I aimed at the entire concept of what it is to be an expert (especially in the IT security space) and not specifically at your father. My point being that experts can, and will make mistakes. And it is up to the receiver of the advice to accept the risks associated with the advice and live with the consequences.

So to your point, as the catalog stated that “there was circumstantial evidence but no proof that the bottle was authentic” then your father (assuming you are who you say you are) took somewhat of a gamble with his reputation: his nod of approval is as good as gold in some circles, as was proven by the sizes of the bids. As I warn towards the end of the essay, “Ignoring their (the expert’s) advice or coercing their advice to fit the current thought” are common distractions. I guess this distraction applies here: the bidders read into the description what they had wanted it to say (that this was -unequivocably- Mr. Jefferson’s bottle).

I have read Michael Broadbent’s writing through the years and always had the highest respect for him. For me it was, and still is, as good as gold. I apologize if I have perpetuated a presumption that your father was wrong. The book suggests that it is possible, but never concluded whether the bottle was a forgery or not. Perhaps the provenance of the bottle will never be fully proven nor discredited.

But the entire affair and law suit doesn’t look good on all those involved (and IMHO, puts the entire world of wine provenance in a shady light – after all it is a highly forgeable farmer created commodity that fetches very high prices). BTW – In the security business we call that provenance ‘authentication’ (authenticate that you are the owner of the account, or that this bottle is really Palmer from 1961).

I will correct my post to clarify.

Arik – It is okay if we hire an expert to help us reach a decision. I think it is escapism if we hire an expert to make a decision for us.

I think that what Mr. Bartholomew Broadbent is saying, in essence, is that you have done exactly what the people who listen to experts do. You read the book, and you treated Mr. Wallace as an expert in the subject. In fact, Mr. Wallace is not an impartial side, which brings me to the next point.

In my personal opinion, any topic in which large amounts of money are involved cannot be completely resolved. Everyone has an interest, which translates into money. Like the effects of tobacco smoke, artificial sweeteners and cellphone radiation – there are expert opinions which are at times completely polar.

So back to Mr. Broadbent’s comment – with all due respect, it is biased. Mr. Wallace is also biased. As someone who does not have access and resources and the know-how to run my own tests on the wine, I have to look for expert opinion – and all experts are biased. All I can say is that, in my personal opinion, there are topics which we will never be able to make an unbiased judgment and hence better leave them, well, open ended – because I really don’t know and probably never will. It is, well, a matter of opinion.

In essence all judgment is fuzzy – it is all a matter of opinion. This is why we need the legal system – to take a fuzzy situation and create certainty that would allow us to convict or acquit. The process is different for each system (for example the jury system vs. judge) but the result is a clear decision – true or false, black or white. The system is not free from mistakes but it lets us make decisions and move on, rather than remain in the fuzzy area where we can’t really put the guy in jail because we’re not sure he did it and can’t let him go because we’re not sure he didn’t. A decision has to be made, and the system suffers from a certain percentage of wrong decisions but prevails because decisions are made.

– Arik