Penfolds Bin 128

[Guest]

There has been a few posts about the drop in quality of the Wynn's wines and I suppose the Penfolds Bin 128 comes in to that category as well. So, I opened a 1994 Bin 128 last night, and it was stunning. Black as dogs guts, on the nose surprisingly did not have that overt ball pepper character, rather rich sweet berries with an underlying spice, and a massive long blackberry finish. Oak was unbelievably subtle for a Penfolds wine. great wine, 18.5/20

Anyone else drunk this vintage, or some of the early 90's 128's?

[Ratcatcher]

I had some about 4 years ago. Can't remember the details (one of those nights) but my memories of it are favourable.

Pleased to read your notes though, I've still got 1 or 2 bottles of it sitting downstairs.

I read on another thread about the problems with Penfolds and Wynns and Lindemans Coonawarra. I know their most recent vintages have not been highly regarded but I am not aware of what caused this. What are the reported problems they have?

[Guest]

I have recently enjoyed a few of the Penfolds "Bin" series (128, 28, 407, 389) from 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997 and 1998. Even had a 1996 Koonunga Hill, which was terrific. Same with the Wynns "Black Label" Cabernet and the Shiraz. Although I do find the post-1998 editions of all of these wines drinkable, and enjoyable, I have to say that something has changed, for the worse, in recent years. A good example of this is Koonunga Hill. Used to be a real bargain - a cheap, but good version of the better wines. Now, I find it a bit like Rawsons Retreat used to be. The "oomph" has gone.

Interestingly, with Southcorp, is that their Seppelt (Chalambar and similar) range just seem to be going from strength to strength.

I reckon when Rosemount and Southcorp became one, they tried to leverage off the Penfolds and Wynns names, substituting lesser and more "drink now" wines at the same price - aiming at the mass market, and they lost something in the translation.

[707]

Might be a bit simplistic but I think the drop in Penfolds quality is due to stretching material to make bigger volumes combined with the loss of alot of their better growers in the Barossa. These guys on the best old vines have been defecting to the newer labels (like Torbreck) where they are paid and treated better. Not sure Penfolds can readily turn these problems around so I'll be realy interested to see what they do in a stunning vintage like 2002. From a consumers point of view, at the same time the quality has fallen, prices have risen sharply.

The Coonawarra problems are predominantly due to vine deterioration caused by long term use of mechanical harvesting as well as some poor clones planted many years ago. These problems have been vigourously addressed in the last three years with massive renovation of vineyards which will see a sharp rise in quality. The barrel samples tasted by Campbell of Winefront Monthly indicate the revival is underway already.

[Kieran]

Yes, the 94 128 is a great wine.

I've also had a few 92s, including the one I took to an offline. It's not a great wine, but it's still alive and worth drinking.

Kieran

[n4sir]

I read on another thread about the problems with Penfolds and Wynns and Lindemans Coonawarra. I know their most recent vintages have not been highly regarded but I am not aware of what caused this. What are the reported problems they have?

How much space can we fill up with this thread?

Since the Rosemount merger the big labels of Southcorp have suffered from terrible blunders in strategy, management of resources (including people), marketing, you name it.

As Murray has pointed out in the other thread some of the financial reasons have been well documented by the Financial Review, and locally here by the Advertiser; it would make a fascinating study for the financially minded as to how to decimate an Empire.

As to the drop in product quality Steve nailed it on the head as to the stretching of resources. While some labels have disappeared and their valuable resources utilised by the big four, so many other resources and people have gone also, putting pressure on new vines and employees who are quite frankly not up to the same standard. Past viticultural problems at Wynns (well-documented by TORB among others) plus a huge blunder at Lindemans Coonawarra vineyards in 1999 haven't helped.

Look at the decline in the Koonunga Hill label as a humble example. Since 1998 Penfolds have introduced a Cabernet Merlot, now a straight Shiraz, plus additions to the Rawsons Retreat and the new Thomas Hyland labels. It's no coincidence that the quality has dropped as the new products have appeared; at the same time they've turned around grape suppliers and staff plus moved from purely barrel maturation to also adding planks and chips - a vivid example of the changed corporate philosophy from producing the best product from your sustainable resources to making the most money.

You can almost apply this across the board, and it's no surprise the best remaining wines are the ones with unique resources that cannot be shifted around (ie. effectively watered down)

Add to that a local price hike that customers aren't wearing, a disasterous marketing foray overseas where they tried to crash the market with heavily discounted wines to overcome their distribution problems (such as a ridiculous buy-one-get-one-free offer on the 1998 Bin 707) that has effectively devalued the wine, and it's no surprise they're financially up sh!t creek.

So why do I still try and buy them do you ask? To an extent I was weaned on the 1990 vintage reds, and came back to them when the 1996 vintage was still a good price and a great product. Despite the problems I know a few good people still working there, and I'm hoping that the turnaround they say will come will happen soon.

Cheers
Ian

[David Lole]

The '91 was a perennial favourite for many years. All gone now.

I was never inspired with the early showings of the '90. Too green and weedy.

Haven't tried the '94 for yonks, but remember the '93 and '94 as young wines looking awfully darn good (winnig multiple gold medals at the National Wine Show, if the fading/jaded memory serves me correctly).

Thought the '98 was very oaky and a trifle overextracted (although I've seen a few reports recently from different sources talking this wine up) and not in the mould of the fine elegance of the best vintages of Bin 128. Always liked this because someone in the 'group' decided French oak was the better method of elevage for this Coonawarra Shiraz.

[Ratcatcher]

Thanks for the answers.

I have to say they haven't enamoured themselves to me with their price hikes.

I used to buy 28, 128, 407 and St Henri regularly but I've given them all the flick.

St Henri went from $55 to $75 in Hobart this year and Magill went from around $60 to over $100.

I think there's a lot of good wine around under $20 and excellent wine between $20 and $35.

I doubt that I will buy Penfolds again unless things change significantly.

[707]

Ratty, there just too many great small makers turning out wines with class and character for me to be tempted by Penfolds at their prices.

I've been roped into a couple of Auswine tasting panels recently by Gavin and seen some stunningly good wines from a couple of tiny Barossa producers that Gavin will be selling for less than Bin 389. These wines make Bin 389 look like a joke IMO.