Greenberg vs Koch Trial: Part 16

By Siobhan Turner

Day 7: Thursday, 4th April 2013

Witness: Michael Egan, Michael Egan Wine

Michael Egan took the stand as an expert witness in wine authentication, retained by Bill Koch, and established his credentials, including the WSET Diploma and 24 years at Sotheby’s before setting up his own business. Over his time at Sotheby’s he was involved with in the region of 250 auctions. During his time at Sotheby’s, he was involved in authenticating wine, a role he had been trained when a junior on the wine team by his superiors showing him what to look for in a wine, and how to inspect it properly. Over the total of his time at Sotheby’s, he would have authenticated tens of thousands of bottles. His Sotheby’s role also involved speaking with producers and visiting the chateaux. Egan also explained the process of authentication, which included a visual inspection of the bottles, the labels, the capsule and the cork, as well as the wine inside the bottle.

In 2005 Egan left Sotheby’s, having decided to move his family to his father’s former property in Bordeaux. Since that time he has worked full time on wine authentication, for his own business and for a Bordeaux merchant called Bordeaux Winebank, where he was director of authenticity and authentications.

Egan then explained the importance of Bordeaux to the case, as all the bottles in question purported to be from Bordeaux. He likened the wines in question, Petrus, Lafleur, Cheval Blanc, Latour and Lafite, to brands, like Gucci, Prada or Hermes. He confirmed that he had inspected tens of thousands of wines from these chateaux over the course of his career, and many times had found counterfeit wines.

Moez Kaba moved to have Egan accepted as an expert witness on this basis. There was no objection from the Greenberg team, and Judge Oetken ruled Egan qualified.

At Kaba’s request, Egan explained briefly how wine is made and bottled. He explained that the grapes for a 1921 Cheval Blanc would have been grown, harvested and fermented in 1921, put into barrel, and bottled in 1923. He also explained that not all the wine would have been chateau-bottled at the time (although it would be now), often being sold in barrel to merchants and then bottled in country by the merchant He emphasised that the merchant would nevertheless follow the same rule – bottling two years later. Any wine bottled at the chateau would state so on its label, and chateau-bottlings command a premium.

Egan defined a counterfeit wine as one that was not what it purported to be. A counterfeit bottle could not be offered for sale. Egan emphasised that it was not just an opinion on the wine – it was on the bottle as well, which was an integral part of the whole package that collectors were buying.

Kaba asked if it was possible to taste for authenticity, to which Egan replied a definitive “no”. Tasting is a subjective experience, and people’s opinions vary widely. In addition, “as wine gets older it loses its individuality”, to the extent that one cannot even tell sometimes whether it is a Bordeaux. If he had determined a wine was counterfeit through the visual inspection, he would not want to taste it, because one would not know what the concoction inside it was. Authentication at Sotheby’s was entirely through visual inspection.

Egan also confirmed that it was not necessary to refer back to a chateau, as he was able to refer back to his own experience to determine if it was counterfeit or not. The Chateaux were, however, able to provide supplemental information on wines that he had questions over. Egan confirmed he had never used chemical testing to determine the authenticity of wine, nor was he aware of anyone at Sotheby’s doing so.

Kaba referred to a reference in the opening statement that until 1973 there was no standardised label for bottles from any major Bordeaux chateau. Egan disagreed with that, stating that a chateau was a brand, and this is how one brand was distinguished from another.

Asked what the respective roles of the consignor and auction house were in inspecting the wine, Egan noted that the auction house would inspect the wine. However, he emphasised that the auctioneer acts an agent for the seller, not the buyer, and the consignor should assist the auctioneer in a sort of partnership with the task of evaluating and authenticating the wine. Shartsis objected to this line of questioning, saying that the “partnership” between consignor and auctioneer was not covered in Egan’s deposition. Oetken allowed it. Egan noted that they did expect the consignor to tell them about any authenticity doubts regarding the wine. Kaba asked if, should another auction house have rejected a seller’s wines on the basis of authenticity, Sotheby’s and Egan would have expected to know about this. Egan replied they would want to know which bottles were at issue. Egan confirmed that he understood sellers to be consigning wines they believed to be genuine. He agreed that if a seller withheld information it affected the auction house’s ability to vet the wine.

Kaba asked if it was common for prospective buyers to come and inspect wines prior to auction. Egan replied that it was very rare, and never of hundreds or even 50 bottles. As a consultant on authentication, he has never been asked to inspect wine before an auction. It takes him about 25 minutes to inspect a bottle of wine, meaning that 2600 bottles would take about 1100 hours, and would require assistance and complete access. He agreed that, the catalogue having been received about two weeks before the auction, it would not have been possible to inspect 2600 wines with in that time period. The tools were relatively simple: a magnifying glass, a jeweller’s loupe, a flashlight, a measuring tape.

Egan agreed that sometimes he spotted something suspicious very quickly, but he would complete the inspection, because one needed to consider the whole bottle, not just one feature, because to declare something inauthentic is very serious. He has not authenticated wine by simply looking at a catalogue, because it is necessary to look at the item in the flesh.

Egan confirmed that he had inspected all 24 bottles in the case in November 2010, in Cape Cod. He had in fact inspected 36 bottles in total, of which he concluded 35 were counterfeit. The 36th he had issues with but could not be definitive. Of the 24 bottles at question in the case, he concluded that all 24 were counterfeit, and should not have been offered for sale as genuine.

To reach his conclusions, Egan examines:

The bottle, including its shape and relevance to period.
The label, which as the brand of the Chateau would be one of the first things examined.
The capsule, which as the seal of the bottle is very important.
The cork, whether it is the right cork, and if it has been manipulated in any way;
the fill level.
Other labels

Kaba asked Egan to explain the condition notes in the auction catalogue. He noted that for more modern bottles, it was normal just to state what it was, for example, Latour 2005. If the catalogue was silent as to an attribute of a bottle, it would mean there was nothing wrong with that element. If a photocopied label were on the bottle, that would be disclosed, but only if they were otherwise happy with the authenticity of the bottle. In all his auction career, he had never had an instance of denying a consignor’s request to make a disclosure in the catalogue. (He was not asked if he had ever had such a request. I suspect the answer would have been identical…)

Kaba then handed Egan a bottle purporting to be 1921 Cheval Blanc, and his report on the bottle, and asked him for his observations regarding it. Egan pointed out the following:

Label

The label is too large. As a magnum bottle, the label is usually relatively smaller to the size of the bottle.
The printing is not firmly impressed, but has faded and looks as if it has been rubbed (to age it).
The paper is not the right quality, but is rougher than a Cheval Blanc label, which is very fine.
There is staining on the label which looks as if it has been treated to look old;

Capsule

The capsule lip should feature embossed letters saying “mis en bouteille au chateau”, whereas this has nothing like that on it.
The capsule has a little chateau on it, which is not clearly done as would have happened at the chateau.

Cork

This cork is 5.7cm, longer than a regular chateau cork, which would have been 5.2cm long;

Other factors

There is a back label saying “ce vin doit être décanté”, associated with Nicolas, but there is no Nicolas stamp on the front.
The fill level is very high (bottom neck), which is extraordinary for a 90 year old wine.

Asked about reconditioning, noting the fill level, Egan explained that some wine was sacrificed – so if six bottles were brought in, one would be used to top up the others. A new cork would be put in, and a new capsule and label applied. None of this had happened to this bottle.

Given all of the above factors, he had concluded that the bottle was a counterfeit. In light of this, it should not have been offered for sale as a genuine magnum of Cheval Blanc 1921.

Egan repeated the process with another magnum, and identified many similar issues with it. In this case, there was something made to look like mould on the label, but which was instead something applied to simulate mould or dirt. He again confirmed it could not have been reconditioned, because the chateau would not have put a label or capsule on it like that. There was also a label on the back that should have been on the front, as it was an import label of R.B. Baumaine, based in Brussels. Given all the evidence, he concluded that this bottle was also counterfeit, and should not have been offered for sale.

Kaba then handed Egan a bottle purporting to be a magnum of Lafite Rothschild 1945. He spotted the following issues:

The label is yellow, unlike genuine Lafite labels which are cream or white.
The bottle does not have the contents on it (i.e. 1.5 litres) which was required by the Code du Vin, established in 1930

Based on this, Egan concluded the bottle was counterfeit.

Next up were two purported magnums of Chateau Lafleur 1921. Egan explained that Lafleur was a very small property, perhaps 18,000 bottles a year, and was not very well known internationally until after WWII. Nevertheless, it had a loyal following in Northern France and Belgium. Egan observed the following issues with these magnums:

Labels

The labels were too large, covering a large part of the front of the magnums. It would not have been economic for Lafleur to produce anything other than bottle-sized labels.
There is staining on the labels that looks as if it has been deliberately applied with a sponge, using a circular motion.

Bottle

The wines were from 1921, which means they would have been bottled in 1923. Both magnums rock a bit, showing they are hand blown, not machine made, a fact confirmed by the lack of seams and the irregularity of the lip. By the end of WWI, bottles were no longer made by hand blowing, and would have been made in a three-part mould.

Capsules

The capsules are not age appropriate, from a far later period, and look to have been rubbed, to simulate age, rather than naturally aged in a cellar.

Corks

Egan noted that in his report he did not focus as much on the corks, but has since done more research. He noted that:

The branding runs vertically (i.e. lettering top to bottom). This is a feature of Lafleur corks of a much later period, post 1966. Before that, they were horizontally branded.

Egan acknowledged that he did not mention these corks either in his report or his deposition, and had only researched the corks later. He had concluded that the bottles were inauthentic based on other attributes, adding that there were quite a few of these.

Other

The fill level for both magnums was high, at top shoulder, which is very unusual for a 1921 unless the bottle had been recorked at the chateau, which these had not been.

Egan therefore concluded that both 1921 Lafleur bottles were counterfeit and should not have been offered for sale.

Kaba then showed Egan three bottles purporting to be magnums of Lafleur 1945. He made the following observations:

Label

The size of the label was too big, Given the scarcity of bottles produced in 1945, it is highly unlikely that a label of this size would have been produced for the very few magnums made.
The paper is far too thick and coarse for the standard expected from the Chateau.
The print is too light in texture, and should be darker and more definite.
There is a diagonal strip label used by Nicolas instructing the consumer to decant the wine on the back of two of the magnums, but there is no Nicolas stamp on the front label.

Capsule

The capsule is more modern than the vintage. It is not a capsule from a Lafleur 1945.
There is no embossing on the capsule.
Two of the capsules show clear signs of rubbing to create an impression of age.

Bottle

The bottle is machine moulded, as would have been expected, but there is no embossed 150cl on it, which means it was prior to 1930.

Cork

The branding on the cork runs vertically, rather than horizontally.

Fill

As with previous bottles, the fill is into the neck, which is a very high fill. Even though this is younger than the 1921, it is still much too high for a 1945.

Egan therefore concluded that all three 1945 Lafleur magnums were counterfeit and should not have been offered for sale.

Next up were two purported magnums of Lafleur 1949. Egan noted the following indicators that they were not authentic:

Label

As before, these labels were too large. Normal, bottle-sized labels would have been used, but in this case, as above, these were “magnum sized”.
The paper is very rough, much below the expected quality.
The printing is not consistent, with parts fading out, and the print quality is not good enough.
There has again been a substance applied to it simulate age.
There is a diagonally fixed import label on the back which should have, on a real bottle, been fixed horizontally on the front. This label has also been treated to simulate age.

Cork

Both corks have the vertical lettering, rather than horizontal as would be expected from that time period.
The cork on one of the magnums is shorter than usual.

Fill level

The fill level on one of the magnums was top shoulder, which is much higher than would be expected for a 1949.

As a result of the above observations, Egan concluded that the two magnums of1949 Lafleur were both counterfeit and should not have been offered for sale.

There were then five magnums of Lafleur 1950. As before, there were large labels, which had been poorly finished, were not of a printing standard one would have expected, and had been poorly applied. The capsules were too modern, not the deep brick red of period capsules, and showing no signs of the ageing expected for over 60 years in a cellar. Once again, the cork lettering runs vertically rather than horizontally. Once again, Egan acknowledged that he had not included the orientation of the branding in his report or his deposition, but noted that he had since done further research on them. He once again concluded that the magnums were counterfeit, and should not have been offered for sale.

Kaba then handed Egan a bottle of (supposedly) Latour 1864. Egan observed that although the bottle was actually of the correct period, there were many other indicators that it was counterfeit:

Label

The paper was far too robust to be a label from the 19th century.
The printing was a gray quality, not dark black as would be expected.
once again, there has been a dark substance rubbed onto it to simulate ageing.

Capsule

The capsule had been cut away, which meant that some clues were missing, however, Egan could tell it was a more modern version, with a time span probably from the 1960s to 1970s;

Cork

It was difficult to see the cork because of the bottle. However, it was clear that it had some of the Latour branding, although it was damaged in part, over the branding and (conveniently) where the vintage was.

Egan had therefore concluded that the bottle was counterfeit and should not have been offered for sale.

There followed two bottles supposedly of Latour 1928. Egan observed:

Labels

Chateau Latour has lovely, elegant labels with a fine copper metallic paint. Neither of the bottles had any trace of this. They were in fact photocopies of more recent Latour labels, as they have the address on it which was not on original 1928 labels;

Capsules

One of the bottles did not have a capsule, which for Egan provides a basic authenticity issue as the capsule is the seal.
The other capsule was modern. At the period these bottles claim to be from, Latour embossed the vintage on the top, which this capsule did not have.

Cork

One of the corks is completely illegible. The other, on the capsule-less bottle, was branded correctly, but Egan emphasised that with the capsule gone, the seal had been broken.

On these grounds, Egan concluded that the bottles were fake and should not have been offered for sale.

The next item was a magnum of Pétrus 1921. Egan started by pointing out that Petrus, and indeed Pomerol, did not enjoy international acclaim until the late 1940s. The very fact that this is a magnum from 1921 raises questions, because it is unlikely that the large number of people who owned Pétrus would have agreed to it, because they wanted economics above all to govern its production. In the unlikely event a magnum had been produced, it would not have had a special print-run label made, but just used a bottle-sized label. In addition, print quality was not good enough for it to be authentic, and it again had the staining and rubbing to create an aged effect. The back label stating it should be decanted was present, but there was no Nicolas stamp on the front. The capsule is from the 1960s rather than the 1920s, while the bottle is older than would be expected, being hand-blown. The vintage is not evident on the cork. As a result of all of the above, Egan concluded the bottle was counterfeit, and should not have been offered for sale.

Court broke for the day.

Day 8, Friday 5th April 2013

Witness: Michael Egan (cont’d)

Michael Egan continued his testimony with two magnums supposedly of Pétrus 1928. He noted that:

Labels

As with the other magnums, the labels are the wrong size for the vintage, which should be simply bottle-sized.
The print quality is not as dark or as well-defined as would be expected.
The paper is too thick for what would have been expected for the time.
There are no ridges on the paper, which Pétrus had and still has.
Dirt that accumulates in a cellar naturally is either dust or mould. Dust can be rubbed off. Mould cannot be, but it will look natural, and not as if it has been applied in a circular motion. If the bottles had been cleaned, there would be smearing on the edging of the labels, which is not evident, and therefore, this shows that the labels have been artificially aged.

Capsule

One of the magnums had a capsule, but it is of the 1960s era, not the 1920s; and

Corks

Both corks have vertical branding, which was not the norm for the time.

In light of this evidence, Egan concluded that the two magnums were counterfeit and should not have been offered for sale.

Egan then reiterated that out of all the hundreds of bottles of Petrus which he had seen from the 1920s, he had never seen a magnum. This is singular given that there were magnums of other illustrious chateaux in the many many cellars he had seen. He therefore believes it is highly improbable that Petrus had produced any magnums in this era, even if merchant bottled. This has been confirmed by Jean-Claude Berrouet, the former winemaker of Petrus. He has never seen an authentic example of a magnum of Petrus from the 1920s.

The next items purported to be three magnum of Petrus 1950. Egan noted that in the 1940s Pétrus had changed their labels to a very intricate design, with the same level of draughtsmanship one would expect on a dollar bill. In this case, there were again a number of issues:

Label

The label is a copy of an actual Pétrus label. Normally, you can see the whites of St. Peter’s eyes, but in this example, you cannot. The three lines under the Pétrus name in red are blended together in this label, while in an original they are quite distinct.
The paper is too thick.
The print definition not as dark as would be seen on an actual label.
As in previous examples, it is too large for a real Pétrus magnum label.
On one of the magnums there was a “Nicolas” back label, but without a Nicolas stamp.
On another there was a Nicolas back label and a Nicolas stamp, but the stamp was not in the correct position. It should have been placed over the vintage, or at the very least in the centre of the label. In addition, the definition of the stamp is lacking.

Capsule

On an original Pétrus capsule of this period the “Mis en Bouteille au Chateau” would have been in relief, whereas in this case it is flush with the capsule. The style suggests it is of the 1960s period.

Cork

The branding runs vertically rather than horizontally.

Based on these observations, Egan concluded that the magnums were counterfeit, and should not have been offered for sale. Indeed, all of the 24 items in the case were counterfeit and none should have been offered for sale.

Stay Tuned for Part 17.