2013 Ridge Monte Bello

WINE TALK
1

I received my shipment of 2013 MB yesterday. I noticed a couple of things. Not sure if they’ve been there before or not. First was that they included the 1% water addition on the label. I know it’s common for winemakers to add “Jesus Units” but don’t remember seeing it on a label before. Also, the label indicates aging up to 35 years would be appropriate. I know that most MB vintages can do this with relative ease but I recall PD’s aging windows to be a bit more conservative than this.

Has anyone tried the wine yet? Is it some sort of massive beast?

2

I got my 750s but not my halves yet. All I noticed was a few wrinkled labels. I’m not reselling so it matters not but seemed a bit sloppy.

3

Ridge has noted water additions in the past on some of the zins so maybe a first for the MB but not for a Ridge label.

I tried the 13 twice when poured at Bassins futures tasting. I would have to find my notes but from memory, I thought all of the 2013 wines were big on tannin and fruit and don’t recall thinking the MB was different. Based on the vintage and MB history, 35 years isn’t a crazy window.

4

I had a chat with a Ridge employee this week, he said Eric Bauer is more aggressive with posted drinking windows than Paul Draper has been.

5

I thought the wine was terrific out of barrel when I visited around a year after the vintage. I’m actually reviewing the 2013 for Decanter, so will be opening a bottle in the next week or two; I’ll try to post some impressions then.

Given Monte Bello’s track record, I think—as others have commented—that Ridge can be pretty confident in their aging projections at this stage, and I wouldn’t be surprised if Eric’s window for the 2013 ended up looking conservative when all is said and done.

6

So at a very simple level adding 1% water means im paying $1 of every bottle for 7.5ml of water or $133 for a litre of water based on the futures price of $100

So in effect for every six pack they ship they have added $6 of extra profit by watering down the wine. They make say 5000 cases of MB then this is $60,000 of extra profit

I hope they at least use Evian

7

Alan:

Pretty sure you’ve paid more than $1 per bottle for water adds before, although you won’t have seen it on the label. It’s pretty commonplace in California.

Best,
William

8

If producers were adding water to stretch the production numbers and were producing thin, dilute dreck as a result I’d be right there with you. However, I have only ever seen or heard of California producers watering back when trying to bring the brix down so they don’t wind up with 16 or 17% alcohol in the finished wine. I’d be willing to bet there are a lot of people who would drink watered back wines and still complain they were “too big” and ripe and alcoholic. 2004 Pinot Noir from the Central Coast would be a pretty good example. A heat wave hit, brix went through the roof and watering back was a way to bring things into better balance.

For whatever reason it seems like watering back it this dirty little secret when it shouldn’t be. It’s simply another technique to deal with the problems of trying to produce quality wine. I think that as far as intervention goes it’s pretty mild. I’ll quite freely state that I think watering back is a lot less bad than adding sugar or reverse osmosis or spinning cones as a means to alter the alcohol content of a wine. I will also admit that I would generally prefer to see grapes picked at a lower brix so this wouldn’t have to happen but I don’t see it as this great sin.

I feel pretty safe in saying that the good folks at Ridge are watering back in an effort to make better wine, not to dilute the product to stretch it further and thereby make more profit.

9

Eric said he needed to add water to both 2013 and 2014 to bring down the alcohol a tad.

10

Considering Ridge de-classifies 20% to 40% of the Monte Bello (down to SCM, etc) I don’t think the 1% to 4% water add they do has economics as a deciding factor whatsoever.

11

The back of the label of the 2012 says that the wine should continue to show well at age fifty! I hope to be around to enjoy that!!

Thanks,
Ed

12

And that is some tastey water too.

13

The 2012 states 2 1/2% water addition.

14

One percent? I would think the yeast conversion rate would be more uncertain than that number.

-Al

15

I have not tasted a MB that was over the hill. Has anyone else?

16

Now that you mention it . . . .

17

The definition of unicorn wine: properly stored, but over-the-hill MB.

18

I’ve had some 1980 and 1982 that were definitely well past. Somewhat enjoyable but well past.

19

I bought a couple bottles of '75 several years ago. The first bottle showed a little past its peak, but still quite enjoyable. Decided to pop the other one at the next “right” opportunity and it was stunning, with quite a lot of life left. Having had multiple bottles of most vintages back to '68, I’d say they don’t tired without help from a bad cork, for the most part. I’ve had a few not great '80s, but had a great one recently. Not a great batting average, and my third least favorite MB vintage.

Btw, there’s another thread with '13 TNs from the recent '15 Components tasting event.

20

If only this board had a search function.

I am as green as the next guy . . . well, maybe the guy 3 down from the next guy, but I was disappointed to see they used the pressed cardboard packing material. There really is no season when a box coming from CA to DC would not benefit from a little insulation. I’m sure the bottles are just fine, but at the price, I would have expected more