A fair result from Penfolds
Posted: Tue Jul 26, 2005 1:27 pm
Been meaning to post this one for a couple of weeks. Pulled the cork from a perfect fill and good looking cork bottle of 1991 Bin 389 - bloody tree bark - very corked.
Rang Penfolds/Southcorp number and the following day a bottle of 2002 Bin 389 arrived on the doorstep. As they had asked me to forward information on the batch number I raised the weak effort on replacement value - next day a bottle of 2002 Bin 28 arrived on the doorstep. So a reasonable result. But clearly we all need to do this every corked bottle is Penfolds/southcorp/ Beringer Blass are going to have a decent replacement policy.
For info the email exchange below. When asking for batch number the southcorp person specifically said laser etched number which I questioned (it was of course printed for 91 Bin range) hence the discussion on that.
The batch markings on the bottle of 1991 Penfolds Bin 389 are:
L4:34
12:24
I expressed surprise that you expected these markings to be laser etched on the bottle for a 1991 wine and I was correct - they are printed in ink. You may wish to double check but the first bottles to be laser etched where Grange and Yattarna I think from the 95 and 98 vintages but I don't have any of these to check nor did I have time to check when bin range started to be laser etched and gaps in my collection might mean I could not be certain.
Thank you for the prompt mailing of a replacement bottle.
Penfolds/Southcorp/Beringer Blass should perhaps reconsider your replacement policy on aged corked wines. A single bottle of current vintage for an older vintage may meet legal obligations but does not recognise the costs involved in cellaring nor the current value of wine in question (I note the current Langton's value of the 1991 is $66 plus buyers premium and any retail mark up). This topic has received a fair bit of discussion on the wine forums. While it is not an issue in this case, the problem becomes even greater when a lesser vintage is current and is seen to replace a classic vintage. I would appreciate feedback on this issue if you are able to provide any.
Yours sincerely
David Jordan
Dear David,
With reference to our conversation last week regarding the lot codes on the bottles, I was referring to the actual codes being present on the bottles, not whether it was ink jet or laser etched. Nevertheless the 1991 was ink jet, but codes remained unchanged.
Your issue was reopened and although we are not able to replace exact vintage, we usually do our best to replace a wine with similar value. We are happy to organise for you on this occasion, a complimentary bottle of Bin 28 2002 to be sent to you as a gesture of goodwill.
Should you have any further queries, please contact me on 1300 651 650.
Kind Regards,
Penfolds Wines.
Rang Penfolds/Southcorp number and the following day a bottle of 2002 Bin 389 arrived on the doorstep. As they had asked me to forward information on the batch number I raised the weak effort on replacement value - next day a bottle of 2002 Bin 28 arrived on the doorstep. So a reasonable result. But clearly we all need to do this every corked bottle is Penfolds/southcorp/ Beringer Blass are going to have a decent replacement policy.
For info the email exchange below. When asking for batch number the southcorp person specifically said laser etched number which I questioned (it was of course printed for 91 Bin range) hence the discussion on that.
The batch markings on the bottle of 1991 Penfolds Bin 389 are:
L4:34
12:24
I expressed surprise that you expected these markings to be laser etched on the bottle for a 1991 wine and I was correct - they are printed in ink. You may wish to double check but the first bottles to be laser etched where Grange and Yattarna I think from the 95 and 98 vintages but I don't have any of these to check nor did I have time to check when bin range started to be laser etched and gaps in my collection might mean I could not be certain.
Thank you for the prompt mailing of a replacement bottle.
Penfolds/Southcorp/Beringer Blass should perhaps reconsider your replacement policy on aged corked wines. A single bottle of current vintage for an older vintage may meet legal obligations but does not recognise the costs involved in cellaring nor the current value of wine in question (I note the current Langton's value of the 1991 is $66 plus buyers premium and any retail mark up). This topic has received a fair bit of discussion on the wine forums. While it is not an issue in this case, the problem becomes even greater when a lesser vintage is current and is seen to replace a classic vintage. I would appreciate feedback on this issue if you are able to provide any.
Yours sincerely
David Jordan
Dear David,
With reference to our conversation last week regarding the lot codes on the bottles, I was referring to the actual codes being present on the bottles, not whether it was ink jet or laser etched. Nevertheless the 1991 was ink jet, but codes remained unchanged.
Your issue was reopened and although we are not able to replace exact vintage, we usually do our best to replace a wine with similar value. We are happy to organise for you on this occasion, a complimentary bottle of Bin 28 2002 to be sent to you as a gesture of goodwill.
Should you have any further queries, please contact me on 1300 651 650.
Kind Regards,
Penfolds Wines.
