Tee hee - WS rates 06 Ridge Monte Bello 86pts

[gene_keenan]

Laube has rated the MB 86-88 pts every year for the last 10 years.

at least he is consistent in some respect.

[Alan_Rath]

Here’s the review:

“Tastes ripe and taut, medium-bodied and hollow at points, offering tight, flinty mineral, sage, dusty berry and dried currant flavors that are lean and tight. The best of two bottles tasted. Cabernet Sauvignon, Merlot, Petit Verdot and Cabernet Franc. Best from 2012 through 2018. 4,502 cases made. –JL”

I haven’t had the wine recently, but tasted the barrel components and final assemblage up at Ridge at their two open tastings each year. The 06 Monte Bello was then fabulous. What it wasn’t was overripe, overoaked, sappy, jammy, syrupy - all the things that get Napa cabs rated highly. Frankly, I’m happy to see this, there will be lot of dumping of 06 MB over the next year or so.

[davetong]

@Alan Rath

Here’s the review:

“Tastes ripe and taut, medium-bodied and hollow at points, offering tight, flinty mineral, sage, dusty berry and dried currant flavors that are lean and tight. The best of two bottles tasted. Cabernet Sauvignon, Merlot, Petit Verdot and Cabernet Franc. Best from 2012 through 2018. 4,502 cases made. –JL”

I haven’t had the wine recently, but tasted the barrel components and final assemblage up at Ridge at their two open tastings each year. The 06 Monte Bello was then fabulous. What it wasn’t was overripe, overoaked, sappy, jammy, syrupy - all the things that get Napa cabs rated highly. Frankly, I’m happy to see this, there will be lot of dumping of 06 MB over the next year or so.

2012-2018? What the …? Anyone who even THINKS about opening this before 2016 is totally nuts.
At least he’s consistent. He just doesn’t like SCM cabernet.

KATHRYN KENNEDY
Cabernet Sauvignon Santa Cruz Mountains Small Lot Cabernet 2006 83 $42
MARTIN RAY
Cabernet Sauvignon Santa Cruz Mountains Reserve 2005 88 $45
MOUNT EDEN
Cabernet Sauvignon Santa Cruz Mountains 2005 83 $50
Cabernet Sauvignon Santa Cruz Mountains Saratoga Cuvée 2005 85 $28
RIDGE
Estate Santa Cruz Mountains 2006 86 $40
Monte Bello Santa Cruz Mountains 2006 86 $145

Edit: I missed one.
BLACK RIDGE
San Andreas Red Santa Cruz Mountains 2006 92 $49

Frankly I haven’t enjoyed the San Andreas all that much; I found it somewhat over-oaked.
San Andreas

[CFu]

@Gordon Fitz

First, I will say that Laube and I have locked horns on his blogs several times in the past. Items such as the overriping of grapes and use of oak being the normal culprits we have clashed on.

But some of you guys are treading on some sacred ground, which always gets me into trouble. That is the blind tasting of newly released young wines built (and needing) to age right next to big fruit forward “drink now” wines. I continue to say that even the pros don’t do it very well, and most amatuers are worst than the pros. You give the pros a lineup of 20+ wines,blind, in a flight with one or two great ageworthy (but currently backward) wines in the lineup and those two get killed consistently. This is especially more true today, as Laube has aged and his tastes have shifted over to the huge fruit/oak/alcohol treatments. IMO, fifteen years ago, when Laube was in his prime, the ratings coming from him would have been very consistently different than today. But we all get older and our tastes changes, some of us just don’t rate wines for a living.

well said Gordon. He does it blind, at least he’s honest with what he likes. He doesn’t know the pedigree when tasting it blind. That’s the con for blind tasting.

[davetong]

By the way, here’s my note from earlier this year.

2006 Monte Bello
A powerful nose of smoke, blackberry, mint and slate jumps out of the glass. There is plenty of sweet brambly fruit, hints of smoke and mint and a very long, dry mineral finish. Wes had brought some of his home-made Elderberry jam because he’s been noticing elderberry notes on recent vintages of Monte Bello; he was right, there was definitely some elder notes. As you’d expect it has great structure and will cellar well, though it would be good with steak tonight. With time it opened up further. Should be a classic Monte Bello. $140 94+

[Berry_Crawford]

I am sure Laube is a good guy and I have zero doubt that he has integrity and calls them like he seems them, but his taste for cherry-syurp Pinot has been a disaster for those of us who like a more restrained style that can age. But at least he is honest, he has publically stated that he doesnt like the flavors of aged wine and rates the wine on how it tastes at that moment.

I think 2006 is a case in point. I honestly think 2006 is the vintage of the decade so far. These wines will age and many will show great secondary and maybe even teriary flavors from developement. But he hated the vintage.

[Brian_G_r_a_f_s_t_r_o_m]

@Berry Crawford

I am sure Laube is a good guy and I have zero doubt that he has integrity and calls them like he seems them, but his taste for cherry-syurp Pinot has been a disaster for those of us who like a more restrained style that can age.

I understand the argument that his preference for the opposite style might lead to a proliferation of that style, but that aside, isn’t it a good thing that his tastes are opposite of yours? keeps prices down (due to the “low” scores) and keeps the points chasers away from them as well. as long as he’s consistent, which i think he is w/r/t Pinot, then it will be easy to allign your palate with is, which it sounds like you’ve done. to me, this is congruent to cheering for your favorite wines to NOT make the WS Top 10 each year.

[Berry_Crawford]

@Brian G r a f s t r o m

@Berry Crawford

I am sure Laube is a good guy and I have zero doubt that he has integrity and calls them like he seems them, but his taste for cherry-syurp Pinot has been a disaster for those of us who like a more restrained style that can age.

I understand the argument that his preference for the opposite style might lead to a proliferation of that style, but that aside, isn’t it a good thing that his tastes are opposite of yours? keeps prices down (due to the “low” scores) and keeps the points chasers away from them as well. as long as he’s consistent, which i think he is w/r/t Pinot, then it will be easy to allign your palate with is, which it sounds like you’ve done. to me, this is congruent to cheering for your favorite wines to NOT make the WS Top 10 each year.

Id gladly pay a bit more if the universe of wines made in a style I like was alot larger

[Brian_G_r_a_f_s_t_r_o_m]

touche. fair enough.

[gene_keenan]

Dictator ratings for Monte Bello from last 13 years:
RIDGE Monte Bello Santa Cruz Mountains 2006 86
RIDGE Monte Bello Santa Cruz Mountains 2005 88
RIDGE Monte Bello Santa Cruz Mountains 2004 86
RIDGE Monte Bello Santa Cruz Mountains 2003 86
RIDGE Monte Bello Santa Cruz Mountains 2002 87
RIDGE Monte Bello Santa Cruz Mountains 2001 88
RIDGE Monte Bello Santa Cruz Mountains 2000 88
RIDGE Monte Bello Santa Cruz Mountains 2000 86
RIDGE Monte Bello Santa Cruz Mountains 1999 92
RIDGE Monte Bello Santa Cruz Mountains 1998 89
RIDGE Monte Bello Santa Cruz Mountains 1998 68
RIDGE Monte Bello Santa Cruz Mountains 1997 87
RIDGE Monte Bello Santa Cruz Mountains 1996 86

Laube is totally consistent for the most part across vintages. Good news the wines are consistent. Bad news is Laube does not like em.

[Brian_G_r_a_f_s_t_r_o_m]

why is that bad news? same reason Berry gives re: Pinot?

[CFu]

I mean Allen Meadows bashes all super ripe high alcohol pinots. He’s just the anti Laube when it comes to pinot. No one is taking cracks at him?

[Berry_Crawford]

@Charlie Fu

I mean Allen Meadows bashes all super ripe high alcohol pinots. He’s just the anti Laube when it comes to pinot. No one is taking cracks at him?

Didnt he award good scores to KB once? Maybe I am misremembering.

[Mike_Reff]

He is consistent about his ratings. To state that he does not like this brand is somewhat pre mature. Considering it takes years for this brand to really show itself, why jump to sudden conclusions. An 86 rating is perfectly acceptable, didnt anybody read that recent WSJ article about the ratings system ?

[Peter_C]

@Mike Reff

Ssshhhh, I did not just post this

“Tastes ripe and taut, medium-bodied and hollow at points, offering tight, flinty mineral, sage, dusty berry and dried currant flavors that are lean and tight. The best of two bottles tasted. Cabernet Sauvignon, Merlot, Petit Verdot and Cabernet Franc. Best from 2012 through 2018”

Haha!! I was right! Ripe, lean and medium bodied, plus flinty mineral, sage, dusty berry and dried currant sounds incredible to me. The one bottle I killed when I received futures was tough to evaluate due to it’s youth and oak, but seemed very similar to the 2001 which I also own and have drank several times.

Is the WS rating based on the estimated peak drinking of the wine or how it tastes at the moment?

[TimF]

I’d be super-pissed if MBs started getting big scores. Then I wouldn’t be able to steal them for < 3 figures on a regular basis.

[Gordon_Fitz]

Peter;

From their website it is always how it tastes at the moment. They pretty much ignore ageability. Suckling has been called to task on this issue on several occasions over BdMs. There are several great BdMs that always get poor scores from him, even though he will admit that they age beautifully. He doesn’t care, it how it tastes at the time of the tasting.

Have any of the readers of WS ever noticed that when Laube does retrospectives, that is look backs on 10 year old vintages, he never looks at wines like Montalena or Ridge that he gave low initial scores to. He is very carefull to only select wines he gave the high scores to for comparison. That selectitivity saves face for him.

Dave Tong’s 94 vs. JL’s 86 is an interesting look at the current system.

[Peter_C]

@Gordon Fitz

Peter;

From their website it is always how it tastes at the moment. They pretty much ignore ageability. Suckling has been called to task on this issue on several occasions over BdMs. There are several great BdMs that always get poor scores from him, even though he will admit that they age beautifully. He doesn’t care, it how it tastes at the time of the tasting.

Have any of the readers of WS ever noticed that when Laube does retrospectives, that is look backs on 10 year old vintages, he never looks at wines like Montalena or Ridge that he gave low initial scores to. He is very carefull to only select wines he gave the high scores to for comparison. That selectitivity saves face for him.

Dave Tong’s 94 vs. JL’s 86 is an interesting look at the current system.

Ok well at least that makes some sense.

In any event, I’m happy when critics score wines I love poorly - snapping up older Montelenas at auction is a piece o cake due in part to JL.

I just thought it was fun to check out his list of 06s for a few laughs based on my own palate.

[Daniel_Posner]

Full disclosure: I am not a Laube fan, our palates do not align well.

Point #1) It is unfair to clump WS critics together. Molesworth, Sanderson, and Kim Marcus do an excellent job covering their specific territories.
Point #2) Laube does too, I just do not understand his reviews

Point #3) Has anyone ever tasted Monte bello in a blind tasting? I have not, but Laube is.

I can tell you that I have had some good Monte Bello and some not so good ones.

[Peter_C]

@Daniel Posner

Full disclosure: I am not a Laube fan, our pallets do not align well. .

But do your palates align?