I got the grittiness on the finish when I tasted it back in March. That’s definitely smoke taint. The wine was otherwise gorgeous. Most or all other people there, including Tres, weren’t getting that. At that point, I think most people would’ve rated it highly. Like other aspects that bug me in otherwise great wines, I’ll knock 'em down in points to the overall enjoyability. That can be a marginal or huge downgrade. So, maybe he thinks this would be fine as a Tuesday night pizza wine, fairly priced at $15.
It was in the early part of harvest season. Yes, that’ll mess with photosynthesis. Who knows what other processes are affected by what types of light is getting screened.
The problem might be that the Australian research is out of date. There was a report of more smoke taint compounds released earlier this year (iirc). Test results are flawed if they aren’t testing for every relevant compound. I doubt the lab even knew there were more compounds. It’s also additionally possible Ridge was out of date with what was then known, and only ordered testing for a shorter list of compounds. That includes precursor compounds.
They obviously missed something. They either didn’t test for what’s there, or thought it was below an acceptable level.
Made a post about this - Ridge commented to people that purchased and had concerns that they’ll take it back and refund or replace the order. I don’t know if that means after it has been open or not. So @AndyK maybe you have some recourse.
In my experience, he’s usually right, unfortunately. Monprivato 2013 is awful and 2015-2017 solid but nothing like the epic wines from the past, in my experience. Same with Giacosa.
I am part of the monte bello future program, I went to reluctantly pick up my 20’ vintage but they gave me all 19’ in their error. I have to say I felt terribly but I kept them and felt so happy that I didn’t end up with 20’
Any idea if they’ll offer credit for consumed bottles? I’m tempted to try one and make up my own mind, but I’m also thinking the safe approach is to just return them.
Ridge has been excellent with replacing the rare bottles that are corked/flawed. If you open the bottle and it’s clearly smoke tainted, I think they would be happy to replace it.
Just as with a corked wine, I wouldn’t suggest consuming the entire bottle and try to get a replacement. Pour yourself a glass and if it’s flawed, put a cork in the bottle and let them know
Just sucks having to open one way too early of the allotted 2 or 3 most of us get a year to check. Then even if it is good, having to finish it before it was anywhere near ready is almost a waste on its own.
I guess if they are worth doing business with then they would replace it whenever you do decide to open it so hopefully a moot point.
Yeah, drinking one super early to potentially see if you notice the flaw at this point is sucky, as if you don’t notice it, or it doesn’t bother you, you’ve just Pobega’ed a Monte Bello, and many of us (most?) aren’t huge fans of drinking wines built-to-last immediately upon receipt.
Too bad I couldn’t make the dinner and taste with the group. (Harvest dates change last minute.) It is around where a Monte Bello might be shutting down, so I do wonder how much the bad showing was that and how much was the taint. I see two possibilities. If that gorgeous fruit from 8 month ago is muted because the wine is shut down, the taint would just be more noticeable. As in, if there hasn’t been bound up compounds unbinding, then the taint would show less again on the early side of the drinking window and possibly until the fruit starts fading significantly. That would mean the 95% who didn’t notice it in March likely wouldn’t notice it from maybe 2035 to 2050. The other possibility is a lot more compounds have unbound. Then it will never taste as good as it did in March.
Just my opinion, but I wouldn’t think it’s proper to ask for a refund on the consumed bottle. Either you trust them or you don’t, the risks were known going in. If you trust the producer just hang tight. if the bottles show taint in 20 years then they are going to make it right.
If you’re on the fence then ok pop a bottle to check out yourself, no different than buying one to try from a bottle shop before going all in. Certainly take them up on their guarantee for the other bottles but I’d chalk the trial up to education. (I can’t imagine it is but I’d say rather than chase the winery on a fully consumed bottle have every body before hand throw down $10 for the trial if the money is really of concern)
Most people paid for 2020 MB on futures years ago.
If a wine is smoke tainted, it is flawed.
Your statement about “knowing the risk” is total garbage. All of us who buy wine know there is a risk of TCA, brett, heat damage, etc. when these issues occur, we return the wine because we have been sold some thing that is faulty. Smoke taint is no different.
There were so many clients buying 2017 Napa Cabernets, and literally had no idea what the fire impact was. I had clients wondering why they hadn’t seen certain offers for 2020 Napa, and I had to explain it to them.
Not garbage but you are free to disagree. Thanks for being so reasonable to a counter thought. I did forget that it’s a futures program, but they would allow you a refund before pickup if you are concerned. I guess the reasonable thing to do is ask Before you pop. They obviously think the wine is sound so I don’t think it’s should be accepted for every purchaser to be allowed to pop one today on them. If you are not comfortable with the vintage just don’t accept it. I skipped all 2020’s verticals be damned.
This isn’t bottle variation with a shipping error or corked wine roulette. This is the vintage, again you either trust their decision to release a proper wine or not. They are telling you it is worthy of their branding. Maybe if enough people complain they will recall the vintage as before.
I think the convo upthread about taint being binary is a sorta interesting one and pretty relevant to this thread. First, I do believe “flaws” are binary, in that they are either present or they aren’t. But I also think there are gradations - duh - in the intensity of the “flaw”, and definite differences in how they’re individually perceived. I think Ridge knows what they’re doing, business-wise, and most folks will very much enjoy this wine, with a small percentage asking for a refund. If you perceive smoke taint in this wine, you are - in my opinion, and as a retailer myself - very much entitled to a refund.
But I think the convo around “flaws” itself being binary is a bit of a bummer, both professionally and personally. I like the Grateful Dead. I’d argue there are more “flawed” shows than perfect shows in their history, but I think those “flaws” are part of the thing that drives the intrigue and mystique of the band, and make for a more complex listening experience. When Jerry loses his voice and there’s a whole show of Bobby songs it isn’t exactly my favorite, and I won’t return to that show all that much, but I’m really glad it exists because it only adds to the galaxy of my experience as a Deadhead.
I have a couple bottles of 2020 Monte Bello. I won’t be in a hurry to drink them, and I’ll probably open another bottle or two on the nights I open those bottles. But I’m really happy I have those bottles and I won’t be returning them or asking for a refund - I bought them direct, not wholesale - no matter how they’re affected by smoke. Cork taint is another story, because that has nothing to do with the wine, but smoke taint - to me - stands apart as a “flaw” because it’s vintage-derived. It’s an inherent part of the wine, its story, and the winery’s experience that year. I’m very interested to learn how the '20 MB fits in with the 19 and '21 vintages in a mature vertical several years down the line. That experience is far more interesting to me as a Deadhead - er, wine lover - than a perfect bottle of wine on its own, and vastly more interesting than a missing vintage in a vertical.
