The Auswine Forum

A very generous board Grandee is hosting a dinner here in Melbourne on Friday and is supplying all the wines below. I'm sure its going to be a trip down memory lane for a lot of us - I owned a few of the wines in the past - but its unlikely to be a drunken afair as there are just too many wonderful wines to drink in 1 go.

Tasting notes to follow, but I thought I'd get the excitement started. Particularly looking forward to the Magill and the St Henri flights. Wine of the night I presume will be the 98 389, but who can tell - I'm expecting the 707's to still be too young.

2016 Bin 311 Chardonnay.
2016 Bin 16A Reserve Chardonnay.
2016 Bin 144 Yattarna Chardonnay.

1998 Magill Estate Shiraz.
1999 Magill Estate Shiraz.
2004 Magill Estate Shiraz.

1998 RWT Shiraz.
1999 RWT Shiraz.
2004 RWT Shiraz.

1976 St Henri.
1986 St Henri.
1990 St Henri.

1986 Bin 389.
1990 Bin 389.
1991 Bin 389.

1996 St Henri.
2002 St Henri.
2004 St Henri.

1996 Bin 389.
1998 Bin 389.
2002 Bin 389.

1996 Bin 707.
1998 Bin 707.
1999 Bin 707.

1976 Vintage Port.

Looking at the list, and having had nearly all the reds in the past, I think the 98 bin 389 would struggle to make my top 10.

I'd peg the '98 707 as wine of the night.

I’d pick the 96 389 over the 98!
But neither in the top echelon, I’d expect (although to be fair the 96 389 is quite the dark horse)

I last had them 98 389 4 years ago and it was the best Auz Red I had had in years and a friend called it the best Red he had ever drunk. I drank the 91 around the same time and it was good, but more in an aged style. My guess is that we got the 98 at the peak of its primal powers. The puppy fat had fallen away and it was in that sweet spot where the fruit really shines before age and secondary nuances start to develop. If it’s become more serious now, then yes, others will definetly be better, but if it’s still in that same phase it will be glorious. Either way, it’s a good way to get the debate started

Mike Hawkins wrote:Looking at the list, and having had nearly all the reds in the past, I think the 98 bin 389 would struggle to make my top 10.

I'd agree. And I'd expect the 90 and 96 Bin 389 to trump the 98!

I reckon the two brackets of older St Henri and older Bin 389s will be be damn good.

I also agree that the 1998 Bin 389 is not going to be in the top ten

Brodie

for me (not in any order)

the Vintage Port
Magill Estate
70's & 80's
Bin A vs Yattarna

Most fascinating for me is that there is a representation
of the past 3 Penfold's chief winemakers

1986 was Don Ditters final year
Duval was 87 - 01
Gago is 02 +

if it's in good shape, the 76 St Henri in a canter.
otherwise, the 96 or 98 707.

Think there's 15-16 reds in that list ahead of the 98 389. I have 2 of the Magill's and apart from tasting quite a few of the St Henri and a couple of the 707s...it's the Magill's that hold the most interest for me.
Cheers Craig

Calm your excitement lads, unless there are multiple backup bottles, 20%+ will be corked.

Haha, of course I hope they all show well. Had a 96 707 a month or two back, was excellent, just in the happy zone I reckon, but no hurry obviously. 98 707 prob still too much coconut oak, not a fan of that profile these days, but do have a soft spot for that 98 707 as that was the wine that got me hooked into all things vinous back on release.

Agree with felix, 76 St Henri (if in good condition) my pick for WOTN, although may be lacking primary fruit for some, so I'll put the 96 707 as equal favourite. 96 389 also a lovely wine.

Enjoy and look forward to the notes!

Personally we like a bottle of champagne half way through all the reds to freshen up the palate.

Cheers
Tim

P.S typo in the heading!

I've come to learn from these sort of tastings where you know the wines you'll be tasting beforehand, is that what you expect to be the best and what actually shows the best on the night are usually different. That said, I'm expecting the 76 St Henri to be my WOTN. I like 'em older and our host has a knack for putting on older wines that are in great condition (e.g. 76 Wynns Black Label).

Very generous host indeed, should be great!

I'd be looking forward to the older St Henri bracket for sure. And the older 389 bracket. And the 707 bracket as I've not tried one!

I served 1986, 1990, and 1996 St Henri at a birthday dinner a couple years back, and they were all above any '98 Bin 389 I've had. Never loved the 98, but you must have got a special one mychurch.

Will

More detailed notes to follow but a few observations

- the Magill, St Henri and RWT produced some great wines
- Bin 389 went down like a lead balloon
- 2 of the 3 707 were corked
- 2004 Penfolds Reds should be avoided
- John Duval Made good wines for his time, but that time has gone and now the the oak sticks out like a sore thumb.
- the top Chardonnays are great, but lack a sense of place

Wine of the night was a tie between the 76 and 90 St Henri.

98 389 was in the he top 10, at least for me.

So that was a fun evening, even if it did end a little bit on a down note. Expectations are always high when tasting supposedly great wines from top vintages, but as we all know, there are no great wines, just great bottles.

I'm not going to review every wine and instead here is a summary of each flight


Fight 1: 2016 Premium Chardonnays
The 311 (3*) is a good everyday chardonnay, but it’s not at the premium level and was outclassed here. The Yattarna (4*)was round, soft and cuddly. The oak was there, but it’s not over the top, and it’s clearly a wine that will age longer. Not my style though and definitely not good QPR. Wine of flight was the 16A(4*) with some matchstick, pineapple, white grapefruit, minerality and higher acid. Always liked the A series, even if they dont come with a sense of place.

Flight 2: Magill Estate 98, 99, 04
It became clear on the night that the 04(2*)wines had problems - all were showing faults. This was dominated by prunes and nail varnish. Not drunk. The 99(4*) and 98(4*) were a lovely pair, with the 98 having more structure and secondary development, with iodine and red fruits. The 99 was more intense, with liquorice and deep fruit, again in the red berry spectrum. Will go on. Been while since I have drunk a Magill, and it was like visiting a long lost friend. Yum.

Flight 3: RWT 98, 99, 04
The 98(3.5*) had a very smoky nose and seemed a bit overdone. There was good fruit, but the acidity was too low and it was just a bit gloopy and flat for me. Maybe it would have shone on its own. The 99(4*) had a killer nose, probably due to a hint of Bret. Lots of red fruit, wet earth and pebbles, very round. Yum. There was noticeable alcohol on the nose of the 04 (3.5*). This is much bigger and still had some tannin. It’s a souped version of the previous 2, that just about pulls it off. Quite a divisive wine though and quite a bit was poured away.

Flight 4: St. Henri 76, 86, 90
The 76(4*) shows it’s age with plenty of forrest floor on the nose. In the mouth it’s wow, with some bret, cinnamon and a slightly sweaty feel. Almost crunchy due to the acidity. Complex and I actually gave it 5* on first sip. Coming back to it after the next 2 though I downgraded it - the highlight here is that it was the only wine of the night actually showing its age, The 90 (4.5*) was the wine of the day. Still young, this was in an unoaked Rhone style, with fruit bomb nose and effortless fruit. In a great place, but with plenty still to come. Yum. Buy if you see it. The 86 (4*) sits between the 2. Some tomato leaf from the cab, jammy berry fruit, good balance. Will probably improve (if old is your thing), but its probably time to drink up. FANTASTIC flight.

Flight 5: Bin 389 86, 90, 91
If oak is not your thing, take a 1* off each ratings. I was going to say that these wines divided opinion, but actually thats not true. The majority opinion was that they were suffering from too much oak. I could taste it as well, but I think that that was a sign of what was fashionable at the time and as I loved that style then, I'm not going to be too critical now. All 3 bottles had a few glasses in them at the end of the evening and I have taken them home to see if maybe another 24 hours helps.

The 90(4*) had a young colour and warm inviting nose. Cab dominates and this is smooth and open, with dark fruits and some coconut oak. Tomato leaf and paprika come through at the end of the night. The 91(4*) has more cassis and also more oaky vanilla. It’s smooth, but needs more time. The 86(3*) is past it’s peak. Intensity is less and the red fruit is muted and hidden by the wood. Drys out over the evening.

Flight 6: Saint Henri 96, 02, 04
The 02 (3.5*) was the highlight here. It’s still very young and needs another 5 to 10 years. Plenty of red fruit, some vanilla, noticeable tannin. From a cooler year. Good, but modern and not in the class of the earlier flight. The 04 (2.5*) was from a hot year and the nose is all wrong: green veg and VA. Hard in the mouth, stone and pebbles. Very different to the others and in a bad place comparatively. The 96 (2*) was faulty - notes mention oxidation, but I have a feeling it was actually corked. A disappointing flight.

Flight 7; Bin 389 96, 98, 02
As with the first 389 flight, these did not go down well and was judged the lesser of the 2 flights. Again oak was an issue and if you are sensitve then either avoid or keep for a while in the hope that it all integrates.
My favorite 98(3.5*) was not like the bottle I drank with Brad a few years ago, but it’s still good. There was lots of cassis and coconut, but also some savoury red fruit. Big, but in need of time. The 02 (2*) was dominated by acetone and alcohol. Too big and just not fun. The 96 (2*) had some oxidation on the nose, which did add some complexity, but it was faulty. Another disappointing flight, but not the worst of the day.

Flight 8: Bin 707, 96, 98, 99
After this flight coffee was served and there was tired, down feeling around the table. With its stratospheric current price and its reputation I think we were all hoping for fireworks here and I imagine most of us can recall great examples from the past ( the 86 and 90 for me). This was the worst flight of the day for the simple reason that the 96 (1*) and 98(1*) were corked - even cork insensitive me noticed it. That left the 99 (3.5*). This is the final vintage of 707 that I bought and I remember trying it and finding it "very young and primary". Not much has changed as this time I wrote down "young and needs some time". It’s better now, with a great structure, but it will need another 10+ years. Will age well, but who wants to pay the price for the current vintages ?

Flight 9:1976 Penfolds Vintage Port (3.5*)
Good VP and a fun way to end a tasting that ended up with quite a few disappointments. Lots of spirit, big Shiraz fruit, long. Yum

Conclusion
Only 1 of these wines, the 45 years old St Henri, was showing the characteristics of an old wine and this tasting is proof again that Penfolds top reds can age for a long time. Stylistically, the lighter Magill and St Henri were preffered, but maybe that was more to do with the winemakers than anything else. Having tried a few of these right back at the start of the 90's and 00's, I could not recognise the roots of the wines i tasted then in the wines we drank tonight. Thats important as it shows that the wines do change in the bottle. That raises questions of course as to the current vintages. Even if I want to spend $100 on a current 389, what is it going to end up like in 20 years time ? How well will the Gado wines age ? All speculation, as I think we all agree with the premise that there are better wines out there for the money.

Thanks again to Con for supplying the wines. L

ocation for the tasting was the upstairs room at Scopri in Carlton and the food was a great match for the wine. Worth a visit.

Seems a poor showing overall.

Trade tastings with wine journalists always seem to get better write ups than ours. What was the provenance like? Auction buys? I guess anything not right just gets withdrawn at a Penfolds hosted event or the like.

Perhaps the critics are less critical than us punters...?

Always a massive cork lottery, even if the wines were all bought on release and well cellared. i have heard anecdotal reports of multiple backup wines needing to be opened at the Penfolds Rewards tastings just to get a sound bottle of that particular wine. And of course this is not at all specific to Penfolds, just that they are often stored longer and hence these things get more noticeable at tastings like these.

Real pity that the 707 96 and 98 were corked, but for my tastes these days, the notes are consistent with a wine style that most definitely has high quality moments of aged glory (Bin 90a comes to mind), but all too often disappoints, and for the older wines it's not usually a result of the winemaking skill, more the vagarities of that random bit of tree bark trying to keep it alive for decades.

Must add that I'm personally not convinced that the modern era of Penfolds will age as well as previous decades either, perhaps best drunk younger..? Riper and riper and that charry oak note does not equal good long term aging prospects in my humble opinion.

At least the 76 St H was good!!! Happy with that Cork and storage permitting, no doubt old Penfolds is the best Penfolds, and they can really deliver.

Cheers
Tim

P.S And yes Ian, the critics want to retain their spot at each years prestigious release tasting events so it's hard to believe there is always total impartiality...

So I took home the remains of the 86,90,91 and 98 389 home to try again tonight. The 90 is a really good wine and has blossomed overnight. I think drinking a glass over a longer period helps - it’s very intense and complex and it needs more time. For me the oak has gone down a bit - same for the 91 and 98. The 86 is also a bit better, although it is the least of the 4 wines. Would have been interesting to see how the troublesome 04’s faired 24 hours later.

mychurch wrote:So I took home the remains of the 86,90,91 and 98 389 home to try again tonight. The 90 is a really good wine and has blossomed overnight. I think drinking a glass over a longer period helps - it’s very intense and complex and it needs more time. For me the oak has gone down a bit - same for the 91 and 98. The 86 is also a bit better, although it is the least of the 4 wines. Would have been interesting to see how the troublesome 04’s faired 24 hours later.

Fast learner!

I’ve been organising and participating in weekly tasting events for 20 years and started doing similar at about the ten year mark! Wow! Quickly learned some of the limitations of a snapshot tasting of a wine. Also the brutality of blind tasting which although a skill worth developing, to be honest, I would be happy if I never blind tasted again in my lifetime .

Sometimes you will the impossible - took home a Giuseppe Quintarelli Amarone once, hoping the fault would blow off. It was at the start obviously the most corked wine in history. Totally undrinkable to the unfussy.

Critics a deeper discussion. Especially considering release ratings and what unfolds to the punter with age- rarely do you see the commonality of high release points extend toward maturity and similar ratings from the buyers. Sometimes I wonder if critics tell a story of something that’s not in the glass when attending these events-a poetic license of sorts!

Had a '96 Bin 389 alongside a '96 Bin 707 side by side earlier this year with a mate. Both stored in temperature controlled cellars since release. Stylistically very similar, and no cork taint or excessive oxidation that we could detect- basically both in very good condition.
The 389 was clearly superior simply due to the fact that the oak in the 707 was pretty excessive. Far from the worst example, but alongside the 389, which was beautifully balanced and a superb wine in every way. Maybe more time would sort this, but I'm not so sure. The price differential on release wasn't the 500% that it is now. I don't buy much Penfolds at all these days, but 707 will not ever make it back onto my buying list at current prices!

mychurch wrote:So that was a fun evening, even if it did end a little bit on a down note. Expectations are always high when tasting supposedly great wines from top vintages, but as we all know, there are no great wines, just great bottles.

Conclusion
Only 1 of these wines, the 45 years old St Henri, was showing the characteristics of an old wine and this tasting is proof again that Penfolds top reds can age for a long time. Stylistically, the lighter Magill and St Henri were preferred, but maybe that was more to do with the winemakers than anything else. Having tried a few of these right back at the start of the 90's and 00's, I could not recognise the roots of the wines i tasted then in the wines we drank tonight. Thats important as it shows that the wines do change in the bottle. That raises questions of course as to the current vintages. Even if I want to spend $100 on a current 389, what is it going to end up like in 20 years time ? How well will the Gago wines age ? All speculation, as I think we all agree with the premise that there are better wines out there for the money.

Thanks again to Con for supplying the wines.

Thanks for the write up, lots of interesting comments here. I have also noted the slow evolution of many Penfolds reds. Had the 1990 Grange and 389 side by side last October, both had plenty in the tank. The Grange was at least 10 years away from being ready for my taste, the 389 was closer. Not surprised the older St Henri showed very well. A lovely restrained wine and not as big as the 389 / 797 / Grange "lots of everything" style.

As others have noted, when wine journos go to tasting like this; I would not be surprised if the hosts are screening lots of bottles in advance to make sure the wines show their best.

Also agree with Jamie that these large tastings are not always the best way to allow older wines to shine.

cheers Brodie

No surprises, unfortunately.
Penfolds post the 70's or era of Max Schubert pretty much a mess, no different to Wynns.
The wines continue to be horribly over-rated by the critics, with the reason being a different (and rather sinister) story.

I would contend the micromanagement of undoubted great vineyards is below par, and to be honest, they haven't had a gold star chief winemaker since ol' Maxie.

The 96 Bin 389 still seems to get lots of plaudits, I still have a dozen or so in my cellar, which nobody ever pulls to drink.... sorry, but it just isn't very good IMO and everyone i know's opinion.

Having been a member of Australia's premier golf club for more than thirty years, it very often occurs to me that Penfolds post-Schubert is so, so similar to my golf courses post-Crockford

Bold comments!

FWIW for my own palate, I suspect I am nearer to your viewpoint than I am to the Aussie critics.

However I'm not sure I'd say the wine are below par / not very good, but merely made in a style, with a great focus on that style, and where that style doesn't align very well to my tastes. I certainly enjoyed their wines in the late 1980s / early 1990s, but perhaps I had different tastes back then? Certainly the old Bin 2 Shiraz Mourvedre when still in the Rhone shaped bottle was stunningly good value to my tastes back then, at the princely sum of £3 a bottle!

I'd certainly defend Wynns more vigorously, though only the cabernet sauvignon wines (and perhaps the cab-shiraz, though it might be 15-20 years since I've drunk the red stripe label)

I think it is a bit harsh to say that Penfold's has not had a "gold star" chief winemaker" since Max Schubert. I've tasted John Duval's wines and they were very much to my liking. Perhaps it might be more accurate to say that as chief winemaker inheriting the mantle Duval perforce had to maintain the Penfold's style of wine making.

When I had the 2004 St Henri at about 10 years of age I thought it was one of the biggest wine disappointments I have had.

I think felix is a bit harsh, but only a little. I think Duval was pretty good.
I'd love to see production level of all the labels over the last 30 years.
I reckon they've just spread the good fruit too thin. And probably not the winemaker's fault entirely.
And I don't think they've made a red wine with less than 14.5% labelled alcohol (OK, one or two @ 14%) for twenty years.

As for Wynns, the potential definitely wasn't realised from at least 92-02, I'd certainly agree there.

Thanks Cam for the great write up and summed it up well I think.
Overall it was still an interesting night, my WOTN was the 1990 St Henri.

As for provenance most if not all bottles from 1999 on were bought on release and stored at Kennards. 2006 was the last vintage I purchased.
Very disappointed with the BIN707’s but cork issues are just that.

I’ve definitely had better 96 and 98 BIN389’s in the past but I think suffered a bit from the previous brackets, as others have said it’s a style issue rather than quality. Agree with the good fruit being spread out more than it used to be.

Cheers Con.

Will replacements be sought from Penfolds for the corked wines?

Sometimes I think Felix is a troll. I understand what he is saying but he likes to make it out to be black and white. I agree the style changed for the worse but to argue that every single wine made after Max Schubert retired is shit seems a little hyperbolic. Maybe is just me!