The Auswine Forum

1993 Penfolds Bin 389 Cabernet/Shiraz
Dark, nearly opaque garnet; intense, very pleasant nose of old wooden winery and earthy forest floor; savory flavors of classic dark fruits, taking on very nice secondary nuances of tobacco, earth, hints of leather; this is spectacularly good - if not at its peak on a slow downhill plateau. 94/100

Regards,
Alan

Alan,

Did you get any green leafy characters in this? I'm glad you had a good bottle, as most of mine have been a bit thin and weedy. Not a bad wine, but not one I'd give 94 points to. Must try another soon methinks.


Cheers

Jamie

Jamie, nope, not thin or weedy at all. I admit my expectations weren't that high, given the reputation of the wine/vintage. It is the only bottle of this vintage I've had, however, so maybe it was the best bottle every produced I did go back and check the label: yep, 1993. I actually picked this up a couple of years ago in a well-reputed shop here in California. Apparently, it was a recent library release of a bunch of Penfolds wine - not sure if from Australia, or had been in storage here in the States. I assumed it was Southcorp raising money, and was happy to take advantage of it - this particular bottle cost me US$18 in 2002.

Regards,
Alan

I have been drinking a case of the 1993 over the last couple of years and have not had any thin or weedy bottles. Last one I had was last week and it still had plenty of body and structure. It does not have the fruit or staying power of the 94, but was much better than the 92 I have found.

Rich

Agree with the two posts above. Was extremely surprised and pleased at Penfold's effort with this wine from a very poor vintage. Still, 94 points seems more than a little generous.

On another site, I listed my own vertical of 389's, all of which had been drunk within the last 12 months, it went something like this (off the top of my head):
'86: 96 pts, drink now
'90: 93 pts, tad disappointing for the vintage, wait
'92: 88 pts, drink now
'93: 91 pts, good effort for the vintage, drink now
'94: 90 pts, still too tannic, will improve significantly.
'96: 95 pts, powerful, powerful stuff. Hold (for a long time)
'98: 92 pts, expected better. Wait.
'99: 87 pts, very disappointing, highly astringent. Wait.
'00: 86 pts, bit thin.
'01: 88 pts, radically different style, not my cup of tea.

Cheers,
Andrew

Anonymous wrote:It does not have the fruit or staying power of the 94, but was much better than the 92 I have found.

Rich

This is the sort of context I'm putting the '93 in also. It's an OK wine, but doesn't hold a candle to the '94 or '96. When compared to these, it's a bit light, and most definately exhibits a green stemmy/canopy like flavour. For me it does, anyway.


Cheers

Jamie

Anonymous wrote:Jamie, nope, not thin or weedy at all. I admit my expectations weren't that high, given the reputation of the wine/vintage. It is the only bottle of this vintage I've had, however, so maybe it was the best bottle every produced I did go back and check the label: yep, 1993. I actually picked this up a couple of years ago in a well-reputed shop here in California. Apparently, it was a recent library release of a bunch of Penfolds wine - not sure if from Australia, or had been in storage here in the States. I assumed it was Southcorp raising money, and was happy to take advantage of it - this particular bottle cost me US$18 in 2002.

Regards,
Alan

Alan,

Thanks for your reply. I'm glad you liked it. You should seek out the '94 and '96 as these are very good years for Bin 389.


Cheers

Jamie

FatBoy wrote:94 points seems more than a little generous.

Andrew, on another night it might very well have been a 91, but this night it was a 94! I think sometimes we make the mistake of judging wines relative to each other, rather than for their own sake (and of course, I fall into that trap all the time).

radioactiveman wrote:You should seek out the '94 and '96 as these are very good years for Bin 389.

Glad to hear, I have 6 of each, purchased on release here in California.

Regards,
Alan

Did a vertical of Penfolds Bin 389 back in April 2002, the years were 1990-99.
The roll of honour was as follows
:1990
:1994

:1991
:1992

:1996

:1998
:1995
:1997

:1993
:1999
The notes i made on the 1993 read; The 1993 was on par with the 1999 the diffrence being a strong pungent bouquet of menthol, dry tannins, reasonable fruit but with a wine of this age one wonders where it is heading.

My notes in summary read
Over all i found it a disappointing tasting as a number of the wines lacked real varietal distinction something i look for in a wine. I've always found Cab/Shiraz to be an unusal blend some thing made out of convenience not nature.For what the price is now being asked for the last few vintages of Penfolds Bin 389 i dont think we are getting good QPR. You could also wonder is the quailty of the fruit they are using in the Bin 389 as good now as the early 90s??

Cheers

Geoffrey

I would place the 96 well above the 92.
MM.

Geoffrey wrote:Did a vertical of Penfolds Bin 389 back in April 2002, the years were 1990-99.
The roll of honour was as follows
:1990
:1994

:1991
:1992

:1996

:1998
:1995
:1997

:1993
:1999
The notes i made on the 1993 read; The 1993 was on par with the 1999 the diffrence being a strong pungent bouquet of menthol, dry tannins, reasonable fruit but with a wine of this age one wonders where it is heading.

My notes in summary read
Over all i found it a disappointing tasting as a number of the wines lacked real varietal distinction something i look for in a wine. I've always found Cab/Shiraz to be an unusal blend some thing made out of convenience not nature.For what the price is now being asked for the last few vintages of Penfolds Bin 389 i dont think we are getting good QPR. You could also wonder is the quailty of the fruit they are using in the Bin 389 as good now as the early 90s??

Cheers

Geoffrey

Geoffrey,

Was your middle of the road placing of the '96 a quality issue or simply that the wine wasn't ready yet? For me, the '96 was the last of the good 389's and nothing much has impressed since. Fatboy's comment on the '01 was one I share, in as far as it seemed stylistically different to 389 in the past, especially in it's oak treatment which seems more flavour dominant now than it has been.


Thanks in advance

Jamie

FWIW, the '96 389 was served blind at the (predominantly) White's Only Club Dinner two weekends back and showed remarkably well. Lush and surprisingly forward to my slightly jaded palate (quite late in the night as one would expect on such an occasion) I was sprouting this as definitely in the Penfolds stable, Cabernet predominant, but an earlier year. Obviously with time on its side, this particular bottle was rated Excellent (or better) by most at the table, excepting the "violently ill" Attila, of course. I thought it good for another 5 years. Perhaps I was wrong, again. Caillard gave this 100/100 I was told. (Source: SDIHCW).

Jamie,

I agree, the better 389's ended with the 96 (not unlike another of Southcorp's efforts, the Wynns Cab).

David,

Calliard did indeed rate the 96 at 100/100, but later revised his rating downward (somewhere in the mid 90s/100). From memory he alluded to the wine shutting down / going through a dull phase.

Fatboy,

I can't say I found the 94 too tannic. The couple of bottles I had last year showed a lovely balanced wine, though still plenty of life left in it (and possible improvement).



Mike

Mike,

Agreed abou the Bin 389 and Wynns Cab but I will make two comments.

The 98 Bin 389 was pretty good and the 02 just won a gold at the NWS in Canberra so the 02, at least is heading in the right direction. They don't issue a lot of worthless gold in Cantberra.

The Wynns Cab - dont get me started but that was a crimal shame. SC have realised the errors of the ways (according to them) and are fixing the peoblem. Apparently the vines were badly rooted - bad pun intended - i.e. they had been stuffed by poor vineyard management but they have spent a fortune in trying to bring them to thier former standard.

If they can do as well here as they have done with Seppelts, it will be its old self again, time will tell.

Jamie

The mid field placing of the 1996 was more of a time thing than of quality of the the wine, to quote from my notes-" 1996 Bin 389, browning edges,spicy,fruity bouquet, good tannin to fruit balance and excellent length, showing good bottle development, lots of life there yet"

As a general rule with that tasting the older the wine the better i liked it as testimony with notes on the topped ranked wine the 1990-'' Dirty brown would be the best way to descride the way the 1990 looked in the glass, closed bouquet to begin with but it soon opened up to a small amount of menthol, spicy oak, berry fruit, in the mouth it had intense fruit flavour of plum-blackcurrants in harmony with choc-mint, silky tannins all in the Right portions,amazing drinking for a 12yr old wine and should last for years yet.''

As for my low ranking of the 1993 its possible age has improved it, be interesting to go back and taste it after 2yrs. As we all know wine is a funny thing, a wine that may be a pauper give a couple of years and its turned into a prince.

Cheers

Geoffrey

Ric,

Pleased to hear the 02 vintage is a return to form. Bin 389 over here (NY) can be picked up for USD 20 a bottle and when compared to the price of other Aussie wines is basically at not much more than a quaffing price. Interestingly, several stores sell the Bin 28 for more than the 389 (I guess because it is straight shiraz, and they cant get enough of it).

I know I've posted this comment elsewhere, but Sue Hodder at least seems to acknowledge Wynns has its problems. That in itself is half the battle. Hopefully she'll deliver the goods and also produce a top end shiraz / cab blend like the 1991 Centenary (one of my favourite wines from Coonawarra).

Mike

David Lole wrote:FWIW, the '96 389 was served blind at the (predominantly) White's Only Club Dinner two weekends back and showed remarkably well. Lush and surprisingly forward to my slightly jaded palate (quite late in the night as one would expect on such an occasion) I was sprouting this as definitely in the Penfolds stable, Cabernet predominant, but an earlier year. Obviously with time on its side, this particular bottle was rated Excellent (or better) by most at the table, excepting the "violently ill" Attila, of course. I thought it good for another 5 years. Perhaps I was wrong, again. Caillard gave this 100/100 I was told. (Source: SDIHCW).

96 is easily my favourite of the "young" 389's. Lush wine. How it finished mid field in Geoffrey's line up is beyond me, particularly since the 1992 I had recently really was only "above average". I have some 92's left, I'll swap him ?

2 years ago I had a Bin 389 vertical dinner, but I can't seem to find the notes anywhere. Lost on the old forum I suppose. And I don't seem to have a Word version anywhere. Can't even find them on WLDG. Hells bells!

Anyway, from memory, the 90 and 94 were the pick of the older wines, 96 was still too young, 91 was a little disappointing but better than 92,93,97. Surprisingly, 89 slotted around 5th place if you exclude 98, which was way too young to evaluate by comparison, but seemed to have all the goods. 95 was clearly the worst of the line-up.

cheers,
Graeme

A few points on the threads above.

On ratings in vertical line ups, well you're always hoping you've got good bottles of every vintage but sometimes you might have a slightly lesser bottle of a good vintage then it slips back into the pack as the 96 seems to have done in one of the verticals mentioned.

IMO the 1996 Bin 389 is outstanding and the best since 1986. I was underwhelmed by the Penfolds 1998 releases and think now that it was a pointer of the bad times to come. The 1994 Bin 389 I've found to be a good citizen and developing nicely. Good to hear the 2002 Bin 389 is a worthwhile effort, the Southcorp accountants just need to reign back the price now!

Wynns have had well documented problems that are mainly vineyard related but may also be corporate accounting related too. Just coincidence both Penfolds and Wynns took a downhill slide after the 1996 vintage?Over the past three years they've replanted hundreds of acres and renovated/beheaded a heap more in search of better fruit to get the Black Label, JR etc back up to their great days of the early 90s when we all religiously tucked them away. Be patient, I think Sue Hodder has got the message we want the dense black style to come back. I don't want to be able to see through my Black Label as I have since 1997/98.

Agree with the two posts above. Was extremely surprised and pleased at Penfold's effort with this wine from a very poor vintage. Still, 94 points seems more than a little generous.

On another site, I listed my own vertical of 389's, all of which had been drunk within the last 12 months, it went something like this (off the top of my head):
'86: 96 pts, drink now
'90: 93 pts, tad disappointing for the vintage, wait
'92: 88 pts, drink now
'93: 91 pts, good effort for the vintage, drink now
'94: 90 pts, still too tannic, will improve significantly.
'96: 95 pts, powerful, powerful stuff. Hold (for a long time)
'98: 92 pts, expected better. Wait.
'99: 87 pts, very disappointing, highly astringent. Wait.
'00: 86 pts, bit thin.
'01: 88 pts, radically different style, not my cup of tea.

Cheers,
Andrew

Did a vertical of Penfolds Bin 389 back in April 2002, the years were 1990-99.
The roll of honour was as follows
:1990
:1994

:1991
:1992

:1996

:1998
:1995
:1997

:1993
:1999
The notes i made on the 1993 read; The 1993 was on par with the 1999 the diffrence being a strong pungent bouquet of menthol, dry tannins, reasonable fruit but with a wine of this age one wonders where it is heading.

My notes in summary read
Over all i found it a disappointing tasting as a number of the wines lacked real varietal distinction something i look for in a wine. I've always found Cab/Shiraz to be an unusal blend some thing made out of convenience not nature.For what the price is now being asked for the last few vintages of Penfolds Bin 389 i dont think we are getting good QPR. You could also wonder is the quailty of the fruit they are using in the Bin 389 as good now as the early 90s??

Cheers
Geoffrey

I was actually very impressed with the 1998 on release, and consistently since in the last year - I've always given it a stack of breathing time though.

In regard to the 1999 is the wine still too young and disjointed and worth waiting for, or a product of the difficulties when the Rosemount infestation started to kick in?

The 5th edition of the Rewards of Patience had rather positive expectations as to the drinking window, but you could say that about almost all of the wines they reviewed. This latest issue seems to be harder to take seriously as a genuine review, more like slick advertising.

Cheers
Ian

n4sir wrote:

The 5th edition of the Rewards of Patience had rather positive expectations as to the drinking window, but you could say that about almost all of the wines they reviewed. This latest issue seems to be harder to take seriously as a genuine review, more like slick advertising.

Cheers
Ian

Now, I wondered when I heard when Penfolds were doing a new RoP in 2004, why they were in such a rush. After all, it was a scant 3 years or so since the last one. There were always much longer gaps between previous editions.

You know what I think? I think that Gago decided he wanted to host one as the new chief winemaker. Duval had left (although he was there at the tasting) - the makers of Yattarna as well (Falkenberg?) - and I think that Peter just wanted to establish himself as 'Master of his Domain'. An uncharitable thought I know.

It's nice to see additional information in this edition although I know what you mean by 'advertising'- the information on the vineyards is very interesting except it's a struggle to find the acres involved, and there's no mention of the planting densities - a crucial bit of information when evaluating tonnes of fruit per acre.

As owner of the previous edition, and with the new one costing $30, you'll understand why it's not on my bookshelf.

cheers,
Graeme

You know what I think? I think that Gago decided he wanted to host one as the new chief winemaker. Duval had left (although he was there at the tasting) - the makers of Yattarna as well (Falkenberg?) - and I think that Peter just wanted to establish himself as 'Master of his Domain'. An uncharitable thought I know.

I've met Peter Gago just the once, and got the impresssion he's not like that at all - something that's confirmed by the Penfolds employees (past & present) I know. He's also very quick to publicly pass on any credit or praise he receives to the Penfolds team of Winemakers.

That said he knows who writes his cheques, and it seems the major corporate players are keen to raise his profile. Philip White a few months ago stated that these new vintages (2002-2003) are the first that Peter had under his full control and can take full credit - and it's something he's aware of. I also suspect part of the questionable nature of some of the recent wines is due to them having more than one Master in production.

The latest ROP incorrectly (I think) credits him as Chief Winemaker of the 1998 and 1999 Grange (while John Duvall was still there, and I think very much in control until sometime in 2001). Andrew Caillard took over the preparation of this issue with Duvall's official departure from full-time duties, and if it is a mistake it borders on the unforgivable - I suspect this may be just another reason Gago is keen on sharing any credit he gets.

Things are reportedly changing for the better, but in this day and age of huge wine corporates, acts of Winemaker rebellion like Schubert's hidden Granges are well and truly over.

Cheers
Ian

The latest ROP incorrectly (I think) credits him as Chief Winemaker of the 1998 and 1999 Grange (while John Duvall was still there, and I think very much in control until sometime in 2001). Andrew Caillard took over the preparation of this issue with Duvall's official departure from full-time duties, and if it is a mistake it borders on the unforgivable - I suspect this may be just another reason Gago is keen on sharing any credit he gets.

Having just got home from work and just double checked the book I should make a corrrection to the above statement.

The passage I referred to on page 225 in the section where the Chief Winemakers greatest Grange contributions are pointed out makes specific referrences about the 1990, 1991 and 1996 vintages in John Duval's achievements.

Lower down in the section to do with Peter Gago:

"While working with John Duval and Steve Lienert, (Penfolds' Red Winemaker, now with Penfolds for over a quarter of a century), Peter Gago's contribution to Grange is evident in the 1998 vintage."

It doesn't go as far as what I've said, but I think you get an idea of how Penfolds are trying to increase Peter's profile.

Cheers
Ian