First counterfeit bottle

[Axel P]

I just had opened my first counterfeit bottle, which happens to be a Ramos Pinto of 1935 which I bought in Portugal. Funnily enough Dirk Niepoort, who did not enjoy this bottle with me, had an argument with one of the other guests that he only encountered once a bottle, which seemed to be counterfeit.

Indications for this were a copied label, a standard capsule and a very young cork. It was some kind of LBV in this.

I do have another bottle of this and compared the two, so there was no doubt about this.

Bought the bottle in Porto together with a SWC 63 which - I think shares the same faith.

Did any of you experience anything like this? And why in hell would you go for this wine?

Axel

[Alex Bridgeman]

My first experience of a counterfeit bottle was at a vertical tasting of Croft when a bottle of the 1933 proved to be a fake. Indications of this were a photocopied label, a photocopied sello and a t-cork ... and the wine tasted wrong.

More recently, I was shown a bottle of Taylor 63 which I believe to have been a fake. This was in a clean, modern bottle, with an imitation label and an unbranded cork. The bottle wasn't opened, so I have no idea whether the port inside the bottle was genuine, but I doubt it.

[Andy Velebil]

1933 Croft ... and the wine tasted wrong.

That's an understatement

[DRT]

This is very interesting. Previous discussions about possible fake bottles have always included questions about why a faker would choose to fake a relatively low-key port when faking a big vintage by a top flight producer would pull in more cash. It is therefore interesting to me that the bottles being talked about here as being definite fakes are ones that would fly under the radar and not be considered top flight wines. Perhaps it is a safer bet for a faker to go for a wine that even the serious consumer would know little about?

Very interesting.

Derek

PS: Did anyone notice that I didn't mention Mackenzie 1955?

[Andy Velebil]

[quote="DRT"]This is very interesting. Previous discussions about possible fake bottles have always included questions about why a faker would choose to fake a relatively low-key port when faking a big vintage by a top flight producer would pull in more cash. It is therefore interesting to me that the bottles being talked about here as being definite fakes are ones that would fly under the radar and not be considered top flight wines. Perhaps it is a safer bet for a faker to go for a wine that even the serious consumer would know little about?

[quote]
That is something I've thought about and mentioned before. From a counterfeiter's point of view; It's a far safer bet to make something off the radar that most people would never think about as being counterfeit. The down side is you would have to make more and sell more to acheive the same profit as selling one or two high priced bottles. But if you fake a case of, say, 1933 Quinta do XYXXY VP that most people would never assume would be faked, you just made yourself a hefty profit with little risk of being caught right away (if ever).

I'm sure the advent of the internet has helped slow things down in certain cases. As in the case of the 1933 Croft, it appeared to have been faked a long time ago. We estimated, based on the type of photocopied Selo, to be around the 1970's, maybe very early 1980's. Back then it may have been a much easier sell since it would be hard for most people to determine if a 1933 Croft was even produced or not. Now a simple email sent and within minutes you can get a return email from the company stating they have never made such a product.

Although with modern computers it's now quite easy to make realistic labels that are fake. Heck, I've arrested high school kids for making counterfeit money and driver's licenses that were quite realistic looking. The hardest part now days is probably the embosed capsule. As even a cork can be fairly easily branded given a couple basic tools.

[mosesbotbol]

Outside of the Croft vertical, I had a 1908 Dow of SeanC's collection that who knows what was insdie the bottle. Hand written logo. The most awful tasting liquid ever. Piss in a keg cup would've been tastier. Very metallic and probably unsafe to drink. Bottle looked old, but I don't think it had an original cork or caspsule.

Perhaps Sean will chime in the some missing details?

[JacobH]

I think I may have found a possible explanation for some of these fakes of minor pre-War Ports:

There had not been any Port shipped to England after 1940 during the war years, so that Port was [then] in short supply, and there had been cases of wine being sold as Port which had not right to the name. The Port Wine Shippers Association had quite rightly prosecuted the wrong-doers with the necessary publicity to stop the rot. It stopped the rot, but it did not stop the prosecutions and the Wine Trade journals went on giving the names of all sorts of hitherto quite unknown wine-merchants who had been prosecuted and found guilty.

Simon then recounts an anecdote whereby he appeared as a witness in the defence of one of these small wine-merchants.

It seems possible to me that some of these pre-War fakes could have been produced in England during or soon after the War. This would explain why they have spent a long time in the bottle and why they were fakes of minor shippers and minor years. It would be the equivalent to Port supply to England stopping in 2005 and then people producing fake Malvedos 1998 or Vargellas 1996 to sell cheaply to the unsuspecting public. Those who had substantial cellars and who bought the more prestigious Ports would be drinking their cellars; it would be the causal Port-drinkers who would be targeted.

Of course, the consensus is that some of these fake Ports are younger than that. It would be interesting to know when the forgery which Simon discusses ended. I imagine the Invisible Hand would have something to do with it so we should look to see when shipping restarted from Portugal and when the Duty rates (which increased enormously during the War) fell to the level to make economically viable.

[Andy Velebil]

Quite interesting indeed and that does shed some light on a possible explanation. And would be the right time frame to fake a 1933 Croft VP....

[Alex Bridgeman]

I need to go back through The Billionaire's Vinegar, but there is a reference in there to an Englishman who was prosecuted and jailed for forging ports in the late 1980s and early 1990s (I think that was the time-frame). From what I remember of the book, he was not very good at it.

[JacobH]

I need to go back through The Billionaire's Vinegar, but there is a reference in there to an Englishman who was prosecuted and jailed for forging ports in the late 1980s and early 1990s (I think that was the time-frame). From what I remember of the book, he was not very good at it.

Is the book worth reading? I’ve been wondering about getting a copy for a while.

[Andy Velebil]

Jacob yes the book is an interesting read. I couldn't put it down and read it very quickly.

[Alex Bridgeman]

I need to go back through The Billionaire's Vinegar, but there is a reference in there to an Englishman who was prosecuted and jailed for forging ports in the late 1980s and early 1990s (I think that was the time-frame). From what I remember of the book, he was not very good at it.

Is the book worth reading? I’ve been wondering about getting a copy for a while.

Yes, it is worth reading. If I remember I'll lend you my copy when we see each other at the Bell, if you like.

[marc j.]

I too have been confronted some some possible fake bottles within the past few months. In particular a 1920 Croft that just doesn't seem quite right. Between the remnants of the label, the capsule and the bottle - things just don't seem to add up. I contacted TFP to get a bit of insight, but since the majority of that vintage was bottled in the UK they really couldn't add much.

[JacobH]

I too have been confronted some some possible fake bottles within the past few months. In particular a 1920 Croft that just doesn't seem quite right. Between the remnants of the label, the capsule and the bottle - things just don't seem to add up. I contacted TFP to get a bit of insight, but since the majority of that vintage was bottled in the UK they really couldn't add much.

Croft 1920 is another bottle which is the right age to be another possible WWII fake...