The Auswine Forum

Mike Hawkins wrote:Monghead,

Its not '98 thing' with those labels. IMO, most of those labels have produced duds every year. They look good at release and then go progressively downhill... I liked the 90, 91 and 96 Eileen Hardy but other than those, can't think of a stand-out among your list.

Mike

Could not agree more mike , They are all good up front but really dont have the longevity we sort of expect !

Regards Dazza

monghead wrote:

dazza1968 wrote:96/98 Both great , we have been Blessed with such good volume of 98 , Its shows no sign of rareness at all .Can you believe you can still get a 98 wynns Michael shiraz for 50 bucks a bottle plus fees at auction Spoilt we are i think maybe rare one day but not for a while ..................I have just started the task of drinking them and boy they are good $8 to $500 they are all good so far

Regards Dazza

Sorry, I beg to differ dazza. They are not all great. Rather disappointing '98s that come to mind are:

- Balmoral
- Vicar
- Dead Arm
- Brand's Stentiford
- Eileen Hardy
- Fox creek reserve

Hmmm.... They all seem to be Shirazes

A coincidence? Must have another little think...

I agree with Monghead....have tried 3 of the above list in recent times - Balmoral [pretty ordinary now]/ Stentiford's [very disappointing IMO] and Fox Creek [nowhere near as good as the '99 which is still going well]

Had a '96 Stentiford's on week end and really wasn't much better than the '98.
From all accounts the Vicar is well and truly fading too. Many higher end reds from '98 SA are not lasting as long as first thought.

ross

ross67 wrote:

monghead wrote:

dazza1968 wrote:96/98 Both great , we have been Blessed with such good volume of 98 , Its shows no sign of rareness at all .Can you believe you can still get a 98 wynns Michael shiraz for 50 bucks a bottle plus fees at auction Spoilt we are i think maybe rare one day but not for a while ..................I have just started the task of drinking them and boy they are good $8 to $500 they are all good so far

Regards Dazza

Sorry, I beg to differ dazza. They are not all great. Rather disappointing '98s that come to mind are:

- Balmoral
- Vicar
- Dead Arm
- Brand's Stentiford
- Eileen Hardy
- Fox creek reserve

Hmmm.... They all seem to be Shirazes

A coincidence? Must have another little think...

I agree with Monghead....have tried 3 of the above list in recent times - Balmoral [pretty ordinary now]/ Stentiford's [very disappointing IMO] and Fox Creek [nowhere near as good as the '99 which is still going well]

Had a '96 Stentiford's on week end and really wasn't much better than the '98.
From all accounts the Vicar is well and truly fading too. Many higher end reds from '98 SA are not lasting as long as first thought.

ross

Yes and it all comes down to selection and a little luck. what my point is you can sift thru 96's and find dead wines and you can with the 98's as well , The list monghead has is a very small list when you look at whats available most of these reds seem big and jammy in style what about other reds like 98 seppelts st peters and chalambar,wynns range,penfolds, rockford, mt ida shiraz ,yalumba etc

Regards Dazza

Now, there's an idea for an offline...

'96 vs '98

Could be interesting.

monghead wrote:Now, there's an idea for an offline...

'96 vs '98

Could be interesting.

Yes i think you have hit a home run and if you do will make the effort ,maybe with Carl to come over for it I had better speak to carl first ! before i put our hand up ..................

Regards Dazza

dazza1968 wrote:

monghead wrote:Now, there's an idea for an offline...

'96 vs '98

Could be interesting.

Yes i think you have hit a home run and if you do will make the effort ,maybe with Carl to come over for it I had better speak to carl first ! before i put our hand up ..................

Regards Dazza

Over at Christmas. Teaching just about every week this coming semester so unlikely to make an earlier trip. 96 is about the limit of my cellar (aside from auction purchases). I think I have 389 and that is about it in Sydney but 98 is fine.

cheers

Carl

ross67 wrote: From all accounts the Vicar is well and truly fading too. Many higher end reds from '98 SA are not lasting as long as first thought.

ross

I tried the 98 Vicar recently and it was seriously disappointing. I will probably aim ot knock off most of it in the next month or so.

Mark

rooman wrote:

ross67 wrote: From all accounts the Vicar is well and truly fading too. Many higher end reds from '98 SA are not lasting as long as first thought.

ross

I tried the 98 Vicar recently and it was seriously disappointing. I will probably aim ot knock off most of it in the next month or so.

Mark

Mark ihad a 96 recently and that was well past it , Maybe not one to cellar as long as previously thought

The 01 i had a couple of months ago as really good in comparison

Regards Dazza

Had a few SA '99's recently and have really performed.
Much under rated vintage.

Ross

I've had quite a few good 98's as well as some good 96's. Cabernets for me. Not sure I agree with the skew in the poll. Mind you, I have a couple of bottles and a magnum of 96 Block 42 which I am looking forward to cracking at some stage, quite possibly next year, which is a year that has a 6 in front of it for me!!

Completely agree with what you said about the poll, I think 4 years on we are seeing the 96's dropping away and the 98's are still powering along as predicted

Regards Dazz

dazza1968 wrote:Completely agree with what you said about the poll, I think 4 years on we are seeing the 96's dropping away and the 98's are still powering along as predicted

Regards Dazz

Agree Dazz.....cannot seem to stumble upon any decent '96's lately.
Thought I would highlight the '99 as it seems to be very good.
'98 still seems tight in some respects.

Ross

A 98 Rockford Basket Press recently was top notch. Surprisingly so.

Brucer wrote:A 98 Rockford Basket Press recently was top notch. Surprisingly so.

Brucer i am Not surprised at all , maybe we should rerun the poll and get a more up to date opinion and where the wines are standing today ? I have had a 96 broken wood Shiraz which I thought wasn't bad but you can really see it sliding down hill, a friend has been off loading alot of 96's out of his cellar ( we have been testing a bottle first ) its only the real pedigree wines that are holding their own even the penfolds 389 has started to lose its stranglehold on the 98 and 99 ,389

Regards Dazza

I have my 96 St Henri at Langtons now.

Brucer wrote:I have my 96 St Henri at Langtons now.

Really? Then the Penfold's Rewards of Patience tasting (6th Edition) is wrong to suggest that the '96 St Henri is a great vintage and should last till 2025. Should all these top wines from '96 be going downhill? I don't believe it. Campbell Mattinson's top wine of the Rewards tasting was the '96 Bin 389. Even the '96 Koonunga Hill got a special mention in the Rewards book.

I think people have got it wrong. Many of the wines, both the '96 and the '98, might well be in transition, in a dumb phase between primary fruit and complex tertiary characters. The few '96 I've had in the last few years all suggest that it was a good vintage.

Mahmoud.

Mahmoud Ali wrote:

Brucer wrote:I have my 96 St Henri at Langtons now.

Really? Then the Penfold's Rewards of Patience tasting (6th Edition) is wrong to suggest that the '96 St Henri is a great vintage and should last till 2025. Should all these top wines from '96 be going downhill? I don't believe it. Campbell Mattinson's top wine of the Rewards tasting was the '96 Bin 389. Even the '96 Koonunga Hill got a special mention in the Rewards book.

I think people have got it wrong. Many of the wines, both the '96 and the '98, might well be in transition, in a dumb phase between primary fruit and complex tertiary characters. The few '96 I've had in the last few years all suggest that it was a good vintage.

Mahmoud.

My 1996 389s went previously to Langtons.
The reason was so much variation, and cork problems, and I just got over them. I have plenty of other wine to drink.
I also sent my 1998 St Henris off, after too many cork problems.
I was also over Penfolds treating me like a criminal when ringing up to complain about a dodgy bottle.

Penfolds wines always hold up over all and the penfolds reward for patience does not disect when the fruit removes itself!

It often gives you an up to date view of how the wine is traveling, there is nothing wrong with drinking a leathery,older secondary flavour wine but overall most people prefer to drink them when the fruit is primary and also going to secondary!

There is plenty of other wines that have lost their edge long before penfolds has .

I prefer to drink other wines personally( not saying I don't enjoy penfolds but prefer to have spent my money else

I have a dozen bin 389 96 still in the cellar , its for my daughters birth year so they have a purpose

I have no problem drinking older wines at all, just prefer them with good fruit feel

I have had quite a few 96 389's and they have generally been very good and even exceptional over the last few years, Wish I had more. Maybe I have been luckier than some.

We could also have quite a debate over 96 vs 98 BL!!

Funny, I am currently reading the 6th Edition of Rewards Of Patience, that I picked up at the Langtons tasting recently. It was published in 1998, so quite old. 389 only goes to 2006.
I prefer reds 5-8 years old, but any wine of any age can surprise.
Once the primary fruit fades away, I am less interested. But thats just me.
I hope you got some good corks in your 96 389 dazza.
I still buy Penfolds, and like them, but only with screwcaps.

I have had a couple of '96 389 and 707 in the last 12-mths and they are both exceptional provided obviously good corks... The '96 707 is one of the finest wines I have ever tried, it is so youthful still... But I thought the 389 awesome too, so much so I keep meaning to buy 6 at auction.

I certainly wouldnt describe the '96 389, or 707 for that matter or the '98 389 as having lost its primary fruit... nowhere near it, all look very young both for their age and in an absolute sense.

I also had a '96 John Riddoch not long ago, and that likewise was an intensely flavoured, youthful and vigorous wine. In my view, a lot of the '96's from SA are holding well.. I have had more mixed experiences with '98s, but they still look great if you compare to say '97.

Brucer - I just saw an advance copy of the new ROP - it's a new format which makes for much better reading. Rather than by wines, its now by vintage...

Mike

sjw_11 wrote:The '96 707 is one of the finest wines I have ever tried, it is so youthful still....

It really is an excellent wine, even allowing for the fact the 'best' fruit went in to Block 42.

Mike

There seems to be a fine line between ultra-premium & premium wines when it comes to longevity. I was too engrossed with 96 Bordeaux to fully appreciate 96 Australian reds when they flooded the market circa 2000; however, top 98 wines like Penfolds 707, Wynns John Riddoch & Jasper Hill reds truly captivated me... IMHO, 99 was better for Margaret River such as Cullen & Moss Wood. I recently tried a 96 Petaluma Coonawarra & it was beautiful but had clearly peaked. On the other hand, I had a 97 Penfolds 707, supposedly a lesser vintage, yet, it still had years ahead of it while being immensely enjoyable now. Going to try a 98 Mount Mary Quintet soon...

Mike Hawkins wrote:

sjw_11 wrote:The '96 707 is one of the finest wines I have ever tried, it is so youthful still....

It really is an excellent wine, even allowing for the fact the 'best' fruit went in to Block 42.

Mike

Good point, I hadn't even thought about that... the sheer volume of quality fruit Penfolds can acquire in a good year is astonishing... bugger, might have to break my policy and buy some of their 2012's in due course

I thought we were talking about '96 vs '98 - not cork vs screw cap. Bad corks are not germane to this post. Otherwise we should get rid of all wines under cork regardless of vintage.

Primary fruit! Good heavens, what has primary fruit got to do with a discussion on wines that are 15- 17 years old. Who cellars wine for that long looking for primary fruit. I can find primary fruit on scores of wines within minutes of home, and I wouldn't have to pay much.

Mahmoud,

dazza1968 wrote:Brucer i am Not surprised at all , maybe we should rerun the poll and get a more up to date opinion and where the wines are standing today ?

Regards Dazza

That would be a great idea! Maybe even have different categories, eg by region & varietals.

I sent the 96 St Henri off, because I dont like it now.
I have kept a six pack of 98 RWT, but have not tried for 2-3 years. This is a very good wine, just needed more time.

Mahmoud Ali wrote:

Brucer wrote:I have my 96 St Henri at Langtons now.

Really? Then the Penfold's Rewards of Patience tasting (6th Edition) is wrong to suggest that the '96 St Henri is a great vintage and should last till 2025. Should all these top wines from '96 be going downhill? I don't believe it. Campbell Mattinson's top wine of the Rewards tasting was the '96 Bin 389. Even the '96 Koonunga Hill got a special mention in the Rewards book.

I think people have got it wrong. Many of the wines, both the '96 and the '98, might well be in transition, in a dumb phase between primary fruit and complex tertiary characters. The few '96 I've had in the last few years all suggest that it was a good vintage.

Mahmoud.

Mahmoud
I think we all ,well certainly myself, think '96 is a good vintage. The reason i resurrected this thread was to highlight for me the good momentum of '99 wines for me over the last few years while being disappointed to say the least over many '96's.
Perhaps i have just been unlucky , i dont know.

ross

Brucer wrote:I sent the 96 St Henri off, because I dont like it now.
I have kept a six pack of 98 RWT, but have not tried for 2-3 years. This is a very good wine, just needed more time.

I guess we're in opposite camps!! I thought the 98 RWT was really disappointing last year, whereas 2 years ago I had the first of a couple of cases of the 96 St Henri and felt it hadn't budged much since release (still very primary).

Cheers

Mike