Newbie question RE: Penfolds wine names/designations

jayhawker · Post by **jayhawker** » Sat Jul 16, 2005 2:34 pm

Could someone explain the the Penfolds naming/designation system? Some of them I'm familiar with because I see them here in the US all the time - Grange, RWT, etc. But what about the Bin 60A and the Block 42 that others have posted about recently? I don't ever see these here in the States. Are they made every year? Are they exported? When I go to the Penfolds website, these wines are not listed, only the following:

Grange
Bin 707 Cabernet Sauvignon
RWT Barossa Valley Shiraz
Magill Estate Shiraz
St Henri Shiraz
Bin 389 Cabernet Shiraz
Bin 407 Cabernet Sauvignon
Bin 138 Old Vine Red
Bin 128 Coonawarra Shiraz
Bin 28 Kalimna Shiraz
Thomas Hyland Cabernet Sauvignon
Thomas Hyland Shiraz
Bin 8 Cabernet Shiraz
Bin 2 Shiraz Mourvedre
Koonunga Hill Shiraz Cabernet
Koonunga Hill Cabernet Merlot
Rawson's Retreat Merlot
Rawson's Retreat Cabernet Sauvignon
Rawson's Retreat Shiraz Cabernet
Organic Cabernet Merlot Shiraz

Also, what is the exact significance of the Bin numbers? Is the 707 better than the 407, or are they just different?

And regarding Grange, I often see that for some vintages there are Bin numbers attached, but for others there are not. What does this mean?

Finally, are there yet other wines, besides the 60A and Block 42 that are not listed on the site?

:roll:

fred · Post by **fred** » Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:40 pm

The bin numbers reflected "placement" of the wines and was a convenient means of designation originally.

If you go int the Special bins section in the Rewards of Patience section on the Penfolds site you will get a rundown on the "one-offs" which have been produced.

Yes, bin 707 (a very good wine - but not necessarily a good cabernet!) is much higher rated (and priced) than bin 407. There is no basis for assuming that a higher bin number means a better wine cf Kalimna bin 7 was superb, and bin 28 is excellent while bin 128 is from Coonawarra.

Also note that for all sorts of reasons the Penfolds pricing strategy is different in differing markets. Today bin 389 in Oz costs almost double bin 28 or bin 128, while there is only a small price differential in many parts of the USA.

Koonunga Hill was a very decent red blend, which rewarded midterm cellaring up to and including 1996 - but since then, I suggest is a pricepoint wine.

Hope this helps,

fred

707 · Post by **707** » Sat Jul 16, 2005 5:30 pm

Sean, the numbers don't mean anything as Fred said.

The value wine for you in the US is the Bin 389 but watch for vintages by keeping an eye on this forum when they are released. You can buy and cellar the 2002 Bin 389 with confidence but I'd suggest factory wines like Penfolds won't be anywhere near as good in 2003, wait for 2004.

GraemeG · Post by **GraemeG** » Sat Jul 16, 2005 10:22 pm

Historically, the Penfolds Bin numbers were warehouse/cellar management tools appropriated by the 'marketing' department. Bin 389 in the store held the first vintage of the wine thus named. That at least was the theory with the early, Max Schubert wines; hence Bin 28, Bin 128, Bin 389. There was a Bin 60 as well as Bin 60A, so there's some logic.

THings went awry with Bin 707 which, all the sources tell us, was coined by an ex-Qantas marketing man. (In the 70s, for a short while there was a Bin 747 as well.) The first vintage was 1964, which would fit with the status of the aircraft at that time. When Bin 407 was introduced in 1990, I think they felt that, as the humble version of Bin 707, giving it a not-unrelated name would help.

If you browse the http://www.langtons.com.au website and have a look at price history under Penfolds, you'll find a vast list of Bin numbers which have been used at one time or another.

The various numbers for Grange in the early days are perhaps a real reflection of the rather relaxed attitude to naming wines that existed at the time...

cheers,
Graeme

Bob · Post by **Bob** » Sun Jul 17, 2005 1:28 am

Forgive my ignorance. But did this relaxed attitibude toward naming reflect a relaxed attitude toward the wine-mking process? ie, this is the stuff that went into lot 28, so we'll call it lot 28. But if this was the age of Max Schubert, then were'nt the taking a scientific approch?

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sun Jul 17, 2005 3:30 am

Thanks all. Between the comments, the Penfolds "Rewards of Patience" notes, and Langtons, I think I've got it.

GraemeG · Post by **GraemeG** » Mon Jul 18, 2005 10:38 pm

Bob wrote:Forgive my ignorance. But did this relaxed attitibude toward naming reflect a relaxed attitude toward the wine-mking process? ie, this is the stuff that went into lot 28, so we'll call it lot 28. But if this was the age of Max Schubert, then were'nt the taking a scientific approch?

Hey, it's 50 years ago. You probably couldn't even do a tertiary course in marketing back then. Winemaking was a different matter. I always assumed that, for example, the first storage bin was, say, 28. The thousands of bottles may have occupied Bins 28,29,30,...49,50,51 etc. in the store. They just gave it the name of the first bin for that first release. And the name stuck, and it became a tradition. Simple. It's what's in the bottle that counts. So a new all-Barossa, expensive shiraz can be prosaically named 'RWT' and everyone says, "Oh, OK." And it becomes RWT. And no-one gives a stuff so long as the wine's good! Why waste money paying some idiot marketing manager to employ consultants to dream up some aspirational name? 'We stored the stuff in Bin 28 (or we undertook a Red Winemaking Trial) the first time we made it, so that's what we'll call it. '

cheers,
Graeme

bacchaebabe · Post by **bacchaebabe** » Tue Jul 19, 2005 1:33 pm

With the special Bins, which are not produced every year but only in exceptional years, there is some link between vintage and bin number such as the Bin 60 and 60A (1962) Bin 620 (1966) Bin 7 (1967) , Bin 820 and 80A (1982), the Bin 90A (1990) and the Bin 920 (1990). Of course there are also some strange numbers in between that don't seem to make any sense.

Why the 04 Bin 60 is going to be so named, I'm not sure. I would have though Bin 40 or 420 would have been more appropriate. Maybe they're trying to cash in on the recent publicity of the original Bin 60.

Also note that their white wine trial special bin chardonnays have been named things like 94A through to 00A, after the vintage.

The block 42 is named after the cabernet block the grapes are grown on and has only been produced (with that name) once before - in 96 and now again in 04.