The Auswine Forum

OK, I've read how everyone has been disappointed with Penfolds wines since the 1996 vintage but I want to know where does Bin 28 fit in on a purely QPR basis?

How does it compare with other wines in the $20 - $30 bracket?

For example: Barwang Cab Sauv & Shiraz, Mamre Brook, Chalambar, Summerfield, St Hallet Faith & Blackwell etc etc. What about the Jamiesons Run Individual Vineyard wines?

I know they are all different wines from different regions but how does Bin 28 stack up on a purely QPR basis.

ie: Is virtually every highly rated wine in the $20 - $30 range a better QPR bet than Kalimna? Does Kalimna carry a $8 - $10 premium for having a Penfols label? Should it be a $16 - $17 wine when you compare it to other good wines in the $25 region?

Or, is it really a $35 wine that is sold for less because it is the company's 4th string wine?

If you started up a new winery and produced a wine equivalent to Kalimna and it was called John Doe Shiraz and the wine inside was as good as Kalimna what price would you put on it?

The Bin 28 is the only Penfolds I have consistently paid for every year for more than five years. Prior to that I did not have satisfactory cellaring available.

In early years it was one of my more expensive purchases for the year.

I still think it is good VFM.

Graham

That's my impression too.

Everyone seems a bit disappointed with Penfolds recently but I reckon Bin 28 at $20 a bottle from a good vintage is a pretty good QPR.

If you ignore the baggage (good or bad) associated with being a Penfolds wine is there a better $20 wine available at the moment with the same potential to cellar medium to long term?

Yep. I reckon Bin 28 is a well above average $20 wine. Bin 128 and 407 can be different stories though, the 407 being a disaster in some years.

Ratcatcher wrote:Is there a better $20 wine available at the moment with the same potential to cellar medium to long term?

Better - a fair number but not heaps - yes. Mamre Brook, Torbreck Woodcutters and a swag of boutique winery reds and 2002 SA Cabernets.

Better cellaring potential - only a few.

Adair

The 2002 Bin 28 is excellent and a good return to form after what I thought was a pretty average '01 and for below $20 in bucket shops it's super value....389 and 407 are excellent also...........

Penfolds Bin 28 Kalimna has been a staple - and for at least 2 decades the only question each vintage was how generally much of it to buy - not whether to buy.

The last vintage from which I bought bin 28 was 1998; the intervening vintages have been downright poor (and this from someone who has tasted every vintage of bin 28 on release since 1970 - including the woeful 1974, poor 1989 and disappointing 1995 & 1997 (even 1992 & 1993 were surprisingly good given the general vintage and heavily discounted when they were slow to sell).

$20 per bottle is discounted price - but we all know that there is a substantial prospect of it going cheaper still or "13 to the dozen" etc. I shall be interested to see the 2002.

For cellaring purposes the good vintages (legendary 1963, 1971) - brilliant 1986 (almost certainly the greatest bin 28 ever) and excellent 1990 spring to mind. The 1994 is very good, 1996 and 1998 with much potential ahead of them.

The other wines mentioned by posters just do not stack up - and neither do some other celebrated smaller makers' shiraz (admittedly single area) eg Majella and Zema at higher prices, but I am the first to suggest that over the 1999-2001 Penfolds has betrayed the label and many other wines have been far better for the money (Elderton shiraz, Leasingham bin 61 both spring to mind) .

I did not buy the 1974, 1989, 1995 or 1997 but had bought every other vintage since 1970 including 1998.

the 1986 bin 28 is arguably a better wine than the 1986 bin 389 - and that is apretty good wine indeed - especially when you reflect that we paid well under $7 per bottle for the Kalimna, and I raved on pre-release buying a dozen cases (far too few I now realise)....now that is QPR

I doubt we shall ever again see a sublime bin 28 as per the 1986, but the 2002 and 2004 vintages will be personal watersheds as far as i am concerned to see a return to mainstream quality with superior cellaring capacity.

At the end of the day I am a niche market quirrelling wine away with a view to drinking it at peak age - which in the case of SA shiraz usually sees some secondary characteristics and it may well be that the company does not care about my market. Only time will tell.

fred

I haven't yet tried the 2002 Bin range so can't yet comment on whether it's good or excellent VFM.

Back in history the 1986 is legendary, 1996 and 1998 were good VFM but since then very ordinary.

Let's remember that the grapes that went into the 1986 now probably find their way into the more expensive Penfolds range as production has climbed, accountants have exerted control and growers have left the Penfolds stable to launch their own labels. I've lost count of the number of small Barossa producers who've said to me "my grapes formerly went to Penfolds".

All these factors must have an effect on the quality although in great vintages the effect is lessened. That said, in great vintages everyone's level goes up so the VFM needs to be there with the Bin wines too.

Waiting to get them into a Blacktongues lineup against similar priced wines then I'll let you know my opinion on whether its VFM.

2002 Kalimna is top shelf. Better than many wines twice the price.
GW

Gary W wrote:2002 Kalimna is top shelf. Better than many wines twice the price.
GW

BIG statement Gary but trust you're right so I'm really looking forward to it now.

OK, I've read how everyone has been disappointed with Penfolds wines since the 1996 vintage but I want to know where does Bin 28 fit in on a purely QPR basis?

It will be very interesting to see how the 2002 Bin 28 shapes up given all this good early feedback.

One thing to keep in mind is that the sources for Bin 28 have changed quite a bit since the 1996 vintage. From 1997-2001 there's been less Barossa and more cool-climate style fruit, resulting in greener and/or more savoury styles than the plush, chocolatey 1996. It's still a warmer style Shiraz than Bin 128, but (until the 2002 at least) it's quite different.

As for QPR, when it's released try it head-to-head against the 2002 Mamre Brooke, Grant Burge Filsell or Leasingham Bin 61. This will ultimately be the type of competition it's up against and they're better than fair efforts.

Cheers
Ian

How does the '01 Bin 28 stack up? A lot of people associate the '01/'02 consecutive years with the quality that came from the '90/91 years. I wonder if that's justified..

Ian

The '02 Kalimna will blow away the 2002 Mamre Brooke, Grant Burge Filsell and Leasingham Bin 61....it is a cracker.....I agree that all those wines are very good indeed.
I had the 2002 up against the '01, '91 and '87....interesting to see the alcohols creep up over the years and in fact the whole 2002 Bin range is 14.5%. I think '02 was probably Peter Gagos first full vintage at the helm???....oak use seems pared down after what I thought was a clunky 2001 release.
In the '02's.......the 28, 389 and 407 stand out from the pack.....the '03 Bin 138 is a disappointment after the excellent 2002.
The 2001 St Henri is 100% shiraz for a change and unusually high in alcohol but excellent.

Cheers

Dave

Dave, where are the parcels from in the Kalimna 02? And the St. Hank?
just trying to get feel for the makeup of the wines.

cheers,
Simm

Anonymous wrote:Dave, where are the parcels from in the Kalimna 02? And the St. Hank?
just trying to get feel for the makeup of the wines.

cheers,
Simm

my notes are at home Simm.....I'll have a look tonight for you

Anonymous wrote:Dave, where are the parcels from in the Kalimna 02? And the St. Hank?
just trying to get feel for the makeup of the wines.

cheers,
Simm

The regional sources as advised by Penfolds are in order:
Barossa valley, McLaren Vale, Upper Adelaide, Padthaway with Barossa accounting for 45% of the grapes.

Cheers

Paul

Where is "Upper Adelaide"? Do they mean Magill as in up the hill or Adelaide Plains as in up north of Adelaide?

707 wrote:Where is "Upper Adelaide"? Do they mean Magill as in up the hill or Adelaide Plains as in up north of Adelaide?

The old Paracombe vineyards.................

Maximus wrote:How does the '01 Bin 28 stack up? A lot of people associate the '01/'02 consecutive years with the quality that came from the '90/91 years. I wonder if that's justified..

Who are these "lot of people" ? '01 SA was a bit of a shocker IMHO, although not as bad as '00. Yet to be impressed with an '01 S.A. shiraz.

All that being said, the '01 Kalimna is pleasant enough drinking. A tad jammy, but I liked it more than the rest of their Bin range of the same vintage (including the 389 which is a strange beast indeed)

PaulV wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dave, where are the parcels from in the Kalimna 02? And the St. Hank?
just trying to get feel for the makeup of the wines.

cheers,
Simm

The regional sources as advised by Penfolds are in order:
Barossa valley, McLaren Vale, Upper Adelaide, Padthaway with Barossa accounting for 45% of the grapes.

Cheers

Paul

cheers Paul,

Was that for Kalimna or San Tahnree? I know this seems a bit on the pedantic side. It interests me because it gives me one idea of how the regions did for the vintage.

Simm

Simmski

Zhan Honrhee is sourced from the Barossa, Fleurieu, Padthaway, Robe and the Clare......14.5%....standard issue alcohol for all the '02 Bins.

Dave

What happened to their old Morphett Vineyards?

Anonymous wrote:Simmski

Zhan Honrhee is sourced from the Barossa, Fleurieu, Padthaway, Robe and the Clare......14.5%....standard issue alcohol for all the '02 Bins.

Dave

cheers knucklehead. In that order? IMO You can only really feel the effects of the alcohol in the 138 and 128. The others have a fruit content that covers it well enough.

After half a decade of Pennies bashing I'm now getting exceited about the 02 releases. They've done their trade roadshow in Adelaide and a couple of trusted palates said they were great wines, even the 407.

Never thought I'd be excited about a Penfolds release again but congratulations to them if they've turned it around. Maybe it was consumer pressure, if so we've all done very well to quote "old Mr.Grace"

FatBoy wrote:Who are these "lot of people" ? '01 SA was a bit of a shocker IMHO, although not as bad as '00. Yet to be impressed with an '01 S.A. shiraz.

Fatboy,

You're yet to be impressed with an S.A. Shiraz? Have you tried any? If you enjoy several bottles on a weekly basis like many of these forumites, than I would assume that you've tried a few, which would make you a very hard person to impress (on whatever scale budget).

2001...

d'Arenberg Footbolt?
Leasingham Bin 61?
Grant Burge Filsell?
Kilikanoon Oracle?
Henschke Mt Edelstone?
d'Arenberg Dead Arm?
Torbreck Struie?
St Hallett Faith?
St Hallett Blackwell?
Kaesler Old Bastard?
Glaetzer (both of Ben's)?
Penfolds RWT?

Would anyone else like to add to this list? These are just a few I've quickly mentioned off the top of my head, and we're yet to see the likes of Elderton Commands, Stonewells, and other big names which are sure to impress given the vintage feedback. Who are "these people"? Winemakers, Viticulturists, Liquor Retails, Wine Reviewers and fellow Wine Enthusiasts. I don't have any factual evidence, but I too was under the impression that '01 and '02 were a nice couple of consecutive years. I think 2002 will be more like 1990 and the '01 reds like 1991 - still a great vintage but wines designed for drinking younger.

Just my two cents.

Maximus wrote: I don't have any factual evidence, but I too was under the impression that '01 and '02 were a nice couple of consecutive years. I think 2002 will be more like 1990 and the '01 reds like 1991 - still a great vintage but wines designed for drinking younger.

Just my two cents.

I keep seeing Jeni Port describing 90/91 (and I quote from SMH Good Living Feb 15 2005): "'90 (elegant, delicate) and 91 (strong, intense)". I thought 90 was a warmer vintage, more akin to 98 or 2001, with rich voluptuous reds in SA that won't last as long as the cooler vintage, later developing, longer-lived 91 reds, probably closer to 2002. I don't remember buying too many 90 reds that could be described as "elegant/delicate".

My cellar certainly bears out my impressions of 90/91, I have few 90 reds left, most of them have peaked, yet the 91's I have left, from the same makers in many cases, have years ahead of them still.

I do agree 2001 reds from SA (Barossa/MclarenVale certainly, record hot vintages) will generally peak earlier than the 2002 reds from the same area/makers, but don't agree in comparing them to the 91 vintage. Coonawarra may be a little different, with 2001 better than 2002 and 2000 much better than most of the rest of SA.

So 90/91 and 2001/2002 may be reasonably comparative pairs, just the opposite way around to Jeni Port and your impression IMO.

Agree with your comments Brian. Nothing elegant about the 1990s just that in the fullness of time 1991s are proving the stayer.

I bought little 2001 as IMO they'll peak early and I don't need a batch of early peakers, I can't get through whats coming to maturity now in my cellar.

2002 I've bought alot of, they'll be long haul wines as well as being great drinks right now.

Maximus wrote:

FatBoy wrote:Who are these "lot of people" ? '01 SA was a bit of a shocker IMHO, although not as bad as '00. Yet to be impressed with an '01 S.A. shiraz.

Fatboy,

You're yet to be impressed with an S.A. Shiraz? Have you tried any? If you enjoy several bottles on a weekly basis like many of these forumites, than I would assume that you've tried a few, which would make you a very hard person to impress (on whatever scale budget).

2001...

d'Arenberg Footbolt?
Leasingham Bin 61?
Grant Burge Filsell?
Kilikanoon Oracle?
Henschke Mt Edelstone?
d'Arenberg Dead Arm?
Torbreck Struie?
St Hallett Faith?
St Hallett Blackwell?
Kaesler Old Bastard?
Glaetzer (both of Ben's)?
Penfolds RWT?

Would anyone else like to add to this list? These are just a few I've quickly mentioned off the top of my head, and we're yet to see the likes of Elderton Commands, Stonewells, and other big names which are sure to impress given the vintage feedback. Who are "these people"? Winemakers, Viticulturists, Liquor Retails, Wine Reviewers and fellow Wine Enthusiasts. I don't have any factual evidence, but I too was under the impression that '01 and '02 were a nice couple of consecutive years. I think 2002 will be more like 1990 and the '01 reds like 1991 - still a great vintage but wines designed for drinking younger.

Just my two cents.

OK, of this list (and I was talking specifically about 2001's), I have had the Faith, Blackwell, Footbolt, Oracle and standard Glaetzer and none have impressed. On release, some were good admittedly.

Oracle was the biggest disappointment though, so nice early, so disjointed now. The Footbolt USED to be good, but is now verging on atrocious. It's fallen apart so badly I couldn't finish either of my last two bottles.

I haven't seen too many reviewers excited about 2001 - witness JO's scathing criticism of 2001. Others with a vested interest can't be trusted ...

Sorry, couldn't leave this one alone.

JO's scores. Nothing here to suggest this is a vintage of the calibre of 90 or 91 (or 94, 96, 98 or 99 for that matter), no matter which way you turn it around.

16.0 d'Arenberg Footbolt? ("finishing rather stale and cooked.")
17.0 Leasingham Bin 61?
15.9 Grant Burge Filsell?
17.6 Kilikanoon Oracle?
17.7 Henschke Mt Edelstone?
18.2 d'Arenberg Dead Arm?
18.0 Torbreck Struie?
15.8 St Hallett Faith?
17.9 St Hallett Blackwell?
17.0 Kaesler Old Bastard?
17.1 (Bishop) Glaetzer
16.5 Penfolds RWT? (Worst ever)

Some pretty average scores there ... and from my own more limited tasting, I'd have to agree. Haven't had 2001 Dead Arm but did think 2000 D.A. was a pretty good effort from the vintage, so it's not surprising it's done reasonably well in 2001.

Final note: The 90/91 vintage pairing is surely more like 98/99 ...

Wondering what to expect for 2002 RWT.

FatBoy wrote:Sorry, couldn't leave this one alone.

JO's scores. Nothing here to suggest this is a vintage of the calibre of 90 or 91 (or 94, 96, 98 or 99 for that matter), no matter which way you turn it around.

16.0 d'Arenberg Footbolt? ("finishing rather stale and cooked.")
17.0 Leasingham Bin 61?
15.9 Grant Burge Filsell?
17.6 Kilikanoon Oracle?
17.7 Henschke Mt Edelstone?
18.2 d'Arenberg Dead Arm?
18.0 Torbreck Struie?
15.8 St Hallett Faith?
17.9 St Hallett Blackwell?
17.0 Kaesler Old Bastard?
17.1 (Bishop) Glaetzer
16.5 Penfolds RWT? (Worst ever)

Some pretty average scores there ... and from my own more limited tasting, I'd have to agree. Haven't had 2001 Dead Arm but did think 2000 D.A. was a pretty good effort from the vintage, so it's not surprising it's done reasonably well in 2001.

Final note: The 90/91 vintage pairing is surely more like 98/99 ...

They might seem low, but they are mostly reasonable silver medal scores, with 3 reasonable bronzes and a gold. There are only 4 of those on that list in my cellar: Kilikanoon Oracle, Torbreck Struie, Glaetzer (both Bishop and the premium shiraz) and a few RWT.

You could mount a reasonable argument about 90/91 and 98/99, but the case for 2001/2002 is in a general sense just as arguable, the results may be different as you consider particular states/regions, it's a big country. I don't consider it a particularly useful thing to argue about though, almost every vintage has many similarities to some other and subtle differences as well, looking at consecutive year pairs is not a particularly telling factor.

There have been rumblings in various places about the 98 (SA particularly) reds not developing as well as expected, but I've not had proportionally any more disappointments from that vintage than from any other at this stage.

Cheers
RB