Anyone have any info on the 1988 Ridge Monte Bello Cab? I have seen one in
a local shop and, although I'm not yet sure of the storage quality, it might
be intruiging at $110. This vintage "predates" my interest in wine and I
just can't seem to find any info on this wine from '88.

Thanks,

Dark Helmet

Oh, and I realize 1988 was one of the worst years ever for California in
general, but there's always diamonds in the rough.

Dark Helmet

On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 16:43:10 GMT, "Dark Helmet"
> wrote:

>Anyone have any info on the 1988 Ridge Monte Bello Cab? I have seen one in
>a local shop and, although I'm not yet sure of the storage quality, it might
>be intruiging at $110. This vintage "predates" my interest in wine and I
>just can't seem to find any info on this wine from '88.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Dark Helmet
>

As a long time Ridge fan, I wondered about this one, so I visited the
Ridge Web site. Go to "Wines" then "Monte Bello" and you'll find that
the 1988 isn't available from them directly any longer. Scan through
the reviews and tasting notes and you'll find this from Robert Parker
(Wine Advocate):

TANNIC AND ANGULAR, WITH EXCESSIVE ACIDITY FOR THE AMOUNT OF FRUIT
PRESENT. IT IS LIKELY TO DRY OUT AND BECOME ATTENUATED.

And this from the redoubtable Marvin Shanken (whom I would like to be
in some future life, only taller and without the raggedy beard) of
Wine Spectator:

STRONG MEATY, VEGETAL AND SMOKY AROMAS AND FLAVORS WRAP TIGHTLY AROUND
A MODEST CORE OF RASPBERRY AND CURRANT IN THIS RAW, TOUGH-HIDED WINE
THAT NEEDS UNTIL 1996 TO ‘99 TO SHED ITS TANNIN AND SHOW WHAT IT HAS.
TASTED FOUR TIMES. PREVIOUS BOTTLES TASTED HEAVY AND MEDICINAL.

So, the conclusion might be that Parker tasted too early and that by
now this rough diamond might have developed some sparkle...or possibly
not.

Ahhh, overall, it doesn't sound like this wine fared much better in the '88
vintage. I think I'll pass on this one. Thanks for the help,

Dark Helmet


"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 16:43:10 GMT, "Dark Helmet"
> > wrote:
>
> >Anyone have any info on the 1988 Ridge Monte Bello Cab? I have seen one
in
> >a local shop and, although I'm not yet sure of the storage quality, it
might
> >be intruiging at $110. This vintage "predates" my interest in wine and I
> >just can't seem to find any info on this wine from '88.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >Dark Helmet
> >
>
> As a long time Ridge fan, I wondered about this one, so I visited the
> Ridge Web site. Go to "Wines" then "Monte Bello" and you'll find that
> the 1988 isn't available from them directly any longer. Scan through
> the reviews and tasting notes and you'll find this from Robert Parker
> (Wine Advocate):
>
> TANNIC AND ANGULAR, WITH EXCESSIVE ACIDITY FOR THE AMOUNT OF FRUIT
> PRESENT. IT IS LIKELY TO DRY OUT AND BECOME ATTENUATED.
>
> And this from the redoubtable Marvin Shanken (whom I would like to be
> in some future life, only taller and without the raggedy beard) of
> Wine Spectator:
>
> STRONG MEATY, VEGETAL AND SMOKY AROMAS AND FLAVORS WRAP TIGHTLY AROUND
> A MODEST CORE OF RASPBERRY AND CURRANT IN THIS RAW, TOUGH-HIDED WINE
> THAT NEEDS UNTIL 1996 TO '99 TO SHED ITS TANNIN AND SHOW WHAT IT HAS.
> TASTED FOUR TIMES. PREVIOUS BOTTLES TASTED HEAVY AND MEDICINAL.
>
> So, the conclusion might be that Parker tasted too early and that by
> now this rough diamond might have developed some sparkle...or possibly
> not.
>
>

In article >, Ed Rasimus
> writes:

>his from the redoubtable Marvin Shanken

Was this really a note from Shanken? I didn't realize he did notes.
Dale

Dale Williams
Drop "damnspam" to reply

In article > , "Dark Helmet"
> writes:

>h, and I realize 1988 was one of the worst years ever for California in
>general, but there's always diamonds in the rough.
>

Santa Cruz Mtns is pretty distinct area, and doesn't neccessarily follow
"California" vintage charts (where they usually mean Napa and Sonoma). A little
searching on the other site I frequent had these:

from 2000
Had one of the nicest wines I''ve tried in a while last night - a 1988 Ridge
Monte Bello Cabernet Blend (95% CS 3% Me 2% PV I believe). The "wine steward"
recommended this as a big wine drinking nicely now - however he had obviously
not tried too many Barossa shiraz before!
This aside, the wine was fantastic and out of the glass and decanter with
little airing time (detected a whiff of VA I think), the wine defined balance.
It had thrown quite a sediment crust, and though the restaurant lighting was
dim, in the glass the wine appeared to show a little bricking. What a gorgeous
mouthfeel! My comment was that it was like drinking liquid velvet, and is
definitely an argument for ageing wines. The label lists ageing potential of 15
years, and concur that it still has life - but it is drinking so nicely now, I
wouldn''t bother. The only complaint I had about the wine is that with time in
the glass, the wine seemed to fall apart a touch on the finish - but only a
touch.

Ridge Monte Bello Santa Cruz Mountains 1988: Nose of cassis & hints of dark
green bean & smoke, some nice earthy-funkiness--yet another beautifully
balanced wine with a rich complex midsection that mingles the dark fruit with
earthy notes and segues into a long, darkly fruity finish. Craig immediately
and firmly declares this the wine of the night. I'd still go with the
Tertre-Roteboeuf, but it's close.

from 2001:
1988 Ridge Monte Bello - Neither as big nor as lush as a ''91 I had recently,
but a very enjoyable and well-balanced wine in a lighter style that seems fully
mature.

1988 Ridge Santa Cruz Mountains Montebello red wine - "Greeeeeeen Acres is the
place to be! Faaaaaaaaarm livin'' is the life for me!" The house wine of Eddie
Albert and Eva Gabor. More funk than George Clinton. Past that, this is holding
up well, all parts integrated nicely. Drink now.

The second & third notes are from Chris Coad and Jay Miller, respectively, 2
tasters I know and generally trust. I don't know the first and last guys.

I'd say it might be worth trying, but only for present consumption.

HTH
Dale

Dale Williams
Drop "damnspam" to reply

On 16 Nov 2003 19:23:35 GMT, amnspam (Dale Williams)
wrote:

>In article >, Ed Rasimus
> writes:
>
>>his from the redoubtable Marvin Shanken
>
>Was this really a note from Shanken? I didn't realize he did notes.
>Dale

Dunno for sure. The link at the Ridge site was labeled: "1988 MONTE
BELLO Annual Cabernet Report, Marvin Shanken , Wine Spectator , Press"
so I jumped to contusions.

Certainly Parker's review of the '88 Monte Bello was damning, but your
notes (except for "Greeeen Acres.....") seemed to indicate a better
wine. My estimation is that MB is pretty consistent in quality.

Still, I don't know that a bottle off the shelf of a dealer would
carry the provenance to guarantee it being representative of the
vintage.