s was Illuminating in so many ways. The folks who brought the wines were convinced that they were real. Others who tried them thought that they were great. Christian from Wally’s was convinced that the wine was a fake. Why? Because it did not taste the way the wine had tasted to him in the past.

I love the discussion in this thread, as it brings up a huge number of topics that deserve discussion for us wine geeks.

To the above quote, I’d also point out the scenario with the young woman who tasted it. She was poured a wine that was brought over under great pomp and circumstance - herein lies a great and valuable wine, would you like to try it? Of course, her expectations are mile high at this point, for there is almost a ceremony around it. She then hears a grossly suggestive comment/question (it was more a comment than a question, as the question was meant by the asker to be rhetorical, one assumes) ‘isn’t it amazing?’. Of course she replies in the affirmative, as most would, under the pressure of watchful eyes around her. Most of us have likely fallen victim to this suggestion as well - not only labels can influence us but the pomp and circumstance, the perceived value or rarity of the wine served to us, particularly if a gang of folks is presuming the result of our tasting will agree with their lofty goal.

I encourage as much blind tasting as possible, since we’ve ALL fell victim to label whoring in the past, and likely will in the future. Blind tasting is a fantastic exercise to see what you truly like, what you truly know about wine.

Could not agree more! Before she even has a chance to swallow and speak he says “Outstanding!” So now if she feels otherwise, she has to go against him and defend her position. Working in product development for a food company, I’ve seen this a million times over. The group takes the loudest person’s opinion because it’s just easier vs arguing.

Jorge_Henriquez · November 30, 2016, 10:02pm

You don’t want to get Netflix for a month just to see it?

Michael_Martin · November 30, 2016, 10:05pm

It’s free for 30 days.

A_Ballin · November 30, 2016, 10:39pm

The Mouline in the movie still appeared to have its gold wire mesh on? that would have been quite hard and time consuming to fake?

andy_velebil · November 30, 2016, 11:35pm

Typical Arcadia house. Probably from the 80’s, or as what’s happened a lot in that city, it’s older and has been remodeled and added onto since being originally built.

Wes_Barton · November 30, 2016, 11:51pm

+1 Another side of that is trying to solicit fully honest feedback on a wine you made. It’s near impossible. People want to be polite. They can feel insecure or intimidated. The path of least resistance is feigned enjoyment.