Home > Blogs > Uncorked > Archives > 2008 > May > 26 > Entry
Broadbent ‘angry’ over how he’s portrayed in ‘Billionaire’s Vinegar’
You’ll recall that last week, in an entry entitled Hook, line and sinker: the ‘Thomas Jefferson’ bottles, we wrote about the newly released book “The Billionaire’s Vinegar: The Mystery of the World’s Most Expensive Bottle of Wine”.
Well now, some of the folks who are made to look quite silly in the book are beginning to fire back — through intermediaries, anyway. Check out the Decanter.com story headlined New book on Jefferson bottles ‘riddled with inaccuracies’: Christies.
Keep in mind, Broadbent has served as a columnist for Decanter and headed the Christie’s auction house’s wine department, so … everything here is intertwined in a rather complex way.
Here’s an excerpt from the Decanter story:
‘Billionaire’s Vinegar’, a book about the collection of contentious Jefferson bottles, has left Decanter columnist Michael Broadbent MW angry about alleged inaccuracies and mischaracterisation of his relationship with wine dealer Hardy Rodenstock. ….While Broadbent could not comment directly, Christie’s spokesperson Toby Usnik told decanter.com, ‘Mr Broadbent has read the book and noted that while significantly researched, it is riddled with inaccuracies and misrepresentations, most glaring of which is the author’s mischaracterisation of Mr Broadbent’s relationship with Mr Rodenstock. Mr Broadbent’s relationship with Mr Rodenstock has always been professional, transparent and appropriate.’
The Decanter story also notes that, “Neither Broadbent nor Christie’s has contacted Wallace or his US publisher, Crown, or specified which facts are in dispute.” And the web story quotes the book’s author, Benjamin Wallance, as saying, “If Mr Broadbent or Christie’s is now claiming that there are inaccuracies in the book, they should cite them specifically.”
As a print journalist , I’ve been on the receiving end of these denials by public figures who proclaim stories written about them are false, distortion and lies — but can’t or won’t point to a single specific sentence in the story that is inaccurate. The Broadbent camp has had plenty of time now to study the book. which Broadbent himself acknowledged is “significantly researched,” according to a Christie’s spokesperson. So if it is “riddled with inaccuracies and misrepresentations,” as proclaimed by Broadbent/Christie’s, it’s time to be specific.
Stay tuned. THIS is gonna get interesting.
Permalink | Comments (0) | Post your comment |
Comments