Piemonte: Truffles instead of Turkey; 11/23/2023-12/2/2023 (Barolo, Barbaresco, Alto Piemonte and of course Alba): From our collection at home. One of my favorite producers in California and I had a memory that at some point the friends we were dining with had mentioned liking these wines and the difficulty of finding them in Italy. So over the bottle went and I thought it was very good although I did sense just a slight undercurrent of brett (which I got in a few wines for about 24 hours that no one else go so that could just have been my nose being off). It was quite classic and balanced and overall very tasty.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
Flickinger dinner (Chicago, IL): Been a while since I opened a bottle of old Monte Bello. The nose was almost slightly Rioja-like (thanks, American oak!) but otherwise there were classic notes of pyrazine and black fruit here. The palate is concentrated, but light (in fact, the wine only has 11.8% abv). There's an elegance from the acidity that I think is absolutely fantastic, and with air, this grew to be a little more herbaceous. Cabernet from a time that no longer exists; this is almost an historical treasure at this point.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
Ridge Monte Bello Retrospective (Porter House): My favorite of this flight in what was a pretty tough run competition because the 80's of these are just spectacular. Really vibrant. I get rosemary early on. Black fruits. There's a loveliness and a power to this wine that makes it clear it's nowhere near it's 'real' drinking window.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
Easily the best California Cab I’ve had with age. So lithe and elegant. Slight peppery and cedar notes along with fresh red and black fruits. Soft tannins and refreshing acid. So few signs of oxidation. Have had open for five hours and it’s only improved! Incredible wine at 34 years and 11.8% alcohol...
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
Smooth and elegant. Some Brett on the nose which mostly dissipated with air. Berry, cherry, leather, wood, dark fruits. Fantastic with NY strip, butternut squash puree, and sautéed mushrooms.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
From 375ml at dinner with duck and lamb courses. Ethereal light texture up front, but tannins still there on finish. Hint of black fruit balanced with cedar and a touch of pepper through a long finish.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
Classic dill on the nose along with black fruits and minerals. Realy elegant and silky on the palate and kept improving and opening in the glass. Gorgeous black fruit flavors and a sense of liquid minerals pervade this wine and while not as complex as the '85 Martha's tasted alongside, this showed younger and should still improve. 94+
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
Tasted at 12 vintage vertical by Michel Jamais. Perfumed nose of dry dark fruit and woods. Elegant with maturity. Perrfect balanced elegant body, palate of earth, cedar, thé and structure with high fine-grained tannins. 11,8% High time to drink.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
Served as a ringer, double blind, in a flight of the 5 1986 1st Growths. On first sniff, my reaction was "oh dear, crazy, wow!!" It was way different than the other wines in the flight, which all turned out to be Bordeaux (there was a 1985 Leoville Las Cases ringer as well). Truffle, red fruit, oak on the nose. More, as well, that was hard to describe, I apologize. My reaction was more emotional than intellectual. It was so aromatic and beautiful.
The palate was very fruity with balancing oak, less intense than the 5 1985s, with a great sense of elegance and very smooth. I think that won the group over relative to the intensity and firm tannins still present in the 1986s. I wrote that it was clearly American, but didn't guess Ridge because it didn't taste like Monte Bellos I'd had before.
At first, I wanted to believe it was the 1986 Margaux, but later I declared out loud, "This wine is too good to be a 1st Growth Bordeaux from 1986". I want to state now, I am not a fan of Ridge Monte Bello. While I have certain had great bottles, many have too much green and dill notes from the American Oak they use. This wine had none of that.
I got worried that the wine was flawed because it smelled so good, or that I was flawed. But when the scores were revealed and it came in first place by a wide margin with 6 out of 9 first places, I realized it was indeed all it seemed to be. I'll be honest, I ranked it 5th because I couldn't bare to admit that the ringer beat all 5 first growths in my scores, but it certainly did and boy was it unbelievable!
1 person found this helpful, do you? Yes - No
/ Comment
Oregon Notes.; 8/5/2016-8/26/2016: my first ever Monte Bello. wow. very Bdx in build, powerful fruit, black fruit with elegance and clarity, cinnamon, sweet berries and herbs on the finish. excellent in every way.
Fully mature, the powerful aromatics are all rich earthy graphite and herbs, but unlike the 1982 there's plenty of cassis fruit on the palate that's well-integrated with the more tertiary stuff and an interesting mineral saline component. A lovely bottle.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
I bet this was fantastic 10 years ago. Still enjoyable and was best about 90 minutes after opening. Nose of wood and black fruits, smoke, tar. After 90 minutes, palate had a rich core of fruit and some tannin and subtle nuances.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
This is the fourth bottle of a case and my notes have been very consistent. PnP corkage at a local restaurant (I do not feel this needs a long decant). Very linear wine - entry and exit are "even" and consistent. Soft round fruit, tannins fully resolved. This is not a showy wine. No acidic explosion or fruit sensation or brambly finish, just a very soft and solid presentation. Really nice drinking. A/A-
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
Intergrated, well balanced. Light Ruby. Herbs, rosemary, rare meat with subtle waves of red fruit. Not heavy. Very pleasant and nuanced. Anti-fruit bomb.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
Blind tasting at JK & KK's place: Tasted double blind. Huge nose with herbal and floral notes, sweet green pepper, a touch of menthol, and almost jammy plummy fruit. Palate dripping with sweet fruit and solid vegetal/herbal notes, and a little plummy spice. Really smooth and integrated tannins. The finish is good and sweet, long but not too long. If this isn't Cali cab from the late 70's early-mid 80's I will eat my shoe. At first I though Silver Oak, but it doesn't have enough of that vanilla oak, so I went with Arjune's guess of Monte Bello - he guess 86, I guessed earlier 80-84. I don't know what others on CT were drinking, but this shit was good - best Cali Cab I've had in a long time. Nose - 6/6, Palate - 5.5/6, Finish - 4.5/6, Je Ne Sais Quoi - 2/2 = 18/20.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
Wines blind 2/2/2012 (Battery Park City): Tasted double blind. Bricked blood. Huge, herbal nose, massive chalk, asparagus, etc. California Cabernet, I'm sure, at least Cabernet Sauvignon. Floral, fat, gigantic, epic nose -- A++ on the nose, wow! Round, soft, yet still structured on palate; quite dry. Plum, cocoa. Now estuarine salinity on nose. Lip-smacking length brings you back for more; not at all big, not at all sweet. My guess is this is an '82 Ridge Monte Bello (though Seth and I did discuss, at length, the possibility of Silver Oak). Really, really splendid wine, spectacular on every level. Despite not being red Burgundy or old Piedmont, my favorite wine thus far this new year. A+ with a star and some bells...
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
My first MB this year and boy how I've missed it! Medium red with bricking. Nose blows me away with rust, blood, dirt, animal fur, and herbs -- my favorite kind of stuff. Nice balance of acid and soft tannin on the palate with more blood, rust, herbs, raspberries and tart cherries. I wasn't expecting much from this vintage so this bottle really surprised me.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
Blind '89's for a Monday.... (My house): Garnet, slight ruby color. Muted nose at first...but opened to lots of herbs, menthol, dried fruit. Youthful in the mouth, still a kick with tannin, a little thin in fruit compared to our other 3 wines('89 Mouton,'89Clerc Milon,'89 St. Jean Res. Cab). Nice smoothness, complexities of old oak barrel, cherry, dusty spice, dried herbs. Aged well, tasty, just lite in fruit. You can tell the cool weather style. Not much of a finish. Still, I liked it, but not up to par for MB. My #3
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
This bottle had good storage but it just wasn't impressive - not because of any flaws, but because this was never a partcularly good vintage for Montebello. 1986 was fabulous for Napa and particularly Sonoma but for some reason was just average in Santa Cruz. I haven't had too many "average" Montebellos but this was probably among the weakest vintages on the 1980's. Decent but nothing to write home about. The part about it was probably the nose, but it just didn't have much stuffing.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
Over the hill sadly. Beautiful giving nose. Sour cherry front attack, ligering finish that goes deep, but hard to get around the very overmature fruit. Thin for this lineage.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
still holding onto some fruit. Classic Monte Bello notes but not as large and vibrant as other older vintages of Monte Bello. Actually think it evolved better the longer it was open.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
Seemed a little weak at first, but really came around after several minutes. Somewhat subtle, but seemless and absolutely lovely. Shows its pedigree quite well. At its prime (for people who like a properly aged wine), no reason to hold.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
Opened with Frinds, maybe a little past its prime, soft, with almost no remaining tannin. Fruit and delicate berry flavor with astringency at finish, fading with time in the glass. It was a marvelous effort, perhaps it would have been better 2-3 years ago.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
Old note from 1994. Perhaps my least favorite Ridge wine of all times. Very deep hue, amber rim. Smoky, black current nose, oak still quite present, raspberry, dusty impression. Medium length, clean finish seems to lack concentration
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
At S&F survey of '86 Cabs with BLR and MPL. Medium ruby color. A tad light. Harsh, green, vegetal nose. Palate is austere, not much fruit. Very light. I'm going to sell all I have left of this. 4-5-5-2: 66/100.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
At home. Red ruby. Good legs. Seems almost too developed for a wine so young. Bouquet is fairly advanced, with deep, dense fruit. Surprisingly attractive cherry-berry, even some cocoa. It is on the palate where the wine disappoints. Tough, tannic, oaky and thin, the fruit is not up to the task at this point. Slightly bitter, but long finish. I'd give this a little time to shed the tannin; hopefully, the fruit will last. Showing much better than last time. 5-12-14-7: 88/100.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
With K, MPL, BLR, et al. at Ridge ATP tasting. Medium ruby. Noise is faintly fruity. Smells green. Dense, chocolatey on the palate. Seems like a quick ager. 4-8-14-5: 81/100.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
11/30/2023 - MC2 Wines Likes this wine:
Piemonte: Truffles instead of Turkey; 11/23/2023-12/2/2023 (Barolo, Barbaresco, Alto Piemonte and of course Alba): From our collection at home. One of my favorite producers in California and I had a memory that at some point the friends we were dining with had mentioned liking these wines and the difficulty of finding them in Italy. So over the bottle went and I thought it was very good although I did sense just a slight undercurrent of brett (which I got in a few wines for about 24 hours that no one else go so that could just have been my nose being off). It was quite classic and balanced and overall very tasty.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
9/6/2022 - acyso wrote: 95 Points
Flickinger dinner (Chicago, IL): Been a while since I opened a bottle of old Monte Bello. The nose was almost slightly Rioja-like (thanks, American oak!) but otherwise there were classic notes of pyrazine and black fruit here. The palate is concentrated, but light (in fact, the wine only has 11.8% abv). There's an elegance from the acidity that I think is absolutely fantastic, and with air, this grew to be a little more herbaceous. Cabernet from a time that no longer exists; this is almost an historical treasure at this point.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
11/2/2021 - MC2 Wines Likes this wine:
Ridge Monte Bello Retrospective (Porter House): My favorite of this flight in what was a pretty tough run competition because the 80's of these are just spectacular. Really vibrant. I get rosemary early on. Black fruits. There's a loveliness and a power to this wine that makes it clear it's nowhere near it's 'real' drinking window.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
11/26/2020 - aaacerbic Likes this wine:
Easily the best California Cab I’ve had with age. So lithe and elegant. Slight peppery and cedar notes along with fresh red and black fruits. Soft tannins and refreshing acid. So few signs of oxidation. Have had open for five hours and it’s only improved! Incredible wine at 34 years and 11.8% alcohol...
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
11/20/2020 - ekessler Likes this wine:
Smooth and elegant. Some Brett on the nose which mostly dissipated with air. Berry, cherry, leather, wood, dark fruits. Fantastic with NY strip, butternut squash puree, and sautéed mushrooms.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
9/21/2018 - Vstalam Likes this wine: 93 Points
From 375ml at dinner with duck and lamb courses. Ethereal light texture up front, but tannins still there on finish. Hint of black fruit balanced with cedar and a touch of pepper through a long finish.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
7/16/2017 - ShadowIII Likes this wine: 94 Points
Beautiful wine, balanced, elegant, currants, dark fruits, nice mouth feel, refined tannins, long finish
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
6/28/2017 - dream Likes this wine: 94 Points
Classic dill on the nose along with black fruits and minerals. Realy elegant and silky on the palate and kept improving and opening in the glass. Gorgeous black fruit flavors and a sense of liquid minerals pervade this wine and while not as complex as the '85 Martha's tasted alongside, this showed younger and should still improve. 94+
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
4/27/2017 - ljl Likes this wine: 93 Points
Light color. Leather, cedar and cherry aroma. Sweet, leather, berry and wet wood on the palate. Didn't open up as much as I expected after decanting.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
3/23/2017 - POBlund Likes this wine: 95 Points
Tasted at 12 vintage vertical by Michel Jamais.
Perfumed nose of dry dark fruit and woods. Elegant with maturity.
Perrfect balanced elegant body, palate of earth, cedar, thé and structure with high fine-grained tannins. 11,8%
High time to drink.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
2/17/2017 - Bordeaux_Jon Likes this wine: 100 Points
Served as a ringer, double blind, in a flight of the 5 1986 1st Growths. On first sniff, my reaction was "oh dear, crazy, wow!!" It was way different than the other wines in the flight, which all turned out to be Bordeaux (there was a 1985 Leoville Las Cases ringer as well). Truffle, red fruit, oak on the nose. More, as well, that was hard to describe, I apologize. My reaction was more emotional than intellectual. It was so aromatic and beautiful.
The palate was very fruity with balancing oak, less intense than the 5 1985s, with a great sense of elegance and very smooth. I think that won the group over relative to the intensity and firm tannins still present in the 1986s. I wrote that it was clearly American, but didn't guess Ridge because it didn't taste like Monte Bellos I'd had before.
At first, I wanted to believe it was the 1986 Margaux, but later I declared out loud, "This wine is too good to be a 1st Growth Bordeaux from 1986". I want to state now, I am not a fan of Ridge Monte Bello. While I have certain had great bottles, many have too much green and dill notes from the American Oak they use. This wine had none of that.
I got worried that the wine was flawed because it smelled so good, or that I was flawed. But when the scores were revealed and it came in first place by a wide margin with 6 out of 9 first places, I realized it was indeed all it seemed to be. I'll be honest, I ranked it 5th because I couldn't bare to admit that the ringer beat all 5 first growths in my scores, but it certainly did and boy was it unbelievable!
1 person found this helpful, do you? Yes - No / Comment
2/4/2017 - SKHof wrote: flawed
Somehow missed the drink by on this bottle, and it was way past prime. So sad, as it was an exceptional wine originally.
1 person found this helpful, do you? Yes - No / Comments (1)
8/26/2016 - michael47 wrote: 92 Points
Perfectly mature, sound. Like a well-aged Bordeaux. Real treat to drink.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
8/26/2016 - Mlermontov wrote: 94 Points
Oregon Notes.; 8/5/2016-8/26/2016: my first ever Monte Bello. wow. very Bdx in build, powerful fruit, black fruit with elegance and clarity, cinnamon, sweet berries and herbs on the finish. excellent in every way.
2 people found this helpful, do you? Yes - No / Comments (1)
12/19/2015 - MusignyBlanc wrote: flawed
Corked.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
3/19/2015 - coremill wrote: 92 Points
Fully mature, the powerful aromatics are all rich earthy graphite and herbs, but unlike the 1982 there's plenty of cassis fruit on the palate that's well-integrated with the more tertiary stuff and an interesting mineral saline component. A lovely bottle.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
8/24/2014 - Sixchips600 Likes this wine: 89 Points
I bet this was fantastic 10 years ago. Still enjoyable and was best about 90 minutes after opening. Nose of wood and black fruits, smoke, tar. After 90 minutes, palate had a rich core of fruit and some tannin and subtle nuances.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
3/20/2014 - joelshaps wrote:
Too old
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
2/12/2014 - Frinkcorkz wrote: 70 Points
Drank half and poured half our. Harsh bitter tannins in contrast with strong acidity. Slight mushroom after taste.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
10/18/2013 - MusignyBlanc wrote:
This is the fourth bottle of a case and my notes have been very consistent. PnP corkage at a local restaurant (I do not feel this needs a long decant). Very linear wine - entry and exit are "even" and consistent. Soft round fruit, tannins fully resolved. This is not a showy wine. No acidic explosion or fruit sensation or brambly finish, just a very soft and solid presentation. Really nice drinking. A/A-
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
10/13/2012 - ledwards wrote: 92 Points
Intergrated, well balanced. Light Ruby. Herbs, rosemary, rare meat with subtle waves of red fruit. Not heavy. Very pleasant and nuanced. Anti-fruit bomb.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
2/2/2012 - Seth Rosenberg wrote: 96 Points
Blind tasting at JK & KK's place: Tasted double blind. Huge nose with herbal and floral notes, sweet green pepper, a touch of menthol, and almost jammy plummy fruit. Palate dripping with sweet fruit and solid vegetal/herbal notes, and a little plummy spice. Really smooth and integrated tannins. The finish is good and sweet, long but not too long. If this isn't Cali cab from the late 70's early-mid 80's I will eat my shoe. At first I though Silver Oak, but it doesn't have enough of that vanilla oak, so I went with Arjune's guess of Monte Bello - he guess 86, I guessed earlier 80-84. I don't know what others on CT were drinking, but this shit was good - best Cali Cab I've had in a long time. Nose - 6/6, Palate - 5.5/6, Finish - 4.5/6, Je Ne Sais Quoi - 2/2 = 18/20.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
2/2/2012 - Matt Neel wrote:
Wines blind 2/2/2012 (Battery Park City): Tasted double blind. Bricked blood. Huge, herbal nose, massive chalk, asparagus, etc. California Cabernet, I'm sure, at least Cabernet Sauvignon. Floral, fat, gigantic, epic nose -- A++ on the nose, wow! Round, soft, yet still structured on palate; quite dry. Plum, cocoa. Now estuarine salinity on nose. Lip-smacking length brings you back for more; not at all big, not at all sweet. My guess is this is an '82 Ridge Monte Bello (though Seth and I did discuss, at length, the possibility of Silver Oak). Really, really splendid wine, spectacular on every level. Despite not being red Burgundy or old Piedmont, my favorite wine thus far this new year. A+ with a star and some bells...
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
12/7/2011 - yhn wrote:
No notes. This one was a little bretty, but still quite enjoyable.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
4/2/2011 - TimF wrote:
My first MB this year and boy how I've missed it! Medium red with bricking. Nose blows me away with rust, blood, dirt, animal fur, and herbs -- my favorite kind of stuff. Nice balance of acid and soft tannin on the palate with more blood, rust, herbs, raspberries and tart cherries. I wasn't expecting much from this vintage so this bottle really surprised me.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
6/20/2010 - yhn wrote: 93 Points
Nose - intense savory herbs, mahogany, Coca Cola, lovely aromatics.
Intense herbs and tobacco, youthful black currant and smoky cherry.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
5/17/2010 - Mrbuzz Likes this wine: 92 Points
Blind '89's for a Monday.... (My house): Garnet, slight ruby color. Muted nose at first...but opened to lots of herbs, menthol, dried fruit. Youthful in the mouth, still a kick with tannin, a little thin in fruit compared to our other 3 wines('89 Mouton,'89Clerc Milon,'89 St. Jean Res. Cab). Nice smoothness, complexities of old oak barrel, cherry, dusty spice, dried herbs. Aged well, tasty, just lite in fruit. You can tell the cool weather style. Not much of a finish. Still, I liked it, but not up to par for MB. My #3
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
4/12/2010 - pmevans wrote: 86 Points
This bottle had good storage but it just wasn't impressive - not because of any flaws, but because this was never a partcularly good vintage for Montebello. 1986 was fabulous for Napa and particularly Sonoma but for some reason was just average in Santa Cruz. I haven't had too many "average" Montebellos but this was probably among the weakest vintages on the 1980's. Decent but nothing to write home about. The part about it was probably the nose, but it just didn't have much stuffing.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
1/4/2009 - yhn wrote: 86 Points
This one was a little bretty. Pretty nice when it opened up, but a little over the hill, unlike the previous bottles.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
12/5/2008 - PaulH wrote: flawed
Corked.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
10/24/2008 - yhn wrote: 92 Points
Consistent with previous bottle.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
7/14/2008 - tplskylrk wrote: 88 Points
Over the hill sadly. Beautiful giving nose. Sour cherry front attack, ligering finish that goes deep, but hard to get around the very overmature fruit. Thin for this lineage.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
6/20/2007 - zimmy07 wrote: 88 Points
still holding onto some fruit. Classic Monte Bello notes but not as large and vibrant as other older vintages of Monte Bello. Actually think it evolved better the longer it was open.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
6/16/2007 - psmith wrote:
Menthol and saline notes. Dark cabernet fruit. Well resolved. Seems correct, and enjoyable, but a rather weak Monte Bello.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
2/4/2007 - yhn wrote: 93 Points
Seemed a little weak at first, but really came around after several minutes. Somewhat subtle, but seemless and absolutely lovely. Shows its pedigree quite well. At its prime (for people who like a properly aged wine), no reason to hold.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
1/23/2006 - Russell Faulkner wrote:
The Full Monte - 35 Year Monte Bello Vertical (Alba Restaurant, London): 90% CS, 10% M, 11.8% Alcohol
Quite tired, very bretty, astringent and over the hill. This was the only wine of the tasting that I could not get anything from.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
12/30/2005 - mmyette wrote: 90 Points
Opened with Frinds, maybe a little past its prime, soft, with almost no remaining tannin. Fruit and delicate berry flavor with astringency at finish, fading with time in the glass. It was a marvelous effort, perhaps it would have been better 2-3 years ago.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
7/27/1994 - vagrantone wrote:
Old note from 1994.
Perhaps my least favorite Ridge wine of all times.
Very deep hue, amber rim.
Smoky, black current nose, oak still quite present, raspberry, dusty impression.
Medium length, clean finish seems to lack concentration
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
6/5/1993 - bestdamncab Likes this wine: 90 Points
Ridge Wines (Hi-Time Wine Cellars, Costa Mesa, Ca.): Big, rich, flavorful, hint of tobacco, almost overripe fruit, beautiful taste, lots of ripe, briary flavor, needs time, pleasant, long, rich finish.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
5/3/1991 - MicklethePickle Does not like this wine: 66 Points
At S&F survey of '86 Cabs with BLR and MPL. Medium ruby color. A tad light. Harsh, green, vegetal nose. Palate is austere, not much fruit. Very light. I'm going to sell all I have left of this. 4-5-5-2: 66/100.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
8/22/1990 - MicklethePickle Likes this wine: 88 Points
At home. Red ruby. Good legs. Seems almost too developed for a wine so young. Bouquet is fairly advanced, with deep, dense fruit. Surprisingly attractive cherry-berry, even some cocoa. It is on the palate where the wine disappoints. Tough, tannic, oaky and thin, the fruit is not up to the task at this point. Slightly bitter, but long finish. I'd give this a little time to shed the tannin; hopefully, the fruit will last. Showing much better than last time. 5-12-14-7: 88/100.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
5/30/1989 - MicklethePickle wrote: 81 Points
With K, MPL, BLR, et al. at Ridge ATP tasting. Medium ruby. Noise is faintly fruity. Smells green. Dense, chocolatey on the palate. Seems like a quick ager. 4-8-14-5: 81/100.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment