The Auswine Forum

Well this wine was just awful, TCA affected, dank nose, no fruit whatsoever and typical cardbord palate. Opened another of the remaining 60 bottles and no comparison, beautiful aromatic full flavoured palate and over the course of the evening a Kaleidoscope of aromas.

...but here is the rub
Rang Penfolds consumer line to report and seek a replacement.
The process: send out a mail box to return the wine and cork...fair enough. They advised that they will get the lab to test the bottle but it will be up to four weeks to get a result. Really??? Will they really test it given the cost of test or will they just sniff it and tell me they have tested it? This will be intersting as it was opened on Sat evening and I haven't got the mail box yet, so it will be a good 8-10 before they get it after opening.

All in all I would think this is a very expensive process, for what would probably cost in replacement <$20.

They also advised that if it was found to be TCA affected that they wouldn't be replacing with a 98 vinatge but a current vintage. Ok, not too sure about how I feel about that, understand they may not have stocks but a good will gesture of a Bin 28 would have been welcomed.

Left feeling a bit disallusioned with the process and tone of the "service". I am a regular several $k per annum purchaser of Penfolds. And astonishingly have only ever returned two bottles to Penfolds.

Broughy wrote: Opened another of the remaining 60 bottles .

WOW, you certainly go long on a wine when it tickles your fancy.....

well got both the 96 & 98 for around $18 per bottle, so got about 12 doz of each. Bit of a punt but I was certain they were good wines. Sold a few cases off along the way for almost free drinking now.

Good on you !!! Maybe you could let them know via email as i did that with very good results from Katnook and also let them know i had it posted on the auswine forum so i can let them know of the results

Yes they honoured it and with the 98 s

You go for it

Regards Dazza

Agreed this seems a bit clunky. I've had better replacement outcomes from other Southcorp wineries but not Penfolds, granted.

monghead wrote:

Broughy wrote: Opened another of the remaining 60 bottles .

WOW, you certainly go long on a wine when it tickles your fancy.....

Yes, my thoughts, but I do like the idea of having one wine cellared in real quantities that I can see develop and really get to know and love. I was very jealous reading that Oz Clarke had 3 dozen Chateau Latour 1966's, and he opened a bottle in front of the telly whenever the England football team were on (66 was the year they won the world cup, in case that isn't widely known). I'll have to set my sights lower than Latour though (or 389 come to that, given its recent price hike).

I found a lot of bottle variation in the 1998 389 - that was the vintage I stopped buying it with the enthusiasm we had in the past. I really do think they had a cork problem with that vintage.
I'm a little more enthusiastic again, now they are in screwcaps, but price is the hurdle these days.

Broughy wrote:Well this wine was just awful, TCA affected, dank nose, no fruit whatsoever and typical cardbord palate. Opened another of the remaining 60 bottles and no comparison, beautiful aromatic full flavoured palate and over the course of the evening a Kaleidoscope of aromas.

...but here is the rub
Rang Penfolds consumer line to report and seek a replacement.
The process: send out a mail box to return the wine and cork...fair enough. They advised that they will get the lab to test the bottle but it will be up to four weeks to get a result. Really??? Will they really test it given the cost of test or will they just sniff it and tell me they have tested it? This will be intersting as it was opened on Sat evening and I haven't got the mail box yet, so it will be a good 8-10 before they get it after opening.

All in all I would think this is a very expensive process, for what would probably cost in replacement <$20.

They also advised that if it was found to be TCA affected that they wouldn't be replacing with a 98 vinatge but a current vintage. Ok, not too sure about how I feel about that, understand they may not have stocks but a good will gesture of a Bin 28 would have been welcomed.

Left feeling a bit disallusioned with the process and tone of the "service". I am a regular several $k per annum purchaser of Penfolds. And astonishingly have only ever returned two bottles to Penfolds.

Andrew, I think the only thing you/we can really quibble about is the time it takes. Imagine how many dodgy requests they would get if they didn't adopt this sort of process.

From previous discussions on this and other forums, it seems pretty evident they don't do a lab test on many bottles, usually it is just "sensory analysis" and that means sniffing only. I don't know whether they do that in the place where you send the bottle (Melbourne?) or send it off again to somewhere else. But whatever the case 4 weeks is far too long and mild/moderate cork taint must be very hard to detect under all the oxidative character. After they copped a huge amount of flak over their handling of a mildly corked Grange (look on Winestar forum) I presume they are a little more inclined to give the benefit of doubt to the customer.

I've had satisfactory outcomes for recent returns (99 Annies Lane Coppertrail and Wynns Michael 91) and have received a bonus bottle in each case as well as the current vintage.

All the Fosters brands are handled via one Customer Service group, Sparky on this forum is from that team.

For more recent vintages I go back to the retailer for replacements, always keep my receipts and even got a replacement at Dan Murphy for a wine I had bought there 4-5 years previously as I had the receipt.

Andrew, I think the only thing you/we can really quibble about is the time it takes. Imagine how many dodgy requests they would get if they didn't adopt this sort of process.

yep, don't disagree and they haven't done anything wrong, but it seems a bit clunky. I would think the returning the bottle and contents would prevent a lot of malicious claims.

Perhaps it was a "nice" way of them saying don't try and whack one over us if its not TCA affected.

Hi Broughy, I hear you.

Just to give you perspective from our end, we find older bottles can be particularly difficult, as a significant number of consumers use the term 'corked' interchangeably with 'stuffed', 'oxidised' or 'over the hill'. I would appreciate that most inhabitants here would know the difference, but on the end of a phone line with minimal information it's not always so easy to make that call. For that reason we always try to collect and analyse samples so we know what has gone on.

I can confirm that we don't lab test every bottle, but I certainly ask for it to be done if circumstances warrant it. Good cellaring conditions, time taken between opening & testing, expertise of the consumer etc all come into it. Believe it or not, we do apply the 'benefit of the doubt approach', but because Penfolds in particular does get its fair share of dubious and incredulous complaints (which I would be happy to share at an off-line some time), we also have to apply some degree of rigour with our process.

I appreciate it seems a bit clunky, but it's also an expensive exercise to replace every premium wine complaint without question, and we also have commercial reality to contend with (otherwise known as overhead budgets and limited allocations). I'm more than happy to take on suggestions on how we can improve it that recognise both your desire to get it resolved as quickly and pleasantly as possible, and our desire to ensure we're sending out replacements for the right reasons.

Cheers, Moira

Personally I have had no problem (apart from the time taken) with returns from Penfolds for TCA affected wines.

1998 389 was a real crapshoot as far as TCA was concerned and I ended up exchanging all I had bought for equivelent value in Bin 28 after the first 3 bottles I opened were all foul.

Thanks Moira,
yeah it is a tricky one particularly on the TCA v other cause for impaired quality i.e. TCA ( and some other faults) are present (mostly) from point of bottling where as other impairements can be contributed to by a range of consumer handling issues.

Some consumers will try it on (and some simply are ignorant of the cause of impaired quality) and that is disappointing for those genuinely affected.

The issue from a corporate side I would think is the flood gate argument; make it too easy and you will get excessive and unwarranted claims. Presumably you have sales and relationship software, a possible solution (although no infalible solution) would be to track claimants and escalate investigation on second or further return. As part of this solution require return of bottle and contents. This would provide some knowledge of the consumer concerned.

Some examples of other experiences:
1.Red Bank Sally's Paddock 1994: Spoke with a winemaker after a couple of calls, required to return bottle at own expense but replaced with same vintage.
2.D'Arenberg Dead Arm 2002, replaced with current vintage without requiring return of bottle.

The last 98 389 I opened was corked. Contacted Penfolds, got the box delivered,posted the wine, then got a phone call advising the bottle was in fact TCA effected, and a replacement 06 under screwcap was delivered. This exercise took about 4-5 weeks.
Seems pretty expensive to me. The only other company to go through all this BS is Constellation.

Good news story. I rang Dalwhinnie about a corked Shiraz, not only did the lady at the cellar door agree to replace but the winemaker rang later the same day to apologise and said they would send a replacement no evidence required.

As a retailer in adelaide for over ten years i have never had any problems with getting credits or replacement bottles from tainted wines and spirits (those little cork stoppers can ruin a 18yo single malt faster than coke!) that had been returned to the store by customers. Until this year when i was told by my Fosters wine rep that due to the age of the bottle (within 10 years of Current Release) they did not have to replace the bottle because it was to old. After explaining what 'corked' meant i got the nothing i can do about its the rules shrug. I was really suprised at the attitude.

Colin wrote:Good news story. I rang Dalwhinnie about a corked Shiraz, not only did the lady at the cellar door agree to replace but the winemaker rang later the same day to apologise and said they would send a replacement no evidence required.

They have changed there attitude then - A couple of yeasr ago it was all too hard.

chiantichrist wrote:As a retailer in adelaide for over ten years i have never had any problems with getting credits or replacement bottles from tainted wines and spirits (those little cork stoppers can ruin a 18yo single malt faster than coke!) that had been returned to the store by customers. Until this year when i was told by my Fosters wine rep that due to the age of the bottle (within 10 years of Current Release) they did not have to replace the bottle because it was to old. After explaining what 'corked' meant i got the nothing i can do about its the rules shrug. I was really suprised at the attitude.

Chiantichrist, my team primarily deals with queries that come directly from consumers, but I'm always heppy to assist with getting trade sorted appropriately. If you want to send me a PM or call the number on the side of the bottle, I'm happy to take some details so we get your rep up to speed on our responsibilities around cork taint (and it 'aint what he/she said).

Cheers, Moira

Hi Rooview,

I would definitely say that we get a higher rate of reports on Penfolds than all other brands, which certainly doesn't mean that there's a higher rate of TCA taint, but just we hear about more of them, because of the higher financial and emotional investment that people make in the wines.

We would also tend to see more older wines with Penfolds, and that goes back to my first point about confusion between TCA and heat stress/oxidisation, so yes, we do get a number of bottles that are suffering from ailments other than TCA, but no I can't quote exact numbers. It can get very grey when you're juggling cork variation or fault, extended cellaring and storage conditions.

We get bottles reported that have been opened anywhere between the night before to 7 years ago, and as we also have a process for certifying (or rejecting) bottles through the clinics, it's fairly important for us in maintaining a fair process to retrieve the bottles.

Hope that helps.

When I lived in Oz, I had a few issues with the Southcorp replacement policy. But credit where credit is due - the Penfolds team in California is superb. I had a TCA affected Bin 90a and when I called them, they asked a few pertinent questions and then undertook to replace the bottle with one from their museum stock. It arrived 3 days later after a journey of 4500kms. Not bad at all for a 17 year old wine (at the time).....

Interesting thread and it's great to have someone here to explain the other side of the situation.

The real issue here is "Penfolds" - the brand. Because of its reputation, the large percentage of the buyers are not not wine geeks and probably would not know the difference between GMC and TCA. The smaller wineries, like the Dalwhinnie example mentioned, sell to a select and small client base that probably have a far great wine knowledge than the 'average' Penfolds buyer.

Also, because of the reputation, many people who buy Penfolds have no idea about storage and for example, are content to store it in a cupboard above the fridge in the kitchen.

Then there is all the wine that is purchased at auction where the buyer has no idea of the prior storage conditions.

And storage is not just the only issue. Some people will open an older wine and think its off because they don't understand what aged wine can taste like, or just not like it.

Finally, there are those who are trying it on in the hope of greeting a free bottle.

All these factors make if difficult for Penfolds to balance business safeguards against good customer service. However, careful questioning of the customer, should be able to sort out those who obviously have both a good knowledge of wine and good cellaring conditions. Once this is established, it would make sense for all concerned, if Penfolds treated these customers a little differently.

My one and only experience with Penfolds' returns policy was an oxidised 00A Chardonay. The whole deal was resolved by an email, a follow up phone call (within 24 hours) and an exchange of packages by express post.

Actually when double checking the time line of the process I notice that my query was dealt with by Moira...love your work Sparky

Cheers Dave!

Torb, you hit the nail on the head - Penfolds is a bit of a different proposition, simply because it is what it is, but we see the same factors at play to a lesser extent with any of our brands that have premium wines with cellaring potential.

The additional factor with Penfolds is bottles that may have been rejected for certifying at re-corking clinics, which is why collection of bottle & cork is relevant.

In the interests of being scrupulously fair I didn't want to say it, but now you've brought it up, I'm happy to positively discriminate with consumers who obviously have solid wine experience and understand the impact of cellaring conditions. We're getting a lot better at asking all the right questions, but don't be shy - tell us about your cellar, your background with the brand, which forums you like to hang out on and how good your wine stash is. It does all help to expedite the process.

Thanks Penfolds. Received a message today, bottle to be replaced and option of Bin 28 or a 76 as well. A nice and welcome gesture.

Thanks Moira

Broughy wrote:Thanks Penfolds. Received a message today, bottle to be replaced and option of Bin 28 or a 76 as well. A nice and welcome gesture.

Thanks Moira

Hmmm...if they're offering a 76, I'd go for the 76 Grange. A pretty sound replacement..