RUDY KURNIAWAN & GLOBAL WINE AUCTION FRAUD THREAD (MERGED)

[Tom Blach]

Agreed, Bruce.

[Dan Collins]

Perhaps Allen Meadows would be kind enough to comment on what Kapon has to say about him.

Here’s the 2006 blog link: http://blogauvin.finewinepress.com/?p=172

Allen posted in a couple of threads on the Squires board back in 2006 and 2008 on these events. One on the WS article on the fake Ponsot lots and another on the Koch suit against Rudy K. Here are the links for those who still have access over there:

http://dat.erobertparker.com/bboard/sho ... ost2745927
http://dat.erobertparker.com/bboard/sho ... p?t=169951

And here's a copy of one of his posts:


Re: Koch sues Rudy K. over fake wine
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Blach
It should be pointed out that even Allen Meadows was served this wine and saw nothing untoward, so others can possibly be forgiven!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Hello Tom Et Al.,

My attention was directed to this thread and I have to say that I am both baffled and disappointed at how these ideas arise in the first place, much less how they persist. I believe they require a rebuttal.

First, it is absolutely not true that I saw nothing untoward; in fact, the contrary is true. It is because of me that Laurent Ponsot first became aware of the problem.

The facts are these: I was served blind a 1959 Clos St. Denis (CSD) at a dinner held in Los Angeles in April, 2008. The wine itself certainly appeared to be from the 1959 vintage (not an especially difficult determination given how atypical it is) and further, I guessed something of high quality from Morey or Gevrey (yes, there were witnesses). But the point is that when the wine was revealed, I remember thinking that I had not had a Ponsot CSD anywhere close to this age before. Please excuse the blatant immodesty but there are very few high profile burgundies where I have not tasted most of the existing range. In fact, I make a specialty of tasting every vintage that I can find so when wines appear well outside of my range of experience, they always provoke my intense interest.

Upon returning home that evening, I checked my database and found that my suspicions were confirmed as the oldest Ponsot CSD I had tasted previously was the 1985. Given how much older Ponsot that I have tasted over the years, it made no sense to me that 1985 was the oldest of this particular wine and that suddenly a vintage 26 years older than the oldest I had tasted would suddenly appear. So, I called a friend who, like me, is interested in very old burgundies and asked what his oldest vintage of this wine might be. Like me, it was the 1985. Thus, we decided to write M. Ponsot to inquire what was the earliest vintage of his CSD might be and found that it was the 1982. It was in this fashion that Ponsot learned that there was a very large sale pending of wines that might be suspect.

The important point to underscore here is that it was because of this email exchange (followed by several phone calls and finally a person to person meeting in Philadelphia) that Ponsot initially became aware of the upcoming sale of "his" wines in the first place.

Second, it is absolutely not true that a review of this wine was ever issued. The Wine Spectator (WS) incorrectly printed that reviews I had written based on the specific wines in the auction were used in the auction catalogue. This is also completely false and some here may remember that I publicly demanded, and received, a retraction from WS's executive editor Tom Matthews acknowledging the error. For the record, the reviews used in the auction catalogue were incorrectly attributed, specifically with respect to the Clos de la Roche and the Clos de la Roche Vieilles Vignes from the early 1960's. Moreover, the reviews that were incorrectly attributed were written several years ago and thus could not have been issued based on any wines tasted at this dinner.

Third, it is absolutely not true that I have ever tasted a wine labeled as 1971 Ponsot CSD. Nor, to the best of my knowledge, was I ever present at any dinner where a so-labeled wine was served.

Fourth, contrary to Mr. Parker's assertion that he was the only journalist to have been concerned, and was writing, about the issue of fraudulent wine, I too have written about the problem on multiple occasions, both on this forum and in my publication. I have also been interviewed on multiple occasions by investigators in Mr. Koch's employ. Further, I too have been to Koch's home and discussed the issue with him personally.

Fifth, on the other hand, I fully agree with Mr. Parker that if someone really wants to fool someone, anyone, it's possible. For example, not withstanding that the bottle with the 1959 Ponsot CSD label was indisputably a fake, it was an excellent wine and almost certainly period. I believe, though I cannot prove, that the wine in the bottle was from 1959 and it was of grand cru caliber. Some things, such as quality, cannot be faked but misattribution is simple, and unfortunately, often done. To this end, I have written extensively on various approaches to faking old burgundy because there are many.

I further agree that you cannot be too circumspect in these matters and that competent due diligence is your only protection. Let's be honest though: even the best due diligence is not foolproof. To this end, I gave Mr. Koch's investigator a two plus hour lesson on what to look for with respect to certain high profile domaines that were bottling between 1900 and 1934 but even with all of these nuances, there are quite simply too many unknowns to ever be 100% certain. I personally know of bottles where almost every indicator is incorrect yet the wine inside is genuine, the point being that just because something looks suspicious does not necessarily mean that there is an intent to mislead or defraud. But when in doubt, pass.

Sixth, I would observe that Mr. Klinger has captured the issue succinctly by observing that we have all been robbed of something precious through this betrayal of trust, irrespective of whom may have been behind this. This is unfortunate for all concerned because every bottle, every wine and every experience is, in some small way, tainted. And it is personally distressing, not to mention ironic, that my reputation has been potentially sullied over something that has been grossly misconstrued even though I raised the red flag in the first place. One can only hope that fair-minded people will consider the facts and come to a just conclusion.

Sincerely,

Allen Meadows
__________________
Burg Hound

Hi David,
Hope all goes well with you. Let me make four points. I’ll focus on the Meadows post that you republished here, since not everybody has access to the Squires site.

1. It seems notable to me that in this lengthy post, Allen Meadows never even mentions the existence of Rudy Kurniawan! The topic under discussion, after all, is a lawsuit Bill Koch has filed against Kurniawan. This being the case, I also thought John Kapon would have some part to play in Allen’s narrative, but Kapon isn’t mentioned either.

Meadows does talk about two competitors, the Wine Spectator and Robert Parker. Meadows says that the Wine Spectator “incorrectly printed that reviews I had written based on the specific wines in the auction were used in the auction catalogue.”

I confess to a certain degree of difficulty in following Meadows’ train of thought on the Spectator’s mistakes, but I have no doubt that he is correct. I was more interested in the fact that he didn’t mention what John Kapon had to say about him in the same auction catalog:

“Every single great old Roumier, Rousseau and Ponsot experience I have ever had comes from ‘THE’ Cellar. The Burghound Allen Meadows will tell you as well that he has been blessed with many of his greatest experiences of these artifacts courtesy of our friend."

Since Kapon’s claim isn’t addressed, it might be useful of Allen to do so here.

2. Meadows was responding to a Squires poster who made what I took to be a mild remark: “It should be pointed out that even Allen Meadows was served this wine and saw nothing untoward, so others can possibly be forgiven!”

Meadows doesn’t agree, and proceeds to lay out the facts of a dinner in Los Angeles in April 2008 at which he was served -- among many other wines -- the imaginary 1959 Ponsot Clos St. Denis. You can read what Allen had to say about the dinner above, but I think what Meadows didn’t say about “Big Boy Does Los Angeles” is also interesting and worthy of attention.

Allen doesn’t bother to mention his fellow dinner guests included John Kapon, Rudy Kurniawan and, of course, “Big Boy” Rob Rosania, according to Kapon’s account of the dinner on the Squires board.
(http://dat.erobertparker.com/bboard/sho ... os+angeles)

He might also have also noted that the guests sipped numerous champagnes (and other gems) furnished by Rosania. Rudy Kurniawan generously contributed two flights of blue-chip Burgundy.

As we can see in Allen’s note above, he was immediately suspicious of the ’59 CSD and consulted his database about the wine that very night. Unfortunately, Meadows’ suspicions about the wine weren’t reflected in the note he posted about the dinner the next day.

“… it was truly a remarkable dinner. John put together a great venue and an exceptionally knowledge group of enthusiasts and when that is combined with astonishingly generous collectors like Rob Rosania and Rudy Kurniawan, it makes for a truly wonderful evening all around.”

And:

“I wanted to take a moment to thank sincerely John, Rob and Rudy for making possible a historically important comparison that I will never forget. It's exceptionally rare today when burg enthusiasts are afforded the opportunity to peer back into the nuanced, and often quite murky, history of modern Burgundy.”
(http://dat.erobertparker.com/bboard/sho ... stcount=42)

(The “Big Boy” dinner, by the way, took place two weeks or so before the Acker auction that featured wines consigned by Rosania and Kurniawan, and, of course, the Domaine Ponsot debacle.)

3. We all know that Allen Meadows is one of the most formidable wine tasters in the world. (“Please excuse the blatant immodesty but there are very few high profile burgundies where I have not tasted most of the existing range. In fact, I make a specialty of tasting every vintage that I can find so when wines appear well outside of my range of experience, they always provoke my intense interest.”)

This being the case, I think it’s reasonable to ask whether there are any other Kurniawan-furnished wines that aroused Meadows’ suspicions over the years.

4. I think that the credit Meadows takes for himself is also worthy of examination. “It is because of me that Laurent Ponsot first became aware of the problem,” he says.

And,

“And it is personally distressing, not to mention ironic, that my reputation has been potentially sullied over something that has been grossly misconstrued even though I raised the red flag in the first place.”

Earlier in this enormous thread, Don Corwell had this to say in response to a poster who mentioned Meadows’ role:

“If it wasn't for Allen Meadows, Laurent Ponsot would probably never have known about any of the Acker fakes,” the poster said.

“That's not really true. My friend Geoffrey Troy in New York contacted Laurent Ponsot about these bottles well before the auction and before the pre-auction dinner. I believe that others did as well,” Don replied.
http://wineberserkers.com/forum/viewtop ... ey#p847219

The Underground Wineletter credits Cornwell, Troy and Doug Barzelay for fine work on this case, and I know there are a number of others as well, including Maureen Downey and Jancis Robinson.

I have no doubt that Meadows spoke to a “friend” (apparently Doug Barzelay) about the ’59 CSD and that Barzelay contacted Laurent Ponsot. But I think Meadows’ role needs to be set in the context of what others, names and unnamed, contributed.

[todd waldmann]

Stuart. It might be my desire to see best motives but I think many of the folks in this debacle are really innocents. They were sucked in by someone with less than honorable intentions. He had tons of money. He spent it too and shared.
That is the reason I mentioned early in this that innocent people will be slimed by this just by being in the area.
I don't disagree about holding people who are considered consumer advocates responsible for their choices. We should do it after digesting all the facts.
We should just take all of the speculation with a grain of salt too.
My $0.02.

I couldn't agree more. There has been lots & lots of speculation in this thread. Speculation regarding motives, who knew what & when they knew it & what various people should have done. It is all merely speculation & assigning motives & guessing about events can be harmful to those involved.

[paul hanna]

Might make for an interesting separate thread.....

"What vintages did the major reviewers get right/wrong"....

Burghound also got '99 wrong IMHO, severely underrated it, especially when compared to '97 and '98....but this is off the topic.


It does seem as if Meadows is pretty involved in all this one way or the other (albeit unwittingly as it appears). Still, it will be interesting to hear what he has to say about all this in more detail at some stage....

One thing I am sure of though, is that this saga is far from played out....

[David Glasser]

Dan, I can't speak for Allan. It would help to read the entire threads from 2006 and 2008 in context. They would probably answer some but not all of your questions.

I don't believe that critics should avoid tastings of rare wines just because some may be fake or because others may try to take advantage of them or misrepresent the meaning of their participation. It's akin to posting shelf talkers for the 95-point vintage of a wine on a later, less-exalted vintage. Just on a different scale.

Critics aren't hermits. They should take advantage of opportunities to taste the full range of wines available. They DO have a responsibility to bring their full analytic powers to bear, to keep a clear mind so as not to be swept away by the excitement of rare or exclusive opportunities, and to be circumspect about how they comport themselves and communicate about the experiences if they want to maintain their reputations and usefulness to their readers. Even the experts can be fooled at times. Hopefully, they learn from their mistakes and come back stronger and wiser. It's easy to see inconsistencies in retrospect. Maybe not so easy in the moment.

[Lewis Dawson]

I agree with David. Maybe Rudy "used" Allen Meadows, maybe not, but I don't think we can or should ask a wine critic to be a hermit in terms of social interactions that involve wine.

[Lewis Dawson]

One thing I am sure of though, is that this saga is far from played out....

Do you think so? I'm not so sure. I hope this case winds up exposing all, and leading to some significant changes, but it may not. The outcome here could well be a plea deal on a bank fraud charge, with a short prison stay and deportation. Would that really surprise anyone?

[paul hanna]

Maybe, maybe not....

Still, I see the ramifications over the years as being much more far reaching....

[Lewis Dawson]

I hope so, Paul. I hope you are right.

[paul hanna]

I hope so, Paul. I hope you are right.

I really do feel so.

At least we will always have the term "Doing a Rudy" in our vernacular....

[Don Cornwell]

One of the more disconcerting things about this story is that there are other people who filled the roles of Antonio and Bryan Castanos for Rudy.

Rudy had at least one other person who consigned wines for Rudy under that person's name to auction houses. I have reported that information to the FBI. I do not know at this point which auction houses received consignments of Rudy's wines from this individual or the volume of wine so consigned. I suspect that there may be others who consigned wines on behalf of Rudy as well.

Rudy also had other people besides Antonio Castanos and his son Bryan who brokered or sold Rudy's wines in both wholesale transactions and directly to private collectors.

You have doubtlessly seen the comments from Bill Koch and Russell Frye saying that the arrest of Mr. Kurniawan is just the proverbial visible tip of the iceberg. They're absolutely right.

[Lewis Dawson]

Wow, once again Don Cornwell delivers a BOMBSHELL tidbit that blows this deal wide open again. Thank you, Don, well done. Do you have any idea whether the auction house(es) knew about the agancy deal, as you believe Spectrum knew, or if they might have been in the dark about the true source of the wines being consigned?

[alan weinberg]

You have doubtlessly seen the comments from Bill Koch and Russell Frye saying that the arrest of Mr. Kurniawan is just the proverbial visible tip of the iceberg. They're absolutely right.

where are these comments written? I'd like to review that information, too. Much thanks.
alan

[Robert Pollard-Smith]

You have doubtlessly seen the comments from Bill Koch and Russell Frye saying that the arrest of Mr. Kurniawan is just the proverbial visible tip of the iceberg. They're absolutely right.

where are these comments written? I'd like to review that information, too. Much thanks.
alan

Alan, search for iceberg in this thread yields...

http://www.decanter.com/news/wine-news/ ... h-and-frye

[Lewis Dawson]

Alan, here in Decanter.

[Bruce Leiserowitz]

You have doubtlessly seen the comments from Bill Koch and Russell Frye saying that the arrest of Mr. Kurniawan is just the proverbial visible tip of the iceberg. They're absolutely right.

It seems to me the "tip of the iceberg" issue has at least two aspects. First, were there possibly fake wines from RK that were sold through channels other than the auction channels already known? That certainly seems a strong possibility. Second, were there OTHER sources of possible fake wine? I would have to say that the counterfeit wine problem neither started nor ends with RK.

Bruce

[Don Cornwell]

Wow, once again Don Cornwell delivers a BOMBSHELL tidbit that blows this deal wide open again. Thank you, Don, well done. Do you have any idea whether the auction house(es) knew about the agancy deal, as you believe Spectrum knew, or if they might have been in the dark about the true source of the wines being consigned?

Lew:

As to the additional person doing the consignments, I don't know the details with respect to the consignments yet. I'm still trying to gather more information.

As to those auction houses who dealt with Antonio Castanos (Spectrum, Bonhams, Zachys, Greg Martin/Heritage- a single auction- and possibly others), some of them, if not all of them, definitely knew that Antonio Castanos was selling wines for Rudy. As discussed before, many people in the wine business, particularly here in California, knew that Antonio Castanos was selling wines for Rudy.

[Dan Collins]

Wow, once again Don Cornwell delivers a BOMBSHELL tidbit that blows this deal wide open again. Thank you, Don, well done. Do you have any idea whether the auction house(es) knew about the agancy deal, as you believe Spectrum knew, or if they might have been in the dark about the true source of the wines being consigned?

My jaw dropped when I saw Don's first post. Along with everything else, it was piece of great investigative journalism. If Don was an LA Times reporter, he'd be in the running for a Pulitzer and maybe even a raise from his bosses. Don dug through auction records to first bring to light questions about Kurniawan in August 2007 and took it from there.
http://dat.erobertparker.com/bboard/sho ... stcount=26

Current and former members of the Squires board may also recall that Don was a key player in the immortal, soon-to-be-a-major-motion-picture "Premature Oxidation of White Burgundies" thread.

[paul hanna]

Shame we can't move some of those old threads from Squires to over here where they aren't locked away for only a few to see and utilize to the effect they were created for....

[Glenn Gallup]

Just one observation about Lewis Dawson's #2506 re possible outcomes. At my age I'm often disappointed but seldom surprised.

[jcoley3]

Speaking of the PremOx thread, I recall its existence was often pointed to by RMP as "proof" that they were tackling the issue and by others to demonstrate that there was widespread market awareness of the problem. I posted more than once on the topic (in that thread and elsewhere) that buyers and critics really needed to take auction houses to task for using old scores to sell wine and never mentioning the high failure rate.

There was considerably less penetration of awareness into the marketplace regarding White Burgundy than a lot of people thought, mainly because the people discussing it were already well aware of it. While I have no doubt that the top auction buyers are aware of the "Rudy Problem," there are likely to be many more people blissfully bidding away in the foreseeable future.

While it is certainly nice to have someone with the tenacity and wealth of a Bill Koch pursuing the issue, my guess is all it will take is a few auction reports of "HK $3424 Million!" to refuel the exuberance that drives the market.

I'd love to be wrong.

[Kevin Shin]

I got grilled for posting this in 2009 but this provides the Allen's view.

Originally Posted by Kevin Shin
I may get grilled for saying this but if Dr. Jay Miller gets screwed for his Australia trip and Michael Broadbent for his connection with Rodenstock, shouldn’t we at least question whether it is appropriate for the professional critics to participate in free, mega high end tastings?

So as I posted earlier, one has to wonder how many of these wines were genuine. I have noticed one pattern in some of these tastings, the 45 Romanee Contis tend to get drank at the end of the night.

I don’t mean to witch hunt but I have a question for Mr. Meadow. Did you attend any other mega tastings after the April 2008 LA dinner?

Hello Kevin,

I found your comments interesting and thought provoking but in the end, I believe that you're suggesting a standard of comportment that is not realistic. Allow me to explain why:

As is now well-known after the net-wide dust-up over journalistic ethics on this board and elsewhere, seemingly everyone and their favorite blogger issued a statement about what they believe is appropriate and what they personally do with respect to free trips, inducements, meals, tastings, samples and so forth. I did not simply because on the front page of every issue is a clear and unequivocal statement as to my policies. There is no ambiguity and it is intended that there be no ambiguity with respect to most situations.

With respect to tastings, mega or otherwise, I not have a specific policy because it's impossible to have a "one size fits all" statement, unless one just flatly refuses to attend anything. You have to ask whether never again attending a large tasting is really serving my readership by refusing to glean important information that is available. Part of what my readers pay me for is the perspective that I bring to bear. A portion of that perspective has been acquired by attending large tastings; I don't believe why that is needs to be detailed here but suffice it to note that there are often many valuable things to be learned. Why should I deprive myself, or my readers, of that knowledge?

As an aside, what exactly is a mega-tasting? Most people would probably define it as one they would like to attend but either can't afford it or aren't invited. You propose that there is a financial threshold of $10 to $20k where the critic does not pay to attend. But what if he or she does pay? Does that make one more objective? And more importantly, irrespective of whether someone has paid or not, IF the reviews for the wines served are printed, then they are available for any paying customer to use. It's important to note that these uses can include perverse reasons just as well as laudable reasons. Do you think that a fraudeur cares if I have paid to attend the tasting or not if the review is a good one? I doubt it.

My point is that the critic's payment to participate has no bearing on whether a subsequent review can be manipulated for ill-gotten gain later. It's a statement of fact that I have paid for my participation in the vast majority of the tastings that I have written up in the pages of Burghound. But again, does that fact mitigate or eliminate someone's use those reviews to market fraudulent wine? No, I do not believe that it does.

Moreover, it's a fair question to ask what responsibility does a critic have in this circumstance? Is the mere possibility that a review could be used to aid in the sale of fraudulent wine suggest that all reviews should reside only the memories of those who tasted the wine? Should Robert Parker not review future vintages of Pétrus, Lafite, Le Pin or other "investment grade" Bordeaux because his reviews could aid a would be fraudeur? Should I cease evaluating and reviewing the wines of the Domaine de la Romanée-Conti, Rousseau, Roumier, Coche-Dury or de Vogüé? If so, then there is no basis on which published wine criticism can exist because any review of an authentic wine can be used to sell a fake wine under the same label.

Moreover, much more young wine is faked and sold than old wine. While the per bottle price of older wines is often spectacular and thus garners much of the attention, in point of fact the total dollars generated are much greater selling young fake wine than old fake wine.

As such, then where is the greater good served? If Mr. Parker's reviews aid you (and thousands of others) as a consumer to buy one château but not another (in other words, helping you to buy better wine and avoid poorer wine), should that information be suppressed? Is the possibility that a fraudeur might use that same review to sell fake bottles imply that no review of the '82 Mouton should ever have been published? After all, it is well-known that empty bottles of that wine sell for more than €100 on various on-line auction sites and if those bottles are purchased, filled with plonk and resold as the real item, is Mr. Parker culpable for his purported "role" in the buyer's subsequent disappointment?

By the same token, should I never attend another tasting if I intend to publish the notes? Or if I do intend to publish the notes, should I then shoulder the burden for any and all future uses of my reviews? Or should I labor to become ever more irrelevant to my readers and those who use my reviews as a basis to acquire wines in the auction markets? While not every critic or blogger seeks to become highly influential, I seriously doubt that any of them strive for irrelevancy.

As to your question, I have attended two tastings post April, 2008 that I would consider outside the normal and both were held in Burgundy. One was held at my request and involved primarily 19th century wine of which, in many cases, the last existing bottles were opened. In the other, it was a horizontal of 1985 grands crus, all of which I had tasted before and thus notes also already existed. I don't see how, in either case, there exists a greater ability to manipulate the information than there was before the tastings?

But even if there was, you have to be willing to answer one fundamental question: where does a wine critic's responsibility begin and end with respect to the dissemination of collected information? You seem, in fact strongly so, to be suggesting that simply accurately reporting tastings impressions is not sufficient. Instead, you seem to be implying that the critic is fully responsible for the subsequent use, legitimate or otherwise, of the collected information?

I believe that it's fair to say that you either have ethics and principles about your work or you don't. Let's be completely honest here. All Allen Meadows, Robert Parker, Steve Tanzer, Claude Kolm or 17 other pros that I could name have to sell is their credibility no matter how acute their respective palates may be. If you really believe that a bad wine is really all that likely to receive a good review just because it was tasted for free then you have a pretty dim view of the ethical standards that wine critics possess. And if you believe that, can outright collusion between an organizer and a critic be far behind? Seriously, I know it sounds far fetched but it could easily happen. The reason that it doesn't though is because the critics that actually move markets move them because people believe in the critic's underlying credibility.

Mr. Parker has a well-deserved reputation for incorruptibility. To offer credit where it is due, I modeled my statement of ethics after his because I have long respected his approach to this profession. He and I may have different views about what constitutes beauty in wine but to the best of my knowledge, we have identical views on the appropriate ethics to bring to the table. I have worked extremely hard to develop and maintain my readers' trust and I'm not about to voluntarily put myself in a position where that trust could be legimately questioned. Period. In the case of the dodgy bottle of Ponsot Clos St. Denis, I had doubts and investigated them. As it turns out, my instincts were correct. You should also know that not all of the wines in this tasting were from the same source and thus the presence of one questionable bottle would have no legitimate bearing on the authenticity of other bottles.

The key point is that a critic who has suspicions about the authenticity of what is being served has a responsibility to say so or not print an unqualified review. But assuming that I read your comments accurately, to require a critic to divine the motives behind every organizer of a large tasting is not realistic. Further, to argue, as you appear to be doing, that the potential for abuse should proscribe any critic's attendance at a large tasting is a slippery slope because ultimately, if you take that line of thought to its logical conclusion, no reviews of any kind could ever be printed. If you agree with me, good but if you do not, then we will have to agree to disagree. Few things in life are black and white and judgment about a lot of things is a necessary part of the business. You either trust a critic to exercise his or her best judgment in arriving at a credible conclusion or you don't. No critic can do any better than that.

For what it's worth, I wish to make clear that I have no problem at all with your comment or questions. You have every right to pose them about me or anyone else who sells their opinions and research. That said, forthright accountability is not at all the same thing as implied culpability.

Sincerely,

Allen Meadows

[Stuart BeauneHead Niemtzow]

RE: Allen Meadows and others in the cast of characters of Rudy's exploits.

I don't think the "problem"/"issue" is their journalistic impartiality, etc....and, maybe not even attending the seeming multitude of lavish events with purportedly tons of trophy wines. It is when their experiences turned into accolades and they into acolytes for Rudy himself. (And, Allen wasn't the only one; he is just more prominent.) They lavished praised on Rudy as a generous, etc. host/ his genuine nature, his palate, etc. etc. etc. They also criticized those (including me) who suggested at the time that "they" knew nothing really about Rudy the person and were being swept by his lavish entertaining.

I think that's really what I'd like to see explained here. Obviously the wine business is not subject to government regulations or even discernible ethical standards. That's not the issue. But, when credible, well known people turn into walking/speaking testimonials for someone like Rudy was-- and I assume that they were taken in without any knowledge of his "operation"-- I do think that warrants explanations...and raises some thorny issues.

Hearing that one of them was instrumental in exposing the Ponsot fraud (though that seems to be disputed)...or that there is nothing wrong with attending Rudy's events...doesn't really address the harm done by their adding to his credibility, albeit without knowing differently. The biggest harm was creating Rudy's aura of credibility. In fact, without that, Rudy probably wouldn't have "accomplished" nearly as much.

I do think that aspect warrants self-examination, explanation and maybe some acknowledgement of irresponsibility...in that significant role in the Rudy saga. And, plenty of people were flaunting that involvement--as we've seen...in selling Rudy's products.

No rush to judgement...that aspect is pretty obvious and undisputable.

[Barry P]

Kevin:

A thoughtful response from Burghound to be sure. I think it is, as you've pointed out, a fine line between casual tastings and the ridiculous, over the top mega tastings that can potentially serve as springboards for confidence men and schemers. I think even Bob Parker once said that he got uncomfortable attending one or two of the Rodenstock dinners because of the sheer excess. Allen may have walked that line...not sure whether he fell on the wrong side of it, but no doubt he is likely to be more cautious in the future.

As an aside, I think what is happening here is that people were already pre-disposed to dislike Rudy, Kapon and the Lumber group because of the sheer excess and the trumpeting of it. Of course a man is entitled in America to make and spend money as he will. But, to many, each of these bottles were single bottles to be celebrated and around which a meal could be had to think and contemplate the wine. Instead, they were guzzled one after another and, having read Kapon's reports on these events, a lot was left over. It also has been mentioned and probably leaves a sour taste in folks' mouths, that these events were often pump and dump schemes that led to inflated auction prices, particulary with champagne. In any event, it feels that a large part of the wine community was non-plussed with all of it. Now that Rudy has been charged, people finally have the catharsis moment. What is still unclear to me is whether these folks were unwitting participants (in which case they've got to be embarrassed and potentially confused about what they tasted) or witting participants (in which case, that's very problematic). I tend to think that these guys were used by Rudy, not in league with him.

[Barry P]

Oh also, a Rudy update. He waived his right to a preliminary hearing today. I'm not a litigator, but I wonder if it is a pre-cursor to a deal.

Anyway, the amusing part is that the case is officially: "United States vs. Rudy Kurniawan a/k/a Dr. Conti"

[Stuart BeauneHead Niemtzow]

Barry...I think it's the "trumpeting" of it that particularly offended people...and who the trumpeters were and what they were saying about Rudy the person...as well as the seeming "conspicuous consumption" that Rudy orchestrated (we now know as part of his clever plan). People indeed found that objectionable and Rudy's trumpeters were trying to drown out those opinions-- often with testimonials about Rudy the person, whom they really knew almost nothing about....as we still don't, years later.

And, the consequences of this are not slight. The guy and his "products" will likely have tainted the integrity of the fine wine market for generations...and have exposed some participants in his activities and in that market as charlatans. And, as a result, all of us who have collected great Burgundies will see the value of those collections suffer, at the very least, as the secondary/auction market for them will have been wrecked.

[Dan Collins]

Oh also, a Rudy update. He waived his right to a preliminary hearing today. I'm not a litigator, but I wonder if it is a pre-cursor to a deal.

Anyway, the amusing part is that the case is officially: "United States vs. Rudy Kurniawan a/k/a Dr. Conti"

Don't know, but this could be great news for Rudy's many fans and friends in the New York City area. There was a removal hearing scheduled for Monday in LA. Maybe this just means they're dispensing with the preliminaries, and shipping him to a new home at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Manhattan. It's just a subway ride away for me! Unfortunately, visitors are not allowed to bring alcoholic beverages into the facility. The no-nonsense warden has also banned inmate tasting groups. Maybe Rudy will join a gang.

[Tom Blach]

to many, each of these bottles were single bottles to be celebrated and around which a meal could be had to think and contemplate the wine. Instead, they were guzzled one after another and, having read Kapon's reports on these events, a lot was left over.

To me , just exactly that. I found this reported behaviour rather akin to eating a chicken grilled over a Stradivarius wood fire. I don't think being able to afford it entitles one to do it, though if it turns out they were all fake then of course such behaviour was ideally appropriate. But really, what a bunch of ****s.

[scott c l a f f e e]

I'm starting to research fake Champagne after seeing Don mention earlier in the thread about how Rudy auctioned off many bottles of bubbly in addition to old BDX and Burgs. If anyone monitoring this thread can provide any insight into whether fake older Champagnes exist, and how one would go about counterfeiting Champagne, given the difficulty involved, please let me know (here, or via PM or email).

I know an old wine tasting young is not evidence of its authenticity, so I offer this gem of a tasting note from Kapon simply as comic relief:

1955 Moët & Chandon Champagne Cuvée Dom Pérignon (France, Champagne) Big Boy's Holiday Party (12/27/2005) John Kapon Vintage Tastings
like the wineslinger that he is in the Wild, Wild East. The '55 was amazingly bubbly and fresh out of the bottle, 'so f*ck fresh' is how I actually put it, uncouth New Yorker that I am. The nose was unreal and intensely nutty with additional aromas of cracked bread sprinkled with incredible spices. Vanilla sex came to mind with its white earth and chocolate qualities and fresh and smooth style. While not as deep as the '64 Krug, the '55 DP was more effervescent and still rich in its own right, very bright with kinky lime flavors 95 points

This is perhaps even funnier -- one of the top results when I Googled "1955 dom perignon" was this request:

I am looking for an empty bottle of Dom Perignon 1955 vintage in mint condition. if anyone has one they would not mind parting with or selling please let me know

[D. Wirsig]

I wonder if anyone has tried to visit Rudy in the clink here in LA? I was tempted to try, just to ask him questions although I'd bet it to be a fruitless endeavor.

[todd waldmann]

RE: Allen Meadows and others in the cast of characters of Rudy's exploits.

I don't think the "problem"/"issue" is their journalistic impartiality, etc....and, maybe not even attending the seeming multitude of lavish events with purportedly tons of trophy wines. It is when their experiences turned into accolades and they into acolytes for Rudy himself. (And, Allen wasn't the only one; he is just more prominent.) They lavished praised on Rudy as a generous, etc. host/ his genuine nature, his palate, etc. etc. etc. They also criticized those (including me) who suggested at the time that "they" knew nothing really about Rudy the person and were being swept by his lavish entertaining.

I think that's really what I'd like to see explained here. Obviously the wine business is not subject to government regulations or even discernible ethical standards. That's not the issue. But, when credible, well known people turn into walking/speaking testimonials for someone like Rudy was-- and I assume that they were taken in without any knowledge of his "operation"-- I do think that warrants explanations...and raises some thorny issues.

Hearing that one of them was instrumental in exposing the Ponsot fraud (though that seems to be disputed)...or that there is nothing wrong with attending Rudy's events...doesn't really address the harm done by their adding to his credibility, albeit without knowing differently. The biggest harm was creating Rudy's aura of credibility. In fact, without that, Rudy probably wouldn't have "accomplished" nearly as much.

I do think that aspect warrants self-examination, explanation and maybe some acknowledgement of irresponsibility...in that significant role in the Rudy saga. And, plenty of people were flaunting that involvement--as we've seen...in selling Rudy's products.

No rush to judgement...that aspect is pretty obvious and undisputable.

Before deciding that it "is pretty obvious and undisputable" that Mr. Meadows played a significant role in contributing to Rudy's credibility, I think it would be nice to see some documentation that Allen Meadows was acting as an "acolyte" of Rudy's or was or extolling his virtues of providing "accolades" for Rudy. It is clear that Allen tasted wine that was provided by Rudy & provided tasting notes. I'm just not sure I've seen anything that demonstrates anything more significant than that.

[Hans Hauser]

Barry...I think it's the "trumpeting" of it that particularly offended people...and who the trumpeters were and what they were saying about Rudy the person...as well as the seeming "conspicuous consumption" that Rudy orchestrated (we now know as part of his clever plan). People indeed found that objectionable and Rudy's trumpeters were trying to drown out those opinions-- often with testimonials about Rudy the person, whom they really knew almost nothing about....as we still don't, years later.

And, the consequences of this are not slight. The guy and his "products" will likely have tainted the integrity of the fine wine market for generations...and have exposed some participants in his activities and in that market as charlatans. And, as a result, all of us who have collected great Burgundies will see the value of those collections suffer, at the very least, as the secondary/auction market for them will have been wrecked.

Stuart,

maybe the value of the wine suffers, but not its quality...
I know that some properties in Burgundy are not comfortable with those sky high "aftermarket" prices.
If you are an artist, would you prefer your work to be seen or just to be used to exchange money and buried in vaults, because it could raise in price?
We have a problem about the luxury, that we allow people to auction off wines we bought to drink and share, because the prices realised in the auctions are so insane, that you think:"I have sell them, because I will never drink a wine for €100, €1000,-, you name it.
I have serious doubts, that most of the expressed anger and sorrow is about wine itself.
It rather have the feeling that it is about economics. Trade, sellers or speculators are hurt.
Maybe some of the critics too.
I, for my part, am happy to own the one or other good bottle and contemplate right now which wine I should match and serve (surf...;))) with my spring lamb tomorrow.

[Stuart BeauneHead Niemtzow]

Before deciding that it "is pretty obvious and undisputable" that Mr. Meadows played a significant role in contributing to Rudy's credibility, I think it would be nice to see some documentation that Allen Meadows was acting as an "acolyte" of Rudy's or was or extolling his virtues of providing "accolades" for Rudy. It is clear that Allen tasted wine that was provided by Rudy & provided tasting notes. I'm just not sure I've seen anything that demonstrates anything more significant than that.

Todd...I think the following, already posted on this thread (post numbers following quotes) render it pretty obvious that Allen played a "significant role in contributing to Rudy's [and Kapon's] credibility in those years before the Ponsot expose. That seems clear to me. Beyond that, I can't judge him or his actions. And, I have no doubt that Allen had good intentions, albeit was seduced by Rudy and his lavish entertaining.

At the very least, they pose some difficult questions, which remain unanswered. That's really my point. And, though I don't have access to Squires...I think...he probably gave Rudy some personal accolades at the time. But, I could be confusing him with others who were being cultivated, too.

"Some recent traveling brought me together with the owner of ‘The Cellar’ in preparation for the upcoming October auction. After a few days of hard work, we decided to have a memorable meal to celebrate the upcoming sale and were joined by a couple of close friends as well as a couple of the media’s more influential editors. As always, the owner’s generosity was way beyond the call of duty." Post 2473

“I had called upon my good friend and Burgundy expert Allen Meadows to help me out with some tasting note support 48 hours before our deadline. It took some persuading on my part, but Allen was up for the task and provided over 120 additional tasting notes to accompany the first session wines. Suffice to say no one else could provide such a detailed and broad perspective of aged and rare Burgundies like Allen. This is precisely why the most knowledgeable collectors consider him to be the foremost expert on Burgundy in the world.

As we were wrapping up the first session notes, I joked with Allen about how it could be he didn’t have tasting notes for wines like 1966, 1969 and 1978 Romanee Conti. He apologized and said he would sooner or later fill those holes in his database. Consequently, I responded jokingly that we should get a tasting together that evening to fill in a few holes. Naturally, I cc’d the consignor on my email as I knew that Allen and he were good friends. Not to my surprise considering the consignor’s well known generosity, he was up for the challenge, and Allen and I joined the owner of ‘THE Cellar’ with another anonymous friend for dinner four hours later.”
Post 2489

Allen posted in a couple of threads on the Squires board back in 2006 and 2008 on these events. One on the WS article on the fake Ponsot lots and another on the Koch suit against Rudy K. Here are the links for those who still have access over there:

http://dat.erobertparker.com/bboard/sho ... ost2745927 post 2492

“I wanted to take a moment to thank sincerely John, Rob and Rudy for making possible a historically important comparison that I will never forget. It's exceptionally rare today when burg enthusiasts are afforded the opportunity to peer back into the nuanced, and often quite murky, history of modern Burgundy.”
(http://dat.erobertparker.com/bboard/sho ... stcount=42)

(The “Big Boy” dinner, by the way, took place two weeks or so before the Acker auction that featured wines consigned by Rosania and Kurniawan, and, of course, the Domaine Ponsot debacle.) Post 2501


I have to presume that Allen at least read the stuff others were saying about his involvement at the time....and acquiesced, as it continued for quite a while ...until just before the expose. I know, for me, at the time...Allen was the only thing that provided any respectability to what little I knew about Rudy and his activities, though I asked questions and even ridiculed some of the acolytes.

[Ron F r e e d]

I wonder if anyone has tried to visit Rudy in the clink here in LA? I was tempted to try, just to ask him questions although I'd bet it to be a fruitless endeavor.

Heh, I'd be afraid that someone would cross-reference my visit with years past credit card receipts from Guido's and then that's all my wine drinking friends and I would be needing...

[Frank Martell]

I would like to reply to Don’s comments quickly and completely on behalf of myself and my employer, Heritage Auctions. Everything written below is categorically and demonstrably true.

Throughout my career I have maintained a commitment to honest business and there are many who can bear witness to that fact, including Maureen Downey and Don Cornwell, but let me first shoot the elephant in the room and state that Antonio Castanos did have a consignment in last year’s June auction # 5084 which Heritage executed on behalf of Greg Martin Auctions. Let me also be clear that Heritage did not solicit or contract that consignment, nor did we have the opportunity to inspect the wine prior to producing the catalog. Shortly after our wonderful single-owner auction in May, I was informed that Heritage might soon be acquiring another auction house with an already-made wine sale. Several days later I was told that we were going to move forward and that I needed to prepare a catalog for print within 4 days time. By then, Greg Martin Auctions (GMA) had a finished catalog ready to go to print, had already purchased advertising and had already rented the ballroom at Island Shangri-La in Hong Kong for the event. This sale was finished long before Heritage was involved.

The consignment spanning between lots 274-314 belonged to Antonio Castanos. There were just 8 bottles in total that fit the pattern of suspicious wines which have been described repeatedly in this thread. They were: an Imperial of ’86 Lafleur, a magnum of ‘89 Le Pin, a double magnum of ’98 Le Pin, two bottles of ’71 Romanee Conti and 3 bottles of ’78 Jayer Richebourg. Readers should note that these 8 lots clearly stand out from the rest of the consignment by miles, since also included were two cases of 2000 Boyd Cantenac, a fair bit of modern vintage Leoville Barton, a case of ’93 Trotanoy and a fair bit of Araujo, along with some modern first growths. It was immediately and abundantly clear that these items would need to bear intense scrutiny when we finally physically received the property. We were assured that the wines had been inspected, analyzed and represented accurately. With these assurances in place and with the understanding that we would have the opportunity to inspect the wines prior to the auction, the catalog went to print and mailed on time.

A week or so later, the property arrived in our warehouse and we began the work of breaking down the inventory and reassembling the lots to reflect our catalog. During this process my team was under clear instructions that there were lots which I would need to inspect as they were found, or if I was not immediately available, that would need to be set aside for me to inspect later on. I personally inspected every high-profile bottle in this sale and executed due diligence myself. I was singularly responsible for making decisions about whether a wine passed muster or if it was NFA (not for auction), though I did consult Poppy Davis and others for help with the vetting process. During this process we did find wines which we believed to be counterfeit and they were all withdrawn, without exception, on the spot. I contacted several consignors regarding a number of lots that I found suspicious or deserving of added attention. In cases where we were less certain we gave those lots more elaborate treatment, including a case of 1966 Romanee Conti of which we took several photographs which were emailed to Wilson Daniels for assistance. In perfect candor, the lot was sold before Wilson Daniels responded. I was in direct contact with the winning bidder before and after the auction, acknowledged that we were still working on the item and ultimately gave him the option of keeping or refusing the lot - even before the response came. Wilson Daniels eventually replied that there were abnormalities, that those abnormalities were not conclusive and that the ultimate proof could only come from tasting. The buyer was notified, decided he was uncomfortable and the lot was removed from his invoice immediately as per Heritage policy. These bottles were not consigned by Antonio Castanos.

There is a ton of additional evidence that we vetted that Greg Martin auction very carefully and I remain 100% convinced that our conduct is beyond reproach. I would prefer to say that I never auctioned wines consigned by Antonio Castanos, but I can say that we were placed in a difficult position and we did our absolute best to navigate it with the highest ethical standards. In the spirit of complete transparency I will report that the two bottles of 1971 Romanee Conti are most likely counterfeit. They were initially invoiced to the same bidder who had won the case of the 1966 Romanee Conti and both sales were cancelled by Heritage. I believe the magnum of Le Pin is authentic but it was returned to us because the cork was ever so slightly protruding. We never questioned the buyer’s decision to cancel that sale. Everything else in this consignment was concluded to be genuine and delivered accordingly. The clearest indicator of our commitment to authenticity and excellence came nearly a year after that auction, after this thread began. We went back and looked at every photograph we had on file of every high-risk wine we have sold since our very first auction. We compared all DRC photos to the details Don identified in his early posts (and a copy of that post is taped to all our inspection tables for reference) and in doing so we came upon photos of a 1972 Romanee Conti which appeared to have a mis-cut neck label. I personally contacted that buyer to explain our findings though by all accounts the evidence is not conclusively damning. Though we believe the bottle to be authentic we provided the opportunity to cancel the sale knowing we would take the loss squarely in our pocket. The buyer to date has not replied though I have sent a follow-up email and two text messages.

I would like to finally call attention to a post I made on this bulletin board on April 2, 2011. http://wineberserkers.com/forum/viewtop ... =1&t=43956. Readers will note that this timing corresponds with my first auction under the Heritage Auctions banner. In that post I call attention to the fact that I had been frustrated by some estates’ unwillingness to assist me in vetting counterfeits. Though that particular post does not pertain to the GMA auction, I believe it is relevant in that it demonstrates my commitment to selling quality wine, my willingness to do the work, and my appreciation that Ponsot and Lafite were leading by example. (Lafite had helped me vet a Jero of their ’59 short months prior to this post). I am pleased to add that we recently received assistance from Chateau Petrus. Also among the most helpful producers has been Domaine des Lambrays – who back in 2004 (I think) replied to one of my inquiries regarding a few ancient bottles with a fax that had hand-drawn sketches of label, capsule and cork details.

I do not claim to be perfect and I do not profess to have never been fooled by a counterfeit bottle in my career. I have rejected millions of dollars in consignments and can relate dozens of anecdotes to support my position. I invite any and all members of the board to email me (FrankM@HA.com) if they would like to discuss the matter. I have elected to pay my bills and feed my family in this industry, and that is something I take very seriously. Nobody wants to see things cleaned up more than I do. I can say with great pride that I have never accepted a consignment from Rudy though he did offer me consignments. To the very best of my knowledge, I have never accepted a consignment from Antonio Castanos or anyone else acting as agent for Rudy, either at Bonhams or Heritage. Antonio had not consigned to Heritage before that GMA auction and has not consigned with us since. This is a fact that I have made abundantly clear to Don before he chose to name us today. Heritage challenged me to hold our house to the strictest standards long before this scandal broke and we have done so with great tenacity. We will defend our conduct and integrity with equal tenacity.