2015 Ridge Zinfandel East Bench

Community Tasting Note

9 comments have been posted

• Comment posted by spicy1:

  10/31/2019 4:37:00 PM - RG: There are 70 CT reviews on this bottle and the average score is 90. Can we assume that your expectations were based on something else?

• Comment posted by chatters:

  11/1/2019 5:18:00 AM - Perhaps his expectations were set by your ratings, spicy1, which have this wine at a very tidy 91.4 over your five tastings ;)
  
  Or mine which, though they don't have a score, are very complimentary...
  
  at least there is one constant...taste is subjective...happy tasting everyone,
  
  cheers, chatters

• Comment posted by spicy1:

  11/1/2019 6:44:00 AM - Chatters--I guess we will never know unless RG responds but this is a bottle with a very narrow range of opinions. Of the 29 numerical ratings 17 are within one point of the average. Only three ratings are what I would think of as lowballs (85-87). Not a single flawed bottle noted, which I think is typical of Ridge wines. In addition to wine taste being subjective, as you mention, I think there are scoring variances caused by how the wine is served--if you get it in a restaurant (and maybe the winery) you get a wine that hasn't had a chance to breathe. On the other hand, a wine that has been decanted and consumed over a two or three day period is probably going to taste and be rated differently.

• Comment posted by rgprints:

  11/1/2019 8:18:00 AM - My high expectations came from several bottles previously consumed which were very good and in the 92-94 range. For some reason this last bottle didn't. I would have rated it even lower, but that was tempered by my partner who thought this bottle was no different than others.

• Comment posted by chatters:

  11/4/2019 12:15:00 AM - thanks Rgprints...
  
  Ahh, spicy1, hence my disinclination to use scores...if we're talking about something subjective i.e. ostensibly immeasurable from a comparative perspective then what use are scores other than on an individual basis...but this is, I'm afraid, a conversation that is best had over two or three bottles of wine...and, alas, as I'm probably a 19 hour flight away from you & 20 hours from the rather charmingly named Blue bell, we'll have to wait until I've got a little more time and money. :)
  
  cheers chaps

• Comment posted by spicy1:

  11/4/2019 4:19:00 AM - Chatters--I was there at the beginning (100 point scale, I mean). I was living in the suburbs of Washington D.C., and just getting interested in wine and Robert Parker became the wine writer for the Washington Post. I am by nature a left brain analyst and his approach was exactly what I needed--no longer the fuzzy reviews of wine writers (with bottles provided by the wineries with the obvious conflict of interest attached). I would read those fuzzy reviews and often not even be sure if the reviewer liked the wine (read some of the reviews of those at the bottom of the CT home page that are trying to make the list of "most reviews in last six months" and you will see the same). Parker was totally different--he didn't accept free wine from wineries, he didn't take advertising for his magazine and you knew exactly what he thought of the wine. Even then there were folks who thought wine was just too subjective for a score--I assume these folks are right brainers.
  
  Step back and think about it--all reviews are subjective--whether it be of a restaurant, a movie or book, or a wine. We know that going in but verbal reviews are just as subjective as the ratings. Read your past reviews and tell me your verbal opinions aren't subjective. When I give a wine a rating I try to give it a written review that meshes as closely as possible to the rating--they are subjective but they are equally subjective. Parker had to say ad nauseam over the last 40 years that the ratings were of value only with the narrative review attached.
  
  I'll leave you with a cliche to live by--"don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good". Spicy1

• Comment posted by rgprints:

  11/4/2019 9:09:00 AM - Not only are reviews subjective, but they also depend on the reviewer's state at the time of the review. Furthermore, all people are subject to numerous cognitive biases that corrupt rational thought. For more on the latter read some of the work by Tversky and Kahneman.
  
  Then there is a real problem with the wine rating scale. Have you ever encountered a wine rated 50? Or 20? It seems that the only part of the scale that is used is 85-100. What is the meaning of a 5 point difference between two wines, or in this particular case, a difference of 1 point?

• Comment posted by spicy1:

  11/4/2019 12:52:00 PM - RG: Seems like I have been defending Parker's scoring system for 40 years but I don't mind--I think it is worth defending. You are right of course that wine ratings are subjective and there are a lot of variables in how the wine is stored, how we feel, etc. My point in the comment to Chatters is the exact same thing applies to the narrative reviews (and to any other rating system out there).
  
  As to your point of no low scores--I had a subscription to the early years of Parker's "Wine Advocate" -maybe late 70s to mid 90s and my recall is that his system was a 50 point system (50-100) and that he would often score wines in the 60 to 70 range with the a few 50s if he really was unhappy with a winery (but he meant it as an insult). But times have changed--the quality of wine has improved dramatically since 1980--in my early days of wine buying, with my low wine budget, I would routinely buy wines rated by Parker in the low 80s and it was a rare bottle that exceeded 88. Now there are so many good wines that a winery that produces those sub 80 wines can't survive. Still, looking back at my CT ratings, I find a 60, nine 70s and twenty two others between 71-84. There would be quite a few 50s if I rated a flawed wine but there seems to be a lot of opposition to rating flawed wines.
  My guess is that if I randomly picked bottles from the grocery store wine racks, without using CT ratings, there would be far more low ratings in the 60s--many wines that I would pour down the sink.
  
  A big factor, I think, in the high ratings we see on CT is a combination of wine drinkers with more money to spend on wine and many of us relying on CT ratings to help pick our wines. If we focus, like I do, on wines rated 88-93 we are very unlikely to drink wines we will give a low score to.
  
  Your point about a point or two not making much different--just look at the comment that started this set of comments. You rated the Ridge wine 90 but it didn't meet your expectations (you later said you expected at least a 92) so that tells me there is a big difference in your mind between a 90 and a 92. To me there is a huge difference between an 88 and a 93 (although sometimes I think 89 is a sweet spot--lot of people won't buy--so for many the difference between 89 and 90 is much larger than 90 to 91.
  
  I still believe the Parker system is the best way to encourage wineries to make good wine and the easiest way for us wine drinkers to buy the best wine we can afford.

• Comment posted by chatters:

  11/4/2019 2:49:00 PM - Gentlemen, please, I haven't bought my flight tickets yet and you're already well away!