Acker Merrall vs HDH auction experience as seller

[Tom_Reddick]

Hello,

I am planning on auctioning some older Bdx.

I have come down to a choice between the above 2 houses.

I would very much appreciate hearing about peoples experience concerning hammer price,
their accuracy of estimated values etc.

It clear that I am asking because, like anyone, I would like to obtain the highest price for my wine.

Thank you so much in advance,

Michael

Good evening Michael,

To address the Acker issue head on- the practical question to ask is whether the marketplace in general is comfortable doing business with Acker these days. The answer is simple- and that answer is yes. Just as with the 2008 banking crisis- the market as a whole decided who would be sacrificed and who would be spared. Acker has been spared.

On the matter of estimates- the strategy there varies from time to time and I would not put much stock in it as a seller. One theory is that lower estimates can induce bidding wars. Another theory is that higher estimates stimulate interest from customers who assume a higher price correlates with a higher level of quality. And there are many variations in between. Note also that estimates often change between the time of appraisal and actual auction.

Hammer price is what matters. Except in outlying cases where you have, for example, a sealed OWC with impeccable first owner provenance or a mix of bottles from different importers and no long term provenance, prices for the blue chips tend to be fairly steady over time- trending up or down, but not highly volatile. Check recent auction results for your wines in lots of similar size/condition/packaging (OWC or not for example) at both houses to get the best idea of what you can expect. Generally, results from the past 12-18 months with the expectation of flat or a very slight uptrend in the near future is realistic.

And yes- the “handling” charge is pretty standard with everyone house I have done business with. It covers insurance, auction prep etc. Ranges from 1% to 5% in my experience- and is negotiable on large consignments except for any insurance component.

As for personal experience, in the past 15 years I have personally consigned 6 figures worth of wine with Acker in probably 10 total placements, 2 of them individually in the 6 figure range. All transportation arrangements were timely, counts and lot listings accurate, and I got my money right on time as promised every time. I was also consulted in advance when Acker wanted to open a bottle or two at the auction or for testing prior.

I have not personally consigned with HDH- but in the past 15 years I have bought a lot of wine from them, as I have with Acker, and have had similarly good results. The only real problem I had was with HDH and some magnums of 1982 Dom that looked terrible, and proved cooked when I opened one, and I was told to get lost when I called them on it (and I called them on it because the auction lot failed to note to label and foil damage as well as the questionable color- but note that this auction happened before the Rudy matter came to a head in 2009-10 and no one was being as careful back then as they are now.)

As an appraiser, I have often recommended Acker and HDH both to potential sellers. I am seldom involved in the final decision process- I just collect data on recent hammer prices and pass on the numbers- leaving the seller to look into commissions and other matters. FWIW- though I cannot give specifics as to why- in such situations my clients almost always go with Acker, as I have done when selling portions of my own collection.

[Chuck_Miller]

Hello,

I am planning on auctioning some older Bdx.

I have come down to a choice between the above 2 houses.

I would very much appreciate hearing about peoples experience concerning hammer price,
their accuracy of estimated values etc.

It clear that I am asking because, like anyone, I would like to obtain the highest price for my wine.

Thank you so much in advance,

Michael

Good evening Michael,

To address the Acker issue head on- the practical question to ask is whether the marketplace in general is comfortable doing business with Acker these days. The answer is simple- and that answer is yes. Just as with the 2008 banking crisis- the market as a whole decided who would be sacrificed and who would be spared. Acker has been spared.

I totally disagree with Tom on this point. Maybe if you are selling nothing but blue chip OWC with the expectation they will be sold in Hong Kong, the ultra-high end market is comfortable with Acker. But clearly, from the responses here, many people who might be potential buyers of the type of wines you are selling are not comfortable, and will not do business with them under any circumstances. That means your potential pool of bidders is reduced. How much? I don’t know, but maybe 10-20% as a guess. At some level, that means your hammer price will be lower.

[michaelgor]

thank you all so very much for all of your input. I really appreciate all of ypur comments and concern.

Michael

[Tom_Reddick]

I totally disagree with Tom on this point. Maybe if you are selling nothing but blue chip OWC with the expectation they will be sold in Hong Kong, the ultra-high end market is comfortable with Acker. But clearly, from the responses here, many people who might be potential buyers of the type of wines you are selling are not comfortable, and will not do business with them under any circumstances. That means your potential pool of bidders is reduced. How much? I don’t know, but maybe 10-20% as a guess. At some level, that means your hammer price will be lower.

I think it is quite certain there are a large number of people who will not bid with or consign via Acker because of what they have seen and read with regards to the Rudy situation. I do not find fault with such people- it is reasonable for anyone to be very wary about anyone who had ties with Rudy over a period of time.

I am just saying that the core base has moved on and let go. And Acker still gets some of the best results out there, consistently.

Rudy was a very unusual situation, as was Hardy Rodenstock, and a host of other singular fraudsters who I could name in any number of hobby and/or investment markets. One thing they all have in common is that almost everyone in the marketplace gets duped- and also that everyone who gets duped bears some small degree of guilt, including the end consumer.

In the late 2000s I received a phone call from a prominent wine retailer in NYC asking if I would have a conversation with a client of theirs who was about to give Rudy a significant sum of money for a list of too-good-to-be-true wines. I was asked to give that person some perspective before he made the decision. I agreed, but the gentleman never called me. The retailer told me that he had decided to go ahead and buy the wines anyway because “he would never again have the chance” to buy such wines.

This was after the initial allegations were out there. And when it comes to laying blame, I am also very mindful of the fact that I was an early disbeliever in Rudy and was soundly trounced by a lot of people- including some individuals on ERP and this forum who are now wholly self-righteous about the matter and never had the money to play in that world to begin with. Not including you in that Chuck- we don’t agree on this and other things, but I respect you and your integrity.

All I can say is that whatever happened, before during and after the crisis I have had nothing but exceptional dealings with Acker as both a buyer and a seller- and that was helped in part by the fact my lifetime of knowledge helped me steer away from things that concerned me, just as they did when I was offered Rudy wines via a number of other channels.

[Tim_McCracken]

A few reminders about Acker:

1. The Rudy Cellar I and Cellar II sales put Acker on the auction map.
2. The Acker catalogues made clear misrepresentations for those sales.
3. One of Acker’s biggest sales was the Eric Greenberg sale. You may recall, Greenberg was found liable ““by clear and convincing evidence” of willfully consigning wines he knew to be fraudulent to an auction in 2005.”
4. Acker admitted to selling a fake Krug when sued by Moet Hennessy.

So please don’t rewrite the Acker story to make them sound like an innocent victim of Rudy.

The reason why Acker continues in business is because enough people don’t call them out on their practices and expose their history.

[Neal.Mollen]

What about The Chicago Wine Co.? I don’t buy wines at auction, but I know they do a lot of auction business and I’ve dealt with them as a retailer and have been very pleased.

[John_Davis]

I don’t have any experience with Acker but have bought from and sold to HDH and have always been happy. FWIW.

JD

[Jay_Miller]

What about The Chicago Wine Co.? I don’t buy wines at auction, but I know they do a lot of auction business and I’ve dealt with them as a retailer and have been very pleased.

I like TCWC a lot as a buyer at both auction and retail but I don’t think they get as wide an audience as some of the other houses despite predating most of them.

[Jay_Miller]

If you have case quantities of blue chip Bordeaux you might consider Sotheby’s.

If it’s smaller quantities of random wines then you might consider Winebid.

[John_Morris]

Tim, I don’t understand why an auction house would knowingly sell counterfeit wine. It would come to light eventually and ruin their reputation. The operative word is knowingly, meaning they were aware beforehand.

I would agree that companies do really dumb things, VW “dieselgate” or Wells Fargo.
They are large cf Acker. Don’t get me wrong, I am not defending Acker, I am just perplexed as to why they would put their reputation, which is everything in the wine auction business, in jeopardy for a quick buck

In Acker’s case, first, it was the commissions Acker was earning on multi-million-dollar sales by Rudy.

Later, they were selling Rudy’s wine to recoup their losses on refunds for earlier fakes they’d auctioned for him.

Acker got into a deep hole because it advanced Rudy millions of dollars against future sales over several years (as many auction houses do for sellers). But Acker gave an unconditional guarantee on the wines, and they were forced to refund millions of dollars to buyers when the wines were closely examined and found to be fakes.

Even before Rudy’s fake Ponsots got widespread attention, Acker had had to refund large sums. Yet they agreed to auction the Ponsot fakes (including a wine made before Ponsot owned the vineyard). Moreover, they refused to pull the Ponsot fakes even after they were alerted. Only when Mr. Ponsot showed up in the first row the day of the auction did they pull them.

If that weren’t enough, they offered more of Rudy’s wines at a subsequent auction.

Why did Acker do it? Because by that point Rudy owed Acker $7 million in advances and for refunds. They kept selling his stuff despite millions in refunds because they were hoping to get some proceeds from which they could be made whole.

This was not a case of simple sloppiness or difficult-to-detect fakes.

[Tom_Reddick]

A few reminders about Acker:

1. The Rudy Cellar I and Cellar II sales put Acker on the auction map.
2. The Acker catalogues made clear misrepresentations for those sales.
3. One of Acker’s biggest sales was the Eric Greenberg sale. You may recall, Greenberg was found liable ““by clear and convincing evidence” of willfully consigning wines he knew to be fraudulent to an auction in 2005.”
4. Acker admitted to selling a fake Krug when sued by Moet Hennessy.

So please don’t rewrite the Acker story to make them sound like an innocent victim of Rudy.

The reason why Acker continues in business is because enough people don’t call them out on their practices and expose their history.

#1- Absolute bullshit. I was around back then and appraising plus spending money. Where were you? I know nothing of your presence on the scene that would give you the experience to make that remark.

#2- Yes, and so did many other auction houses as well as a significant number of retailers and private wine consultants. Auction is just the tip of the iceberg. There is no question the market was too loosely monitored by the gatekeepers- but the latter were many and Rudy was quite adept at what he did. It is fair to say that for most of the scam his enablers were naïve or turned a blind eye. This was a problem. It was a MARKET problem, not specifically an Acker problem.

#3- See #2. Zachy’s recently sold a large number of Greenberg wines, including some very risky ones. Are you as anti-Zachy’s as you are anti-Acker?

#4- True. And again, this is something that happens with some frequency in the auction world. Auctioneers are selling product and they have clients to keep happy- both buyers and sellers. Expert opinions clash with some regularity. I am not intimate with the details on the Krug matter, but such events are hardly rare.

As for your final point- let me rewrite it for you,

“Acker continues in business because the wine marketplace at large has determined that its conduct was not sufficiently and provably egregious as to make them unworthy of trust, plus because outside of dealings with Rudy the house has a long and reliable history with many happy buyers and sellers”.

I am wasting my time on this because someone came here with a very legitimate question and you offered a snarky smart-assed response that suited your own personal agenda and did nothing to answer the OP’s question- in which it was pretty clearly implied he knows of the Rudy matter and is looking for advice on getting a good return.

Have a nice week everyone- and yes I am bidding actively in the Wilf Jaeger sale at Acker next weekend. Fuck it- if people are going after all this time to keep throwing mud, then I have no problem stating that while I understand what happened, I am and will remain a loyal Acker customer.

[Tim_McCracken]

A few reminders about Acker:

1. The Rudy Cellar I and Cellar II sales put Acker on the auction map.
2. The Acker catalogues made clear misrepresentations for those sales.
3. One of Acker’s biggest sales was the Eric Greenberg sale. You may recall, Greenberg was found liable ““by clear and convincing evidence” of willfully consigning wines he knew to be fraudulent to an auction in 2005.”
4. Acker admitted to selling a fake Krug when sued by Moet Hennessy.

So please don’t rewrite the Acker story to make them sound like an innocent victim of Rudy.

The reason why Acker continues in business is because enough people don’t call them out on their practices and expose their history.

#1- Absolute bullshit. I was around back then and appraising plus spending money. Where were you? I know nothing of your presence on the scene that would give you the experience to make that remark.

#2- Yes, and so did many other auction houses as well as a significant number of retailers and private wine consultants. Auction is just the tip of the iceberg. There is no question the market was too loosely monitored by the gatekeepers- but the latter were many and Rudy was quite adept at what he did. It is fair to say that for most of the scam his enablers were naïve or turned a blind eye. This was a problem. It was a MARKET problem, not specifically an Acker problem.

#3- See #2. Zachy’s recently sold a large number of Greenberg wines, including some very risky ones. Are you as anti-Zachy’s as you are anti-Acker?

#4- True. And again, this is something that happens with some frequency in the auction world. Auctioneers are selling product and they have clients to keep happy- both buyers and sellers. Expert opinions clash with some regularity. I am not intimate with the details on the Krug matter, but such events are hardly rare.

As for your final point- let me rewrite it for you,

“Acker continues in business because the wine marketplace at large has determined that its conduct was not sufficiently and provably egregious as to make them unworthy of trust, plus because outside of dealings with Rudy the house has a long and reliable history with many happy buyers and sellers”.

I am wasting my time on this because someone came here with a very legitimate question and you offered a snarky smart-assed response that suited your own personal agenda and did nothing to answer the OP’s question- in which it was pretty clearly implied he knows of the Rudy matter and is looking for advice on getting a good return.

Have a nice week everyone- and yes I am bidding actively in the Wilf Jaeger sale at Acker next weekend. f*ck it- if people are going after all this time to keep throwing mud, then I have no problem stating that while I understand what happened, I am and will remain a loyal Acker customer.

Hmmm, so Tom is an Acker apologist. Got it. No interest in engaging further.

This answer the question why an auction house would knowingly sell counterfeit wines. Because they can, and apologists like Tom will continue buying. And people wonder why counterfeiting continues to be a problem. Note to self: never buy from a Tom Reddick cellar sale.

[Mark_Golodetz]

Long before the Ponsot auction, there was plenty of chatter about Rudy’s wines. It is hard to imagine that Kapon hadn’t heard the rumblings. My feeling is that the best interpretation was that he could claim plausible deniability.

[Ian_Dorin]

thank you all so very much for all of your input. I really appreciate all of ypur comments and concern.

Michael

Michael,
Speaking as someone who was in auction, the list of what you have to sell really, really matters. I mean if you have OWCs of 59s and 61s, I think you are looking at the right place, but if you have loose bottles or newer wines, you may not be looking in the right place.

The company that I used to work for which was mentioned above (Heritage Auctions) did a great job of hitting the numbers on Bordeaux. They have a great client base for it. That could make a lot more sense as an option.

If you want to PM me your list, I’d be happy to have an offline convo with you and share some thoughts on the list.

[R_Frankel]

I’d add K&L - I’ve used them as both a buyer and a seller, and they have a very dynamic marketplace hungry for Bordeaux. It’s especially a good fit if you have small lots or volume. If you have many whole cases of top names then a place like HDH, Acker or Zacky’s is likely to be better. K&L does have pretty fast turnaround if that matters.

[David_Goerisch]

Buyers from Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, Tennessee, Texas and Utah are no longer allowed to register for HDH auctions as of some time last year. My understanding is that this has to do with HDH’s interpretation of these states’ shipping laws. While this is disappointing to me as a regular HDH auction buyer over the last 10+ years, I would find it even more concerning if I was an HDH seller because this policy eliminates potential buyers. I personally tried to bid on a number of lots at an auction last year, but I was not allowed to do so. After the auction, I checked the hammer prices for those lots. Several of them were below what was going to be my maximum bid. That doesn’t mean that I would have won the lots, because the winning bidder may have been willing to go higher (or had a higher absentee bid), but what is certain is that the HDH policy cost the seller money.

[John_Morris]

Buyers from Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, Tennessee, Texas and Utah are no longer allowed to register for HDH auctions as of some time last year. My understanding is that this has to do with HDH’s interpretation of these states’ shipping laws.

Wow! That’s risk-averse of them. How are they to know you weren’t planning to pick these up and consume them in Chicago?

[Tom_Reddick]

Hmmm, so Tom is an Acker apologist. Got it. No interest in engaging further.

This answer the question why an auction house would knowingly sell counterfeit wines. Because they can, and apologists like Tom will continue buying. And people wonder why counterfeiting continues to be a problem. Note to self: never buy from a Tom Reddick cellar sale.

You are missing the point entirely. The wine auction market does not need you. I do not need you. Perhaps that in part explains why you are so bitter and vindictive in your personal crusade?

I make no apologies for what has happened- but I am also practical, and in a professional capacity I do not have the luxury you do of letting my personal feelings stand in the way of advising clients. If we were all to apply your golden standard to every single auction house and major retailer that ever did business with Rudy or any of his many fences, or had ever been involved in a transaction where a fake bottle was sold, I do not think any of them would still be in business today. If you had the long-term experience in the marketplace you like to imply, you would understand this quite well.

My reputation in this community stands on its own merits, and I make no apologies for my allegiances or advice.

What does bother me is that someone comes to this forum looking for very specific advice that could potentially involve a significant sum of money, and you reply with a smart-ass comment that implies that the poster is a bad person if they even consider doing business with an auction house that is potentially going to get them the best return possible. It is perfectly reasonable for people to relate personal negative experiences or to ensure that a poster is aware of Acker’s involvement with Rudy. You go far beyond that- routinely- and in the process you slander a lot of people, myself included, who have far greater knowledge than you possess.

[Tom_Reddick]

Buyers from Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, Tennessee, Texas and Utah are no longer allowed to register for HDH auctions as of some time last year. My understanding is that this has to do with HDH’s interpretation of these states’ shipping laws. While this is disappointing to me as a regular HDH auction buyer over the last 10+ years, I would find it even more concerning if I was an HDH seller because this policy eliminates potential buyers. I personally tried to bid on a number of lots at an auction last year, but I was not allowed to do so. After the auction, I checked the hammer prices for those lots. Several of them were below what was going to be my maximum bid. That doesn’t mean that I would have won the lots, because the winning bidder may have been willing to go higher (or had a higher absentee bid), but what is certain is that the HDH policy cost the seller money.

Texas remains a huge buyer for secondary market sales of high end wine. If they are not even allowing Texas residents to bid and find legal means to bring the wines in on their own, that most definitely takes some very serious money off the table.

[Tim_McCracken]

Hmmm, so Tom is an Acker apologist. Got it. No interest in engaging further.

This answer the question why an auction house would knowingly sell counterfeit wines. Because they can, and apologists like Tom will continue buying. And people wonder why counterfeiting continues to be a problem. Note to self: never buy from a Tom Reddick cellar sale.

You are missing the point entirely. The wine auction market does not need you. I do not need you. Perhaps that in part explains why you are so bitter and vindictive in your personal crusade?

I make no apologies for what has happened- but I am also practical, and in a professional capacity I do not have the luxury you do of letting my personal feelings stand in the way of advising clients. If we were all to apply your golden standard to every single auction house and major retailer that ever did business with Rudy or any of his many fences, or had ever been involved in a transaction where a fake bottle was sold, I do not think any of them would still be in business today. If you had the long-term experience in the marketplace you like to imply, you would understand this quite well.

My reputation in this community stands on its own merits, and I make no apologies for my allegiances or advice.

What does bother me is that someone comes to this forum looking for very specific advice that could potentially involve a significant sum of money, and you reply with a smart-ass comment that implies that the poster is a bad person if they even consider doing business with an auction house that is potentially going to get them the best return possible. It is perfectly reasonable for people to relate personal negative experiences or to ensure that a poster is aware of Acker’s involvement with Rudy. You go far beyond that- routinely- and in the process you slander a lot of people, myself included, who have far greater knowledge than you possess.

If you had the industry knowledge that you claim, or an ounce of integrity, you would not have posted the things you did on this thread. I make no apologies for calling out a known purveyor of counterfeit wine. And I make no apologies for calling you out as an apologist. Let me make it abundantly clear, you are the problem with the industry. As for my knowledge compared to yours, I leave that for others to decide.

P.S. YOU were the one that took it personal against me. Don’t try to intimidate me with your claims of slander.