RUDY KURNIAWAN & GLOBAL WINE AUCTION FRAUD THREAD (MERGED)

[David Glasser]

I think you have a valid point, Nigel. Typically one expects to be told of the fill level, condition of the label, if there are signs of seepage, etc - the things that one would want to know regarding the condition of the bottle. We expect those things to be listed in the catalog, even if detailed provenance information is not there. We're not in the habit of looking for disclosures that the wine might be counterfeit, assuming that the auction house is going to reject fake bottles. That seems a pretty naive assumption.

Spectrum's only defense against charges of being actively complicit in the fraud here would seem to be "we didn't know." Pretty hard to believe, especially given the details that Don has posted right from the start about their awareness of Rudy as the source of the wines, and the really obvious discrepancies like mis-matched bottles from a single case. That doesn't necessarily mean that the guy who chose the bottles for the photo shoot was in on it. It's all speculation at this point, but that could have been an aesthetic choice by someone who didn't have a clue about, and no responsibility for, authentication. Those in the know may have been too careless to think about pulling the suspicious looking bottles. After all, they were careless enough to accept a case of really obvious fakes, thinking they'd get away with it. Makes you wonder how many really bad fakes get bought by people who don't even suspect they've been scammed.

[Barry P]

As such, if a lot is in poor condition, I don't shoot it. If there is a cases where a couple bottles have tattered labels, I will leave them out of the shot or hide them in the back. Same goes for cut capsules. Having one bottle out of six that has a cut capsule messes up the flow of a shot. The cut capsule usually is left out of the shot or hidden in back. Same thing goes for muliple importers where some bottles have importer labels on back and some on the front. I try to make the photos look nice and leave it to the discriptions and individual bottle photos to go into detail. Just like when I am shooting models, I try to emphasize the good things, and minimize the bad.

Is anyone else troubled by this? Putting aside for a moment the issue of the 66 DRCs, isn't it worrisome to you all that the goal of the auctioneer and his photographer is to make things look good when they are not? Shouldn't the goal rather be to fairly represent the condition of the lot? He basically says he leaves bottles out that would otherwise make their better looking brothers and sisters in the lot look bad. So, the auction house makes you rely on the text in the lot, with the hodge podge of acronyms that require an accompanying lexicon, e.g., BSL for bin soiled label or CUC for cut capsule. But when it comes time to show you what you are bidding on, they purposefully choose NOT to show you those parts of the lot.

This may be rampant throughout the wine auction industry, although it never occurred to me before Ryan's statement. And while I'm not a fan of food photography fraud, i.e., making your Burger King burger look nothing like the thing you actually are served, this seems worse to me as there is intentional omission, not just a matter of replacing melting cheese with epoxy for practical purposes. If this were a securities registration statement, seems to me you would have a problem...there the standard is triggered if you "omitted to state a material fact required to be stated therein or necessary to make the statements therein not misleading." Based on Ryan's statement, aren't the auctioneers and their photographers omitting elements of a photograph that are otherwise necessary to make the photo not misleading?

[Barry P]

Philip:

Did you read my whole post? Yes, I talk about hamburger photography and purposefully distinguish that from the situation here.

[Barry P]

And I don't think I am barking up the wrong tree as I note that it is the "auctioneer and his photographer." Look, it is one thing to use nice light, enhanced background, etc. It is quite another to hide things and pull bottles from a shot that don't measure up to a beauty standard. People want to see the condition of the lot, not just those bottles of the lot the auctioneer and his photographer choose to put up. Otherwise, aren't you really just trying to fool people? And isn't that what this whole thread is about...an attempt by numerous parties, some witting, many unwitting, to fool folks.

[David Glasser]

I always assumed the pictures were just eye candy to make the lots look appealing. A sales/promotional thing, not for evaluation of bottle condition. Ryan appears to confirm that. If they were really meant to reveal details about the condition of the bottles, there would be higher-resolution pics of individual bottles with more close-ups showing fill levels, etc. Might be a good thing for the industry to do.

[Rick Allen]

And I don't think I am barking up the wrong tree as I note that it is the "auctioneer and his photographer." Look, it is one thing to use nice light, enhanced background, etc. It is quite another to hide things and pull bottles from a shot that don't measure up to a beauty standard. People want to see the condition of the lot, not just those bottles of the lot the auctioneer and his photographer choose to put up. Otherwise, aren't you really just trying to fool people? And isn't that what this whole thread is about...an attempt by numerous parties, some witting, many unwitting, to fool folks.

If you are going to bid with an intent to buy on one of the very rare lots we've been discussing, then using the catalog as your means of due diligence is totally inadequate. The message I've gotten loud and clear from this thread is that if I was to bid on this kind of lot, I'd better have an expert in my corner working for me performing due diligence. This will probably remain the case even if the auction houses develop higher standards and/or greater protections.

[Bruce Leiserowitz]

Since I know that others have a great deal more experience with DRC than I do, here is a question about DRC labels and bottle numbers.

On each front label, in the center of the label there is a listing of the total number of "Bouteilles Recoltees" for that vintage.
Then, just below that, on the left side, there is the number of that particular bottle: "Bouteille No XXXXX," followed on the next line below that with the vintage in bold.

Now for the various bottles of DRC that I can recall, the "Bouteille No XXXXX" for the number of that individual bottle is PRINTED ON THE LABEL ITSELF. Indeed, as far as I can recall at least for modern DRC vintages, the entire front label is printed in its entirety. In other words, while the front label has different styles and fonts of printing, it's ALL printed on the label itself.

By contrast, it appears that many of these questionable DRC bottles (including the 1966 DRC RC lot most recently discussed) have portions of the front label that have been separately STAMPED. In particular, the "Bouteille No XXXXX" appears to have been hand-stamped in a process separate and apart from the printing of the rest of the label.

So, the question is whether there was a time when DRC front labels were produced with a combination of printing and hand-stamping? If so, when did that practice end?

Bruce

[Don Cornwell]

Is anyone else troubled by this? Putting aside for a moment the issue of the 66 DRCs, isn't it worrisome to you all that the goal of the auctioneer and his photographer is to make things look good when they are not? Shouldn't the goal rather be to fairly represent the condition of the lot? He basically says he leaves bottles out that would otherwise make their better looking brothers and sisters in the lot look bad. So, the auction house makes you rely on the text in the lot, with the hodge podge of acronyms that require an accompanying lexicon, e.g., BSL for bin soiled label or CUC for cut capsule. But when it comes time to show you what you are bidding on, they purposefully choose NOT to show you those parts of the lot.

Barry:

I think your question is a very legitimate one. I guess my take is that I don't think its fair to omit bottles altogether out of of the photograph of a lot. As you say, the whole purpose of the photograph is to depict what is being sold -- not to selectively pick bottles from what's being sold so as to affirmately misrepresent the condition or contents of the lot.

I would be a lot less bothered by the "artsy" approach to the photography if there was a complete and accurate condition description here. In other words, if the lot description said "...four different capsule colors..." But the two omissions together -- the photograph with only seven bottles shown and the omission to disclose the varying capsule colors in the lot description -- is what is lethal here. This is a lot that was supposed to sell for more than $100,000. Pretty unbelievable to me.

[Don Cornwell]

So, the question is whether there was a time when DRC front labels were produced with a combination of printing and hand-stamping? If so, when did that practice end?

Bruce:

DRC ended the use of Bates-stamped bottle numbers with the 1988 vintage. Since that time the entire label has been printed, albeit in stages.

For the 1980 to 1987 vintages I believe DRC had its printer apply the botle numbers (which still appear to be stamped bottle numbers.)

[WvanGorp]

Its unbelievable that customers paying that much money don't demand more scrutiny or exercise more due diligence.

That said, I don't think its relevant to reference a contract photographer hired to take beautiful pictures. The responsibility lies with the principals of the auction house and the customer.

[Barry P]

I wonder whether any sort of disclosure could overcome a photo of an incomplete lot showing only the consistent beauties. Of course the parallel here is to the advertisements where a video depicts a vibrant old couple walking on the beach while tiny text visible only on the largest HDTVs indicates that the drug might cause side effects, including death. Not many read the text, but everyone sees the picture.

And for those who are saying, look this kind of thing goes on all the time in advertising, etc., I don't really buy that argument. Without people raising questions and objecting to unsavory practices, nothing would change. To wit, we all used to eat pink slime. But no longer.

[Bruce Leiserowitz]

In terms of wine auction catalogs and photography, here are some of my Monday thoughts:

1. Most auction catalogs don't contain photographs of all of the lots; the auction houses typically pick and choose which
lots to photograph and how to photograph them. Thus, it seems unlikely that anyone who wants to conduct more "due diligence" on a particular lot would rely solely on an auction catalog's photos.

2. From what I can tell, most auction houses will send registered buyers digital copies of photos of various auction lots. Thus, if the lot isn't photographed in the catalog, or the catalog photograph isn't complete, you should be able to obtain pre-auction digital copies of the full lot. If an auction house refused to provide photos on request, then I would be extremely hesitant to ever do business with that company.

3. Notwithstanding #1 and #2, I feel that auction houses DO have an obligation not to use misleading photographs in their auction catalogs. Again, it's important to remember that the photographs are there not only to help address any issues involving authenticity, but also to assess the overall condition of the bottle--capsule, cork, fill, possible leakage, bin soil, etc. If an auction house is using its catalog photography to give a misleading impression of the goods for sale, then ultimately they should be held responsible for that conduct. Again, I would be very hesitant to do business with any auction house that appeared to regularly engage in using misleading catalog photos to make the bottles appear "better" than they actually are.

Bruce

[JeffWisman]

Its unbelievable that customers paying that much money don't demand more scrutiny or exercise more due diligence.

That said, I don't think its relevant to reference a contract photographer hired to take beautiful pictures. The responsibility lies with the principals of the auction house and the customer.

The average customer for these wines are probably not your typical wine geek though. More likely its the rich label chasers and the investors. Some of those types of people appoint others to go to auctions for them. Some just want a bottle that says "DRC" on it, even if its not entirely convincing, they aren't going to drink the damned thing anyway. Etc...

But yeah, that doesn't make any of this more acceptable. Just one possible reason why it continues to go on.

Jeff

[John Morris]

Jeff - I think you've got it right. The Billionaire's Vinegar recounts the fate of the first to Thomas Jefferson bottles sold by Rodenstock through auction. Bill Sokolin bought the first and ran home from a dinner at the Four Seasons to grab the bottle to show it off. He returned with it in a shopping bag and bumped a serving cart coming back into the dining room and cracked the bottle. The Forbes bottle, meanwhile, was put in a spotlit case at the Forbes magazine office with no temperature control, where the cork eventually fell in.

No wonder the auction houses act comtemptuously toward the customers!

[AKuehn]

I would be a lot less bothered by the "artsy" approach to the photography if there was a complete and accurate condition description here. In other words, if the lot description said "...four different capsule colors..." But the two omissions together -- the photograph with only seven bottles shown and the omission to disclose the varying capsule colors in the lot description -- is what is lethal here. This is a lot that was supposed to sell for more than $100,000. Pretty unbelievable to me.

If the pictures explicitly purport to represent the actual condition of the product and fail to do so, then that's a problem. But I would never buy a car based on pictures, and I wouldn't expect the photos on e-Bay automotive (or wherever) to show every dent and scratch. I would expect the car to look worse in person than in the pictures. This lot costs much more than my car. Why would we expect anyone buy it "as-is" based on the pictures? If you bought a case of wine at $100K without you or your agent ever having inspected the lot in person (with full ability to notice mismatched capsules), then that's your problem.

The descriptions are a different thing entirely. If those misdescribe any details, or leave out known material facts that are not readily discernible on direct inspection, then that's a definite problem.

[Brian G r a f s t r o m]

I would be a lot less bothered by the "artsy" approach to the photography if there was a complete and accurate condition description here. In other words, if the lot description said "...four different capsule colors..." But the two omissions together -- the photograph with only seven bottles shown and the omission to disclose the varying capsule colors in the lot description -- is what is lethal here. This is a lot that was supposed to sell for more than $100,000. Pretty unbelievable to me.

... If you bought a case of wine at $100K without you or your agent ever having inspected the lot in person (with full ability to notice mismatched capsules), then that's your problem.
...

I agree with this. That said, whether or not a potential buyer exercises due diligence is completely irrelevant to whether the auction company is engaging in fraudulent behavior. Again, the buyer's behavior is *not relevant* to the issue of whether the auction company is engaging in fraudulent behavior. Not relevant, folks .... (*except* as to the issue of whether the buyer's reliance on seller's deceit/misrepresentation was reasonable, and that is not a very high hurdle to clear).

[John Morris]

I would be a lot less bothered by the "artsy" approach to the photography if there was a complete and accurate condition description here. In other words, if the lot description said "...four different capsule colors..." But the two omissions together -- the photograph with only seven bottles shown and the omission to disclose the varying capsule colors in the lot description -- is what is lethal here. This is a lot that was supposed to sell for more than $100,000. Pretty unbelievable to me.

... If you bought a case of wine at $100K without you or your agent ever having inspected the lot in person (with full ability to notice mismatched capsules), then that's your problem.
...

I agree with this. That said, whether or not a potential buyer exercises due diligence is completely irrelevant to whether the auction company is engaging in fraudulent behavior. Again, the buyer's behavior is *not relevant* to the issue of whether the auction company is engaging in fraudulent behavior. Not relevant, folks .... (*except* as to the issue of whether the buyer's reliance on seller's deceit/misrepresentation was reasonable, and that is not a very high hurdle to clear).

And under the California law that Don cited many pages ago, reliance didn't even seem to be required. It looks like there is strict liability for misrepresentations in that jurisdiction.

[David Glasser]

The auction company is going to say that the pics are for promotional purposes only, not to document the authenticity of the wine. And they'll pull out a ton of other catalogs to show that's what those kind of pics have always been for. And it's probably true, even though it doesn't go as far as we'd like and even though it ultimately helped sell a bunch of fake wines. A lot of the other crap they had to have done is fraud, but I don't see how you get them on the pics themselves. Then again, I'm no lawyer, so maybe you do get them on the pics 'cuz they were still a part of the larger scheme. From a layperson's standpoint it looks like the pics could easily have been business as usual and not an active part of the attempt to deceive.

[Brian G r a f s t r o m]

I'm not trying to suggest the auction company could "get got" on the pictures alone. Rather, I'm saying that the buyers' behaviors (or lack thereof) does not bear on whether the auction company is engaging in fraudulent activity, and any suggestion to the contrary is, legally speaking, wrong.

[David Glasser]

That makes sense Brian. The victim's actions do not absolve the sellers from responsibility.

[Anthony Hall]

After 2769 posts it is hard to come up with any original comment re this saga ! I keep looking in case Don posts another bombshell but most posts seem to be reiterations of emotions past.

[Peter Chiu]

After 2769 posts it is hard to come up with any original comment re this saga ! I keep looking in case Don posts another bombshell but most posts seem to be reiterations of emotions past.

I agree.

Lots of emotion regarding the issue of photographs for Auction Cat. There is a possibility both sides maybe right......

[François Audouze]

When I began to buy in auction there was no fax, no phone, no internet for the sales. All the buyers were in the room.
Of course the auctioneer could have received direct orders, but the "battle" was in the room.
And every lot was shown in the room. So I could have a look before bidding. Bottles of wine were treated as paintings were.

Now, if the sale is at day one, the lots can be seen in a place very far from the auction room, at day zero. It means that for 90% of the bidders, they bid without having seen the lots.
I find it as showing disrespect.
We have to rely on the catalog which is sometimes very imprecise.
I have never considered the photos on the catalog as representative of the lot, but as a publicity for the auction house, showing that they sell very precious lots.
And it cannot be considered differently, as on a sale of 1,000 lots, you have not 1,000 pictures. You have only partial views of the most prestigious lots.

[Faryan Amir-Ghassem¡]

I would be a lot less bothered by the "artsy" approach to the photography if there was a complete and accurate condition description here. In other words, if the lot description said "...four different capsule colors..." But the two omissions together -- the photograph with only seven bottles shown and the omission to disclose the varying capsule colors in the lot description -- is what is lethal here. This is a lot that was supposed to sell for more than $100,000. Pretty unbelievable to me.

... If you bought a case of wine at $100K without you or your agent ever having inspected the lot in person (with full ability to notice mismatched capsules), then that's your problem.
...

I agree with this. That said, whether or not a potential buyer exercises due diligence is completely irrelevant to whether the auction company is engaging in fraudulent behavior. Again, the buyer's behavior is *not relevant* to the issue of whether the auction company is engaging in fraudulent behavior. Not relevant, folks .... (*except* as to the issue of whether the buyer's reliance on seller's deceit/misrepresentation was reasonable, and that is not a very high hurdle to clear).

What is the buyer paying a 22% vig for? Have you ever heard of a 22% brokerage fee for simply connecting markets? I think it is fair for the purchaser to demand the utmost diligence. With that being said, now that pandora's box has been opened, it will take a very long time for many an auction house to regain that trust.

[Bruce Leiserowitz]

When I began to buy in auction there was no fax, no phone, no internet for the sales. All the buyers were in the room.
Of course the auctioneer could have received direct orders, but the "battle" was in the room.
And every lot was shown in the room. So I could have a look before bidding. Bottles of wine were treated as paintings were.

Now, if the sale is at day one, the lots can be seen in a place very far from the auction room, at day zero. It means that for 90% of the bidders, they bid without having seen the lots.
I find it as showing disrespect.
We have to rely on the catalog which is sometimes very imprecise.
I have never considered the photos on the catalog as representative of the lot, but as a publicity for the auction house, showing that they sell very precious lots.
And it cannot be considered differently, as on a sale of 1,000 lots, you have not 1,000 pictures. You have only partial views of the most prestigious lots.

Francois--As you say, the nature of the wine auction business has changed drastically. Indeed, with companies such as Winebid, the bidding is exclusive online. Essentially NONE of the buyers have physically inspected the bottles prior to bidding. Even with more traditional wine auction houses, more and more of the bidding occurs via the Internet or via fax or over the telephone or via remote location. These days, I suspect that the vast majority of lots sold are not personally inspected by the bidders prior to auction.

But regardless of what photos are published in the printed catalog, any potential bidder should be able to request and obtain photos of the individual lots in which they are interested (if those photos are not already posted in the online catalog).

Bruce

[Stuart BeauneHead Niemtzow]

Jeff - I think you've got it right. The Billionaire's Vinegar recounts the fate of the first to Thomas Jefferson bottles sold by Rodenstock through auction. Bill Sokolin bought the first and ran home from a dinner at the Four Seasons to grab the bottle to show it off. He returned with it in a shopping bag and bumped a serving cart coming back into the dining room and cracked the bottle. The Forbes bottle, meanwhile, was put in a spotlit case at the Forbes magazine office with no temperature control, where the cork eventually fell in.

John...'scuse my ignorance...but....were these bottles eventually determined to hae been right or fakes? I never read that book...and don't remember the outcome.

[John Morris]

Jeff - I think you've got it right. The Billionaire's Vinegar recounts the fate of the first to Thomas Jefferson bottles sold by Rodenstock through auction. Bill Sokolin bought the first and ran home from a dinner at the Four Seasons to grab the bottle to show it off. He returned with it in a shopping bag and bumped a serving cart coming back into the dining room and cracked the bottle. The Forbes bottle, meanwhile, was put in a spotlit case at the Forbes magazine office with no temperature control, where the cork eventually fell in.

John...'scuse my ignorance...but....were these bottles eventually determined to hae been right or fakes? I never read that book...and don't remember the outcome.

Those are the most notorious and outrageous fakes of all time. How'd you miss that saga?

FYI, the book is a great read.

[M Champney (Online)]

Those are the most notorious and outrageous fakes of all time. How'd you miss that saga?

FYI, the book is a great read.

The conclusive “tell” for the Jefferson fakes, IIRC, was the etched signature of Jefferson on the bottle had curves that could only have been made by a modern rotary etching wheel, which did not exist back then...

[Stuart BeauneHead Niemtzow]

Jeff - I think you've got it right. The Billionaire's Vinegar recounts the fate of the first to Thomas Jefferson bottles sold by Rodenstock through auction. Bill Sokolin bought the first and ran home from a dinner at the Four Seasons to grab the bottle to show it off. He returned with it in a shopping bag and bumped a serving cart coming back into the dining room and cracked the bottle. The Forbes bottle, meanwhile, was put in a spotlit case at the Forbes magazine office with no temperature control, where the cork eventually fell in.

John...'scuse my ignorance...but....were these bottles eventually determined to hae been right or fakes? I never read that book...and don't remember the outcome.

Those are the most notorious and outrageous fakes of all time. How'd you miss that saga?

FYI, the book is a great read.

I remember when Sokolin broke the bottle....I remember the saga...and that the guy sold lots of fakes. Didn't remember whether, like Rudy, any of them were for real....

I guess I've never really been too interested in that aspect of wine. Maybe I'll read it someday.

[Cris Whetstone]

I would be a lot less bothered by the "artsy" approach to the photography if there was a complete and accurate condition description here. In other words, if the lot description said "...four different capsule colors..." But the two omissions together -- the photograph with only seven bottles shown and the omission to disclose the varying capsule colors in the lot description -- is what is lethal here. This is a lot that was supposed to sell for more than $100,000. Pretty unbelievable to me.

If the pictures explicitly purport to represent the actual condition of the product and fail to do so, then that's a problem. But I would never buy a car based on pictures, and I wouldn't expect the photos on e-Bay automotive (or wherever) to show every dent and scratch. I would expect the car to look worse in person than in the pictures. This lot costs much more than my car. Why would we expect anyone buy it "as-is" based on the pictures? If you bought a case of wine at $100K without you or your agent ever having inspected the lot in person (with full ability to notice mismatched capsules), then that's your problem.

The descriptions are a different thing entirely. If those misdescribe any details, or leave out known material facts that are not readily discernible on direct inspection, then that's a definite problem.

Well stated Adam. I am a bit surprised to see so many take auction catalogs as clear representation of an auction. Most of the catalogs I have looked at do not even include pictures for every lot. Why would one think the few they do provide are going to include anything that looks less than stellar. The catalogs merely list what will be in the auction. They only use photos are the most prestigious bottles. Photos appear to only be part of an advertisement for that auction rather than any sort of evidence of the state of the entire auction. That is how I have always taken them anyways. We can say that maybe they should provide more but I do not see that they are under any obligation to nor have they been pressured by their clientele to do so. This belongs on the pile of one more piece of information that belongs on the pile with the rest that shows there has been too much money to be made from wide eyed folks who are caught up in the headlights of the rare and famous for their to be due diligence.

Hopefully that will change but it's hard to be angry about these catalogs post scandal especially when they provided the very evidence that has brought this all to light as examined by Don.

[Eric Ifune]

There is still some doubt about the authenticity of the "Jefferson" bottles. Most evidence points to counterfeits, but some still dispute the evidence, including the rotary wheel engravers. Basicly it's "my expert says one thing while your expert says another."

[John Morris]

Eric -- Who maintains they are real? Since Rodenstock vanished without a trace, I didn't think anyone defended their authenticity.

[Bruce Leiserowitz]

There is still some doubt about the authenticity of the "Jefferson" bottles. Most evidence points to counterfeits, but some still dispute the evidence, including the rotary wheel engravers. Basicly it's "my expert says one thing while your expert says another."

There is absolutely NO objective evidence that those bottles were ever owned by Thomas Jefferson. None. Zip. Zilch. Nada. It's not a question of experts; Hardy absolutely refused to provide any information that anyone could use to trace the origins of those bottles. Since the vast majority of the supposed value of those bottles was the Jefferson attribution, they would be considered "fake" even if it turned out that the engraving was authentic to the period. There also was no evidence in Jefferson's documents that he ever owned those wines...........

Bruce

[Lewis Dawson]

As mentioned previously, it appears substantially certain that the “Gold Coast Cellar” (aka “Gold Coast Collection”) in the December 2011 Spectrum catalog is Rudy Kurniawan (via Antonio Castanos)....

In addition to the myserious #05736 (1966 Romanee-Conti), that auction includes 127 other lots attributed to The Gold Coast Collection. I skimmed quickly through the online listing to get an idea of the kinds of wine Rudy has been selling in the post-Ponsot Debacle period. There are 24 lots of DRC plus many other lots that are much less rare and expensive. Bordeaux from many vintages, including a lot of recent vintages, first growths, seconds, thirds, fifths. Many wines that are owned by many Wineberserkers, I am sure. And Burgs from Jayer, Ponsot, etc. SQN appears in 5 lots, who would have thought Rudy K was buying SQN in recent years. And Scarecrow? How many members here have picked up a few bottles or a few cases of classified growth BDX from secondary markets from 1995 or '96 or '00 or '05?

I have no evidence any of these wines are fake. Given Rudy's drinking habits as posted online, I am surprised he bought many of these wines recently. And if he bought them a while back, I'm surprised they were not sold in Acker's two huge single-cellar auctions in 2006. No conclusions, I just thought it was interesting.

[Nigel Groundwater]

There is still some doubt about the authenticity of the "Jefferson" bottles. Most evidence points to counterfeits, but some still dispute the evidence, including the rotary wheel engravers. Basicly it's "my expert says one thing while your expert says another."

There is absolutely NO objective evidence that those bottles were ever owned by Thomas Jefferson. None. Zip. Zilch. Nada. It's not a question of experts; Hardy absolutely refused to provide any information that anyone could use to trace the origins of those bottles. Since the vast majority of the supposed value of those bottles was the Jefferson attribution, they would be considered "fake" even if it turned out that the engraving was authentic to the period. There also was no evidence in Jefferson's documents that he ever owned those wines...........

Bruce

Surely the most important aspect in deciding the fakery in this case is the appropriately 'revised' reputation of the 'consignor' of these bottles as evidence mounted over many years and his final refusal to back-up his story of how he acquired them by naming his supplier and providing details of the location of the find. Much like the evidence over years that has been provided through research and discussion in this thread. Both the main protagonists, here in this thread and in the Jefferson saga, enjoyed high status and approval as collectors and experts before things started to unravel.

While Monticello found no evidence in their records [not quite the same as saying it wasn't possible] for Jefferson having ordered or received some of the bottles from the Rodenstock cache [including the most famous first one auctioned - the Forbes 1787 Lafitte] there were records of others including 1784 Margaux and Yquem.

The argument over the engraving however remains of interest since AFAIK Bill Koch's 'proof' of its fakery in contradiction to earlier expert opinion [detailed in the Billionaire's Vinegar] has not been available for general inspection and peer review. In addition if, as you say, the engraving was authentic to the period [can I assume you mean 'was executed in that period'] it would certainly have carried significant weight in an objective appraisal of its possible connections unless it was believed that forging Jefferson's ownership of high quality wine was likely some 200+ years ago.