Bonham's Whiskey Auction

I think it's great that all the bloggers have picked up on this and started writing about it. Besides the ones listed, K&L also mentioned it in their spirits blog. If Bonham's is not curating their auctions honestly, then they can and should lose reputation over it. Eventually fewer people will want to deal with them and they will lose the market. Once the "collectors" find out they're being had they'll get rightfully pissed too. I think it is pretty brazen of Bonhams, there isn't really any plausible deniability here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by berto

Bonham's ought to be ashamed. Caveat emptor? Sure, but Bonham's knowingly sold items that were obviously misrepresented. I'd like to think Bonham's was at least slightly better than the local flea market but I guess not. I'd rather deal with a shady guy and his collection "found" items.

---

I was about to post the the same sentiment - well said.

I liked the 17 year vertical EWSB collection - sold for $280/bottle, including the current 2002 bottle. Makes my 3 year vertical at $23/bottle look purrty delectable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MauiSon

I liked the 17 year vertical EWSB collection - sold for $280/bottle, including the current 2002 bottle. Makes my 3 year vertical at $23/bottle look purrty delectable.

---

Here's hoping that was only because the EWSB auction was for charity. They were John Hansell's bottles, he has a new blog post about it.

These auction prices are just crazy. 3 year EWSB vertical at $23 each, on the other hand - a great value!

Seems to be a bit of a blog battle going on over the Whisky Advocate article about the Bonham auction debacle. I don't subscribe to it currently so I haven't seen the reported defense of the auction house but the defense of their original criticism on the LA Whisk(e)y website seems pretty compelling!

Caveat emptor...Best to know what you buy before you buy it.

A problem with Bonhams is that they hold themselves out as an appraiser.

I'm amused that Bonham's defense is that they were too lazy to do a good job. McCormick's assertion that that Bonhams had no motive is silly on its face and Adam's blog post puts that to bed.

As for WA, I understand that they are not going to rock the boat and that's fine but the decision to wade into this conflict on the side of Bonhams was not a good one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Josh

I'm amused that Bonham's defense is that they were too lazy to do a good job. McCormick's assertion that that Bonhams had no motive is silly on its face and Adam's blog post puts that to bed.

As for WA, I understand that they are not going to rock the boat and that's fine but the decision to wade into this conflict on the side of Bonhams was not a good one.

---

I would have thought that they had enough bad press about this already. Not sure why WA is helping them double down.

My favorite is the "Gran Old Peel" 1996 vintage that they list as "circa 1950's." I guess Bonhams is taking a longer view than most.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brisko

My favorite is the "Gran Old Peel" 1996 vintage that they list as "circa 1950's." I guess Bonhams is taking a longer view than most.

---

Yes, that was my favorite too. :slappin: