© AFP

Maureen Downey selects her favorites from amongst the many counterfeit wines she has encountered.

All fakes are certainly not created equal. There have been some pretty great gaffes in the production of counterfeit wines. Some well-known examples include the 2008 Acker, Merrall & Condit wine auction in which alleged counterfeiter Rudy Kurniawan (currently incarcerated) consigned Domaine Ponsot wines that Laurent Ponsot later stated had never been made.

But that was not Kurniawan's only slip-up. A few years ago, he was also toting around a large-format bottle of old Domaine Roumier at the annual Burgundy bacchanalia in New York, La Paulée. The estate's scion, Christophe Roumier, had a great chuckle about the obvious fake. Roumier’s comment was: “That is a beautiful bottle. My grandfather never made that wine, but it is a beautiful bottle.”

Perhaps if Kurniawan had done better homework, or been supplied with more accurate information, he would still be “in business.” Fortunately for the fine- and rare-wine world, he did not, and now it is the task of a few of us to start cleaning up the mess. Of course, Kurniawan is not the only alleged source of fake wines, and over the years I have developed an eye for different counterfeiters' work.

I am often asked, "What is the worst fake you have ever seen?" That is very hard to answer. It seems that every time I think I have seen the “worst," I run into something that is even more of a howler. And while the issue of wine fraud is very serious, I would like to share some of my favorite finds – an interesting compilation of counterfeit wines.

Some are obviously fakes and induce laughter at the counterfeiters' shameful attempts at copying some of the greatest wines ever made. Other examples are made all the more intriguing by the at-times-outrageous stories told by vendors to allay buyers' concerns.









No. 1: 1870 Château Latour 6L (see images left and center above)

This bottle is particularly interesting for several reasons. The size of the bottle is hilarious, as is the large label. If there were large formats made way back in 1870, producers certainly did not turn out extra-sized labels for what would have been one or two bottles. But this counterfeiter went the extra mile, piling on melted crayon in an effort to mask the utterly blank cork.

Many shifty vendors and counterfeit-wine apologists like to point out all the ways that ridiculous bottles like this could be legitimate: “The château could have produced it at a later date for a collector who brought in many small bottles.” Were that the case, the bottle would carry paperwork and would have a château-branded cork. The label is also wrong

No. 2: 1900 Barton & Guestier Château Lafite and Château Margaux (see right-hand image above)

The general manager of Barton & Guestier (B&G) told me this story, which I had previously heard from one of U.S. billionaire Bill Koch’s private investigators. These bottles of Château Lafite and Château Margaux – allegedly 1900 B&G wines – started popping up for the millennium celebrations at the end of 1999. Unfortunately, they have nothing to do with the alleged chateaux, or even Barton & Guestier. They were made by a convicted forger – Mr. Khaled Rouabah, a native of North Africa who resided in Brussels.

It was discovered in 2002 that fake 1900 Margaux and Lafite bottles had been sold through auctions in Paris prior to and after the millennium. B&G (at the time part of Seagrams), along with Château Margaux and the French police, began an investigation. It was found that this Mr. Rouabah had created these fraudulent bottlings and he was convicted of fraud by a French court in 2004. When he appealed, Château Lafite Rothschild joined the other parties in taking action against him. He lost the appeal and was sentenced to 12 months' jail and a 50,000-euro ($67,000) fine. There was a class-action settlement at the time for all who had been victimized.

What I find tragic is that the bottles I encountered were both purchased after Mr. Rouabah had been initially convicted.

No. 3: 1900 Château Margaux 3L

© Myrna Syarez/Chai Consulting

A fake 3-liter bottle of 1900 Château Margaux with a screen-press label

This lovely 3-liter bottle of 1900 Château Margaux, pictured above, is fantastic (not in a good way). Not only is the size questionable, but the paper is wrong for the era and the château. In addition, the printing is not correct. Under magnification it's possible to clearly see all the dots – likely from a screen press, not the ink press of château production. Even the “Nicolas Stamp” – the symbol of the famous French retailer known for having aged so many great wines – is screen-printed on. Were this an authentic label, it would actually be a stamp that was applied over the printed label after production.

Interestingly, there were also some bizarre machine scuff marks on the glass of this bottle, and on another bottle in the same collection. As they were both sourced from the same retailer, I am fairly confident they are the toolmarks of a particular infamous forger from Europe. The cork in this bottle is a mere 2 cm long, whereas the standard is 5.2 cm.

No. 4: 1928 Château Margaux 4.5L

The capsule: what can I say? This poor bottle did not even get a freshman try. But the great tell is the visible mark above the upper right corner of this label (see above). It clearly shows the outline of the label that was applied to this bottle before it became a "1928 Château Margaux."

No. 5: 1945 Château Mouton “RC”

One of the fakes I come across most frequently is 1945 Mouton. I have probably touched more alleged 1945 Moutons than were actually produced in the vintage. The fakes are often howlers. Not only have I seen hundreds of magnums and 750-ml bottles of this legendary wine, I have also seen 3-liter and even 6-liter counterfeits.

Almost all the counterfeits are allegedly “Reserve du Château” with the blue R.C. in lieu of the serial number. Interestingly, there are some differences in the examples I have seen, which suggests there are multiple forgers of these bottles. An encrypted recipe for this wine was found in the items confiscated from Kurniawan's home last March. Almost all of the counterfeit examples lack the required detail on the emblem as well as the metallic character to the ink, and have incorrect paper. As you can see from these photos, some poor examples – like the label from the 6-liter bottle – are so bad they were just lazily photocopied.

Fake magnum of 1945 Château Mouton “RC”; the label from a 6-liter counterfeit

An authentic label; three counterfeit bottles



No. 6: 1921 Pétrus 6L

This is one of my favorite bottles (left and right above). Interestingly, I came across this 6-liter 1921 Pétrus just weeks after Bill Koch and I snapped the picture shown center following his recent court victory. Collector Eric Greenberg was found liable of fraud, and ordered to pay Koch full restitution, treble damages, and then $12 million in punitive damages for knowingly selling fake wines. One of the pivotal wines in that case, which Koch's lead attorney, John Hueston, is holding in this photo, is a 1921 Pétrus magnum.

During the trial, it was established by noted authentication expert and Bordeaux resident Michael Egan that in 1921, Pétrus was owned by 27 different people and the economic state of the estate was not strong. Pétrus was, after all, only really “discovered” in 1947, after gaining acclaim with the release of its 1945 vintage. Prior to that, most Pétrus wines were scooped up by négociants in northern Europe and bottled without fanfare.

Mr. Egan testified that in conversations with the estate in recent years, staff have indicated they seriously doubt that large formats were even made in the era. And if they were made, the estate certainly did not have the money to produce large labels for what would have been a mere handful of bottles. So imagine my surprise when just a few weeks later, I found a beauty in a collection.

While I was amazed to see the size of the 6-liter bottle, once I looked at the label under magnification, I was truly captivated. Under magnification, it is clear that all of the alleged “age” and dark spots that appear on the label are clearly printed. The same type of printing was used for the “Nicolas Stamp.” This forger was very lazy, but probably made a pretty penny.

No. 7: 1950 Pétrus “case” from OWC



© Myrna Syarez/Chai Consulting

A counterfeit case of 1950 Pétrus, containing "vastly different" sizes with "beyond perfect" fills

I had issues with this case from the get-go. This was a “case” that was sold to a collector by a retailer in New York City. That would have been bad enough, had the retailer not planted his foot squarely in his mouth with a wild tale. But he did.

I had been looking at these bottles for about an hour when the buyer of the wine stopped by the inspection table. He asked me about my findings and I pointed out a number of issues about many of these bottles, including the color of the ink, the type and condition of the paper, and the type and health of the capsules and the levels. (It is near impossible for 12 bottles of wine that are more than 60 years old to all have fills well into the neck and be completely lacking any real conditions of age on the labels or capsules.) But then the collector told me that the 12 bottles were actually sold to him as “château bottled,” with the merchant claiming they had been in their original wooden case (OWC) until just two years prior to my client's purchase. So from the time of bottling in 1952 until 2010, they had allegedly been in their original box. The collector went on to say the merchant had told him that "the OWC had become so rotted that it had to be thrown out," so the bottles were transferred to Styrofoam.

Here is the problem: Among the 12 bottles in this case, there were eight different examples of bottle production. They were of vastly different glass colors, sizes, shapes, production methods and production eras. Further, and despite my best efforts, the bottles were so irregular that I could not get them to fit into any OWC – and we were at a storage facility, so there were plenty of cases to try. Further, had the bottles been in a rotted OWC, there would be conditions of age and decay, or at least bin soiling and oxidation, on the labels and capsules – but they were all pristine, aside from the false aging that had been applied. Plus, they had beyond-perfect fills.

My client was able to get his money back very quickly, but tragically, the merchant insisted on taking the bottles back and I was alerted that the same wines were again on offer shortly afterwards.

No. 8: 1961 Pétrus Magnums & 6L

It is often stated that Pétrus is the most widely counterfeited wine brand. That may have changed in Asia, with Château Lafite taking over in recent years, but as far I can see in the U.S. and Europe it still holds true. Pétrus has been counterfeited in a number of sizes and vintages, and with some rather amusing results (though they're not amusing to Pétrus).

One of the more comical examples is seen in the line-up of magnums below. I have observed the same production methods in collectors' cellars all over the world. The black ink, incorrect paper and – importantly – lack of accurate detail in the print are easy spots for the trained eye. An interesting discovery is when you clearly see how the details can become reversed through the process of copying and reprinting. It is as though you are looking at an inverse image of the original art. And with every generation of printing, more details are lost.

As with so many other fakes, the cover of being “Nicolas Selection” is frequently found on these counterfeits. Interestingly, I can track most of the really bad examples I have seen in the U.S. to just two retail sources.

An authentic label from a 1960 Pétrus is pictured on the left, alongside different counterfeit 1961 labels center and right

A fake magnum pictured next to a 75-cl bottle of Petrus; a line-up of fakes

No. 9: 1947 Château Lafleur 4.5 L

Another widely faked brand is Château Lafleur. With minuscule historic production in that era – only 17,000 to 18,000 bottles (1,400–1,500 cases) a year – it is stunning how many magnums of 1945, 1947 and 1950 Lafleur have popped up on the market in the past decade. One group of East Coast sellers, buyers and resellers probably themselves consumed the equivalent of all the bottles alleged to be these vintages during their well-publicized tasting dinners in 2002–2008. The vendor of these wines once even wrote in an email sent out to thousands of subscribers that it was okay for them to have blank corks.

I am here to tell you it is not okay for these wines to have blank corks. Nor it is okay for them to have what are alleged to be age and wear marks printed on with clearly visible ink.



No. 10: 1929 Domaine de la Romanée Conti, Romanée Conti 1.5L

When you look at this label (shown below) from afar, it looks a little dirty. But under magnification, it is clear to see that that “age” has been printed on. If you look at the upper right quadrant, you can see what is supposedly dirt smeared over the word “Conti.” Under magnification, it becomes apparent that it is not dirt at all, but part of the printing of the label.

In addition, the size of this bottle was an issue, the capsule was incorrect for the era, and the glass was not quite age-appropriate. But the label here is all we need in order to know that this is a counterfeit.



No. 11: 1945 DRC Romanée Conti

The 1945 vintage in Burgundy was minuscule. Production of the acclaimed Romanée Conti was a meager two barrels, which translates to just 600 bottles, or 50 cases! Yet, the large-format 1945s just keep on turning up!

Interestingly, they all look very similar: as though they have all been stored together, scraped with sandpaper together… and falsely aged together. A particular group of drinkers known to have consumed massive quantities of fake wines used to talk about wine from “batches.” Perhaps they knew the satire involved in their word choice, or perhaps that was just an ill-fated irony!

The labels shown here are from very different sources. But they are complete twins, allegedly after 65 years.

No. 12: 1959 Musigny Vogue 750ml

A classic scam that has been perpetrated on fine-wine buyers is the claim that bottles have been re-corked or re-conditioned. With this claim, all anomalies are wiped to the side and anything goes. The problem comes when a wine has so many things wrong that it is not possible for it to be real.

If a wine has been re-corked or re-conditioned, there should be information available about the re-corking. If it was re-corked by the producer, the corks should still be consistent with the original, and typically the winery will state both the original vintage and the year in which it was re-corked. At a minimum, the vendor should be honest about such wines. They cannot be sold as original domaine or château bottled when they are not. And the vendor who sold these as original domaine bottlings should have noticed the recycle symbol on the capsules! France may be a green country, but I don’t think it had recyclable aluminum capsules in 1951.

Examples of the work done by counterfeiters on Musigny Vogue

Corks

Corks are at the core of the authentication process. So many other aspects of the wines can be copied, but corks are tough. Many corks are comically wrong, but tragically a few counterfeiters have managed to get very good at counterfeiting corks. Traditionally, corks have been branded. What we often see in counterfeit wines is corks that have been adulterated to fit the counterfeiter’s needs. The original branding might be changed to another year with a little ink, but often the year of origin is still clearly visible underneath.

This type of deception is easier to see once the cork has been pulled out, but with a trained eye and some patience, it is possible to detect these anomalies through the glass in a sealed bottle. We often see corks that have been removed and had their vintages changed, or a key number scrapped off. Applications can be applied to mask the vintage, but often the counterfeiters get so many aspects of the cork wrong that the wines can be deemed counterfeit and removed from the market.

* All photos copyright of Myrna Syarez/Chai Consulting unless otherwise stated.

** Maureen Downey is an expert on wine fraud and is the owner of San Francisco-based Chai Consulting, a firm which advises collectors of fine wine. The views expressed in this article are her own and do not necessarily represent those of Wine-Searcher.