98 Penfolds Bin Range Some Recent TV's

[Martin Phillipson]

Hi All

Long time no post, my apologies and I promise to do better! Given all the hoopla about the 2002 Bin Range thought I would go back and taste some of my stocks of the last really hyped Bin Range vintage the 1998. Note, I didn;t buy any of the Bin 128 (we didn't get it here that vintage).

1998 Bin 389

This is still way too young but I think it's going to be a good un! Jet black in the glass, an amazingly thick texture, almost oily. On the nose, lots of ripe fruit aroma. Still a bit fruit-shy in the mouth but a truck load of smooth tannins. The next day it had opened up considerably. Leave it for a few years yet but on the basis of this bottle I think this is going to be a v good 389.


1998 Bin 28

Similar comments to the Bin 389. Still quite young and certainly needs more time. Again, black in colour with that thick texture in the mouth. Was better the next day but still fairly closed. No rush with this one either.


Last and definitely least:

1998 Bin 407. WTF? This was thin, acidic and absolutely joyless. Not much of a nose to sepak of, and quite harsh in the mouth with not a whole lot of structure to give me some hope for the future. Thought it migh be a dud so I opened another bottle, same result. Dreadful wine, mercifully I only bought a six pack of this one, but not really sure whether to hand on to the other 4 or pour them down the sink. One of the poorest wines I have had in ages.



So, with the exception of the 407, the Bin 389 looks like being a great wine and the Bin 28 looks like maintaining it's tradition of being a v good wine for the money.

However, both were overshadowed by the following:

1996 Bin 389

Lordy lordy what a wine. Just starting to hit it's straps methinks but this had it all. Great colour, wonderful nose and a complex finish that just went on and on. Lovely layers of fruit and tannin all starting to weave together seamlessly. A classic Bin 389 and certainly worth all the accolades. I have 11 left and honestly I wish I'd bought more!

1996 Bin 28

Lovely shiraz from what has turned out to be a v good vintage for South Aus Shiraz IMO. Could hold for a few more years yet, but I really enjoyed this now. V nice mature shiraz.

Again, sorry for not posting much recently but will try to rectify that. Regards from the deep freeze!

MP

[Craig(NZ).]

yes that is strange about the 98 407. I prefered it to the 389 on release

nothing has been as good since the 96 389 though!!

[Craig(NZ).]

yes that is strange about the 98 407. I prefered it to the 389 on release

nothing has been as good since the 96 389 though!!

[707]

Thanks for the notes Martin. I agree the 96 Bin 389 is a blinder that I tucked away last year with a note to leave for a few more years.

Have just unpacked a dozen Bin 28 with a view to consuming over the next couple of winters so your note is timely.

[Guest]

I am confident that 98 389 will get way better down the track.5-10 years.

[Chow Chow]

I concurred with ur assessment on the 407 '98. Very herbeceous. yuk!

[Guest]

Ha Ha The 01 is worst for me

[n4sir]

With the exception of the Bin 138 (Old Vine GSM Blend) the 1996 vintages are really blowing away the 1998 Bin series at this stage.

The 1998 Bin 389 is actually extremely good with a lot of breathing time - I usually resort to the old Barossa decant to get it moving, otherwise breathe it for many hours (perhaps even the day before). That said there's no questioning the brilliant 1996, although I can see definite similarities between the two vintages.

I got to try a 1996 Bin 28 just before new years when I dropped into the Magill CD - a customer had wanted to try the wine the day before, but it wasn't available for tasting. So he bought a museum release bottle, tried two glasses of it and left the rest there for everyone else to try! After 24 hours the wine was brilliant, fresh Shiraz fruit with that hint of sweet, dark Barossa chocolate lacking in the following releases - can't wait to try the 2002 which is supposed to be a long awaited return to form.

The 1998 in comparison has always been big, briary, brawny, savoury and rather closed. It also has that slight tinge of green reflecting the cooler fruit sources, and bitter chocolate as opposed to sweet dark chocolate. It's development has been extremely slow, and it looks to be an entirely different style to the 1996, but it should have time on it's side.

I thought the 1998 Bin 407 was crap when it was released; it hasn't improved in the following four years, and it's unlikely to do so. Consistently similar notes to Martin's, with thin, acidic, green/eucalyptus fruit and tannins way out of balance - it's never improved and the colour's starting to brown already.

The 1996 Bin 407 like the Bin 28 is a contrast in styles, with elegant/sweet fruit wrapped around a deceptively powerful structure. The 1996 is total class, while the 1998 is totally crass.

Cheers
Ian

[markg]

Coincidence,

I have been trying and comparing the 1996 and 1998 Bins 28 and Bins 128 over the past two weeks (notes to follow when I get a chance) and found that I really enjoyed the 1996's but am indifferent to the 1998's.

[707]

Why not bring a pair of the Bin 28s tonight ?

[Ratcatcher.]

So based on all these comments is it fair to say that in SA there have been 2 exceptional vintages in the past 12 years? 1990 and 1996?

Do all other vintages fail to measure up to these 2? Obviously there have been exceptional wines made in other years but for overall quality across the board are these the only 2 outstanding vintages in the past 12 years?

If so, where do the others fit in?

Are 1991 and 1998 the next best? Is 91 superior to 98? Or do they both belong up with 90 & 96?

Will 2002 be as good as 91 & 98?

Obviously the dogs have been 95, 97 & 2000.

Can people group the SA vintages from 1990 to now into 4 categories? Absolutely superb 90 & 96. Very good 91 & 98 (or just 91) + ??????. Adequate ?? and Best avoided 95, 97, 2000 + ???

Obviously there are exceptions in every year and some regions may do better than others but speaking in general how do they look?

If you could choose wines from 5 SA vintages from 1990 to 2002 which 5 vintages would you choose?

[Campbell]

Drank a bottle of the 1996 Bin 28 last week. It's in lovely form. At its peak for my tastes - will dive into the box and finish most of them over the next 18 months. The vanillin oak has sunk right down, and aged purity is mostly all you get - love it. Very nice tannins too - and at 13.5% alcohol, just about perfect for a wine in its style.

Anyone know what the alcohol is on the 98 Bin 28?

Campbell.

[707]

So based on all these comments is it fair to say that in SA there have been 2 exceptional vintages in the past 12 years? 1990 and 1996?

Can people group the SA vintages from 1990 to now into 4 categories? Absolutely superb 90 & 96. Very good 91 & 98 (or just 91) + ??????. Adequate ?? and Best avoided 95, 97, 2000 + ???

Ratty, SA is quite a large place and whilst there is generally some commonality betwen regions there are exceptions. You're also discounting 98 based on peoples assessment of the Penfolds range which is a narrow view as Pennies have had known problems recently including IMO as far back as the 98s which I didn't rate at the time despite the general hype about them.

IMO the 90 decade vintage chart (which I'm loathe to support really) goes something like this. Four outstanding vintages in all major regions and little between them - 1991 is proving with time to edge out 1990, 1996 looks great, 1998 too soon to tell but may be as good as any of them. 1999 has strong support as does 1994.

2002 has the potential to be as good as any of the four great 90s vintages so buy up!

Coonawarra is an exception, 2000 was excellent, 1995 was their worst year for the decade whereas it's proving to be ok in the warmer regions. 2002 is not as good as 2000 and maybe even 2001 but still good.

[markg]

Why not bring a pair of the Bin 28s tonight ?

Cause I am already packed with the wine I am lugging around on public transport today and it happens to be a 1994 Kays Block 6 - Ok ! Ok !

[markg]

So based on all these comments is it fair to say that in SA there have been 2 exceptional vintages in the past 12 years? 1990 and 1996?

I would also add 1994 into the mix as well, I have been trying some very, very nice 1994's over the last year.

[n4sir]

Anyone know what the alcohol is on the 98 Bin 28?

Campbell.

14.0% - That's the official figure anyway.

So based on all these comments is it fair to say that in SA there have been 2 exceptional vintages in the past 12 years? 1990 and 1996?

Do all other vintages fail to measure up to these 2? Obviously there have been exceptional wines made in other years but for overall quality across the board are these the only 2 outstanding vintages in the past 12 years?

If so, where do the others fit in?

Are 1991 and 1998 the next best? Is 91 superior to 98? Or do they both belong up with 90 & 96?

Will 2002 be as good as 91 & 98?

Obviously the dogs have been 95, 97 & 2000.

Can people group the SA vintages from 1990 to now into 4 categories? Absolutely superb 90 & 96. Very good 91 & 98 (or just 91) + ??????. Adequate ?? and Best avoided 95, 97, 2000 + ???

Obviously there are exceptions in every year and some regions may do better than others but speaking in general how do they look?

If you could choose wines from 5 SA vintages from 1990 to 2002 which 5 vintages would you choose?

At best you should only look at these vintage ratings as a very rough guide - in Penfolds particular case, because they blend so much from everywhere it's fractionally more useful, but you'll always find surprises. There's been so much hype for certain vintages from 1990 onwards, it all has to be weighed up carefully - there are some superb wines that live up to it, and some absolute dogs that can only hope to cash in on it.

There are also vintages (or more specifically wines from those vintages) that are forgotten about in all the excitment of the hype - such as 1991, (originally) 1996, and 1994, which produced some stunning wines. There's also the occasional region and/or wine that performs in what's generally considered a lesser vintage (eg. 1999 Barossa Shiraz/Clare/Coonawarra, 1995 Clare/McLaren Vale, 1993 Coonawarra).

It will be interesting to see what we all think of 2002 and 2004 in 10 years time. I heard someone in McLaren Vale last week referring to 2004 as "looking absolutely brilliant - it could be as good as 1998". With all the mixed comments about some 1998 wines, it's food for thought.

Cheers
Ian

[Ratcatcher.]

Yeah but,

what I'm saying is in 50 years time will people look back to the 90's and rave about 98, 91, 94?

We certainly don't look back at the 70's and rave about 5-6 vintages in that decade. It's just 1 maybe 2 yet I'm sure 6 or 7 of them produced "some good wines".

In 2025 which vintages of the 1990's will people be waxing lyrical about.
I think 90 & 96 only. Does anyone think 91 or 98 will be held in the same regard or will there just be some good bottles from those vintages?

[Broughy]

I think the 91 vintage will be held in same esteem as 90 & 96. Too early to tell with 98's but possibly not quite the same quality perhaps bracketed with 94's.

[707]

This probably needs a seperate posting rather than being stuck under the posting it is.

Ratty, clarifying - IMO 90, 91, 96 & 98 will all be acclaimed as great SA vintages in twenty years time. Yes that does make four but we were very lucky in the 90s.

There's three in the 80s, 1980, 82 & 86.

[George Krashos]

So based on all these comments is it fair to say that in SA there have been 2 exceptional vintages in the past 12 years? 1990 and 1996?

Do all other vintages fail to measure up to these 2? Obviously there have been exceptional wines made in other years but for overall quality across the board are these the only 2 outstanding vintages in the past 12 years?

If so, where do the others fit in?

Are 1991 and 1998 the next best? Is 91 superior to 98? Or do they both belong up with 90 & 96?

Will 2002 be as good as 91 & 98?

Obviously the dogs have been 95, 97 & 2000.

Can people group the SA vintages from 1990 to now into 4 categories? Absolutely superb 90 & 96. Very good 91 & 98 (or just 91) + ??????. Adequate ?? and Best avoided 95, 97, 2000 + ???

Obviously there are exceptions in every year and some regions may do better than others but speaking in general how do they look?

If you could choose wines from 5 SA vintages from 1990 to 2002 which 5 vintages would you choose?

90 and 98 are a pigeon pair. Opulent, up front ripe flavours but unlikely IMHO to evolve in terms of complexity. As they age they'll get smoother but I doubt they'll taste much different from now. 91 and 96 are much more stylish wines which will develop way more complexity as the years progress. As an example, the folk at Rockford rate the 91 BP slightly higher than the 90 BP.

-- George Krashos

[Craig(NZ).]

Ive read a few notes before which seem to disagree but from my experience the 1994 Bin 407 is the best vintage 407 produced. I think its a beauty wine.

Anyone agree?

[Guest]

So based on all these comments is it fair to say that in SA there have been 2 exceptional vintages in the past 12 years? 1990 and 1996?

Do all other vintages fail to measure up to these 2? Obviously there have been exceptional wines made in other years but for overall quality across the board are these the only 2 outstanding vintages in the past 12 years?

If so, where do the others fit in?

Are 1991 and 1998 the next best? Is 91 superior to 98? Or do they both belong up with 90 & 96?

Will 2002 be as good as 91 & 98?

Obviously the dogs have been 95, 97 & 2000.

Can people group the SA vintages from 1990 to now into 4 categories? Absolutely superb 90 & 96. Very good 91 & 98 (or just 91) + ??????. Adequate ?? and Best avoided 95, 97, 2000 + ???

Obviously there are exceptions in every year and some regions may do better than others but speaking in general how do they look?

If you could choose wines from 5 SA vintages from 1990 to 2002 which 5 vintages would you choose?

90 and 98 are a pigeon pair. Opulent, up front ripe flavours but unlikely IMHO to evolve in terms of complexity. As they age they'll get smoother but I doubt they'll taste much different from now. 91 and 96 are much more stylish wines which will develop way more complexity as the years progress. As an example, the folk at Rockford rate the 91 BP slightly higher than the 90 BP.

-- George Krashos

I prefer 91 to 90 but its way to early to compare 98 to anything. Look through just about any lists for 98 wines whether it be in a wine tasters book or a winery and you will notice that 98 wines will have about 10-50% more longevity than the same wines in other vintages. There is plenty left in 98 yet.

98 Vintage of the Century.

[FatBoy]

OK, let's get this straight, we're talking Barossa / McClaren Vale / Clare right ? Coonawarra is far too different to be considered in the same debate (for example 1992 Coonawarra has produced a couple of good 'uns, not to mention many fantastic 2000's, both shockers in the Barossa) and I don't know anything about Adelaide Hills wines from the 90's to make a whortwhile comment ...

Anyway,
1996 for mine, and if you base it on the Penfolds range, the difference is even more clear. 389 is a ball-tearer.

1990 has been the big disappointment to me in the last 12 months, and personally would rate it behind (now) 1991, 1998, 1999 and maybe even (shock horror) 1994. There's a lot of 1994's that are ticking along nicely right now.

Many 1998's are in a bit of a hole at present, but better judges than I suggest this is only temporary though. I had a 1999 Old Block the other night which was similarly shut down.

A winemaker friend of mine said that the 90's was atypical as a decade because there were so many good years. 70's and 80's - he said - NEVER had this many good vintages. So in response to whoever suggested that at the time people rave about 6 or 7 vintages in the 70's, you'd have to think that maybe we will be waing lyrical about 5 or 6 vintages of the 90's, even in 20 years time ...

1998 407 put me off 407 for life. What a terrible wine.

[FatBoy]

Obviously the dogs have been 95, 97 & 2000.

1993 was worse again. 1992, 1995 and 1997 have actually produced some decent wines given appropriate time. 1992 St Henri last week was a gem, but as has been covered numerous times before, St Hank is pretty good in most vintages after about 10 years.

[jester]

1991 bin 28 tasted recently...........bloody delicious. Want more that's for sure. 94 very nice and 96 a corker and am hoping / thinking the 98 will be as good as any around 2010. Had 24 98's a year ago now only 11 left. Need more time but lovely now with a bit of air and just can't keep my filthy mitts off them. Must learn to be more patient.