The Auswine Forum

(I'm putting this up on my eBlog, but it will probably get (deserves!) more exposure here)

Seventy Percent of Australian Wines Do Not Make The Grade, According to Robert Parker, Jr.
In his comments on Australian wine under the title Australia: Thunder From Down Under Robert Parker Jr. notes in Issue #155 of The Wine Advocate that 70% of the wines he tasted “did not make the grade”. The reasons listed were

1) “to much American oak obliterating any fruit or charm,
2) chemistry class wines with so much added acidity they were undrinkable because of tart, clipped, and shrill personalities, and
3) industrial, diluted, manufactured wines of no depth, character, or soul”.

The winery that bore the brunt of this verbal assault was Penfolds. Parker declined to recommend the 2002 Riesling Reserve Bin, 2001 Bin 407, 2000 St Henri, 2001 Bin 389 and Bin 128 “because their acid levels were beyond acceptable ranges (for my palate)”. In reference to the 2001 Chardonnay Yattarna, Penfolds wine makers were accused of producing “muted, acidified, industrial, wine selling at an absurd price”. Penfolds winemakers were described as “oenologists connecting the dots and making wines by the numbers”. The wines that were reviewed, 2001 RWT, Magill, and Bin 707 were also roundly criticized as overly acidic and all received 87 points. Only the 1999 Grange scored above the magical 90 points.

Is Parker correct in his assessment? What do others say of the Penfolds line-up? Wine Spectator gave the 2001 Yattarna a 93, the 2001 RWT a 94, the 2001 Magill a 91, the Bin 707 a 91, the 2000 St Henri a 91, the Bin 389 a 88, the Bin 128 a 89, and the Bin 407 a 87. Now, of course the tired old argument will go up that Wine Spectator always gives higher points than Parker. But that is easily countered by a simple comparison of the numbers. The Kalleske 2002 shiraz received 88 from WS, but 96 from WA, 2002 Clarendon Hill Liandra Syrah received 89 from WS and 93 from WA, 2002 Mitolo Shiraz Jester received 85 from WS and 90 from WA, 2002 HenryÂ’s Drive Shiraz received 88 from WS and 93 from WA. Oh, you want more! OK, how about DÂ’Arenberg 2002 Galvo Garage 82 versus 91, 2002 Sticks and Stones 83 versus 93, 2002 Ironstone Pressings 87 versus 93+.

I could do this all day, but I think the point is made. There are differences in palate preference between the two publications, and thatÂ’s why the numbers differ. What is more to the point is that the Wine Spectator tasting notes (Sept 30, 2004) on the Bin 707, RWT, Magill, and St Henri, do not mention excessive acidity. Ric Einstein, who has been tasting Australian red wine for so long that he no longer sees white, recently assessed many of the Penfolds wines and did not come away complaining of overly acidic wines. Having tasted the 2001 RWT myself, I can only echo his assessment of this excellent wine.

So where do these divergent opinions leave the rest of the wine world? Well, the next time you are in your local wine shop and you see those lonely bottles of Penfolds wines that have been relegated to the corner of the store, walk on over and pick one or two up and take them home. You make the decision whether they have any depth, character or soul.

Mike

Mike,

Interesting comments, thanks for posting them. I guess Parker is talking about acid and not added TA. In 2001, the wines were very ripe and many I have tried have little noticeable acid. However, many of the 02's tried have very noticeable acid but that was a vintage characteristic and very few winemakers had to adjust acid in 02.

I have just checked my original Tasting note sheets on the Penfolds wines and the acid comment for each wine is as follows:-

00 St Henri - Refreshing
01 Magill - Balanced
01 RWT - Balanced
01 707 - Balanced and "unobtrusive" has been written in by hand

Given that a lot of 02's have a higher (than in the past level) of acid, then I am not surprised that Parker thinks that 70% of them have too much. That does not mean that I think he is right.

Mike, let's go back a way. Despite the hype and anticipation and some good press, I found the Penfolds 1998 Bin range to be quite underwhelming. Subsequent releases and higher prices have meant Penfolds have dropped off my buying radar ever since.

I always put their new releases in my blind tastings but almost without exception they finish no better than mid field amonst price peers.

The gap left in my cellar has been filled by a host of small makers who IMO make far more interesting wines with individual personalities.

Now whether the Great One is correct in his acid opinion I'm not sure but I think he may not find corporate winemaking any more appealing than I now do.

More power to the garage boys.

707 wrote:Mike, let's go back a way. Despite the hype and anticipation and some good press, I found the Penfolds 1998 Bin range to be quite underwhelming. Subsequent releases and higher prices have meant Penfolds have dropped off my buying radar ever since.

I always put their new releases in my blind tastings but almost without exception they finish no better than mid field amonst price peers.

The gap left in my cellar has been filled by a host of small makers who IMO make far more interesting wines with individual personalities.

Now whether the Great One is correct in his acid opinion I'm not sure but I think he may not find corporate winemaking any more appealing than I now do.

More power to the garage boys.

Steve: In some respects I agree with you. I was for many years a big fan of Bin 389, and still buy the occasional bottle, but tasting it blind even against others in the Penfolds line I had to finally admit that I was living in the world of "poor mans Grange" rather than critical wine evaluation.

Given the number of wines that Parker tastes and his particular preferences it is to be expected that he (or anyone) would end up recommending only a certain percentage of wines. Also the tremendous increase in the number of Aussie wines available means that some wines that were outstanding may well fall into the above average to very good range, or even below. However what needs to be made clear, again and again, is that the Wine Advocate represents the opinion of one individual (at least in terms of the Australian Tasting) and there is no reason to assume that he, or anyone else, has the final word on a wine, or that their assessments possess some sort of infallible correctness. Those of us who have ever done a truly blind tasting know this. However unlike you and me Parker knows he has Penfolds wines in front of him. I donÂ’t believe that it is coincidence that the four wines rated just happen to be the top four wines in the red wine portfolio, or that the unrated reds are the lesser wines.

Mike

Just a small point.

As an active retailer I try a lot of wines, from the big four/five, through to more than most people with boutique wines.

The success rate, that is those I'm keen to stock and promote is probably no more than about 30-40%, similar to the 'Bob'.

The others are usually sound well made wines without much interest, or poorly made wines, or decent wines wayyy over priced.

I think he's probably right in terms of wines that are 'reviewable' or in my case saleable to my market.

I do try very few 'undrinkable' wines, but very many uninteressting wines.

I imagine his success rate from France or Spain or the USA would be similar??

That's just a long distance guess though.

Gavin Trott wrote:Just a small point.

As an active retailer I try a lot of wines, from the big four/five, through to more than most people with boutique wines.

The success rate, that is those I'm keen to stock and promote is probably no more than about 30-40%, similar to the 'Bob'.

Gavin: I'd agree (see above) although I'd bet your 30-40% would be different from the Bob, or TORB's, or you name the individual.

Question is (and I realise that Penfolds would be unlikely to allow it) but given the choice how many of their overly acidic range would you prefer to carry?

Mike

San Diego review of Penfolds wines without the a word. I donÂ’t know Robert Whitely but he does review regularly for the SD Union Tribune. Anyway IÂ’m off to see if the 2000 St Henri has finally made it to my local wine shop.

Mike

Frankly - that is mt parker's take but:-

2000 St Henri: I am a fan of this genre but have no hesitation in decrying the 2000 as one of the worst St Henris on record (and I have tasted over 40 vintages - and more than 30 on release!). I also criticised the fruit on this one and was disappointed.

2001 Magill: overpriced and disappointing in terms of the really good magills (cf 1998)

2001 RWT: ripper of a young wine with all the potential for a very good shiraz in the Penfolds mode - but not the price.

I was disappointed in the bin range from 2001 which used to be great value, and I have the profound impression that "peter has been robbed to pay PauL through the range - although the 389 was OK and the 28 acceptable (whereas the 128 was not), but none seemed worth a buy - although a recent special is tempting me on the bin28. Again I have tasted these wines for many vintages both on release and aged (my 86 bin 28 is finsihed alas, but the 90 bin 28 is very good, the 91 bin 128 excellent, and the 96 bin 389 will be superb in the same mould but less grippy than the 71). My tastes have not changed - the wines have (and don't even start me on what they did to Koonunga Hill).

I can calibrate to Mr Parker's palate - and even agree with him on much Bordeaux, but disagree with his take on most Oz wines:-

I am neither a huge fan of many of the Barossa makers whom he loves, nor their style of upfront wine - and in a couple of cases completely over-the -top to my tastes. However Parker has a very consistent palate, which is a virtue in itself as a critic to allow calibration (whether you agree or not). I can appreciate a well-made wine in a particular style - and in some cases take issue with RP even on this:- almost the only Barossa CS I like and buy is the Dorrien (note on how out of touch I am with the common touch as Southmount determine to discontinue the winelabel!) while I far prefer a couple of good vintages of Glaetzer shiraz to their somewhat confected Aamon Ra, and ahppen to believe that the 98 Glaetzer will age far better than any Aamon Ra to date.

As for the "numbers idiocy" which is rampant for so many....puhhlease.

So long as there is wine I like at a reasonable price, why should I care if others don't?
The answer is the first part of the putative syllogism: if there are not enough others who like it the producer either changes his style of goes out of business; if too many others like it they raise the price as the demand is too high......

Keep drinking...

fred

Whilst Penfolds have made and continue to make some very good wine, there is much inconsistency in content, both label to label, year in year out across the range (even aside vintage variation).

I find the consistency of what I expect in their wine by label and by style not to be there as often as it used to be (and should be) and this leads to disappointment and frustration especially considering the price factor.

If you make it too hard or complex or uncertain for the punter, invariably they look elsewhere and at the moment, there is plenty of elsewhere.

Neville Nessuno wrote:Whilst Penfolds have made and continue to make some very good wine, there is much inconsistency in content, both label to label, year in year out across the range (even aside vintage variation).

I imagine that with the tremendous turnover in winemaking staff in recent years, together with the vast pool of vineyards & contracts courtesy of the Rosemount fiasco, variation within labels is only going to increase. Doubtless the more widely blended the wines (see 389) the greater the variation will be.

cheers,
Graeme

I know we have mentioned it before, but it may be pertinent, albeit hard to determine, what effect does travel shock have with the wines tasted.

I have noted a poor showing amongst more than a few stellar Australian reds, when only a short period off the boat.

Possibly similar with WS versus WA. Do they let the wines settle for a period or do they taste them soon after delivery.

Travel shock seems to kill the fruit in a wine-acids and tannins become pronounced.

I don't beleived in "travel shock" It's the biggest fallacy or an excuse when the wine don't perform up to expectation.
Upon arrival(8hrs flight) all my wines are pristine when I open unless it's faulty.
Any scientific explaination by aeration and shaking vigourously in the decanter?

Cheers,

MC wrote:I don't beleived in "travel shock" It's the biggest fallacy or an excuse when the wine don't perform up to expectation.
Upon arrival(8hrs flight) all my wines are pristine when I open unless it's faulty.
Any scientific explaination by aeration and shaking vigourously in the decanter?

Cheers,

Yair, MC. Many people seem to get really precious (anally retentive?) about wines that they don't think are as good as it was hoped they'd be, so look for excuses for their unmet expectations. Love your last sentence

I do think wines that have thrown a crust need an hour or two standing upright for the solids to seperate from the liquid so decanting is more effective in excluding them from the glass.

Bottle/transport shock is surely the product of the mind of an apologist for a perceived lack of perfection. If the bottle of wine has had couple of hours, even a day or two after delivery to it's destination, I can't belive that a bit of movement during transportation could have the quantum effect some claim it does.

Cheers

daz

MC & Daryl

You may be right- with wines in youth.

I have had enough experience with carting older wine, around Australia and the world, on a weekly basis, to know that older wines do not travel well. The crust mentioned by Daryl, is more often than not, thrown into the wine itself. Makes for impossible decanting and more often than not, a gritty experience that kills the fruit.

Don't believe me? Shake up a bottle of 10 year plus wine ( as would be expected with Virgin Blue ) and stand it up for a day, go through the decanting ritual and pour the end product into a glass. Now placed the glass up against a strong light source and you will wonder why you bothered to decant your vintage wine- gunk everywhere.

Sure, and I have a lot of experience carrying my prized bottles in my hand luggage or trusting it in the belly of an aircraft, and young wine fairs OK. But consider the journey in a ship-you have no idea of the heat and vibration, further handling with customs, onto the distributor and finally a courier to the tasting bench of RP. You just don't know.

I had 150 bottles come off a ship recently-every single one so far, has not been anything like what the wine was in Australia. Bottle variation, low levels of taint or "travel shock"?

MC, Daz,

I tend to agree with you if the wines have travelled by boat, but for me, the jury is out when it comes to "cargo" on a plane. Because this area may / may not be pressurised, it (potentially) adds a whole new dimension.

MH

JamieBahrain wrote:Don't believe me? Shake up a bottle of 10 year plus wine ( as would be expected with Virgin Blue ) and stand it up for a day, go through the decanting ritual and pour the end product into a glass. Now placed the glass up against a strong light source and you will wonder why you bothered to decant your vintage wine- gunk everywhere.

JB,

Actually I now do this quite often, especially with wines in the 20 to 30 year old bracket that initially pour thin and lifeless.

A vigorous shake with the top covered and then decanted through a filter most times reinvigorates the wine.

In fact I gave the bottle of 1981 Stanton & Killeen Moodmere Durif I had tonight a good shake even before opening it. Drank superbly from the start in comparison to the last bottle of the same which I shook after a first woeful glass.

I probably should try to make something a little clearer than it was in the original post. IÂ’m not trying to support Penfolds Wines against ParkerÂ’s comments. I gave details on Penfolds because from my reading of WA #155 they appear to have received the most severe criticism and were therefore the best source of quotes regarding ParkerÂ’s opinions as reflected at the end of his lead-in piece on page 3.

What I am trying to point out, perhaps clumsily, is that it is ParkerÂ’s palate that judges whether 70% of Australian wines make the grade or not in The Wine Advocate. And it appears that palate is sensitive to what he calls acid. Having tasted the 2001 RWT and found it extremely well balanced I thought it an interesting exercise to see if others had found the same problem in the Penfolds line-up. In actual tasting notes Wine Spectator didnÂ’t, Ric Einstein didnÂ’t, and then later I found neither had Robert Whitely.

I would really like to hear from anyone who thinks that the Penfolds wines are overly acidic, and for them to describe the taste sensation they get. Not what acid tastes like, but what overly acidic Penfolds wine tastes like; because I would like to know whether it is acid that Parker finds so offensive.

Now let me be very clear about something - IÂ’m not on a crusade to prove Parker wrong, just to point out (as has been done many times) that his palate is different. And depending upon your own palate he might be very different. Hence my advice to look in the corner of your favorite wine store for those wines that get relegated there because they donÂ’t get big Parker scores. Perhaps I shouldnÂ’t have used Penfolds as the example in that last paragraph of my post, but rather any of the 70% that didnÂ’t make it. The problem is that we donÂ’t know the identities of many of those wines!

Finally, Fred commented that “Parker has a very consistent palate”. If you go back to WA #143 and #148 you will find that Parker never rates the Penfolds Yattarna Chardonnay; a wine he believes does not merit 80 points. He never rates Bin 389. The comments on acidity in the Penfolds line begin in Issue #148. Consistency? Well, yes. But you have to remember that he does not taste these wines blinded. As far as I know he does not taste any wine blinded. (EDIT There is apparently some blind tasting as this thread shows, although no double blind. I still find it hard to figure out exactly how he decides what to taste blind.)

Mike

Mike, I'll only be very general. In my experience of drinking over last 20-odd years, I think acidity as an issue has become more entrenched and frequent than a decade ago. Years ago tannin was the culprit, especially in the 80s from Shrek wines - big, green and ugly. Often they were cabernets from Coonawarra picked very under-ripe. However, for my palate, acid levels in the last 5 years have risen remarkably to the the point where often in red wines it out-volumes the tannins. It is also noticeable in Aussie Pinots, which I find nearly undrinkable in their youth. Roger Daltrey: "I Can't Explain ..."

On one of the Yank forums, there is mention of parker not rating Fox Creek because his samples where cooked.

As an expat, I have noticed a significant variation in wine, wholly due to transportation. A case point my Middle East experiences; a UK Distributor would ship their wines in AC containers, yet amazingly, some wine shipped from Western Australia would cop the same treatment as our live sheep exports to the region.

I would hope our exports to the USA better protected against heat-but are they? Are AC containers used exclusively. Is vibration significant?

Mike.

I would suggest that the cargo compartment of an aircraft not such a bad place. For structual integrity ( aswell as ensuring contents of your bags don't freeze at -57 degree temperatures ) compartments pressurised and in most cases, ventilated with cabin air. Radomes, wheel wells and the tail cone generally unpressurised. Your wine may get a rough ride in a rapid decompression-but will fare better than you!

In regards to air travel and wine, I have found that oxidisation occurs rapidly in bottles with some of the contents drained- I imagine tasting samples or bottles not affected by this due fill levels.

Davo

Your kidding me? What filtration device do you use?

I agree that aeration can add life to an old wine-or conversely fade and kill the fruit of an older wine drinking beautifully.

What I found was older wines, with heavy crusts, due the vigours of travel would throw that crust completely ie: your 20yo bottle of Australian shiraz that virtually painted black by a crust is now spotlessly clean. The sediment though insoluble, impossible to filtrate using conventional means ( hints? ) and the significant residue seems to leave the structure of the old wine in tact, but the grittiness kills the delicate fruit flavours.

I will stand up an 83 Cyril Henschke today for consumption tomorrow. The wine has had four months since being transported by truck from one state to another, a domestic flight, then an international flight.

Previously, the older wines consistantly drank beautifully ( except a midly corked HofG ) when straight from my Melbourne cellar prior to transport. But recently the last half a dozen have displayed muted fruit characteristics since the big move.

Aswell, more pertinent to the Parker tastings, I have had a 150 bottles of younger wine come off a container ship. The young Fox Creeks have not drank as well as when in Australia. All were well packed and protected through insulation from the INEVITABLE exposure to heat on a container ship transversing the Pacific.

Mild cork taint, travel shock and bottle variation. Personally, I think all of these contribute to the variation of scores. Mild cork taint insidious and smothered by big, Australian shiraz-my last experience of this a young HofG.

FWIW, I agree with Parker on this one.

Penfold's wines, with the obvious exception of Grange, are rapidly becoming a joke. Bin 707 is amongst the most over-priced wines in the world. Apart from the 1976, I am yet to see a solitary vintage of that garbage that has improved with age. (I didn't try the 60's 707 when they were young)

The much-lauded '90 707 did not even get close to the top ten in a large 1990 cabernet horizontal last year, all wines blind and 22 people in attendance. In fact, 6 rated it the worst wine in the 17 bottle line up (and there were two bottles of each wine)

The 1994 is down-right horrible, pretty much undrinkable, tart, oaky swill, and the 1986 is now a mature simple and boring claret totally out-classed by the Wynns Blacl label, and trounced by the John Riddoch.

It now sells at the price of 2nd/3rd growth Bordeaux, which is simply ridiculous.

Jacaranda Ridge is a far better wine, all vintages, and sells at less than half the price.

The fact that the older vintages of 707 are cheaper at auction than the release 707 surely tells the average (sensible) punter that Southcorp cannot sustain their current pricing.

RWT??? ............a good $50 Barossa shiraz, not as good as the 2002 Greenock Creek offerings at less than 1/3 the price.

St Henri???........the last good vintage was the 1996. The 1990, BTW, still reeks of acid and oak. Yuk.

Bin 28 has doubled in price over the past 6-7 years, and there are now far better $20 shiraz around.

No, for me, Parker was on the money, although I find his scores very high for the swill he was tasting.

I had to laugh at this RPJ'd list:

http://fora.erobertparker.com/cgi-bin/u ... 000097;p=0

I was checking out another wine board (gasp, the nerve ), and someone had suggested making a list of Australian First Growths. Well, I put it to task and made a list of wines that are in my opinion the best OZ has to offer. The list includes shiraz, cabernet and blends together. Please give me your thoughts.

They are listed in no particular order in each group.

FIRST GROWTHS:

Penfolds Grange
Fox Creek Reserve Shiraz
Three Rivers Shiraz
Burge Family Reserve Shiraz
Veritas Hanisch Shiraz
Magpie Estate "The Malcolm" Shiraz
Henschke "Hill of Grace" Shiraz

SECOND GROWTHS:

Clarendon Hills "Astralis"
d'Arenberg "Dead Arm"
Tim Adams "The Aberfeldy"
Peter Lehmann "Stonewall"
Barossa Valley Estate "E&E Black Pepper"
Greenock Creek Cabernet
" " "Seven Acre" Shiraz
" " "Creek Block" Shiraz
Elderton "Command"
Hardy "Eileen Hardy"
Henrys Drive Cabernet & Shiraz
Wild Duck Creek "Duck Muck"
Veritas "Heysen"
Trevor Jones "Wild Witch"
Fox Creek Reserve Cabernet
Dalwhinnie Shiraz
Moss Wood Cabernet
Torbreck "Run Rig" & "The Factor" Shiraz'
Brokenwood "Graveyard"
Cape D'Estaing Reserve Shiraz
Jasper Hill "Emily's Paddock"
Noon REserve Shiraz & Cabernet
Randall's Hill Shiraz
Seppelt Dorrien

THIRD GROWTHS:

Fox Creek "JSM"
Cape D'Estaing Cabernet & Shiraz
Coriole "Lloyds Reserve"
Clarendon Hills "Hickenbothom,& Piggott" Shiraz, Cabernet
Grosset "Gaia"
Leeuwin Cabernet
Rockford Shiraz & Cabernet
Penfolds Magill Estate & Bin 707 CAbernet
Pikes Reserve Shiraz
Torbreck "The Steading"
ADW "The Hattrick"
Brokenwood "Rayner"
Simon Hackett "Anthony's Reserve"
Olivers "Taranga Vineyard"
Kay Brothers "Block 6" & "Hillside" Shiraz
Maxwell "Lime Cave" Cabernet
Mt. Langhi Ghiran Cabernet & Shiraz
Rosemount "Balmoral"
Warrenmang Estate Shiraz
Viking "Grand Shiraz"
Yalumba "Octavius"
Lindeman's "Limestone Ridge"
Wild Duck "Springflat" Shiraz
Leasingham "Classic Clare" Shiraz
Parker Coonawara Estate "Terra Rossa 1st Growth"
St Hallet "Old Block" Shiraz
Dutschke "Oscar Semmler" Shiraz
Wendouree shiraz & mataro
Grant Burge "Meshach" Shiraz
Jasper Hill "Georgias Paddock" Shiraz
Genders Cabernet
Noon Eclipse
Clarendon Hills "Liandra"

I may have missed some, but these are the stars of today and past from OZ. IMHO

Hi AJ,

Whilst I agree with some of what you said, I disagree with somethings to, so I will comment on the points of contention. Your comments are in italics.

"Bin 707 is among st the most over-priced wines in the world. Apart from the 1976, I am yet to see a solitary vintage of that garbage that has improved with age."

Agree re the pricing but IMO some vintages do improve as they age.

The 1986 is now a mature simple and boring claret totally out-classed by the Wynns Blacl label, and trounced by the John Riddoch.

This is a matter of personal choice but I have found the 86 Bin 707 to be terrific and loved it and thought it was far better than the 86 BL or JR.

"Jacaranda Ridge is a far better wine, all vintages, and sells at less than half the price."

A pretty big statement and I agree on the pricing but I am not sure the Jack is "far better" every year.

"The fact that the older vintages of 707 are cheaper at auction than the release 707 surely tells the average (sensible) punter that Southcorp cannot sustain their current pricing."

Whilst I may agree with the sentiment you expressed, I am not sure about the logic. There are numerous examples where older vintages of the supposed top wines sell for less than the currant vintage. In many cases it has been a deliberate strategy by the wineries to stop people flipping them at auction as soon as the wine is released.

"St Henri???........the last good vintage was the 1996. The 1990, BTW, still reeks of acid and oak. Yuk."

Considering the oak treatment that St Henri receives, or specifically does not receive I find your assessment 'interesting.'

"Bin 28 has doubled in price over the past 6-7 years, and there are now far better $20 shiraz around."

That is true for almost all the Penfolds Bin Wines.

Aussie Johns wrote:The fact that the older vintages of 707 are cheaper at auction than the release 707 surely tells the average (sensible) punter that Southcorp cannot sustain their current pricing.

How does this apply to cru classe bordeaux which is constantly selling for higher at release than for older aruably better vintages??

Aussie Johns wrote:FWIW, I agree with Parker on this one.

RWT??? ............a good $50 Barossa shiraz, not as good as the 2002 Greenock Creek offerings at less than 1/3 the price.

St Henri???........the last good vintage was the 1996. The 1990, BTW, still reeks of acid and oak. Yuk.

AJ:
In the USA the 2001 RWT sells for about $75USD, expensive yes, but there are a lot of wines from Oz that are aspiring to that price range, and for my tastes the 2001 is one of very few wines that I would consider paying that sort of money. The 2000 St Henri I haven't yet tasted so I can't comment. The 2001 Bin 389 I tried was corked. The 2001 Bin 407 I tried could have been called acidic but I think the real problem was lack of fruit; excessive acidity can be deteced if the wine is lacking other components, and Parker is so fruit conscious that he may be over reacting to the absence of fruit. Obviously there was no varietal character to the 407 at all. Problem was that it was the last bottle as the rest had been snapped up by others, so I have to wait for more to come in or find another source to test another bottle.

Mike

Torb,
Sorry, the rant must have gone to my head. I meant the Bin 389, not St Henri. I actually like most vintages of St Henri, but it is top dollar for what you get. I am in the vast minority of people utterly dislike the 1990 389, and don't think that wine will ever come into balance.

The fact that 2000 Bordeaux sells for a higher price than the 1996, which is as good on the left bank, is market driven- the secondary market. The much-hyped 2003 vintage released at prices below the 2000 auction prices, and below the 1996. No-where near the same circumstances as the 707. (2000 Bordeaux is ridiculously hyped, and that is only a one-off example.)
Try purchasing 1982, 1089 or 1990 Bordeaux at release prices!!!