The Auswine Forum

I have enjoyed and learned from many Penfold's wines and probably will continue to do so , however today I had the misfortune to buy and try the 2002 Penfold's Koonunga Hill Shiraz. It only costs $11.

Admirably sealed by stelvin - but enough time has passed for just the seal to impress me.

With the good 1996 and 1998 Koonunga Hills Shiraz-Cabernets' still fresh in my mind ( the 1998 being the better wine with lovely fennel notes ) this so called 2002 Koonunga Hill Shiraz was pretty much a disgrace. Why ?

Well the nose had that depressing bubblegum/hairdressers salon nose that one expects of cask/bladder pack wine. It also had none of the real oak that I'd come to expect from Koonunga Hill - even if it only costs about $10. Comparing this to the 1996/98 KH's made me think of the difference between watery supermarket chicken versus nice free range Kangaroo Island Chooks ! No comparison. This wine has young vines and god knows what modern techniques probably applied to it to bring it up to its 14% alcohol full-bodiedness.

I cannot see why this is labelled Koonunga Hill. I don't mind Penfold's wanting to make a wine like this - they should just call it something else - perhaps name it after one of the chaps who almost sent Southcorp broke in recent years perhaps........

Pelican
Is it more comparable to the equivalent Rosemount offerings, than it's Penfolds lineage?
Ian

It's funny to read your post, I had a bottle of the 96 with dinner last night and was stunned to revisit such a quality affordable wine.

I guess it seems to me that Southcorp is committed to preserving this product at the same pricepoint. It must become more and more expensive to do so neccessitating a drop in quality. It seems to become closer and closer to the Rawsons Retreat range with every vintage.

These days I tend to prefer to drink nice beer in preference to cheap wines.

DaveL wrote:These days I tend to prefer to drink nice beer in preference to cheap wines.

Ahmen to that !!

It's interesting to hear of James Halliday's references to the quality of Koonunga Hill being maintained despite the cost cutting measures from the Rosemount merger.

Speak to a few Penfolds employees and they will openly tell you that's complete rubbish, and the latest vintages are testament to that. It's now a quaffing style than a cheapie you can genuinely cellar, and it's well known the 1998 was the last vintage you could send to the dungeon.

James still refers to the 300 barrels being used for maturation - but increases in volume has resulted first in oak planks, and now oak shavings being used to supplement the barrels. As for the fruit selection...

Cheers
Ian

Pelican wrote:I have enjoyed and learned from many Penfold's wines and probably will continue to do so , however today I had the misfortune to buy and try the 2002 Penfold's Koonunga Hill Shiraz. It only costs $11.

Admirably sealed by stelvin - but enough time has passed for just the seal to impress me.

With the good 1996 and 1998 Koonunga Hills Shiraz-Cabernets' still fresh in my mind ( the 1998 being the better wine with lovely fennel notes ) this so called 2002 Koonunga Hill Shiraz was pretty much a disgrace. Why ?

...

I cannot see why this is labelled Koonunga Hill. I don't mind Penfold's wanting to make a wine like this - they should just call it something else - perhaps name it after one of the chaps who almost sent Southcorp broke in recent years perhaps........

Koonunga Hill is now just a cheap brand in my opinion. Once upon a time you would buy a Koonunga Hill red - there was only one each year and you would know what to expect. Now they have Shiraz, Shiraz Cab, Cabernet Merlot, Merlot??, Chardonnay, Semillon and Semillon Sauvignon Blanc. It is made to a price point and is nowhere reflective of its former glory, screwcap or not.

I think the Thomas Hardy 2002 Shiraz, which sits above the Koonunga Hill line now and is a vast improvement on the 2001, offers much better drinking.

Cheers,
Sue

Makes you wonder, given the proliferation of the KH 'brand', whether Rawson's Retreat will get the chop... At some point cheap labels fail to live off Grange's reflected glory but rather begin to damage the parent brand itself. I'm no marketing guru, but I don't see how it benefits the Penfolds name or reputation to have a swill-like red wine mixing it with the cheapies and offering no more than they do.

cheers,
Graeme

'tis a great shame indeed, and from such a good vintage too. What's the bet that the grapes are out of nice irrigrated land like the Riverlands ?

The great shame is that this was once a gem, and it's not just the 96's and 98's ... At the 1986 Penfolds horizontal, the three standouts were Grange, Bin 389 (which is an outstanding drop I can confirm) and yes, Koonunga Hill. This is no mean feat considering it was also lined up against an exceptional St Henri (my pick, but anyway that's another story...), Magill Estate, Bin 707 not to mention the other supposedly superior Bin series ... What a disappointment.

Going down a level, Rawson's Retreat used to be reliable enough (hardly complex or dense, but good enough for (say) a party wine), but this too has gone to the dogs. The Rawson's Retreat Merlot 2003 (it was all there was to drink) is hands down the WORST wine I have tasted in the past 12 months. This includes the loss of a best which required me to drink Queen Adelaide ... Don't go there girlfriend.

Surely none of this can be good for Penfolds on an international standing ?

But really, why would we even bother with Koonunga Hill when there are such good quaffers out there that WILL cellar (Seppelt Shiraz 2002 amongst many others) ?

SueNZ wrote:I think the Thomas Hardy 2002 Shiraz, which sits above the Koonunga Hill line now and is a vast improvement on the 2001, offers much better drinking.

Cheers,
Sue

I assume you mean Thomas Hyland ... "Thomas Hardy" sits a long way above Koonunga Hill. For the record I think this is where all the Koonunga Hill grapes went.

I happened to have seen an advert of the KH Shi*raz in todays SMH. It talked about the wines ability to "cellar."

FatBoy wrote:

SueNZ wrote:I think the Thomas Hardy 2002 Shiraz, which sits above the Koonunga Hill line now and is a vast improvement on the 2001, offers much better drinking.

Cheers,
Sue

I assume you mean Thomas Hyland ... "Thomas Hardy" sits a long way above Koonunga Hill. For the record I think this is where all the Koonunga Hill grapes went.

That's exactly what I meant - Penfolds Thomas Hyland Shiraz, slight slip-up on the brain factor there. Why do wines have such similar sounding names? Thanks for pointing out the error in my ways.

FatBoy wrote:
The great shame is that this was once a gem, and it's not just the 96's and 98's ... At the 1986 Penfolds horizontal, the three standouts were Grange, Bin 389 (which is an outstanding drop I can confirm) and yes, Koonunga Hill. This is no mean feat considering it was also lined up against an exceptional St Henri (my pick, but anyway that's another story...), Magill Estate, Bin 707 not to mention the other supposedly superior Bin series ... What a disappointment.

I had a Koonunga Hill 1986 recently, bought at auction a few years ago for the princely sum of $12 - a bargain for such an amazing wine. I don't think anyone else at the auction realised what a great vintage this was for this wine. What was the 1986 Bin 28 like? It was highly lauded in its day.