Tee hee - WS rates 06 Ridge Monte Bello 86pts

CFu · November 20, 2009, 6:52am

sounds like the excuse you think Burgundy drinkers say

Nick_Ryan · November 20, 2009, 7:12am

Cris Whetstone:

Nick Ryan:

Cris Whetstone:

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.

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.

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.

I never said “a wine will taste the same young, middle aged and old”. But the core of the wine - the essential flavor elements and style - should still identifiable at all stages. With experience, one can look past the tannin of a young wine or the perhaps too-strong tertiary notes of a older wine. But if you’re a fan of fruit and the fruit just isn’t there, or a fan of a thick, silky mouthfeel and that mouthfeel just isn’t there, aging it ten years won’t change things. I just had an '06 Bordeaux with GREAT mouthfeel, but not a lot of fruit. It will be silky as million-dollar toilet paper in 10 years, but I still won’t be a fan because of the lack of fruit.

(Of course, if one ages any good wine long enough past its prime, one will eventually kill it; let’s assume for the sake of argument that one doesn’t do this).

Gordon_Fitz · November 20, 2009, 4:02pm

You forget the other side of the formula. There are those of us that don’t like chewing on tannins also, which young wine drinkers seem to enjoy. I find many cases where people rave about a certain wine, where I can’t even find any fruit because of the tannin levels of the wine. But, oh wait for maybe ten years and see what that wines may become.

I again go back to BdMs. The fruit and flavor elements, in traditional style young BdMs, most often no way resemble those of a properly aged one,imo. Give me the 10-15 year old BdM any day. But that is a personal choice.

Jeb_Dunnuck · November 20, 2009, 4:25pm

Laube gives very short drinking windows and has stated reviews have a shelf life… I don’t think he’s ever stated his scores are for maturity but I could be wrong. No critic that I know of says or tries to imply that they can unerringly predict how a wine will evolve.

Wes_Barton · November 21, 2009, 12:18am

Mo K a n g:

Cris Whetstone:

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.

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.

I’ve tasted it blind along side Napa cults and/or Bordeaux. The context is readily apparent blind: well structured and complex cooler climate mountain Cab. If I got that from an unknown producer’s $20 wine, it would effect nothing. It should matter to a professional critic, either. A wine that needs age shouldn’t be rated by how it tastes now and more than than an early drinker being rated on how it will taste in 20 years. It’s an absolutely useless review.

Wes_Barton · November 21, 2009, 12:28am

Nick Ryan:

Cris Whetstone:

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.

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.

But Laube, who says he doesn’t like aged wine, routinely seriously upgrades Monte Bello when he does retrospectives. He’s been rating aged Monte Bellos well for 30 years.

M_A_T_T_H_A_R_T_L_E_Y · November 21, 2009, 12:52am

05 Laurel Glen is just now being released and I would go loooooooooong on this wine…I am usually in for just a six pack per year but am thinking of buying two cases for myself.

This is going to simply be beautiful, long lived wine…

loren.grossman · November 21, 2009, 7:54pm

We had a blind Montebello vertical tasting awhile ago (85/89/91/96)…agree that the 1991 is a very special MB. As an aside, we did it along with a Mouton blind vertical (83/89/93/00), matching up the decades. You can find it here: http://www.winemusings.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Net/net - I can see how these might be lower scoring wines when served blind amidst more typical cali cabs.

Btw - in reviewing the JL scores it is clear that the wines he likes are bigger, fruitier, jammy wines. The wines he scores lower are less ripe and less forthcoming. I noted that the word “herbal” is used in describing many if not most of the wines he scores lower than a 90. He is very consistent and actually, scores aside, his descriptions I find to be pretty accurate. I do not find that to be true of RP.

loren.grossman · November 21, 2009, 8:00pm

Fwiw, he has also scored the Diamond Creek wines low (high 80s). These are clearly age-worthy wines that will benefit from long-term cellaring. They are very worthy wines and much better than the score might suggest, imho.

Jay_Miller · November 21, 2009, 8:02pm

FWIW I loved the '06 earlier this year, preferring it greatly to the '05 (which I found showing far too much oak at a similar time after release). But no one expects my palate to line up with JL’s.

For the record, I remember the WS (don’t know what reviewer) giving some fantastic reviews for some of my favorite Muscadets. That worried me a lot more than the reviews I disagree with