Tee hee - WS rates 06 Ridge Monte Bello 86pts

WINE TALK
41

Ugh, thanks

42

Why take cracks at someone who understands the varietal and reviews them intelligently?

43

I think that 68 was for the regular Santa Cruz Mountains, and in my view was about right, if not on the high side.

I suppose at least Laube reviews them - when is the last time Parker rated Monte Bello?

44

I’ve had it a few times blind alongside similarly priced flashy Napa cabs.
As you can imagine, it’s easily overwhelmed by the concentration and power, especially if that’s a style you prefer.

45

That’s a fair question. I don’t follow Meadows when it comes to cali or oregon pinot I just don’t bash him for how he rates stuff.

46

We had a blind tasting of Cabs from the 90s. The 91 Monte Bello was incredible. My #2 WOTN after the 97 Montelena.


I’ll repeat what I wrote when Laube rated the 2001 Montelena only 69 points:

“Laube should give himself a 69!”

47

I didn’t find it lean when I had it:

taste: great medium/full feel with big tannins and pure tones of dark red cherries, sour cranberries, mint, cedar, some leather, and black currants. Very polished feel, but comes off as extremely tight and young with medium acidity

overall: A baby, but this has the chance to be a real beauty in the years to come. The tannins are fairly chewy right now, so patience is needed, but one will be very happy to have this in about 13 years (93 pts.)

Posted from CellarTracker



very young, certainly, but not lean and it came off as a classic monte bello

48

Which did you prefer in a blind tasting?

Thanks for the input from you and Ken!

49

I think lean in his case might mean ‘dry’. [stirthepothal.gif]

50

This has been touched on but not quite said; does it occur to you that Ridge MB’s don’t show particularly well for the first six to eight years in bottle? It’s just the way it is. Sometimes 12 years. Take the '90. I bought a case. In '99 it was tight and lean. In '02 it was missing a midpalate. Now, it’s a thing of beauty. It still will not show well in a crowd of bruiser fruit-forward cabs, but on it’s own it’s a great wine. Santa Cruz Mountain cab fruit, even in years like '91, is never going to match Napa cab fruit in fruit intensity. The Santa Cruz petit verdot and cab franc only serve to widen that divergence/chasm. Ridge and Paul Draper are not trying to emulate the Napa cab style. The '90 MB now resembles an old-world traditional, unspoofulated Paulliac, just like Mr. Draper strives for. I don’t think Laube or RMP get it wrong other than applying the wrong expectations in their scores. Their descriptions of what they are tasting at the time in the age-less but ageless newly bottled wine is actually pretty much spot-on.

51

Mitch

Always a fair point.

When I taste wine, I taste it for what it is now and what it might become. I would assume the same of others.

When deciding what wine I like, I encompass everything

52

In a blind tasting I’m thinking about how the wines taste now, not how they’ll look in 10-20 years.
It typically ended up in the middle of the pack, both on my vote and on the consensus.

I’d have to go dig up the notes from VinoCellar, but as I recall the last time we did this was with 2002s.
We had wines like Insignia, Pride Reserve, Quilceda Creek, Isosceles Reserve as well as 2003 Leoville Barton.
As luck would have it, the 03LB was the last one to be poured, and until I tasted that I was convinced that
the Monte Bello was Leoville Barton; it seemed so radically different to everything else on the table.

Overall I think Pride won the voting, though I didn’t care for it. I think my favourites on the night were Quilceda and Ladera Lone Canyon.

It was the same story when we did the 2001s - Insignia came out top, with Montelena and Monte Bello somewhere in the middle.

53

I don’t buy the blind tasting argument. While the big wines stand up and ‘win’ tastings in those conditions that is no excuse for scoring the wine lower than it warrants. While it may not excite and smack you in the face the way some big cult Cab would you should be able to see the relative merits of Monte Bello as well as it’s future. Otherwise I think your whole palate gets called into question to me. That’s fine for us schmoes but for someone writing for the widest circulated magazine that helps sell wines then it becomes a serious issue to me. You are essentially telling people not to try or buy such a wine instead of explaining to them why it’s different than the others and how you should decide which style is best for you.

54

I have no problem with a critic calling it like he/she sees it based upon blind tasting. But I would think a good critic would then put the tasting notes in context, e.g. “I give this wine a 86 today, but these wines typically show poorly when young and may improve dramatically with extended aging.”

I don’t think it has to be either/or-- I want the reviewer to taste blind first, then taste in context of the wine and winery.

55

Awwwwww, Mitch…these folks are professional critics. They can unerringly predict what a wine is going to be like at its peak and award their scores accordingly.
Laube’s 86 is not what it’s like now…but what it’ll be like at maturity…and obviously not very good.
At least…that’s what they’d have us to believe.
Tom

56

3 years ago, about 10 of us did a Cabernet challenge. The 2000 Ridge Monte Bello won. Maybe it wasn;t my favorite, but look at some of the wines it beat out. My notes:

  1. Kirkland Pauillac 2003 – Deep purple, roasted fruit, good finish, ****. 7 pts.
  2. David Arthur 2001 – Almost black, fabulous kirsch nose, incredible density, the finish lasts forever, magnificent. My Cab WOTN *****+. 8 pts.
  3. Wyncroft Shou 2003 – Some brick color, good tannin, complexity, very long finish, **** ½. 0 pts.
  4. Chateau St Jean Cinq Cepages 2002 – Deep purple color, cassis, blackberry, hugh fruit and tannin, but great balance, **** ¼. 5 pts.
  5. Outpost Zinfandel Howell Mountain 2003? – Purple, with some aging at the rim, cherry, huge fruit and density, tannic, *****. 9 pts bronze medal winner…
  6. Ridge Monte Bello 2000 – Black/purple color, great concentration, sweet fruit, granular tannins, only a medium length finish, *** ¾. 15 pts gold medal winner.
  7. Wyncroft Shou 1999 – Some bricking at the edge, organic flavors (old world for sure), great power and fruit, ageworthy, *** ¾. 6 pts.
  8. Chateau D’Issan Margaux 2001 – Purple, sweet fruit, a bit shy, *** ½. 4 pts.
  9. Wyncroft Shou 2002 – Deep ruby color, great nose, acid not balanced by fruit, ** ½. 0 pts.
  10. Schrader To-Kalon T6 – Purple to the rim, huge fruit and concentration, fantastic. (I considered the wine to be dry, but with gobs of sweet fruit. There were more than a few people who thought that this wine had residual sugar. TRB, if you are reading this, I would love to be able to settle this argument. Many thought that this wine was the Zinfandel. **** ½. 7 pts.
  11. Lewis Reserve 1997 – Purple, kirsch, concentrated, an immense wine, **** ¾. 8 pts.
  12. Chateau Margaux 1981 – Brick red, great balance of acid and tannin, a long finish, ageworthy, ****. 0 pts.
  13. Chateau Gazin Pomerol 1998 – Dark brick, bacon fat, cedar wood flavors. (Many, including myself, assumed this to be the ’81 Margaux.), **** ½. 7 pts.
  14. Leasingham Classic Clare Cabernet 2001 – Purple, some bricking, a bit short, *** ¾. 7 pts.
  15. Justin Isosceles 2003 – Purple, some transparency at the rim, gorgeous fruit, good tannin, however, to me, it did not stand out in this crowd of spectacular wines, *** ¾. 11 pts silver award winner.
  16. Kilikannon Clare Valley Blocks Road Cabernet 2001 – Purple, almost black to the rim, huge concentration and great balance, **** ¾. 0 pts.
  17. Cos D’Estournel 1998 – Some ruby at the rim, but still dark purple for the most part, beautiful nose, a nice wine, good finish, **** ¼. 2 pts.
57

Since I don’t read WS any longer, I’d be curious to know what kind of scores two other well-known mountain wines (and personal favorites) get - Mt. Eden and Laurel Glen.

58

People still can’t seem to accept that fact that there are non-fans of this style of Cabernet. Non-fans of how the wines are at 0 years of age, non-fans of how they are at 5 years of age, non-fans of how they are at 15 years of age. There’s a tendency to overestimate the transformation “ageable” wines go through as they age. If the characteristics are there to make a wine you’ll like 10 years down the road, any moderately experienced wine drinker should be able to enjoy the wine as it is now (with perhaps some air time). It may be disjointed and tannic, but should still be enjoyable. At least that’s been my experience.

59

I can well accept your fan base argument. Makes sense. But don’t you think a guy with the readership he has owes more to his readers? Or might see an opportunity for education?

Other than that I think you are saying a wine will taste the same young, middle aged and old. That hasn’t been my experience and I don’t think it is of most other people here. Even those that would agree with JL much more than I would.

60

See California Cabernet Sauvignon Alphabetical Listing" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Laurel Glen wasn’t listed.

MOUNT EDEN
Cabernet Sauvignon Santa Cruz Mountains 2005 83 $50
Cabernet Sauvignon Santa Cruz Mountains Saratoga Cuvée 2005 85 $28