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/