Ratings at Ridge

At the most recent Ridge Vineyards Bloggers Tasting, the challenge presented to us was to order 5 recently rated Ridge wines from best to least-best (I don't want to say worst since Ridge does not make a bad wine). Before we began I asked the question, do we rate them in our order of preference, or how we think they were rated? The reason I asked this question is because rating wine is completely subjective - everyone has a different palate. Yes, a wine can be well-made but everyone may not like it. And yes, a wine may be badly made and plenty of people may still like it. Rating wine also calls into question several factors, including approach-ability, age-ability, and value for the money. Can you rate a wine that begs for a steak the same as one that can be sipped enjoyably on its own? Can you rate a wine that you think will be better in 5 years the same as you rate one that is ready to drink now? Would you rate a $125 bottle of wine the same as a $40 one? I'm obviously not sold on the rating system. Christopher's motivation was to conduct an experiment, to see whether there would be any consistency in our tasting group and if that would support the rating system.

There were 5 glasses of wine in front of us. I knew that Ridge had just released several 2009 and 2010 wines; I had seen some of the ratings on store shelves and knew that the 2009 Monte Bello scored 98 points. Would it be included in this tasting? Would I know which one it was? Christopher told us the 5 wines were all rated within a 10-point span.

I loaded up on cheese before starting and then some bread to cleanse my palate. I tasted through the 5 wines twice, without eating anything else, since I didn't want the nibbles to factor into my tasting. On the first run-through I thought they might all be Zinfandel blends from various vineyards. On the second run-through I started noticing more complexity and variety, and I was pretty sure I knew which one was Monte Bello and which might be a Zin-based blend like East Bench, Lytton Springs or Geyserville. I liked the Zin blend more - it was more approachable and enjoyable right now. I know Monte Bello is a great wine, but I also know it gets better with age and is not necessarily at its best on release. I ranked the Zin blend first, the Monte Bello second. I was wrong and I knew it. I made a point of it, even if no one got it but me.

Here are the wines we tasted, with the ratings from wine critic Antonio Galloni of Robert Parker's Wine Advocate:

Ridge 2009 Monte Bello, 98 pts
Ridge 2009 Klein Cabernet Sauvignon, 94 pts
Ridge 2009 Perrone Cabernet Franc, 92 pts
Ridge 2009 Estate Merlot, 90 pts
Ridge 2010 Geyserville, 88 pts

The wines in the order tasted.

Our rankings were all over the map. Half the bloggers put the Monte Bello in the top position. 1 person got the order completely right, and he won himself a bottle of 2009 Monte Bello (well done!).

My conclusion: I still believe that wine tasting is completely subjective and the rating system is flawed; there are too many variables and it's riddled with preconceived notions and biased expectations. (Critics do not taste the wines blind, so they are aware of the brand, its history, its style.) The rating system doesn't really serve my purposes, but it exists for the average consumer staring at a shelf full of wines or the budding connoisseur who wants to build a collection. For a winery, it's a stamp of credibility and may be used as a marketing tool.

As for Ridge, I enjoy all of their wines and I don't care what the ratings are, 98 or 88. Thanks again to Christopher for an enjoyable tasting on Monte Bello! 

For more on my fellow blogging tasters, check out A Ridge Blog: http://blog.ridgewine.com/2012/09/22/the-wbt-pre-game-show/ 

To filter or not to filter

One of the last steps in winemaking is usually filtering. When I worked at Wiemer, we used either the superfine cross flow filter or a pad filter for the wines made in smaller quantities. In winemaking you have to make some small sacrifices throughout the process. Each time you move the wine you risk exposing it to air, and inevitably each time you move it you risk losing a bit of its character, whether it be aroma, color, or flavor. Filtering is one of those steps that some winemakers would consider optional. The reason for filtering is to rid the wine of any bacteria or yeast that might remain in the wine and to ensure a “clean” wine before bottling. At Wiemer, where we made wines that often had some residual sugar left in them, filtering was necessary to ensure the yeast was completely removed from the wine. If any yeast remained, it could feed off the sugar and start another fermentation in the bottle, which at the very least might make the wine sparkle a bit, but at the worst it might cause the bottle to burst from the excess carbon dioxide and pressure.

Newton Vineyard in Napa was founded on the principle of unfiltered wines. Dr. Su Hua Newton, the first Asian female winemaker, began making unfiltered Chardonnay in the late 70s and then added the red Bordeaux varietals – Merlot, Cabernet Sauvignon, Cabernet Franc, Petit Verdot and Malbec. Her husband, Peter Newton, had been the first to plant Merlot in Napa when he worked for Sterling Vineyards, and the Newtons were one of the first to plant Petit Verdot in Napa. Dr. Newton built a state of the art winery between 1977 and 1979, with gravity flow and 30 feet of underground tunnels in the hills of Spring Mountain. The Newton vineyards are the only ones on the southern side of Spring Mountain, whose steep slopes and volcanic soil contribute to small concentrated berries and softened tannins. The winemaking process involves hand picking only the ripe fruit, which means they skip over the unripe fruit and go back to it later, making multiple passes through the vineyard until all the fruit is picked. The various pickings are kept separate, vinified in oak barrels in separate, temperature-controlled rooms. Then, the wines undergo aggressive “battonage” every day for 6 months – this means that after the fermentation has been complete (after a couple weeks), a long baton is inserted into the barrel to agitate the lees (dead yeast cells) that have fallen to the bottom. This action contributes a certain flavor to the wine and is “naturally antibacterial,” helping to “clean” the wine so the impurities settle out to the bottom. It’s similar to the process of riddling for sparkling wine, where the lees from the second fermentation in the bottle are forced to the neck of the bottle by a partial turn each day for 3 weeks, acting like a squeegee along the inside of the bottle until they are eventually disgorged. After the 6-month battonage, the clean wine – 85% of the barrel - is pumped out (this part is not done by gravity) and the remaining 15% of wine and solids is discarded. That amounts to about 4 cases of wine lost from this process - a significant loss but one preferred to the potential loss of color and aroma from machine filtering. The wine is then bottled and labeled “unfiltered.”

Views from Newton Vineyard

So does unfiltered wine taste better? Can you tell the difference? Newton wine still looks clear and clean. I tasted 4 wines paired with small bites from the Domaine Chandon gardens in Napa and their onsite restaurant, Etoile (Newton Vineyard is now owned by LVMH, the parent company of Moet & Chandon).  The 2009 Unfiltered Chardonnay was creamy with butterscotch and crème brulee notes. It wasn’t overpowered by oak and it went deliciously well with a spoonful of English pea soup accompanied by dungeness crab and meyer lemon. The 2008 Unfiltered Merlot had bright red fruit, black pepper and other spices, nice acidity, and grippy tannins that would soften with a bit more age. It went fabulously with a bite of tea smoked duck. The 2009 Unfiltered Cabernet Sauvignon had great black fruit that almost tasted sweet and again nice acidity and tannin that would lend well to further aging. The last wine was their Bordeaux blend that they call “The Puzzle” because of the shape of the vineyard blocks that it is sourced from. The 2008 Puzzle is made of 42% Merlot, 36% Cab Sauv, 14% Cab Franc, 6% Petit Verdot, and 2% Malbec. It was silky, smooth and complex and went great with the heirloom beet salad.

The last bonus wine was a 2002 Unfiltered Merlot from a Magnum bottle, which holds the equivalent of 2 regular bottles and is a better format for aging wine because of the reduced exposure to oxygen. This wine was musky and floral with additional characteristics of beets and lead pencil. It had great balance and structure and was very smooth. After recently enjoying the Newton 1991 Unfiltered Merlot and now trying the current releases, it was awesome to taste a wine right in the middle.

Now back to the question, to filter or not to filter? I can’t say I would be able to tell the difference unless I had the same wine in filtered and unfiltered form side by side. Winemaking is a combination of art and science, and I tend to gravitate toward wines made with the least manipulation. And as a former winemaker, knowing how the wine is made makes me appreciate and enjoy it more.

Corkscrew trees and the garden atop the wine caves