The Auswine Forum

At an excellent dinner party of ten last Saturday night with fabulous mature wines but we had an 86 Grange, excellently cellared since purchase at release, level still into neck, but the cork was soft and crumbly and the wine was oxidised.

A 1986 Hill of Grace with the same provenance was great.

I've been told that the 86 Grange does have a history of poor cork, does anyone else have history on this?

I'm currently trying to get something from Penfolds other than the "bottle of Bin 389 as a goodwill gesture". Bloody generous of them I know but I reckon for a dodgy cork it should be a little more.

Hi Steve - cant help you with this. It's lucky that 86 was a lesser vintage for Grange!

Maybe point Penfolds to this prior saga re 86 Grange: http://www.winestar.com.au/forum/viewto ... ked+grange

Steve...never tried an '86 but had a '78 last yr with a very dodgy cork. Wine was stored correctly from purchase also. My opinion was the wine was on the slide regardless of the state of the cork.
I hope you can get a satisfactory outcome from Penfolds

ross

Actually 1986 is one of the great Granges apparently.

Agree with Red Bigot. Refer them to the other thread. Ask for a personal visit by Peter Gago perhaps?

cheers

Carl

I was at the same dinner

Definitely oxidised, funny cork, and not at all what it should have been!

The 1986 HOG was superb, as was the 1996 Grange, so cork problem for sure!

Yes, agree with griff. I've had the '86 Grange once, and it was at my last supper. It was absolutely stunning. If I were to use my recently acquired "Good" scale, it would rate an Out Of Control Good. Probably the only better Grange I have had is the '76.

Shame about the cork though...

And even more shame about the Southcorp replacement strategy (pun intended).......

Monghead.

86 Grange is one of the greats.

Best of luck getting a replacement. (2004 Grange?)

I've not had the same luck with the '86 Grange. Extremely variable, bottle to bottle, and, yes, in the main, terrible, crumbly corks. I'd say I've drunk about a dozen over the years. IMHO, not a great Grange for the above reasons.

I've read the vintage of Grange with real dodgy corks is the '76 (unusually high TCA failures) although, as someone pointed out, Murray had a protracted problem with an '86 last year. The '72 is really dodgy too, but that's a completely different story...

If you've got the remnants of the bottle and cork, it's possibly worth firing a PM directly to Moira (aka Sparky) to see if they can come up with an equitable solution.

Cheers,
Ian

Had a 1976 Grange about 2 years ago that was quite possibly the most horridly oxidised wine I have ever tasted. Bought from auction so no idea of cellaring history but level was still fine. Never thought about trying to get a replacement, though in your case knowing it has been looked after I can see your point.

Hmmm,

I must be pretty lucky with Grange.

Both the '86 and '76 were great.

Also had '77, '90, '91, '95, '96, '97, '98 with no cork problems.

Is there generally a problem with Grange corks?

monghead wrote:Hmmm,

I must be pretty lucky with Grange.

Both the '86 and '76 were great.

Also had '77, '90, '91, '95, '96, '97, '98 with no cork problems.

Is there generally a problem with Grange corks?

No, I don't believe there is generally a problem with Grange corks. There is a problem with corks.

orpheus wrote:

monghead wrote:No, I don't believe there is generally a problem with Grange corks. There is a problem with corks.

Monghead, I'm with you on that one. The bane of my life!

707, this is sparky, otherwise know as Moira, or Consumer Relations Manager on Battlestar Foster's. You're welcome to call or PM me at any time (as is any other forumite) to get an update on your particular bottle and cork, or to discuss our process for managing wines that haven't lived up to expectations. Phone number is 1300 650 651.

I'm sure you'd all appreciate that older bottles that have been out in the big wild world for a number of years can be particularly problematic, unless we can get a good grip on where it has been and how it has been treated over it's life. Cork failure can happen for any number of reasons, including everything from dodgy cork itself to criminally negligent storage storage conditions and rodents (Yes, i have seen that), and before we replace we do try to find out why.

For that reason we do have a process of discussion, collection, analysis and decision making that we have to go through. Remnants (otherwise known as the evidence)are much appreciated, as without them it gets pretty hard to justify replacements to some of those beancounters. I agree that it's not much fun at times, but it's a legitimate part of the trading process that protects both consumers and producers.

Sparky

Gavin Trott here.

Steve (707) can handle this well himself

but

I was at that dinner.

The owner of the wine has impeccable wine storage (professional temp and humidity controlled) for the life of the wine and is absolutely a perfectionist with care of the wines.

The cork was terrible, the wine oxidised.

Let's hope that there would not be too many too difficult hoops to jump through in what should be a straight forward process!!

Hi Gavin,

That's one of the biggest hoops jumped through already, which is being able to vouch for the cellaring conditions of the wine from sale to consumption. As you'd be well aware, that's frequently where it falls apart, particularly with leakers and oxidisation.

The other hoop that we usually ask for is the bottle and the original cork to be returned as it helps establish if the cork has any obvious flaws and if the bottle has suffered heat stress or not. Because Penfolds has re-corking clinics and a process for identifying and certifying or rejecting bottles at the clinics, that's a pretty important part for us. It's not unheard of for bottles that have been rejected through the clinic process to pop up later on.

It also helps establish that the wine did actually exist before we replace it. Minor point, but when you're dealing with $500 bottles it kinda adds up.

Let me stress that I'm absolutely not suggesting this is the case here, but it's just something we have to try and tick off.

sparky wrote:Hi Gavin,

That's one of the biggest hoops jumped through already, which is being able to vouch for the cellaring conditions of the wine from sale to consumption. As you'd be well aware, that's frequently where it falls apart, particularly with leakers and oxidisation.

The other hoop that we usually ask for is the bottle and the original cork to be returned as it helps establish if the cork has any obvious flaws and if the bottle has suffered heat stress or not. Because Penfolds has re-corking clinics and a process for identifying and certifying or rejecting bottles at the clinics, that's a pretty important part for us. It's not unheard of for bottles that have been rejected through the clinic process to pop up later on.

It also helps establish that the wine did actually exist before we replace it. Minor point, but when you're dealing with $500 bottles it kinda adds up.

Let me stress that I'm absolutely not suggesting this is the case here, but it's just something we have to try and tick off.

So Sparky,

If 707 jumps through all those hoops, would your company replace the '86 Grange with something worthwhile? Because I would suggest that the standard "bottle of current 389 as a goodwill gesture" is an utter slap in the face, and probably worse than the 5c tip on a $500 meal. And I would suggest that customer relations would be set back irrepairably...

Good luck 707...

monghead.

Hi Monghead,

'Goodwill' bottles are generally only offered as an alternative when either the bottle itself can't be retreived or the facts point clearly towards poor storage post sale. Even then we weigh up the individual circumstances. In the case of a bottle of corked Grange that was reported to me seven years post opening, I have to say I didn't offer a goodwill bottle at all, but we've also replaced bottles that have clearly suffered from poor cellaring - the circumstances can be different with every phone call.

Have we got it right 100% of the time? No, because we're making human decisions and weighing up individual circumstances and any number of constraints with every bottle. Am I committed to us trying to get it right 100% of the time and getting to the point where we're viewed as the 'not so bad guys'? Absolutely.

With a bit of assistance and discussion with consumers who contact us, it's usually not that difficult to come to an agreement that suits both - why don't you call me next time you get a dodgy bottle and put it to the test yourself? Hell, why don't you just call me and shoot the breeze..

Thanks Sparky, I'll be in touch but here's the story so far.

Saturday night the 1986 Grange with level still into the neck opens with a crumbly cork, the pieces go into the hosts bin. The wine is decanted and immediately poured by all at the table. It's clearly oxidised which is a huge disappontment because it was part of a bracket with 1986 HOG which was superb.

Both wines were purchased at released and had the same provenance. Another bottle of 1986 Grange from this same batch was excellent two years ago.

Diners all agree the wine is #$%@#$ and it's poured back into the bottle (about 85% full) and recorked with a 1990 Bin 707 cork that was at hand. The wine was so badly oxidised that I didn't think about retrieving the bits of cork at the time - I was at a fabulous dinner party after all!

Monday morning I ring Magill CD where it was purchased from and they couldn't handle my complaint transferring me to Chris (male) in Corporate Customer Relations in Melbourne. An unhelpful but pleasant exchange centreing around the fact I didn't have the cork. He was not interested in my bona fides which I thought might be important if they were fair dinkum about the complaint. The off the cuff "get rid of the complaint "quickly with a Bin 389 goodwill gesture" was a tad insulting. Whilst I realise we are talking a $500 bottle, I found myself less than impressed and determined to follow through.

I've dealt with dozens of faulty top shelf wines over the years and once establishing my bona fides have never received less than satisfactory, and often generous, outcomes with many small to quite large producers.

Monday night the diner hosts rumage through their rubbish and find the major parts of the cork, reconstruct it and send me the photo.

Tuesday I front at Magill CD with bottle and photo, they wash their hands of it so I get them to get Chris on the phone. I tell Chris what I've done and he gets them to send the bottle with photo to Nuriootpa. He says he will send me a self addressed prepaid package so I can forward the cork.

Friday the hosts drop in the cork but I still haven't received the package from Chris.

I'm still hopeful that a satisfactory and amicable outcome can be reached. I'll keep you all posted.

That's some precision work 707!

cheers

Carl

sparky wrote:Hi Monghead,

'Goodwill' bottles are generally only offered as an alternative when either the bottle itself can't be retreived or the facts point clearly towards poor storage post sale. Even then we weigh up the individual circumstances. In the case of a bottle of corked Grange that was reported to me seven years post opening, I have to say I didn't offer a goodwill bottle at all, but we've also replaced bottles that have clearly suffered from poor cellaring - the circumstances can be different with every phone call.

Have we got it right 100% of the time? No, because we're making human decisions and weighing up individual circumstances and any number of constraints with every bottle. Am I committed to us trying to get it right 100% of the time and getting to the point where we're viewed as the 'not so bad guys'? Absolutely.

With a bit of assistance and discussion with consumers who contact us, it's usually not that difficult to come to an agreement that suits both - why don't you call me next time you get a dodgy bottle and put it to the test yourself? Hell, why don't you just call me and shoot the breeze..

Fortunately Sparky, I have had no issues with upper end Penfolds bottles thus far. I have no qualms about the wines...

However, when I read 707's latest post, I am only struck by the impression that if he wasn't so persistent, all he would get is the bottle of 389, and even now, he is not even sure he will get even that. Having aired this on a wine forum, I believe he will get your "best replacement", whatever it may be. However, what if he was a less persistent or less knowledgeable consumer? From what I can see, he would be lucky with the 389...

The other issue Sparky, is that whilst you may have that attitude of striving to achieve the most equitable level of customer service, I suspect you are in the upper echelons of management, and clearly, your staff (eg this Chris dude 707 was dealing with) share none of this. Chris did not sound very helpful at all, and in fact, if I was dealing with someone like him, in the situation 707 is in, well, let's just sat I would not have been as PC as 707...

Monghead.

monghead wrote:Fortunately Sparky, I have had no issues with upper end Penfolds bottles thus far. I have no qualms about the wines...

However, when I read 707's latest post, I am only struck by the impression that if he wasn't so persistent, all he would get is the bottle of 389, and even now, he is not even sure he will get even that. Having aired this on a wine forum, I believe he will get your "best replacement", whatever it may be. However, what if he was a less persistent or less knowledgeable consumer? From what I can see, he would be lucky with the 389...

The other issue Sparky, is that whilst you may have that attitude of striving to achieve the most equitable level of customer service, I suspect you are in the upper echelons of management, and clearly, your staff (eg this Chris dude 707 was dealing with) share none of this. Chris did not sound very helpful at all, and in fact, if I was dealing with someone like him, in the situation 707 is in, well, let's just sat I would not have been as PC as 707...

Monghead.

With all due respect I have recently dealt with both sides of this, and to be honest I can see both points of view and will accordingly stick up for both. For everyone who's had a genuine gripe with Penfolds/Fosters or one of the smaller wineries, I can only imagine the amount of shit someone like Moira has to deal with - people who store things badly or even worse, tossers who buy dodgy, old bottles cheaply at auction, and who fully knowing the risk (lo and behold) find it to be oxidized, and expect an automatic replacement of exactly the same from the winery with no real purchase/storage history (and at at a greatly inflated cost/loss to the producer)...

Seriously guys, hang back and let Steve (and/or his associated party) sort it out with Sparky & Co at Battlestar Fosters before coming to conclusions. If people have a serious buying (and therefore cellaring history) with a winery they should be only too willing to supply the bottle, remaining contents & the cork (or as is the case, what's left of it) and if possible/necessary the purchase receipt - call me anal, but I've done it, and maybe not surprisingly I haven't had any queries/problems with anything I've returned (and I've established a reliable history with the wineries concerned for any future correspondence). Call me mean, but if they can't do these specific things (which would help substantiate their case from receipts and the physical matter that's left) maybe they should be grateful for what little they get.

That said, the genuine, loyal purchasers/fanatics who buy on release and carefully store their wines and expect the rewards from doing such (as they can expect from Penfolds promotions like ROP) should be protected and reimbursed for such a loss. Murray's case last year with the '86 Grange was pretty much a textbook case where everything was returned intact as per Fosters/Penfolds exact instructions, and at the same time a legitimate case/purchase history was established. IMO Penfolds/Fosters customer relations in that particular case (initially) cocked up pretty badly: it took a lot of pressure and negotiating to get the right result, but it eventually happened.

My 2c,
Ian

I'd like to thank Moira (aka Sparky on this forum) for promptly resolving my problem.

I can appreciate the chequered history many old bottles of Grange may have and I must say that the fact I was able to provide some solid proof of the provenance of my bottle certainly made what is, given the value of the bottle, a difficult situation for Penfolds/Fosters, easier to resolve.

After being able to establish the purchase details and subsequent satisfactory storage of our faulty bottle as well as the wine credentials of the diners at our function, Moira has been able to negotiate a very fair solution.

Thanks again Moira for all the work of yourself and your team at Fosters Customer Relations.

707 wrote:I'd like to thank Moira (aka Sparky on this forum) for promptly resolving my problem.

I can appreciate the chequered history many old bottles of Grange may have and I must say that the fact I was able to provide some solid proof of the provenance of my bottle certainly made what is, given the value of the bottle, a difficult situation for Penfolds/Fosters, easier to resolve.

After being able to establish the purchase details and subsequent satisfactory storage of our faulty bottle as well as the wine credentials of the diners at our function, Moira has been able to negotiate a very fair solution.

Thanks again Moira for all the work of yourself and your team at Fosters Customer Relations.

Do you mind me asking 707, what this "very fair solution" is?

Cheers,

monghead.

Nice one Moira. Great to have someone like you on the forum......

Cheers


Mike

Mike Hawkins wrote:Nice one Moira. Great to have someone like you on the forum......

Cheers


Mike

I think Fosters would be happy also that Moira's presence here stops this sort of thing turning into a 10 page thread on Fosters and Penfolds poor customer service. Instead it has demonstrated customer service is alive and well and Fosters/Penfolds reputation untarnished as a result. Good Job.

IF someone has proof of original purchase and a bottle is clearly TCA affected, which is confirmed by the panel, does perfection of storage come into it?

Hello

Good question.

However, in this case it was not corked, not TCA. It was a very poor cork, causing premature oxidisation. As such, storage is relevant.

It seems, with Sparky's help, a good result has been achieved.

Well done 707 (Now when do we diners all share in the 'good result ... ?? Gary, come on! )

and

well done Fosters.

JG wrote:IF someone has proof of original purchase and a bottle is clearly TCA affected, which is confirmed by the panel, does perfection of storage come into it?

TCA is a "manufacturing" or "production" fault quite different from (premature) oxidation caused by cork failure (as in this case). In theory, if the wine had been stored over the fridge in the hot kitchen for 10 years and was clearly TCA affected then the storage conditions are irrelevant.
But the producer might be less inclined to think you deserve a replacement if you tell them you treated the fruit of their hard labour so badly, you could argue that if it wasn't corked it would be dead anyway.

JG wrote:IF someone has proof of original purchase and a bottle is clearly TCA affected, which is confirmed by the panel, does perfection of storage come into it?

JG, in my book corked is corked is corked and storage is irrelevant. All we ask is that you keep the evidence including the original cork. If you've got the bottle, that's probably good enough proof that you've bought or stolen the bottle from somewhere.

Put the bottle in the fridge and call us as soon as possible. That means preferable the next day, not the week after and definitely not a month after.

Did I mention call us as soon as possible? The number is 1300 651 650 for locals, and for Craig(NZ) it's 0800 651 650. Any time. We're open 24/7. And no, you will never speak to someone on the subcontinent.

And thanks for the feedback from all - it's genuinely appreciated.

Thanks for that. Appreciate storage is an issue with oxidation.
Just wanted confirmation that corked = corked regardless of storage.