Fraudulent Portuguese Wine Seized East of Porto

[Andy Velebil]

Short article that does not, as of yet, identify the producer(s) involved.


https://www.thedrinksbusiness.com/2024/ ... thorities/

[Eric Ifune]

The article says the authorities are not sure the wine is fraudulent or if it is a labeling issue.

[Eric Menchen]

Yes, the article is rather limited, and the word "Fraudulent" is kind of a stretch from what is conveyed in the text.

[Andy Velebil]

Cops went through a lot of trouble to investigate and then seize a lot of wine and labels (well perhaps not much effort for a few boxes of labels. But you get the idea). Not sure how PT cops work. But that’s a lot of effort if they simply thought it was an accidental reporting error.

There is clearly a bit more to the story we don’t know yet. Like who tipped the cops off as the bottles hadn’t been released into the market yet. They most likely either had a confidential informant or someone on the inside feeding them information.

[Roy Hersh]

Here in Portugal, it has yet to be reported that these were fraudulent bottles.

[Roy Hersh]

For those of you that find interest in this topic, you may want to go to one of the best sources on this topic, here is a cool page:

https://www.ivdp.pt/en/information/fraud-gallery/

[Andy Velebil]

For those of you that find interest in this topic, you may want to go to one of the best sources on this topic, here is a cool page:

https://www.ivdp.pt/en/information/fraud-gallery/

That website is laughable. They don’t even list known fake bottles of actual Douro Port. But don’t get me started on how their lack of investigating…

[Roy Hersh]

I had a strong feeling, (99% sure) that you'd be the first to respond.

While I know you love the topic and have for many moons, I think you should certainly feel comfortable enough to write an email to the IVDP and complain about that page of theirs; if not the entire website (which was improved about a half decade ago, after many years of neglect). I won't name names, because that individual is someone I come in contact with, twice a year.

[Andy Velebil]

I had a strong feeling, (99% sure) that you'd be the first to respond.

While I know you love the topic and have for many moons, I think you should certainly feel comfortable enough to write an email to the IVDP and complain about that page of theirs; if not the entire website (which was improved about a half decade ago, after many years of neglect). I won't name names, because that individual is someone I come in contact with, twice a year.

Ah, yes. Don’t name names cause that makes it better. Just saying.

And yes it’s something I’m a bit passionate about due to my prior work. And it’s something that denying it exists makes it worse. And I’ll call you out in that respect.

Drawing attention to the fact it exists to some degree, is the first step in fighting it. If port collectors are aware then they’re more likely not to buy suspicious, or down right obvious, fake ports.

That said, while not a ton of fake port is circulating, it is out there in larger amounts than some want to admit. Sadly, the IVDP doesn’t seem very interested in helping fight the problem.

[Roy Hersh]

Naming the individual responsible for the IVDP website, is far from a secret. So have at it if you really think that will be productive, Andy.

While I have never denied there are fake bottles of Port, every time a label doesn't look right, I don't get all that concerned, as while the problem certainly exists, it is nowhere near the issue that Bordeaux, nor even Burgundy has seen in the past two decades. It also happens with Madeira, and in my opinion, it happens with FAR more frequency than with Port, especially found at auction. I'm not saying Port at auction is a safe gamble vs. Madeira, as there is a TON of OLD Port sent to auction, vs. a trickle of OLD Madeira ... by comparison.

Reasons for that statement:
1. A bottle of trophy Madeira typically sells for FAR MORE than a typical bottle of highly collectible Port. This makes criminals more apt to fake Madeira, which is way more lucrative by comparison.
2. People in general, know a ton less about Madeira, (beyond the true geeks, which are limited in quantity by comparison to Port).
3. The Douro is a huge place with 43,800 hectares under vine, versus Madeira, with barely over 400 hectares of vines. Just pointing this out. Less germane to the discussion, obviously, but worth mentioning.
4. There are well over 200 "brands" of Ports produced in the Douro today, versus about 15 left in Madeira. Historically, there have been exponentially more Port producers (overall) in the past 3 centuries, again, by comparison to Madeira producers. Most people don't know that only 2 well-known names of the eight remaining companies that export off the island, own ANY vineyard land. 99% of the grapes are purchased from small parcel farmers (who on avg. only own .89 of a hectare per grower). While that is also the case in the Douro ... small size of grower's parcels, there are a LOT of big names that own Quintas ... and have, for a lot longer than on the isle of Madeira. You only need to look back to the beginning of this century to realize that in the past, no exporter/Madeira shippers owned ANY vineyards. While Douro for centuries always had Quintas with their names on bottles.
5. Old and ancient bottles of Madeira may have nothing more than a date, or a single letter, or both to identify them. Many have lost their labels and quite a few, never had paper labels to begin with. While stenciling is not new to Port by any means, authenticating rare/collectible Port bottles is "usually" easier compared to the limited number of producers-that-export ... that have ever existed on the island.
6. Madeiras can be found that are 3 centuries of age and still worth buying and drinking, only the most serious of collectors even know what these are. And most likely far less than 100 people in the world.


So while you may believe I am a denier of "fake" Ports, no, but unlike some individuals, I do not believe that the quantity of fake bottles of Port is a widespread issue that needs NYT front page exposure. I don't believe scaring the public about the issue is a positive for a wine category that is already having some serious issues; if that's what you are alluding to, then so be it. That said, there is no doubt that It happens, but the frequency remains very small, maybe even the word "tiny" applies. I wish it was at ZERO %, but auctions are ripe for planting the occasional judiciously "created" bottle of Port. Sure it exists and I wish it could be rooted out and called out by those that are paid to regulate and insure that Port is Port. But for now, that is never going to happen. That's why we have you, Andy!

Fortunately, there is far more attention to this situation in the world of fine wines nowadays; and auctioneers are way more cautious than in the past, because the fake wine issue is certainly something they have to have experts involved, in order to authenticate the rarities they come across. And should you want to know the name of that IVDP individual, (which you likely already do know) but if not ... feel free to shoot me an email and I'll put you in touch with the right person).

[Phil W]

The IVDP fraud gallery seems to be focussed only on wine produced outside of the Douro/Portugal which could of course therefore not be classified as Port, rather than on counterfeit bottles of the genuine product, which does feel like a missed opportunity. I created a page a few years ago with some examples of counterfeit bottles (here) to help others avoid fakes which might be turning up at auction; note that the page is deliberately not a guide on how to spot fakes, for obvious reasons, and provides only limited justifications, more to provide images of bottles you might want to look at more closely if you see similar.

Fortunately, there is far more attention to this situation in the world of fine wines nowadays; and auctioneers are way more cautious than in the past, because the fake wine issue is certainly something they have to have experts involved, in order to authenticate the rarities they come across.

I really wish I felt that this was anywhere close to being true when it comes to port. Sadly my experience has been that most auctioneers either ignore you, take no action, or "check with the expert" and then come back saying that it could not be determined either way - even when it's a case of something like a T-stoppered "vintage port", which I find quite frustrating. I have no idea whether this inaction is caused by not knowing who to ask, unwillingness due to loss of margin income, or other reasons.

[Al B.]

My experience is similar to Phil’s. I’ve very excitedly bought a bottle of, for example, Quinta de Roriz 1908 Vintage Port. When collecting it, I found it was sealed with a screw cap.

When I asked for my money back, I was told I couldn’t have it and that it was normal for producers to rebottle their Port before selling it and that was what had happened with this bottle.

I only got my money back when I told the auction house I would be reporting them to the Police for fraud.

The person who was in charge of that auction no longer works for that auction house (or any other, as far as I know).

[Roy Hersh]

I have two friends in prominent auction houses and BOTH have experts that work on their team, who have done their due diligence and studied hard to be very well known for authentication at those houses. One is based in London and the other in So. CA.

Nobody is fool-proof when it comes to this. But what Phil and Al B. have stated above, seem to be "no-brainers" at being detecting. In Alex's case, I am very glad to read that he threatened them, because it just seems like they feel that they are above being held accountable, because it is wine and they are the "experts." That kind of snobbish attitude is unacceptable, in any kind of business, but especially auctioneers of rare, expensive wine collections and collectible bottles.

[Glenn E.]

I had a case a while back where I found a bottle online that seemed... unlikely... but pursued it anyway. I asked the seller about it, they claimed it to be real, I provided information indicating that it couldn't be real, they claimed that they had documentation to prove it was real, so I went ahead and purchased it.

It arrived, and still seemed unlikely. I confronted them about it again and asked to see the documentation that they claimed to have, at which point they checked with their expert again and determined that they could not guarantee that it was what they had sold it to be. They also refunded my money and told me I could keep the bottle.

I'm not mentioning the seller in this case because - in the end - I do think it was an honest mistake on their part, and that they were probably fooled by someone else presenting them information that they didn't know enough about to know was sketchy.

I'll open the bottle at an appropriate time and tell the story then. I suspect I know what it actually is, and if that's the case then it's likely to be a fine Port, so it will ultimately be worth sharing. It wasn't a fake bottle, per se, but rather an importantly mislabeled bottle.

Old information about Port is pretty sketchy even in the best of circumstances. Short of a really expensive bottle, I'm not too worried about it because sometimes even the shippers get it wrong when asked, in part because there was so much label variation even on legitimate bottles.

[Al B.]

Deliberate mislabelling is another form of forgery (I’m not saying Glenn’s bottle was deliberately mislabelled).

A small group of us recently gathered together to taste side-by-side bottles of Cockburn 1947 and Cockburn Quinta da Tua 1947 — the latter being the one and only time we had seen or heard of this wine.

We had the Tua 1947 bottle in our hands and everything looked to be in order. Until we pulled the cork, and saw it was Cockburn Quinta da Tua 1987.

That was not an honest mistake by a seller. The auction house were not at fault. The responsibility lies with the person who deliberately forged the label, which might not have been the person selling through the auction house; they could have been an innocent victim of the original fraud.