Penfolds Kalimna Bin 28

Alex F · Post by **Alex F** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 4:08 pm

Hi guys... I know this has been done to death already (I did some searches), but just asking again.

What are the differences between Bin 28 from 1994, 1996, 1998. How does the 2002 compare to these 3?

And if you were to rate them, in what order would you have the:

1990, 1991, 1994, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2002 vintages.

Thanks a lot guys

Alex F · Post by **Alex F** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 4:10 pm

btw the reason why I ask is that I want to pick up some of them... but can only pick a vintage between 94/96/98

river · Post by **river** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 5:08 pm

1996 definately my pick of the bunch.

jester · Post by **jester** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 5:14 pm

Go the 96 as it's the best Bin 28 of the three you can choose from. 94 is good but showing its age a little and the 98 is very good but in my opinion needs more time. The 96 is a cracker drinking beautifully at present and should last for ages.

Hope that helps a little

Jester

Sean · Post by **Sean** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 5:58 pm

deleted

platinum · Post by **platinum** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 7:01 pm

Sean wrote:I had two good bottles of the 02 and two bad ones. The good ones made me think somehow Penfolds had got it right and it could be one to keep. The bad ones reminded me why I don't rate Penfolds bins like I used to. All of them were chocka full of tannin and cellaring them a must for them to ever be enjoyable to drink.

I was beggining to wonder how it was only me who had found good and bad bottles of the 02 Kalimna. The good bottles are bloody good though.

Mike Hawkins · Post by **Mike Hawkins** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 1:03 am

IMO, the 96 is as good as the 86 and 91 - the three best Bin 28s I've tried. I had one about 3 weeks ago, and its still very youthful. OTOH, I don't like the 98 and the 94 is not too bad....

oakboy · Post by **oakboy** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 2:42 am

Hi Alex
I've had the 1998 earlier this year and it's a 'massive monster' that needs more time in the cellar or go with the wine and some hearty food, IMO it's one of the best 98's going around, had the 1996 a couple of years ago and it was good but nowhere near the 98 at the same stage.
You didn't mention the 2001, which is one of the better bin 28's of recent times and drinking very well now.

Alex F · Post by **Alex F** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 9:14 am

Thanks for the replies...

Will the 98 ever get better than the 96? I don't care how long I have to wait, I guess really just want to buy on potential.

Or is the 96 truly the best of them all, now and in the future.

Ian S · Post by **Ian S** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 9:44 am

Alex F wrote:Thanks for the replies...

Will the 98 ever get better than the 96? I don't care how long I have to wait, I guess really just want to buy on potential.

Or is the 96 truly the best of them all, now and in the future.

As it's probably a personal preference thing (evidenced by the differing opinions here) then best becomes what suits you more. Make your call on the opinions offered, but in how they relate to your tastes. Or buy a little of each and hedge your bets (as well as allowing you to make your own call on it down the line - after all this allows you to taste the future rather than relying on others predictions of it). FWIW Oliver has similar drinking windows, so his feeling is that their longevity won't be much different.

regards

Ian

Alex F · Post by **Alex F** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 9:59 am

Sounds like very sensible advice. But sadly I don't think I can afford to buy both of them.

Wayno · Post by **Wayno** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 12:48 pm

I'd suggest 96 too, just for it's overall completeness - a beautiful, balanced bottle (or the ones i've had at least) and quite medium bodied.

The 98 I had a year ago was quite young still, agreed although I don't recall considering it overly tannic and big, just a pleasant, fuller bodied wine with good development and character.

I'm not entirely convinced that the 96 28s will live until 2020 well not in my cellar anyway) but no doubt they will cellar for a good few years yet.

I think this is another case of the elegance of the 96 vintage vs the ripe, bigness of the 98 which could go either way for some wines.

Jay60A · Post by **Jay60A** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 1:52 pm

oakboy wrote:Hi Alex
I've had the 1998 earlier this year and it's a 'massive monster' that needs more time in the cellar or go with the wine and some hearty food, IMO it's one of the best 98's going around, had the 1996 a couple of years ago and it was good but nowhere near the 98 at the same stage.
You didn't mention the 2001, which is one of the better bin 28's of recent times and drinking very well now.

In my experience I'd avoid the 2001 ... bought a six-pack and regretted it. 2002 better. Think 2001 shone early but the last three I've had have been over oaky, have that 01 syrupy characteristic, and lack that core of fresh fruit. Maybe a poor lot or maybe my palate changing. 1998 is a flashy vintage but FWIW I'd also go for the 1996 but wait 5+ years. Just a pup.

Jay.

NeilHK · Post by **NeilHK** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 2:37 pm

I find this very interesting.
How is it that one bottle of this wine can be considered good and others bad?
They come from the same enormous vats I take it, so why such huge variation?