Or maybe the '05? This is the one Parker seriously underrated when he visited and tasted a vertical after not having rated any Ridge wines for a few years. It didn’t have the “flavor” (intensity) of the previous vintages, but was amazingly complex and complete, so he put it around 91, while I was maybe 97, and we were within a point on the others.
This drank very well the year of release, then shut down hard. Last I tasted a couple years ago it was coming back around, but was very far from peak. No hurry, but if you have a bunch and want to check it sounds like it’s showing well enough.
This is making me sad I have only one of these It’s the first vintage of Monte Bello I bought, and I only bought two. I should have held off longer on opening the first one…
Dan, that is pretty idiosyncratic scale. Without it, I would never have understood what your 92 meant. I think most people here figure that a 92 point would be a very good wine, but not fantastic, and certainly never a WOTY candidate.
Numbers never mean anything when describing the subjective, but Americans sure do like to think they do. Particularly prevalent in acute-care medicine in this lost era.
Love this Monte Bello. We gave a bottle of the '07 to some good friends of ours who were married last summer, and they were very grateful as they had opened a bottle last year and loved the wine.
I didn’t join the Montebello list until well after this… more like 2013. Maybe they will break out a bottle or two at one of their spring tastings sometime…
I don’t think you can go wrong with these wines beginning at about 10-12 years in terms of their drinkability. Beyond that, its just a question of what your sweet spot is for aged wine. Had the '01 last year and it was beautiful, but waiting til its 20th birthday to open my other one.