Erol Senel has a thoughtful post on the Broadbent/Wallace brouhaha, and it made me remember something:
In September of 2007 an article called “The Jefferson Bottles” appeared in The New Yorker. Written by Patrick Keefe, it includes this fascinating passage:
“In his book ‘Vintage Wine: Fifty Years of Tasting Three Centuries of Wines,’ Broadbent acknowledges that it was through Rodenstock’s ‘immense generosity’ that he was able to taste many of the rarest entries. Much of his section on eighteenth-century wines consists of notes from Rodenstock tastings.”
If it were ever demonstrated in a court of law (and for the record, it has not) that Rodenstock was a purveyor of counterfeit wines, then where would that leave Broadbent, as a recipient of Rodenstock’s “immense generosity”?
Keefe’s article is still on line. You can read it here.
Update: It seems Rodenstock was once found guilty of fraud, although he appealed and the matter was settled out of court:
"A German collector, Hans-Peter Frericks, accused Mr. Rodenstock in a Munich state court, which found in favor of Mr. Frericks on Dec. 14, 1992, saying "the defendant adulterated the wine or knowingly offered adulterated wine." Mr. Rodenstock appealed, and the men also filed criminal complaints against each other for defamation. The charges were dropped and the cases eventually were settled in 1995. The details of the settlement are confidential." (Link to original story in The Wall Street Journal, and h/t to Ted Simon on the Dr. Vino blog for the reference.)