This is appalling news. So much so that I chose to go back on my decision not to post on this board anymore just to voice my outrage and support for the sentiments expressed here.
I am particularly moved by Maureen’s words and share her sentiments about what a disappointment this is from Zachys, which I also feel has done a fine job of rebuilding their reputation. I am very close to former employees and friends with several current employees and I cannot fathom how they could be doing this. I suppose I can, actually, and that is one of the most enraging parts of this disaster. What a terrible shame.
Thanks for the PSA Don. As someone who has both bought from and sold through Zachys in the past, this is both baffling and extremely disappointing. I could ask what were they thinking but I suspect the answer is pretty clear.
And Sarah - please continue to post here, the board will be poorer without your contributions. Illegitimi non carborundum and all that.
Yes Sarah, please do continue. I always get something out of your posts, and often they are very informative. You’re one of the people who make WB worthwhile.
Wow- that took all of five hours. Thank you Todd, and thank you Don and Maureen as well, for both the free forum to discuss such matters (which have been discussed very responsibly within the confines of known information) and for keeping on top of all of this and summarizing it so well. Don- the time you take to post such lengthy and precise articles complete with relevant references is very much appreciated.
Alan- thanks for that email link, I will go ahead and send a notice to the retail side too. I am willing to be “somewhat” forgiving about the late 2000s in some cases considering almost the entire marketplace was involved in all of this- but at this date there is no excuse. Too much is known and now well established in court proceedings.
What also really bothers me here is the lightweight disclosure and the claims of a thorough vetting. Maureen’s estimate of 30 minutes a bottle is spot on when it comes to doing the full analysis- which would ALWAYS be essential when presented with things like multiple cases of top Jayer wines as are present here. The last big cellar I did had 3,000 bottles and it took almost a week for 2 people to fully catalogue it and inspect it for condition issues only just to give a point of reference.
I have already said more than I should- but to anyone who has not done so, the auction catalogue is worth a read and download.
So, here’s the question for Don and Maureen (and anyone else who cares to chime in).
What “should” the industry do when presented with a potential consignment like this? It reminds me of the issue of addressing Rudy’s collection post-conviction–there’s a risk of at least some fake bottles, and there are almost certainly plenty of legitimate bottles.
To be clear, I’m not defending what happened here–sending the wine off to Hong Kong with questions about the adequacy of disclosure and/or adequacy of vetting.
But how should the industry handle a collection like this? I’m not sure.
I think the industry needs to require a seller prove that the rare/scarce/abnormally-old bottles in their collection are genuine. That means getting a certificate from a recognized independent evaluation entity for every bottle they want to sell. This isn’t any different than the way selling other collectibles operate. It’s just that the secondary wine industry is seriously behind those other collectible markets for a variety of reasons, mostly self inflicted.
I used to collect coins and encountered this very thing. When the coin grading/certification services started about 30 years ago, it caused the value of non-certified coins to get pressured downward because collectors liked the idea that they were buying coins certified by a recognized independent entity. So collectors who are willing to buy an un-certified coin understand that they are bearing the risk, with a lower selling price being the result.
The key here is an independent, recognized evaluation entity. The auction industry has generally proven (with some exceptions) that whoever they hire to evaluate collections can’t really be trusted because they work for the auction house, who has skin in the game. So while the seller is going to pay for the evaluation, it’s unlikely that the inspector is going to blow up their reputation because of the seller, so their evaluations will be legit. I think it’s great that Maureen turned down Zachy’s request to evaluate Greenberg’s collection.
What if Zachys called it a “pig in a poke” auction up front and in bold letters said in the announcement said that “these wines are from the dubious source described below. Many are likely genuine; some/many/most likely are not. Each bottle has been marked “suspect” and that it is as coming from this source. Buyer beware/at your own risk/no recourse. You might get an amazing deal on a genuine gem or a total fake. Jpegs are included.”
I consider the people who have been convicted of selling counterfeits (e.g. Rudy, Alexander Anikin, Khaled Rouaba) or found civilly liable for fraud for selling counterfeits (Hardy Rodenstock, Eric Greenberg, Daniel Oliveros and Jeff Sokolin) to be special cases. In my view, absolutely nobody in the wine auction industry should be selling their wines at auction.
I was having dinner with a wine buyer for a well off Chinese businessman and he said they buy a lot from Acker auctions in HK. They were aware of the history, just don’t really care about it. Just happy to have something semi local opposed to auctions in the states.
![[wink.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/04707e6a7bbb03e0153e349d8a9270d30e1e9525.gif "wink"){kind=small}
