RUDY KURNIAWAN & GLOBAL WINE AUCTION FRAUD THREAD (MERGED)

[JLLeDu]

And by the way Chuck, If 5 Magnums of of whatever wine was produced in 1961, what are the chances of finding even ONE in 2012. You tell me

Wine is about the passion to discover new estates, regions, countries, etc.
Wine is about the journey, not the destination.
by the way, why do the last 2 people that responded to my post deleted the last 2 sentences of my diatribe?

[Eric LeVine]

I'm not sure if you are referring to me. My name is Jean Luc Le Du. I own a wine shop in New York called Le Du's Wines. I hope this clears any questions you have.

Jean Luc, please go here and add your full name to your signature: ucp.php?i=profile&mode=signature

[Chuck Miller]

Jean Luc, your name needs to be in EVERY post you make. You need to add it to your signature (edit your profile).

i deleted a few lines from my quote of your text, to make it a little shorter, as it wasn't germain to my reply.

My apology for calling you Josh. That's another reason why your name is supposed to be in every post!

[Jim Brennan]

He's been glorified on this board for his tasting abilities.

Yes, I've been puzzled by this too. The only firsthand accounts I've seen of Rudy's tasting abilities come from, um, Rudy, and yet everyone seems to be taking this at face value while acknowledging that he's been a fraud in everything else.

I've seen others comment positively regarding his tasting abilities, but something doesn't seem right... the guy starts dabbling in wine in 2000 and by 2002 / 2003 he's a full-blown expert? While possible, it seems extremely unlikely. More likely is that he was already into wine since his early 20s, or he was somehow cribbing on blind tastings enough to build his myth. Again, another instance of where people probably overlooked a clue that something didn't smell right.

[Don Cornwell]

PART IV -- GREENBERG ATTEMPTS TO CONSIGN ALLEGED COUNTERFEIT MAGNUMS TO ACKER AUCTION IN 2004 AND SELLS ALLEGED COUNTERFEIT PÉTRUS TO CHICAGO WINE COMPANY IN 2005; GREENBERG’S PRIVATE SALES TO COLLECTORS, RESTAURANTS AND THE WINE TRADE

The following information is extracted directly from the documents and testimony on file in the Koch v. Greenberg litigation. I have deliberately refrained, except where expressly noted, from adding any facts or opinions that derive from me.
_______________________________

In October of 2004 Eric Greenberg was preparing for another auction of his wines at Acker Merrall to be held in December of 2004. What would become 81 lots of wine were already in Acker's possession. On October 16, 2004, Eric Greenberg sent John Kapon an email requesting auction estimates on two additional groups of wine which Greenberg proposed to also be included in the Acker December auction. The first was a group of magnums which the email stated were then in Greenberg’s possession. The list of magnums, perhaps not coincidentally, included magnums of 1947, 1950 and 1961 Lafleur and 1961 Latour a Pomerol – and Greenberg had just received the same wines from Rudy Kurniawan nine days previously on October 7, 2004. After receiving apparently satisfactory auction estimates, Greenberg shipped the magnums to Acker for inclusion in the auction.

On Tuesday, November 23, 2004 John Kapon emailed Eric Greenberg stating as follows:

“I had to hold off on putting the magnums in December sale. There was not enough time to make a decision and do it correctly, as I had some doubts here and there and it was too close to the deadline. Rudy is coming into town next week and I asked him to take a look with me (I did not tell him it was from you), so we can really take a long hard look.

Alternatively, I think if you were to put your name behind it and guarantee any bottle that would be a big plus and would permIt me to put even the ones I had some doubts about in the sale. Anyway, let’s talk further next week and have a great Thanksgiving.

I split the Monfortinos and Ygays into a separate consignment as well (also tn December with Burgs.) fyi Those consignments look great.”

Greenberg responded to Kapon’s email twice that same day. At 10:03 am the same day Greenberg told Kapon to send back the magnums, stating that “I’m willing to guarantee them, but I do not want my name posted.” But by 6:44 p.m. that day, Greenberg’s demeanor had changed and he sent his second response stating as follows:

“John:

I made the whole consignment based on YOU soliciting me to sell some of my magnums through you. If they are not in the sale, none of the wine is in the sale. The entire consignment is pulled, and I want it back this week, I am f*ck pissed, as shipping old wine degrades it, and I am not going to have the integrity of my collection questioned and then verified by another collector. Make your decision, and let me know by early tomorrow. If my mags are good enough for Zachys, they are good enough for anyone else. And they are selling a lot of them in their December sale. We have no signed consignment agreement for this auction, so YOU ARE NOT LEGALLY AUTHORIZED TO SELL MY WINE IN THIS SALE UNTIL WE GET THIS RESOLVED.

And one other thing, Rudy is NOT authorized to look at my wine. It is my property, and I consider you inviting him to do that without my authorization an invasion of privacy. All of my wine better be shipped overnight on Monday for Tuesday receipt if it is not in the sale. Period. So, take it or leave it, Eric”

On Sunday, November 28, 2004, John Kapon emailed Greenberg telling him in pertinent part as follows:

“I just finished inspecting all the wines [magnums] again. This is how I would have to catalog them - I am assuming you know the conditions that are abbreviated. If not, let me know and I will fill you in.

1921 Cheval: spc, cuc, ts, bsl lscl, photocopied 1abel, old eroded cork, vintage on cork but no branding, outstanding color and condition

the bsl and lscl are part of the photocopy so it is kind of difficult to characterize them both at the same time

1929 Cheval: exactly the same as the 21 Cheval

1945 Lafite: spc, cuc, ts, photocopied label, mature cork, vintage and chateau brand on cork, excellent color and condition

then there are the Lafleurs [21, 45, 47, 50 and 61]. Without getting into the exact details of each of them, there is one fundamental problem: the corks all have the vertically, ovally chateau lafleur brand on the cork, which they only start using post-’66. The magnum of 47 that I had at the top 100 was the same and unfortunately fake as well. So I cannot offer those Lafleurs in good conscience.

1961 Latour a Pomerol: ls, lbsl, photocopied label, vintage and partial chateau brand (erosion) on cork, outstanding color and condition.

If you ask me, the color is also too youthful for this bottle.

By the way, the reason I believe that there are so many photocopied labels is that if you look closely enough and feel the texture of them there is a gloss to the label that could not possibly be original. They are very good copies but copies nonetheless.

1961 L'Evangile: bn, lbsl, vintage and chateau brand on cork, outstanding color and condition.

Again, the color for this mag is too young, although I suppose it is possible.

1961 Trotanoy: nov, bn, bsl, new cork, likely reconditioned, vintage and brand on cork, excellent color and condition

Youthful color again.

1921 Clos L'Eglise: ts, bsl, 1fl, old, eroded cork, vintage on cork, branding there but difficult to read, outstanding color and condition

Looks good except tor the fact the wine was lacking sediment.

The mag of 1961 La Chapelle is clearly fake to me. I could not sell it. * * * *”

Later that day Greenberg wrote back to Kapon and said “Send them back tomorrow, thanks.”

The above magnums were apparently returned to Greenberg as instructed. The remaining wines that Greenberg had consigned were sold in the Acker auction on December 12, 2004 (Lots 248-256 and 400-473).

According to the allegations in Bill Koch’s Amended Complaint, at least some of these same rejected magnums were then consigned by Greenberg to Zachys and were sold to Bill Koch in the October 28, 2005 sale at Zachys.

Greenberg Sells Magnums of 1921 and 1929 Petrus to Chicago Wine Company in January 2005 Which Are Subsequently Returned By the Purchaser As Counterfeit

On January 3, 2005, Eric Greenberg, through his company Innovation Wines, sold to Chicago Wine Company nine magnums of 1921 Petrus and an undetermined quantity of magnums of 1929 Petrus (Greenberg “redacted” this portion of the invoice issued by Innovation Wines since 1929 Petrus is not at issue in the Koch v. Greenberg lawsuit.) Greenberg sold the nine magnums of 1921 Petrus for $7,500 each. The 1929 Petrus was sold at a price presently unknown. Koch claims that the documentary invoice evidence in the case (not all of which is available to me) establishes that these nine magnums were “all” of the remaining 1921 Petrus magnums owned by Eric Greenberg as of January 2005.

On January 23, 2005, Simon Lambert of Chicago Wine Co. emailed Greenberg atating as follows:

“Dear Eric,

The customer to whom we sold ail of the 1921 and 1929 Petrus magnums, having now received delivery from us, has today sent me the following (see below). I think the comments about the strip labels are to identify each magnum rather than a complaint, but obviously the unmarked corks are a different matter as are the shrunken corks.

Had either of these problems been apparent when I saw the photographs we would not have offered these for sale.

Please let me know what arrangements should be made to return these to you

Thanks,
Simon

Dear Simon,

I just inspected the Petrus that came in and have to reject the following:

1 ea 21 this has no date on the cork and the cork is shrunken at the base. If you recall I rejected ail bottles where the cork was not attached to the grass. Adventures in Wine strip label.

1ea 21 no vintaqe on the cork no strip label.

1ea 21 cork coming away from the glass at the bottom, no strip label.

1ea 29 no date or writing on the cork, no strip label.

Simon I am very sorry about this but I was very specific about this issue.
Please call to discuss as we would like to return them overnight tomorrow.
Best regards,
[Name redacted by Chicago Wine Co.]”

Greenberg responded the same day that Chicago Wine Company should “process a return.”

According to Bill Koch, after receiving these four magnums back from Chicago Wine Company, two of the three magnums of 1921 Petrus returned to Greenberg were then consigned by him Greenberg to Zachys October 28, 2005 single cellar auction for Eric Greenberg and that both magnums were sold at that auction. Koch alleges that he purchased one of the two magnums which had no date on the cork and an incorrectly sized label. Koch alleges that his experts have determined that the magnum is definitely counterfeit. The other magnum, also allegedly counterfeit, was purchased by a third party.

Private Sales by Eric Greenberg

Likely because the focus of the Koch v. Greenberg litigation is on the auction market, aside from Greenberg’s April 2005 offer of Rudy Kurniawan wines to the Wynn Hotel chain (discussed in Part II), much less is known about Eric Greenberg’s private wine sales and his wholesale and retail sales to the trade through Innovation Wines. Nevertheless, based upon the limited documentation available in the litigation record it would appear that such sales were substantial.

On October 7, 2004, the same day he received the first installment of the alleged Nicolas wines from Rudy Kurniaawn, Eric Greenberg received an email from Ian Mendelsohn, a Christie’s (New York) employee. Mendelsohn announced that he was leaving Christie’s and moving to Las Vegas to join a wine distribution company to help upgrade their Bordeaux and Burgundy profile there. Greenberg immediately responded as follows:

“I wish you all the best!!!! I was raised there, and Senator Reid is a friend ... it is a small town, despite the growth. I am selling half of my wine inventory of 65,000 bottles. I will attach my inventory, as I have been doing a lot of private selling with restaurants, collectors, etc. Stay in touch, and let me know if I can provide any of this. You will never see a better selection of impeccably stored wine available for immediate delivery. It is not priced; we can work on specific things as they come. Take care. Eric”

On April 27, 2005, the day before the email to Danielle Price of Wynn Hotels discussed in Part II, Greenberg sent an email offering pages and pages of very rare Bordeaux and Burgundies, including a collection of Jayer Magnums, to a breathtakingly large list of people. The first page of the email speaks volumes about the width and breadth of Greenberg's attempts to market his wines, so I have reproduced it below: Among the people copied is Greenberg’s “partner” Rudy Kurniawan, whose email address is ri8@hotmail.com.


The volume of Mr. Greenberg’s private sales to collectors, restaurants, and people in the wine trade is not disclosed by the documents presently included in the Koch v. Greenberg litigation record. It is noteworthy, however, that despite “doing a lot of private selling with restaurants, collectors, etc.” and selling substantial quantities of wine in several auctions held throughout 2003 and 2004 (described in Part III), Greenberg’s wine inventory had apparently increased from 65,000 bottles in October 2004 to 70,000 bottles in May 2005. His stated target of bottles to be sold had also increased from approximately 32,500 bottles to approximately 47,000 bottles.
_________________

Two final comments/opinions on my part.

First, the reference in John Kapon’s Novevmber 23, 2004 email suggests that Acker Merrall relied on Rudy Kurniawan to authenticate rare wines offered by other consignors. That’s a pretty scary thought.

Second, when I first read John Kapon’s statement to Greenberg that “if you were to put your name behind it and guarantee any bottle that would be a big plus and would permIt me to put even the ones I had some doubts about in the sale, “my jaw absolutely dropped. Then I re-read the sentence a couple of times just to make sure I was reading it correctly. This statement suggests, on its face, that John Kapon was willing to sell wines he believed or strongly suspected to be counterfeit as long as the consignor was willing to stand behind a money back guarantee to be printed in the catalog.

This statement raises very significant questions about possible complicity by Acker in the sale of counterfeit wines by Rudy Kurniawan in the Cellar I and Cellar II auctions, the catalogs for which contained a special 90-day money-back “guarantee.” Similar questions must be asked with respect to the October 26-27, 2007 “Golden Cellar” auction at Acker, which was Greenberg’s first single cellar auction at Acker. That auction catalog also contained a 90-day money back “Acker guarantee.” (See also the similar guarantee statement in the April 23, 2005 Acker catalog offering Rudy Kurniawan wines at Page 45.)

(Next....(again after some delay)....Part V—Greenberg’s Sales to Koch at the December 3, 2004 and October 28, 2005 Zachys Auctions)

[Leah Amir]

I'm speechless. I'm no lawyer but IMHO this "Acker guarantee" sounds like criminal behavior to me. Just wow!

[Brian G r a f s t r o m (Online)]

Josh, you clearly have a lot to contribute here, but you need to realize this is a real names BB, and you need to have your full real name in your profile or signature. And, it appears you are (or possibly were) in the business, in which case you need to note that in your signature with an ITB tag.
...

I'm not sure if you are referring to me. My name is Jean Luc Le Du. I own a wine shop in New York called Le Du's Wines. I hope this clears any questions you have.

Stating this information in a post is not sufficient. And it's not an issue of "clearing up any questions"; rather, it's an issue of complying with board policies.

Your full real name must appear in your signature or in your profile. The fact that you own a wine shop needs to be indicated in your signature with an "ITB" designation, at a minimum. I'm sure a board admin. would be willing to assist you if you do not know how to comply with these board rules.

[JLLeDu]

Josh, you clearly have a lot to contribute here, but you need to realize this is a real names BB, and you need to have your full real name in your profile or signature. And, it appears you are (or possibly were) in the business, in which case you need to note that in your signature with an ITB tag.
...

I'm not sure if you are referring to me. My name is Jean Luc Le Du. I own a wine shop in New York called Le Du's Wines. I hope this clears any questions you have.

Stating this information in a post is not sufficient. And it's not an issue of "clearing up any questions"; rather, it's an issue of complying with board policies.

Your full real name must appear in your signature or in your profile. The fact that you own a wine shop needs to be indicated in your signature with an "ITB" designation, at a minimum. I'm sure a board admin. would be willing to assist you if you do not know how to comply with these board rules.

Very sorry guys. It is now taken care of

[WvanGorp]

Getting back to Don's post(s), with all this coming out about auction houses (especially Acker), why do folks suppose this hasn't hurt their business? I would have thought they'd be on their last legs, but business seems to have never been better!?

[John Morris (Online)]

Wilf-- I think the Hong Kong auctions are the big thing for Acker these days.

[Stuart BeauneHead Niemtzow]

He's been glorified on this board for his tasting abilities.

Yes, I've been puzzled by this too. The only firsthand accounts I've seen of Rudy's tasting abilities come from, um, Rudy, and yet everyone seems to be taking this at face value while acknowledging that he's been a fraud in everything else.

I've seen others comment positively regarding his tasting abilities, but something doesn't seem right... the guy starts dabbling in wine in 2000 and by 2002 / 2003 he's a full-blown expert? While possible, it seems extremely unlikely. More likely is that he was already into wine since his early 20s, or he was somehow cribbing on blind tastings enough to build his myth. Again, another instance of where people probably overlooked a clue that something didn't smell right.

I think this was all part of using those who authenticated Rudy. I think they were so snowed by the great wines they were ostensibly tasting...and all the lavish entertaining...and, in some cases, the remuneration for their kudos....that they bought anything the guy wanted to sell. And, that tasting ability was part of what he was selling. Also, no one ever seeemed to call b.s. on him...so...why shouldn't he create that fake aura, too....no downside, esp. when he knew what many of the wines tasted like, as he had "bottled" them.

[John Morris (Online)]

Don (or anyone): I'm puzzled by Acker's listing of the photocopied labels. Was that a clear indicia of a counterfeit, or was that simply a fact being noted -- something that one might encounter with a real bottle where a soiled label had been replaced, perhaps?

[John Morris (Online)]

On Rudy's tasting abilities, Paul Wasserman in his posts spoke about, I'm pretty sure. I was almost thinking that Meadows said someplace (in comments on one of the grand tastings?) that he was impressed, as well.... or am I imagining that?

[WvanGorp]

On Rudy's tasting abilities, Paul Wasserman in his posts spoke about, I'm pretty sure. I was almost thinking that Meadows said someplace (in comments on one of the grand tastings?) that he was impressed, as well.... or am I imagining that?

For folks who apparently couldn't reliably distinguish between a lot of the fakes and the real deal, are they really in a place to "validate" Rudy's tasting abilities?

[NickWittman]

Don (or anyone): I'm puzzled by Acker's listing of the photocopied labels. Was that a clear indicia of a counterfeit, or was that simply a fact being noted -- something that one might encounter with a real bottle where a soiled label had been replaced, perhaps?

If I read it correctly, appears to be JK gamesmanship, suspect he had no real intention to sell or list them that way. EG is basically saying, sell all the wines or nothing. So JK says, sure I will sell them, but in doing so, will list with descriptions that basically show they are troublesome bottles. This would make the whole consignment suspect, so EG apparently relented, taking back some of the wine, while selling the others.

[John Morris (Online)]

But my question is whether that makes the bottles manifestly false. Not all the details of Kapon's descriptions are suspicious ones, so I wasn't sure if he was simply noting that as one factor or citing that as a grossly telling one. Are (replacement) photocopied labels ever encountered on bona fide bottles?

[Brian G r a f s t r o m (Online)]

After reading Don's Part IV (post #3703), all I can say is, "Wow."

I have to believe that Acker, Merrall and Condit, Eric Greenberg, Zachy's, and John Kapon will all be before a criminal court judge before this is said and done. Un-freaking-believable. This is so far beyond astonishing.

[Bruce Leiserowitz]

But my question is whether that makes the bottles manifestly false. Not all the details of Kapon's descriptions are suspicious ones, so I wasn't sure if he was simply noting that as one factor or citing that as a grossly telling one. Are (replacement) photocopied labels ever encountered on bona fide bottles?

I have seen replacement and/or photocopied labels most often on very old bottles of Port. As you suggest, that doesn't automatically mean that the bottle is "false," but it does create a suspicion, and it certainly affects value. At the very least, any reasonably competent retailer or auction house would note that the label was a replacement/photocopy.

Bruce

[Diane Elam]

Don -- a wow from me too. Thank you for all of your hard work.
Jean-Luc Le Du -- thank you for joining this board and contributing your insights.

[Tom Blach]

He's been glorified on this board for his tasting abilities.

Yes, I've been puzzled by this too. The only firsthand accounts I've seen of Rudy's tasting abilities come from, um, Rudy, and yet everyone seems to be taking this at face value while acknowledging that he's been a fraud in everything else.

I've seen others comment positively regarding his tasting abilities, but something doesn't seem right... the guy starts dabbling in wine in 2000 and by 2002 / 2003 he's a full-blown expert? While possible, it seems extremely unlikely. More likely is that he was already into wine since his early 20s, or he was somehow cribbing on blind tastings enough to build his myth. Again, another instance of where people probably overlooked a clue that something didn't smell right.

I've no idea about his tasting abilities but it does strike me that total immersion would actually be a particularly good way of learning about wine simply because fresh memory is so vital a part of connoisseurship.

[Andrew L. (Online)]

Don -- a wow from me too. Thank you for all of your hard work.
Jean-Luc Le Du -- thank you for joining this board and contributing your insights.

Agreed. Also, good thing Jean-Luc Le Du didn't get scared away by the real name police.

[Don Cornwell]

But my question is whether that makes the bottles manifestly false. Not all the details of Kapon's descriptions are suspicious ones, so I wasn't sure if he was simply noting that as one factor or citing that as a grossly telling one. Are (replacement) photocopied labels ever encountered on bona fide bottles?

John:

The effective answer to your question is that a photocopied label indicates the wine is not authentic as it is presented. Most of us would say that a label which is a photocopied label indicates a counterfeit wine.

I mean to distinguish here between the practice of using slip labels on old ports, etc. Indeed you used to sometimes see older bordeaux offered with slip labels or black and white xerox labels with claims that the original label had been lost or deteriorated. That was usually a red flag for the possibility that the wine was fake, but in at least some cases the wines were real. Over the last 15 or 20 years it has become impossible to sell slip-labeled bordeaux and fine wines for good reason.

So, to come back to your question, in John Kapon's November 28, 2004 email he was basically telling Eric Greenberg that if Acker were to offer his magnums Acker would essentially have to label each offering in the catalog with words that would tell reader that Acker believes or strongly suspects that the wine is fake.

I find this pair of November 23 and November 28 emails from John Kapon to be most extraordinary. On the one hand, John Kapon demonstrates in the November 28 email that he certainly CAN vet wine properly and determine that fakes exist when he wants to. In this particular instance, he essentially rejected 100% of the old and rare magnums shipped to him by Eric Greenberg. (Meanwhile, according to Eric Greenberg's response, Zachys was only too happy to sell his other magnums in its December 2004 auction.)

But in the November 23, 2004 email Kapon offered to ignore his beliefs and suspicions about the wines and to abandon all due diligence considerations in return for the consignor's money-back guarantee!

Acker began touting a money-back guarantee on Rudy's wines beginning in April of 2005. (See the catalog at Page 45.) The guarantee was expressly set forth and was touted repeatedly in the front section of the catalog in the Cellar I and Cellar II auctions. The same 90-day money-back guarantee, now styled as the "Acker Guarantee," was used in the Greenberg "Golden Cellar" Auction in October of 2007 and in the infamous April 25, 2008 Rosania/The Cellar auction at which the counterfeit Ponsot wines were pulled. I believe that Acker used this same "guarantee" in other auctions it conducted in 2007 and 2008 but I have not yet gone through hard copies of the catalogs to determine that (that portion is not included in the on-line catalogs for that era that were on the Acker website.)

Does the fact that the guarantee was used in connection with these auctions mean that Acker intentionally did not perform any due diligence, or that Acker withheld its opinions and suspicions about the authenticity of the wines that were auctioned in those catalogs? I cannot answer that question from any personal knowledge, but I can say that would certainly seem to be a legitimate inference to be drawn from Mr. Kapon's November 23, 2004 email.

Several posters in this thread have repeatedly asked -- How could Acker have ever offered Ponsot Clos St. Denis wines from vintages where the domaine never produced the wine and where there was no record of any prior sale of such wines anywhere? At a minimum, it has always seemed obvious that no due diligence was done by Acker with respect to the Ponsot wines in the April 25, 2008 auction. Yet, as the November 28, 2004 email to Greenberg certainly shows, Kapon and Acker were certainly capable of performing competent due diligence when they wanted to. The November 23, 2004 email now provides a plausible explanation for this seeming mystery and suggests that possiblity that instead of gross negligence on the part of Acker there might have been willful indifference that was economically motivated.

[Lewis Dawson]

Acker's guarantee began at some point to be applied to all wines, all auctions, including the online auction. I viewed it as an attempt to gain a competitive advantage by offering comfort against heat-damaged wines as well as fakes. I bought 1993 Drouhin Petits Monts in the March 8, 2009 online auction, and later returned them for refund due to heat damage after opening 2 of the 10 bottles bought. I don't know if that policy is still in place or has been withdrawn.

[John Morris (Online)]

Thanks for the clarification on the photocopied labels. It certainly does seem like a red flag if it purports to look like the original, with color, as opposed to being simply a black and white photocopy, which would be an obvious substitute for a badly damaged label.

John Kapon demonstrates in the November 28 email that he certainly CAN vet wine properly and determine that fakes exist when he wants to. In this particular instance, he essentially rejected 100% of the old and rare magnums shipped to him by Eric Greenberg. (Meanwhile, according to Eric Greenberg's response, Zachys was only too happy to sell his other magnums in its December 2004 auction.)

I was struck by the same thing.

So Zachy's didn't take the magnums that Acker had rejected? Have they popped up at later auctions?

[Don Cornwell]

Acker's guarantee began at some point to be applied to all wines, all auctions, including the online auction. I viewed it as an attempt to gain a competitive advantage by offering comfort against heat-damaged wines as well as fakes. I bought 1993 Drouhin Petits Monts in the March 8, 2009 online auction, and later returned them for refund due to heat damage after opening 2 of the 10 bottles bought. I don't know if that policy is still in place or has been withdrawn.

Lew:

I cannot speak to the other auctions, but there was no "Acker Guarantee" in the Imperial Cellar auction (also Greenberg) in May of 2010 and the catalog is quite explicit that the wines are sold strictly on an "As is" basis with no representations or warranties of warranties of any kind. Moreover, the catalog purported to state that buyer was agreeing to waive any claim against Acker or Greenberg that the wines were counterfeit. Quoting from Paragraph 5(d) of the Conditions of Sale: "ALL LOTS SOLD AS IS. BY BIDDING AT AUCTION YOU AGREE THAT ALL PURCHASES ARE TAKEN 'AS IS.' IN NO EVENT SHALL YOU BRING AN ACTION AGAINST AMC OR SELLER IN CONNECTION WITH ANY CLAIM THAT THE ITEM IS NOT AS DESCRIBED IN THE CATALOG OR ON THE LABEL."

[Lewis Dawson]

Thanks, Don. I was lucky that my purchase was covered. I'm pretty sure these 1993's were not fake, and I paid $90 each (plus 20% vig) so not huge incentive to produce fakes at that level.

[John Morris (Online)]

Acker's guarantee began at some point to be applied to all wines, all auctions, including the online auction. I viewed it as an attempt to gain a competitive advantage by offering comfort against heat-damaged wines as well as fakes. I bought 1993 Drouhin Petits Monts in the March 8, 2009 online auction, and later returned them for refund due to heat damage after opening 2 of the 10 bottles bought. I don't know if that policy is still in place or has been withdrawn.

Lew:

I cannot speak to the other auctions, but there was no "Acker Guarantee" in the Imperial Cellar auction (also Greenberg) in May of 2010 and the catalog is quite explicit that the wines are sold strictly on an "As is" basis with no representations or warranties of warranties of any kind. Moreover, the catalog purported to state that buyer was agreeing to waive any claim against Acker or Greenberg that the wines were counterfeit. Quoting from Paragraph 5(d) of the Conditions of Sale: "ALL LOTS SOLD AS IS. BY BIDDING AT AUCTION YOU AGREE THAT ALL PURCHASES ARE TAKEN 'AS IS.' IN NO EVENT SHALL YOU BRING AN ACTION AGAINST AMC OR SELLER IN CONNECTION WITH ANY CLAIM THAT THE ITEM IS NOT AS DESCRIBED IN THE CATALOG OR ON THE LABEL."

Wild! Even if the wine isn't as described, you can't sue. I love it! You think they're a bit nervous?

Not to worry, though, because from what you posted about N.Y. state and city auction laws back on page 68 (!) of this thread, Don, it seems likely that this disclaimer is not enforceable.

[John Ammons]

There's an article in the San Francisco Chronicle business section this morning featuring Maureen.

http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/Phonies-make-wine-sleuth-see-red-3689501.php

[Don Cornwell]

So Zachy's didn't take the magnums that Acker had rejected? Have they popped up at later auctions?

John:

The Zachys December 2004 auction was held on December 3, 2004, so on November 28, 2004 it was too late for Greenberg to get the rejected magnums into that auction even if he wanted to. However, the Greenberg consignment in the Zachys December 2004 auction included four of the same wines in magnum that Acker had rejected, including 1945, 1947 and 1961 Lafleur and 1961 L'Evangile.

In the October 2005 auction at Zachys, which was a single cellar sale including only Greenberg wines (and at which 17,000+ bottles were sold), 11 of the 13 magnums on the list rejected by Acker were sold (though it is unclear whether the wines sold included the rejected bottles, but Bill Koch believes they did. See below). The only magnums from the Acker reject list which were NOT sold in October 2005 were the 1929 Cheval Blanc and the 1961 Trotanoy. I do know that Acker did not later offer the rejected magnums on behalf of Greenberg in the "Golden Cellar" or "Imperial Cellar" auctions. [UPDATED 7/7/12 at 10:20 pm]

To answer your question (at least in part) about whether the rejected wines turned up elsewhere, I was going to cover this in Part V, but rather than make everyone wait several days for an answer, I’ll quote here from Bill Koch’s Rule 56.1 Statement in Opposition to Greenberg’s Motion for Summary Judgment at Paragraph 93:

“(e) Although Greenberg had boasted that Zachys would be “selling a lot of” his magnums, he did not alert Zachys to the issue of the Lafleur corks. As a result, Koch purchased two counterfeit magnums of 1947 Lafleur and one counterfeit magnum of 1961 Lafleur at the December 2004 auction. All three have the fake vertical corks.

(f) Greenberg also did not alert Zachys during the next ten months before the October 2005 auction. As a result, Koch purchased two counterfeit magnums of 1921 Lafleur; three counterfeit magnums of 1945 Lafleur; two counterfeit magnums of 1949 Lafleur; and five counterfeit magnums of 1950 Lafleur. Rule 56.1 Appx. Ex. 61 at EDGE000063-65. All 12 magnums have the fake vertical corks.

(g) Kapon also rejected one magnum of 1921 Cheval Blanc which had a “photocopied label, old eroded cork, vintage on cork but no branding, outstanding color and condition.” Rule 56.1 Appx. Ex. 69. Greenberg sold three magnums of 1921 Cheval Blanc at the October 2005 Zachys’ auction, and Koch purchased all three. Rule 56.1 Appx. Ex. 61 at EDGE000043. Two of the three magnums were counterfeit. Greenberg’s expert indicated that both had “reproduction” labels. Rule 56.1 Appx. Ex. 24 (GLS Report) at 14, 16. He further indicated that the cork in one magnum (inventory number 59987) “is in a fairly advanced stage of deterioration” and, although the 1921 vintage is legible, barely a few letters of branding could be seen. Id. at 17.

(h) Greenberg owned two magnums of 1945 Lafite. Rule 56.1 Appx. Ex. 70 at GRE 5135. He consigned one to Acker, but Kapon also rejected this magnum, partly because it had a “photocopied label.” Rule 56.1 Appx. Ex. 69. Greenberg sold two magnums of 1945 Lafite at the October 2005 Zachys auction and Koch purchased both. Rule 56.1 Appx. Ex. 61 at EDGE000050. One was counterfeit. Greenberg’s expert agreed that it has a “reproduction” label. Rule 56.1 Appx. Ex. 24 (GLS Report) at 30-31.”

Koch elsewhere states with respect to the Cheval Blanc and the Lafleur magngums that he purchased “that either [they] were returned by Acker, or had the same characteristics of inauthenticity as magnums returned by Acker (e.g., fraudulent vertical cork branding). Id. [at paragraphs] 93(c) – 93(g).”

[Diane Elam]

Don -- a wow from me too. Thank you for all of your hard work.
Jean-Luc Le Du -- thank you for joining this board and contributing your insights.

Agreed. Also, good thing Jean-Luc Le Du didn't get scared away by the real name police.

and don, more fascinating details. thanks.

[Andrew Kaufman]

There's an article in the San Francisco Chronicle business section this morning featuring Maureen.H

http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/Phonies-make-wine-sleuth-see-red-3689501.php

3K for a bottle by a seminary student? The G-d business must be doing OK.

[Kevin Shin]

The photocopied labels are so obvious which tells me that some new mega collectors were so quickly amassing, they didn’t care/have time to inspect the wines.

[Kelly Walker]

PART IV -- GREENBERG ATTEMPTS TO CONSIGN ALLEGED COUNTERFEIT MAGNUMS TO ACKER AUCTION IN 2004 AND SELLS ALLEGED COUNTERFEIT PÉTRUS TO CHICAGO WINE COMPANY IN 2005; GREENBERG’S PRIVATE SALES TO COLLECTORS, RESTAURANTS AND THE WINE TRADE

...._______________________________

In October of 2004 Eric Greenberg was preparing for another auction of his wines at Acker Merrall to be held in December of 2004. What would become 81 lots of wine were already in Acker's possession. On October 16, 2004, Eric Greenberg sent John Kapon an email requesting auction estimates on two additional groups of wine which Greenberg proposed to also be included in the Acker December auction. The first was a group of magnums which the email stated were then in Greenberg’s possession. The list of magnums, perhaps not coincidentally, included magnums of 1947, 1950 and 1961 Lafleur and 1961 Latour a Pomerol – and Greenberg had just received the same wines from Rudy Kurniawan nine days previously on October 7, 2004. After receiving apparently satisfactory auction estimates, Greenberg shipped the magnums to Acker for inclusion in the auction.
...

Don, it appears from what you posted in Part IV that Greenburg was flipping Rudy wines as fast as Rudy could make them. This clearly was a money making activity for Greenburg even if he was not fully cognizant of which wines were fake. Greenburgs panicked and childish (take my bat and go home) respone when JK told him that Rudy was in town and was going to look at his wine sounds like he did not want Rudy to know what he was doing with the wines Rudy just sold him. Was Greenburg trying to out-Rudy Rudy? Bizzaro.

[Bruce Leiserowitz]

Don, it appears from what you posted in Part IV that Greenburg was flipping Rudy wines as fast as Rudy could make them. This clearly was a money making activity for Greenburg even if he was not fully cognizant of which wines were fake. Greenburgs panicked and childish (take my bat and go home) respone when JK told him that Rudy was in town and was going to look at his wine sounds like he did not want Rudy to know what he was doing with the wines Rudy just sold him. Was Greenburg trying to out-Rudy Rudy? Bizzaro.

I'm not going to speculate about what Mr. Greenburg did or why he had the reaction he did. But if an auction house accepts a substantial consignment of old/rare wine from Big Collector #1, then does it allow Big Collector #2 to come in and inspect the consignment for fakes? Wouldn't standard operating procedure be to bring in someone who is both an expert AND independent to review the suspect bottles?

Bruce

[JLLeDu]

I'm not going to speculate about what Mr. Greenburg did or why he had the reaction he did. But if an auction house accepts a substantial consignment of old/rare wine from Big Collector #1, then does it allow Big Collector #2 to come in and inspect the consignment for fakes? Wouldn't standard operating procedure be to bring in someone who is both an expert AND independent to review the suspect bottles?

Bruce

I don't buy at auctions but I remember that in the old days one could request to go inspect bottles prior to an auction