This evening we were to study 15 vintages of Grange and 5 Special Bin wines. Commentary was provided by the Penfolds Chief Winemaker, Peter Gago.
First cab off the rank was the ’76, coincidentally annointed by Mr Parker with 100 points in 2002. Personally, I couldn’t see over 92 points, but with a wine approaching 30 years of old, there will be a huge bottle variation. On the nose and palate, this was quite tertiary: leather, mushroom, truffles and forest floor. There were still some tannins there, but the mouthfeel was velvety and long, and with time, the aromas from the glass zigged and zagged – there was a lot of interesting things going on. The ’77 was also tertiary, but displayed softer fruit, a less assertive palate, and slightly less intensity. The ’79 showed leather and spice, with softer tannins than the ’76. The interesting thing about these wines from the 70’s was that though they all started out the same (more or less), the ’76 continued to build in the glass while the ’77 and ’79 seemed to dip.
We next had a trio from the 80’s: the ’83 was produced in the year of the Ash Wednesday fires. A horrific vintage that combined drought, bushfires and then flooding. The wine itself still had a good red colour and was initially quite restrained and youthful. With time, it showed a bit of resin and sweet core of fruit beneath lots of secondary characters. The comment was made that it appeared a bit woody this evening, something relating to the cork it was explained. The ’87 did not captivate me at all. Apparently Penfolds winemaker John Bird has described this as a classic Grange. My notes didn’t extend beyond “closed, light red fruits and tannic”. The last wine was the ’89. In its early years, this wine looked as good as the ’90, and was considered quite a showy wine, with its opulence and plummy characters drawing many a drinkers’ gaze. Time of course hasn’t been as kind and now the ’90 is the better regarded wine. But I liked the ’89: ripe fruit, lighter bodied, liquorice all-sorts, raspberries converse (but not jammy), bright fruit with a lot of appeal.
Then on to the first three wines from the 90’s. The ’90 looked very young, especially compared to the ’89, with fruitcake and red fruits, and a certain lean explosive potential. It didn’t impress me as much as I was expecting, but with its reputation this is not surprising. The ’91 didn’t grab me, drawing only 3 lines of comment: “closed, acid, closed”. Others thought differently, and in a show of hands for the wine of the evening, the ’91 pipped the ’90 by 1 vote and the ’96 by 2 votes, so what the hell do I know? The ’92 was not wine I’m was looking forward to, but it was good/very good. Lighter bodied, slightly herbaceous, maraschino cherries, a bit of leather, anise and looking much older than its years would suggest.
Next we had the ’94, ’95 and ’96. The last ’94 I had was a coconutty mess. Thank goodness this was better, with green liquorice characters (not bad green), suppleness, a touch of camphor. Certainly not mature yet but showing potential, particularly as it was not well regarded for many years. The ’95. Hmmmmmm. Chunky tannins, acetone, volatility. Not my cup of tea at all. The ’96: my first time I think. Red fruits, smoky spicy oak, mixed spice and tea leaf. I can still smell it now, blueberries, displaying more style and not the bigness of the ’98. A wine to look forward to in another 5 years or so, maybe more.
The last trio of Granges was the ’97, ’99 and ’00. I thought the ’97 was a bit sulfurous, and should have had a good decant. Peter thought this is a wine that has flown under the radar, sitting between two highly regarded vintages, and is a better wine than it is given credit for. Time will tell I suppose. The ’99 was impressive, though initially looking a bit volatile to me. Another wine that has suffered from the shadow cast by the ’98, but I think ’99 Barossa is a pretty smart vintage, and might in the long term look better than the ’98. And then we tried the ’00. A controversial wine to the say the least. Rating range from 89 points to 97 points and made in arguably the hardest Barossa vintage since 1974. Apparently production was down 75% in an effort to make the best wine possible. For me it was herbaceous, lighter bodied, red pastilley fruits, menthol, green capsicum, with a missing mid-palate. Peter said it was improving with bottle age, slowly becoming more Grange-like. I have no reason to not believe him, as he has certainly seen more Grange then most people on this planet.
The special bins were next. It was explained that these are only made when their production will not compromise the quality of Grange, 707 and more recently, RWT. The 1980 Bin 80A is a blend of Coonawarra Cabernet and Kalimna Shiraz made by Phillip John. It is passed it’s best to me: tired and leafy and slightly spiritous. It also showed some truffles, and quite pleasant on the palate. By comparison, the 1990 Bin 90A (also a blend of Coonawarra Cabernet and Kalimna Shiraz made by Phillip John) was youthful with bright red fruits and a lot of interest. This is a wine that I’d like to sit down with and have a good chat. After the 90A was the 2004 Bin 60A: oh my god, what a nose! Immense young pure fruits, raw energy, but a supple lithesome palate, with very fine melting tannins. This wine has potential plus plus plus, and I must admit to sneaking back afterwards and washing down some canapes with a good half glass of the stuff. Lastly we had 2 wines from the famous Block 42 Kalimna Vineyard: one from ’96 and other from ’04. Interestingly, only 5 straight cabernets have been made from this vineyard; a ’48 Kalimna Cabernet, ’53 Grange Cabernet, ’64 Bin 707 and the two wines mentioned previously. The ’96 was not what I was expecting at all. I was stunned. This is not a brute of a wine at all: bright fruits, acid, red currants, black olives, raspberry fruits, some interesting spices (ginger and carob) with fine but persistent tannins. I found this very approachable but also think it should age admirably. The last wine was the 2004 Block 42. As with 60A, this was incredibly young: pure ribena fruit, more restrained than the 60A, very fine fruit, melting milk chocolately tannins, a bit of cola, an impressive expression of power and restraint.
And that was it.
A miscellaneous comment from Peter that I remembered on the way home that night was that he said Grange is not meant to be a big wine, not in the sense that ‘big’ is used nowadays. They didn’t want big alcohol or big oak or necessarily big fruit. They wanted power with restraint.
In conclusion, I’d like to extend a hearty thanks to Stew from the Wine Emporium for organising the event, to Peter Gago for an informative chat on all matters vinous, and to Penfolds for supplying some of the wines and a lovely corkscrew from the people that did the Mammooth.