Very cool! Is La Cuesta the same as the Mount Eden Cabernet clone? I remember hearing that Martin Ray got his cuttings from Rixford in Woodside.
La Cuesta is the same as Mount Eden, which did have origins to Rixford’s vineyard in Woodside. (Those vines are still there in woodside.) Ridge didn’t get La Cuesta directly from Mt. Eden. As I recall, they came to Ridge in the late 80’s as south-slope block was being replanted (its where the ruby cabernet was grown, but vines taken out.) The bud-wood was sourced from York Creek Vineyard on Spring Mountain, Napa. Somehow, Fritz Maytag got cuttings from Mt. Eden-possibly from Merry Edwards. They were selected twice before being planted at Ridge. We did a clonal experiment in south-slope and would ferment the clones separately. The terroir was the same, but somehow the genetic differences of the clones showed. We knew that LaCuesta was well-adapted to a mountain/cool-climate site. As more plantings were scheduled, bud-wood was harvested and used to plant more blocks at Jimsomare, Rousten, and I’m sure now at some of the open space phases.
EB
3 Likes
Of course Emmett Rixford sourced that material from Chateau Margaux. I seem to recall someone, maybe William Short, and maybe others on Montebello, too, sourced some of that pre-Ridge. Then, a lot of the Cab that got planted in Saratoga and Los Gatos was sourced from the Mount Eden Vineyard.
I’ve never heard of the exact source of Rixford’s La Cuesta cabernet, but if its Ch. Margaux, that could explain why its makes absolutely beautiful wine. As I was describing the vineyard block of SouthSlope and how it was divided into four sub-parcels of La Cuesta versus “French” clone with an avenue down the middle. I have no idea of the source for the “French” clone used to compare against La Cuesta. It certainly had a unique flavor and was distinctly different. I doubt that “French” was a common Entav sourced clone as that was something very much opposed by Ridge to ever plant at Monte Bello. I’m sure it was some cuttings that were obtained via friends, but there was another block at the top of Monte Bello (next to Point merlot) planted in the late 60’s called “French.” As for the clonal experiment at South Slope, La Cuesta would show a unique character that was red currant, creamy tannin texture, rustic/earthy, distinct mountain character. “French” would be more tannic, dark berry/cassis, and showing more weighty tannins. La Cuesta was by far more elegant and complex. Given the soil and exposure being the same, winemaking being identical, the difference in the wine was purely genetics, subtle DNA changes that altered the flavor profile.
William Short sourced his cuttings from the Fountain Grove winery in Santa Rosa (Kanaye Nagasawa’s winery.) The block that William Short planted, which was sold to the Ridge Founders in 1959, exclusively produced the first vintages of Monte Bello until about 1975-76, when younger plantings began to contribute. Sadly, the old Fountain Grove (round barn) winery burned to the ground in the fires of 2017 that ravaged Santa Rosa. Not sure if any original cabernet vines were surviving before the fires, but I’m sure they would have been completely devastated by that fire as it destroyed everything in that area.
5 Likes
Rixford must have really loved Margaux because I think there’s a story about one of his vineyards (Gaspare?) that he planted to match the Margaux blend percentages in each row.
I love the quote from Paul Draper about the William Short Fountaingrove plantings “The partners at Ridge had the chance–so rare in the New World–to see what quality, mature vines would make before they decided to reopen the winery. I think it was crucial to their financial success that they were able to base the quality of the wine on the quality of the vineyard, not the sophistication of the winemaking.”
1 Like
It was La Questa. He’d written his book and planted the vineyard in the 1880s, then went to Ch. Margaux and got the cuttings and began the process of grafting over to proportionately match Ch. Margaux, which took place between 1895 and 1905. He then won medals in tastings and charged First Growth price for his wine.
That does raise the question what happened to the other material? Did Martin Ray only take one clone of the one variety? Is there anything other than CS hiding in the tiny portions that remain at La Questa itself?
Gaspar was in Saratoga, uphill some distance along Pierce Rd. from where Kathryn Kennedy is. I’m away from my references, but dont recall who planted that. I know Mario Gemello sourced if from the '50s-'70s, and the vineyard manager also tended the Montebello site he sourced. (I have some NV Sutter Home CS, which is a blend of '59 and '60 barrels from those sites, which Mario made and Bob Trinchero bought, which is how Darell Corti discovered Gemello.)
Mario Gemello deserved huge credit here. When the Rixford sons decided to retire, Mario bought all their inventory and wines in barrel ('39-'44). Ray came down and tasted, then bought the '44 barrels and qent to check out the vineyard. Eleanor Ray’s book gets some details wrong, which Charles Sullivan got right. She also claimed Ray restored and sourced from La Questa, but I’ve never seen evidence. He certainly got cuttings. There’s a gap - the vineyard must’ve been maintained, to some degree, while must of it got grafted over to housing. Some home winemakers started Woodside Vineyards to preserve what little of the vineyard was left around 1960. That amount, on four properties remains.
Mario should get a lot if credit for Ridge Vineyards, since he provided a lot of encouragement, winemaking advice, and benchmark wine to the Ridge founders.
4 Likes
Thanks for the refresher Wes. I think Mario told the Ridge founders to not go into the wine business! Ha.
It would be interesting to see who else might have gotten material from La Cuesta and if there are other clones or varieties floating around.
Charles Sullivan usually gets though tiny details correct, he’s my favorite of that generation of wine historian.
Kevin Ferguson, Mario’s grandson is now a member here also.
Yes, I’ve read and heard that several times. I think they found it amusing and enduring. Sort of like: He was right! It was the dumbest thing we ever did, and i wouldn’t trade it for ghe world!
Hi there - it is not forbidden to bring older bottles of Ridge to our events. It never has been. We don’t allow wines from other wineries to be brought onsite and opened, as that’s not allowed legally, but no issues with bringing older Ridge wines onsite.
Hi again - i’m sorry no one ever responded to the emails you mention about the glassware. I assume this was a while ago but i’ll look into how that might have happened. Our Customer Service Manager has been with us for decades (actually grew up on the mountain!) and usually does a phenomenal job. We have been thinking about bringing them back, and appreciate your thoughts on this.
1 Like
Hi Robert - the way the “wait list” works for our Monte Bello futures is a bit different than other producers who maintain newsletter based wait lists. Ours is driven entirely by the production size of the vintage. From 2013 through 2019, the average production size of Monte Bello was over 5,000cs. For the four years from 2020 through 2023 that dropped to mid 3,000’s. During that stretch, we couldn’t extend a futures offer to everyone in the program given the membership size, so we determined who received an offer based on their tenure in the club. So some newer members might not have received an offer during their first year in those years where production was down. We were able to ensure that almost all members did receive an offer in their second year of membership, even during those down years. The 2024 is back up to the historical average i mentioned so everyone was able to receive an offer this year as well, regardless of when they joined.
There is no way this is true, because I started buying Ridge Monte Bello in the 2017 vintage, so I bought 2017, 2018 and 2019 but was not offered any 2020 or 2021. Unless you are sticking to your caveat of “almost everyone” and I don’t fit that monikier. After much pleading, I got some 2020 (lucky me?) but didn’t bother begging for any 2021.
1 Like
I assure you it’s true. I’ve been running the business for 15 years. I’ll look into your specific situation and see what happened. I apologize if we got something mixed up with your account.
Ryan_Moore,
Do you have any comments on the initial points raised at the top of the thread? Specifically, what justifies the release price of Monte Bello creeping toward $200/bottle, when older vintages are often available on the secondary market for less? From a member’s perspective, wouldn’t Ridge benefit more by keeping release prices at something sharper, say $130/bottle, to reinforce value and loyalty?
For context, I haven’t personally purchased direct. My father-in-law has been devoted to his allocation of Monte Bello for nearly a decade, and he’s the one who got me hooked. We’re both huge fans. This question isn’t meant to be combative. I’d just genuinely like to understand the reasoning. Why isn’t the scenario of a lower release price more advantageous for Ridge and its members, especially in such a crowded wine landscape where consumer habits are shifting?
Would love to hear your perspective.
1 Like
Hi Bryan,
Thanks for your question. No problem at all, I’m happy to share. First off, thanks to both you and your father-in-law for your ongoing support. We really appreciate it.
I run direct sales for Ridge so I can only speak to your question about our pricing on the initial sales of the wine from us. I don’t have much insight on the secondary market so I can’t speak to that.
This may be more thoroughly answered in email or over the phone (or at our winery if you happen to visit soon) but the condensed version of why we currently charge $195 as opposed to $130 for Monte Bello futures comes down to two primary reasons, 1) what it costs us to produce the wine and 2) supply and demand.
Monte Bello is an expensive wine to make (for a variety of reasons) and our costs have risen significantly over the last five years. If we set the price too low, we would lose money on the sales of the wine, which would eventually result in our organization no longer being able to exist. Additionally, for my entire tenure at Ridge demand for Monte Bello has far exceeded our supply. There has only been a couple of vintages where we have had the wine available to sell past December 31st, when we release it in August. So only a few months. And in the last couple years it has sold out within the first month of release.
We are working hard to increase production with new planting on the mountain which resulted from our land swap with the open space district (An Agreement 40 Years in the Making - Ridge Vineyards) but that will depend on how the vines progress and the quality of the fruit we get off these young vines. Given we assemble Monte Bello based entirely on blind tasting, we aren’t aware of the specific lots or their potential quantity while we’re tasting to determine the blend.
I hope that helps answer your question.
5 Likes
Thanks for such a clear and thoughtful explanation. I appreciate you taking the time to spell it out, especially around the production costs and the point that Monte Bello consistently sells out. I wasn’t aware of the land swap and new plantings. Exciting!
I suppose my question came from a place of wanting to see Ridge continue to thrive while also keeping members feeling like they’re getting a unique advantage. It’s helpful to understand how the economics and demand dynamics factor into pricing, and I respect the transparency.
Sounds like an exciting chapter for Ridge. Hopefully I’ll have a chance to visit and taste at the winery before too long. Thanks again for the insight.
1 Like
I suspect it would take quite a few people to realize that prices are lower on the secondary market and be comfortable buying from those venues (not everyone is) before the “demand” portion of the supply/demand economics would force lowering winery prices.
3 Likes
I see MBs at auction. They may sit at what looks like a good price, but tend to get bid up at the end. Talking about recent releases here, or relatively, like within 20 years of the vintage. Certain recognized great vintages sell for more than the current release price. Some weaker vintages sell for less. But, that’s before buyers fee is tacked on. Overall, it might be slighty better to still buy as futures. It’s not the great deal it once was.
5 Likes
The 2025 offer is out. Pricing is unchanged at $195 a bottle.
One of California’s most iconic and age worthy wines for under $200 seems like a steal compared to many others coming out of California these days at well north of that price point.
Our standing order is for a full case mixed between standard bottles and mags, and having turned 50 last year there will come a time in the very near future that we do not need as much, and certainly not the magnums. I just may convert one of our magnums to half bottles this year…will have to give that some thought tonight.
1 Like