For The Love Of Port

Andy Velebil wrote:Ok my knowledgeable Port folks. What do you think of this 1945 Taylor's VP?

I agree with the previous comments; the label is clearly not genuine, and the wax is odd. Even if this were a bottle which had lost its label and the owner had created a "lookalike", then the "ageing" would be suspicious considering how white the paper is. Clearly rewaxed, for whatever reason. No Oporto-bottled Taylor '45 that I've seen has a selo, and the bottle shape is different from others I have seen. Overall highly likely to be a fake.

Alongside the VPID, I have created a page of images of known/believed fake bottles here; would you mind me adding this image to that page?

It is worrying that the trend seems to be increasing

Phil when I get to a proper computer will send you a better picture and more details.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Andy Velebil wrote:Phil when I get to a proper computer will send you a better picture and more details.

Thanks Andy.

It suspicious that the new label is intentionally "aged". Every old bottle I have seen that is relabeled, there is no intention to make it look old. Just a simple label with house and vintage...

Was Selo able to be looked up?

Part of me is loath to discuss too many details on why it looks fake. Afraid the scoundrels will go to school on us.

John M. wrote:Part of me is loath to discuss too many details on why it looks fake. Afraid the scoundrels will go to school on us.

Why I won't go into too much detail. But yes, it is a fake.

I am contemplating on outing the person who bought it as they have still, so far, refused to tell me who sold it to them. Even after two requests. The person who bought it did nothing wrong, they were a victim! But hiding the seller is bad form and only furthers them being able to get away with selling possible other fakes to other people. It makes me very mad that when victims (innocent buyers like ourselves) become embarrassed and refuse to cooperate when it could mean finding and stopping the people responsible for the fakes.

No idea if the seller was in on the scam or a victim as well, but I'd like to find out.

Andy Velebil wrote:

John M. wrote:Part of me is loath to discuss too many details on why it looks fake. Afraid the scoundrels will go to school on us.

Why I won't go into too much detail. But yes, it is a fake.

I am contemplating on outing the person who bought it as they have still, so far, refused to tell me who sold it to them.

Do you know if this was retail, auction, or private party sale? Does the victim have any recourse?

Moses Botbol wrote:

Andy Velebil wrote:

John M. wrote:Part of me is loath to discuss too many details on why it looks fake. Afraid the scoundrels will go to school on us.

Why I won't go into too much detail. But yes, it is a fake.

I am contemplating on outing the person who bought it as they have still, so far, refused to tell me who sold it to them.

Do you know if this was retail, auction, or private party sale? Does the victim have any recourse?

The little I know it was a retailer and he is getting his money back. I assume he will have to send the bottle back, which means it will probably be sold to someone else later instead of being destroyed as it should be.

John M. wrote:Part of me is loath to discuss too many details on why it looks fake. Afraid the scoundrels will go to school on us.

Indeed. I have no problem discussing it in a thread like this when someone has asked the question, or privately by PM or email ofc; but your point is the reason why I have not described why the bottles are believed or known to be fakes on the page of fakes I created - more it is a reference of bottles to watch out for or be wary if seen.

I wish these guys would stick with faking DRC bottles.

David Spriggs wrote:I wish these guys would stick with faking DRC bottles.

I agree. With some well publicized cases, I suspect those and first growths are getting more scrutiny, so the unscrupulous have shifted to other realms.

Eric Menchen wrote:

David Spriggs wrote:I wish these guys would stick with faking DRC bottles.

I agree. With some well publicized cases, I suspect those and first growths are getting more scrutiny, so the unscrupulous have shifted to other realms.

Eric is correct I'd suspect. And due to old Port being bottled by so many different people there is no one single standard to use to verify. It gets pretty difficult.

Eric Menchen wrote:

David Spriggs wrote:I wish these guys would stick with faking DRC bottles.

I agree. With some well publicized cases, I suspect those and first growths are getting more scrutiny, so the unscrupulous have shifted to other realms.

Changi Airport (SIN) Singapore, '45 Mouton with pristine like new labels are for sale and regularly being bought. They have the wine available by the case...

Moses Botbol wrote:

Eric Menchen wrote:

David Spriggs wrote:I wish these guys would stick with faking DRC bottles.

I agree. With some well publicized cases, I suspect those and first growths are getting more scrutiny, so the unscrupulous have shifted to other realms.

Changi Airport (SIN) Singapore, '45 Mouton with pristine like new labels are for sale and regularly being bought. They have the wine available by the case...

Buy it all

Andy Velebil wrote: Buy it all

I am at the airport in Dubai. They have '96 Lafite and bunch of other 1st growth's that are pretty recent. Nothing like SIN. Dubai's selection I would feel comfortable buying if were that buyer...