I did say he was right to be mad. He just presents himself as a spoiled child, is all. Personally, I think he’s right about this, but I don’t have to like the manner in which he conducts himself or the investigations. He’s mad and wants someone, anyone, to pay. And that’s dangerous to people who may have done no wrong at all. Calling him a douche was a little childish but I’ve had this strong feeling about him ever since I read the book. Koch is just all rage. Everyone else and the reality of a matter be damned until he has his way. My gut feeling is as right as he is, he’s just as wrong.

Doc,

Sorry never meant to imply you were presenting the issues as fact – I was just posting my thoughts to the document and I stand by my knee-jerk reactions as an armchair lawyer.

I just thought about this, actually, the way the book tells the story of Rodenstock and the way this document portrays Kurniawan is almost the exact same, no?

Perhaps you copy/pasted your remarks from somewhere else but I just wanted to clarify that I did not present the allegations as fact here. Please note the use of “alleged” in the title, and this from the first graf: “In the name of fairness and balance, these are simply allegations and it will be interesting to see how it all plays out.”

I agree with Mark that they suits are largely a good thing for the collectible wine market since it really shines a bright light on the issue of fraud and that will presumably bring greater transparency, accuracy and accountability.

I have no problem with what Koch is doing. he has brought out one of the dirtier secrets of the wine industry and he has the means to try and hold somebody accountable for it.

I suspect over the next few months, we will see some interesting revelations as the court case develops, particularly as Koch’s resources seem unlimited.

Issue 1, didn’t everyone know those Acker sales were Rudy before the opening bid? It was like Zachy’s Greenberg sale. No one was supposed to know, so naturally everyone knew.

Issue 2, taking an asserted claim as demonstrative fact is absurd. Only after watching birds did I learn how to fly, so therefore I can fly.

Issue 3, it’s unreasonable to assume that houses are going to have gone through that rigorous of a screening at the beginning. Christie’s started forcing credit checks and references. But that was after the fact. And it makes me not buy from there. It’s all a bit absurd in my mind. Also, enough of the petty and childish shadow accusations.

Issue 4 (point 9) really what you’ve done here is paint a spoiled kid with no concept of money getting caught being too greedy. If anything, you’ve painted a picture of a financially desperate man who was careless since he owed so much money. Also, 2 lots caught, how many sold vs how many accused of being fake? I would say that the implication here hurts since the numbers will probably end up being less substantial than accused of. Thus painting the picture of a man in financial trouble.

Issue 5 (point 11) – Is there any law against trying to raise the price of an unregulated collectible? Isn’t value determined in this instance by whatever the buyer wants to pay? Certainly it’s unethical, but illegal? Really? I would be surprised. Merus might be in trouble soon.

Issue 6 (point 12) From everything I’ve read , there was something like less than 1% of all wines Koch bought from the houses that were presumed/proven fake? Am I wrong?

http://www.winespectator.com/webfeature/show/id/40637

He seems the be the real loser in this whole thing. Ever since reading this book, it has been hard to take him seriously. What a shame, but too much of the industry has been “honor code” for too long.