Ridge and oak creep

For those here that know me, (1) I buy and drink lots of Ridge and have for many years and (2) I have been complaining (whining, sure) about the uptick in the use of new oak in their Zins and Cabs these last handful of years. I found the entire lot of 2013s, which I bought aplenty, to be heavy-handed with new American oak. I was delighted to see a slight decrease in new oak in the Geyserville, and it showed beautifully, better to me than the last several years. And the 2015 has even less new oak, down to 5% (2014, 15%; 2013, 20%).

So I was sorta psyched to see the 2014 Estate Cab roll out, as it is a perrenial buy and QPR for me, one of the few Cali Cabs that I buy. Well, the winemaking cut-sheet is on the site, and the new American oak has actually increased more than 50% over 2013, which was more than 100% over prior years.

2014
70% at 19 mos.

2013
48% at 21 mos.

2012
20% at 21 mos.

2011
20% at 21 mos.

2010
16% at 22 mos.

2009
15% at 19 mos.

2008
40% at 20 mos.
(Not its most successful year)

I am psyched to buy the 2015 Geyserville, but am becoming far less enamored with continuing to buy the Estate Cabs. By the way, the 2013 Torre Cab was heavy on new oak as well (100% new), as is the 2014. I personally do not get it, they have excellent materials and winemaking skills, yet are allowing the new American oak to play a more pronounced role in the character of the wine. Even the winemaker’s note refers to oak twice:

Deep purple color. Aromas of blackcurrant, cherries, clove spice, > toasted oak> , and cocoa. Ripe bramble fruit entry, medium-full body, supple tannins, and > sweet oak> ; firm acid persists in a long finish. EB (1/17)

I know, many will chime in, “it needs more time”. I’ve drank enough Ridge over the last 25 years, including older vintages of Montebello, to make my own assessment there, whether new American oak actually does integrate enough for my palate, not to be a detractor. Montebello pulls it off decently, but the Estate Cab, the jury is out. It has not on the 2008, and I’m not so sure on the 2013. Not to say the 2013 is bad - its actually darn good - but the oak presence is pronounced.

I’m probably rambling a bit here, and perhaps have lost my point, but it’s disappointing to me. I will grab a 2014 Cab to try, but I may be bailing out, just like I have on Lytton (did grab some 2014s). I may be down to Geyserville only, which ironically, is what brought me to this winery with the incredible 1991 vintage and Geyserville bottling.

Robert,

This is going back a long way, but I found that Ridge upped their oak usage around 10-15 years ago to a point where I stopped calling them a traditionalist and put them square in the modern producer category. Now, they may age well and shed the oak profile, but I was no longer willing to give them a chance. I guess what I’m saying is that to me, this oak increase has been going on for years.

I don’t disagree with that, Mike (except that I do not believe the American oak profile is ever entirely “shed”). By 2009 I was only buying Geyserville, Lytton and the Cab. I since dropped Lytton, and am now thinking of dropping the Cab.

Geyserville remains my sinful pleasure wine.

The data on the Estate Cab only goes back to 2008, which is its inaugural vintage anyway. I have not checked on the oak regime history of Montebello, but it has never been an annual buy for me anyway.

Why do wine makers like oak ? in very moderate amounts it can add subtle flavors but in the heavy handed style all it does is add a dusty floorboard component to wine, who ever decided that adding floorboards to wine was a good idea

I never bought the cabs, but I regularly bought Geyserville and Lytton Springs. I stopped a few years ago when I discovered Dashe Enfants Terribles, which meet my zin needs without all the oak.

The last time you posted about oak on the estate Cab I posted a response from Eric Baugher. I may still have it. Do I need to dig it up again?

Actually yes, David. I was looking for that old thread and could not find it. Thanks.

The winemaker’s note mentioning oak not once but twice is really interesting. It’s being advertised as a prominent feature, which I agree, seems odd and certainly counter to what I look for in Ridge wines and wines in general. As you said, the oak is part of the Ridge style, but it should be in a supporting role, not the featured star. And, for the reasons you explain – the fruit, the winemaking, they don’t need the make-up.

mmm…co-co nut [lipsmack]

I’ll take your MacDonald allocation off your hands, then.

Found it:

Eric Baugher responded to my email. The most pertinent points are that the new oak percentage has gone up recently due to the drought concentrating the wines, and his feeling that the wine can handle that increase as part of its overall profile. He clearly does not see the Estate Cab as a drink now wine, so that may be a lesson for all of us.

Also, the new oak is only 45% in the 2015. That’s more the general target range per Eric.

Robert - have you tried Arnot Roberts “Fellom Ranch” or Mount Eden cabs? Very similar soils and climate and French oak.

Quit messing with my Monte Bello!

(All three are exceptional)

If it turns out to be heavy handed with a predominant oak component then you will be welcome to it

As a big Ridge fan, I haven’t liked the '14 Estate Cab the few times I’ve tried it. I’m thinking it’s an anomaly. The '13 is excellent and the '15 MB rocks. I’d guess the even higher percent for the '14 is due to the assemblage process, since the decisions on which lots make the Monte Bello cut are made after they’ve been in barrel for a few months.

Btw, I guarantee you there is oak that fits SCM Cab very well, and you wouldn’t think was near 100% new if you tasted it. Cooperage trumps percent new. Mountain fruit can generally take more new, without noticing it, than valley fruit.

I don’t doubt that at all. I am not anti-oak in general. It always amazes me how one of my favorite wines, Sociando Mallet, handles new French oak. I would never guess in a million years it is 100% in some years; but then again, I would never guess blind that it only has 5% cab franc.

Recently, I’ve not a big fan of the SCM Cab as its too much oak and more fruit forward than the Monte Bello. Never had a problem with oak in the Geyserville, but it can probably take more of the oak.

I’m with Robert on this one. For my tastes, Zinfandel based wines handle the American oak much better than the cabs do. That said, I’ve had some magical Ridge cabs from the 80’s and a sensational 1991 Jimsomare, but I don’t know how much new oak those wines saw. They still had the Drapier perfume though.

I had the famous 1991 Monte Bello just once, and it was a sickly, caramelly mess of new oak. The bottle has been stored since release by the guy who brought it. Others like it, but I was hugely let down. I really don’t understand why winemakers like oak so much, it masks the bouquet, the fruit and the terroir and can make the wine harsh with wood tannins.

Funny thing about those data on oak usage is I found the apparant oak levels on the 2013 Geyserville to be better balanced than other vintages, but that could be the function of having tried it on release when (perhaps) the primary fruit covered any excessive woodiness. Want to try the '15 Geezer!

I’m not a wine maker and don’t play one on tv, but isn’t the issue more the char of the barrel than the soil in which the tree grew? I am sure you could get a noxious char level on pretty much any barrel from France or Slovenia or from Counselor Bobby’s back yard in Orlando. And I am assuming (but do not know) that with a light hand, an American barrel can be well mannered as well.

I wait to be educated

Honestly, I always assumed the char helped get rid of the “pickle smell” aspect of American oak, Dill I guess some call it.

Maybe Mel can step in here and educate me. I don’t see why American oak (which, I am assuming is a geographic designation and not a specific kind of tree) would have a dill aspect, but the same tree grown in the Arden would not.