The Auswine Forum

The August/September edition of Gourmet Traveller Wine has an insert by Wine-Ark. The poster ranks wines in order of the number of bottles that its clients have stored in its cellars. It seems that among its 3,500 collections there are more bottles of Bin 389 than any other wine. Grange come in second and Wynns 'Black Label' Cabernet third.

Now although Australia makes more top-flight shiraz than any other wine, I noticed that among the top ten wines in the cellar collections are six cabernets, one cabernet-shiraz (the Bin 389) and only three shiraz wines. Of course, as you go down the list the shiraz wines catch up to the cabernets but it is not until the 27th ranking that the number of shiraz wines equals the cabernet, eleven each. After that the shiraz wines begin to outnumber the cabernets.

Is this list, as it pertains to cabernet, representative of most Australian collectors? Does it represent a 'tilt' towards cabernet as a cellering proposition?

I thought about price and availability but I don't think that is a factor because among the shiraz wines Grange is expensive and is ranked second, and Rockford has limited avaiability and comes in 11th. I also noticed that Wynns John Riddoch is ranked 7th while Michael is ranked 13th, both equally priced and available, I presume, in similar quantities.

For those who haven't seen the poster, here are the top 27 wines, the point at which there are equal numbers of shiraz and cabernet-based wines:

1. Penfolds Bin 389 Cabernet Shiraz
2. Penfolds Grange (Shiraz)
3. Wynn's Cabernet
4. Lakes Folly Cabernets
5. Moss Wood Cabernet
6. Penfolds Bin 707 Cabernet
7. Wynn's John Riddoch Cabernet
8. Penfolds St Henri Shiraz
9. Cullen Diana Madelaine Cabernet Merlot
10. Penfolds Bin 28 Kalimna Shiraz

Total: 6 Cabernets, 3 Shiraz, and 1 Cab/Shiraz.

11. Rockford Basket Pressed Shiraz
12. Penfolds Bin 407 Cabernet
13. Wynn's Michael Shiraz
14. Leeuwin Estate Art Series Chardonnay
15. Petaluma Riesling
16. Grosset Polish Hill Riesling
17. St Hugo Cabernet
18. Howard Park Cabernet
18. Jasper Hill Georgia's Paddock Shiraz
20. Penfolds Bin 128 Shiraz
21. Henschke Mount Edelstone Shiraz
22. Dalwhinnie Shiraz
23. Petaluma Coonwarra (Cabernet Blend)
24. Mount Mary Cabernets
25. Lindemans Limestone Ridge Shiraz Cabernet
26. Clonakilla Shiraz Viognier
27. Wynns Shiraz

Total: 11 Cabernet, 11 Shiraz, 2 Cab/Shiraz, 2 Rieslings and 1 Chardonnay.

And no, I am not an accountant, not that there is anything wrong with being an accountant.

Cheers............Mahmoud.

One brief comment... How many top shirazes do you know of are not in limited supply? The things that come to my mind, Roendfelt Road, Run Rig (not even sure people collect this one), Three Rivers, are all scarce afaik?

And then the 50-100$ bottle shirazes, there are so many of them that to me it only makes sense that they are split amongst collectors.

Top end cabernet on the other hand... imo is limited to just a few producers.

Well, given that the top 10 wines are all very 'old school' with long pedigrees, it's not so surprising. And if you consider that shiraz was regarded with much less respect than cabernet from at least the mid-eighties until sometime in the very late 90s when people started to take notice of things like Rockford (and Parker 'discovered' shiraz) - it all means that shiraz had a long way to go to catch up.
Which I presume it's doing. And which makes cabernet, relatively speaking, a bargain these days.
cheers,
Graeme

One other thing to note is that this is a NSW based company which very much explains the presence of Lake's Folly for one. I doubt it would be in the top ten if this company was based in Vic or SA. If it was an SA based company, one might think you would see a lot more shiraz. If WA, a lot more WA wines (although two are in the top ten).

I think you should also take a view that this is probably a bit of an investment look than a drinking look to some small extent. Also bear in mind that a lot of restaurants store wine with these types of companies too. Not that any of that explains why there is more cabernet but I'm just saying that it's not necessarily representative of what you might find in the average wine collector's cellar.

Saying all that, it's pretty representative of what's in mine! There's only two of the top 27 I don't have and I've tasted at least one vintage of all of them. The two I don't have are cabernets, interestingly enough.

I think a combination of reasons (and the ones above seem logical to me). One more I'd add: Perhaps Cabernet on the whole needs the age to soften, whereas young Shiraz is often more approachable. Exceptions of course, but I need them to prove the rule

oh, and another. Maybe more Shiraz is exported, so whilst production is higher, it's abroad rather than in an Aussie storage facility.

regards

Ian

I posted on this listing a little while ago - see here and asked folks how many they have in their collections. Turns out that, athough the answers were quite variable, there were some with quite a number of the wines.

Its certainly not possible to make any great claims about exactly what the Wine Ark listing represents apart from being 1 million bottles held for over 3,500 private wine collectors. But it is the only analysis that I have seen of the collections of a significant number of (presumably) serious wine collectors in a given location, and so it provides a foundation stone in that regard.

Mike

Surely the answer lies in the fact that it is a CELLAR list so most of the wines will probably be more than 10 years old.

A lot of the Cabernet wines have been around for a long time and had a high reputation for a long time.

With the exception of Grange what was an icon Shiraz in 1989?

My local has an old newspaper ad from the early 80's(??) which shows Hill of Grace for sale at $3.95 a bottle in a case buy. There are a few Rieslings that cost more.

It wasn't until Grange started attracting international interest that Shiraz started being given more attention as a super premium.

So given that most cellars probably reflect what was in fashion 8-20 years ago then it's not all that surprising.

The responses have raised a number of interesting points. First off:

KMP: Thanks for the link to your post about the very same Wineark list in Gourmet Traveller Wine. I joined the Auswine Forum just after your post and missed reading it.

In your post you mention that Wineark has about a million bottles of wine in its cellar and that 33% of it is comprised of Cabernet wines and 46% is of Shiraz wines. This only reinforces my view that for a country so reknowned for its shiraz, I find it surprising that cabernet wine represents about one-third of the Wineark cellar.

As to your question about how many of the wines we have from the list, I have 17 of the top 50 on the Wineark list, Cabernets accounting for 9 and Shirazes for 5. This fits in with my prediliction for Bordeaux, something I acquired in my early days of wine collecting and which I can no longer afford.

Alex F: I agree that there are many more top end shirazes in limited supply than there are cabernets; and that it would numerically relegate them to the lower ranks. However, surely there are good quality shirazes that are produced in sufficient quantities that would allow them to compete with the cabernets.

Graham: I agree that cabernets can be a relative bargain compared to shiraz, but only if the producer is not a famous shiraz producer. For example, good Cabernets from Shiraz specialists are generally less expensive than their Shiraz, but Cabernets from Margaret River producers are more expensive than their Shiraz. Coonawarra seems to an exception, where the reserve Cabernets and Shirazes are similarly priced.

Bacchaebabe: I was also surprised by the appearence of Lake's Folly so high on the list, just as I was surprised to see the Henschke Hill of Grace so far down the list in 37th position. There are also a couple of other "anomolies" that I can't explain. If the eastern Sydney market is so great an influence, why are there no McWilliams Mount Pleasant wines, the O'Shea, Rosehill and OP&OH reds and the Elizabeth and Lovedale semillons. And what happened to Wendouree, not to mention the older Baileys and Tahbilks, and that most neglected of wines, vintage port from Hardys, Reynella, Sevenhill, etc., etc. (Just to reinforce my own particular bias, the oldest Australian wine in my cellar is a 1972 Hardys Vintage Port).

And another thing, if the cellars are based on older collections, how come there are no "old time" rieslings, the Steingartens and Leonays? Is it because the interest in aged riesling a more recent interest?

Anyway, here is the question, how important is Cabernet in your cellar, do you have a 'disproportionately' larger share of Cabernet wines in your cellar?

Cheers.................Mahmoud.

... and possibly more reflective of what we choose to cellar and drink, rather than the 'optimal' cellar composition.

For mine, and I drink more white than red, the cellar is about 65% red. The whites are mostly Hunter semillons, Tahbilks marsannes, and rieslings. The 1986 Lovedale semillon, for example, is outlasting every red in the cellar with the likely exception of the (few) Granges.

Please also note that, while I cellar relatively inexpensive rieslings, semillons, etc, the 20 or so chardonnays in the cellar are Bannockburn, Moss Wood, Cullen, etc. It's what you want to drink, and are prepared to pay for and put away. And lesser chardonnays don't go the distance.

So, in tems of the question of age - yes, I try to rotate older wines through my cellar, but it is not exclusevely red.

With reds, after a decade of Shiraz dominance, I'm finding cabernets are finding moreof a place in the cellar - but presently, they're still outnumbered two to one.

Mahmoud Ali wrote:
Anyway, here is the question, how important is Cabernet in your cellar, do you have a 'disproportionately' larger share of Cabernet wines in your cellar?

Interesting question. By labels, I have a lot more shiraz but by volume, I don't think I have more cab than shiraz but I do have significant quantities (usually a dozen each good vintage although of late moving more towards half dozen lots) of Wynns black label, Bin 389, Mount Mary, Lakes Folly, Majella, Petaluma, Peter Lehmann and even Greenock Creek (when it was cheap) and Rockford Rifle Range and more recently the Mamre Brook.

I've always said that if you wanted to get into "wine investment", you shouldn't worry about chasing the parker pointed cults like Duck Muck, Three Rivers, Run Rig, Roennfeld Rd and even Grange but concentrate on buying pallets of the black label and Bin 389 in good vintages. Even if you triple your money on a duck muck or another cult (much less likely these days though), when you can only get between 1 and six of them, really, what is the point? Better to drink it and enjoy it. If you can get, say, the black label for $16.99 like it is around the traps now (not saying 03 is a great vintage but just using it to demonstrate the point) and then sell it in seven to ten years when it is drinking beautifully for between $30 and $50, you've possibly more than doubled your money. Of course you need to allow for storage and resale costs but you actually can buy pallets of it and it's a guaranteed reseller.

If you bought a pallet of 96 Bin 389 and were selling it now, you would have almost tripled your money in 7 or 8 years. Not a bad investment really and pretty low risk. I would think that is what a lot of the top three wines in the list would be about, apart from the fact that they are excellent wines that cellar exceptionally well.

If Cabernets are kept for longer then they may show up as being more commonly kept in cellars, even if fewer bottles are actually kept and consumed.

Kieran