Saturday, February 22, 2003
Last night I treated some of my WinePals here in San Diego to a vertical of Ridge Geyserville from my cellar, vintages 1987-1992. While I did not keep the detailed notes that many of us all tend to do, as the Friday night dinners are as much social as about wine, I can say that every bottle was more than impressive.
As a group the lowest rating any wine would have received was an 89, and one member went as far as saying the 1987 was a 98 on a hundred point scale. I tend to agree that is was up there, and worthy of at least a 95 or 96.
The unanimous favorite was the 1987. It was just downright stunning. Next up was where some controversy arose. Some liked the 1992 for its youthfulness and freshness. I felt as the night wore on that the 1989 was the next best. Again the group of 7 felt, from what I could tell, that the 1988 was more than likely next best, followed by the 1991 or 1990. I may be wrong though as we all felt the wines were so close it was difficult to judge.
Some observations--there was a dramatic shift in style of the wines from the 1989 to the 1990. The 1989 and earlier had more of the Claret style I've grown to love in older Zin's, especially those from Ridge. They also hade the higher declared percentages of Zinfandel. The 1990 and forward were more fruit forward, and deeper in color, but not as balanced, structured. Fruit bomb would best describe the 92.
The 91 was going in and out of my liking it, loving in, thinking it was just very good all night. The 1990 of the three "modern" style wines was the most ready. The 1992 has the most life ahead of it. The 1988 of the three older style vintages was the most ready to drink. The 1989 continues to be a wine that keeps improving as it ages.
We had the 89 and 90's side by side a few months back. The results were similar showing that if nothing the wines are consistent and bottle variation is not in attendance.
To end the night I also brought along some 1993 Renwood Fiddletown and Grandpere Zinfandels from Amador county. Sorry kids. They didn't belong on the same table. They were good, but not in the league of the Geyservilles.
Cheers.....
Andy Abramson
As a group the lowest rating any wine would have received was an 89, and one member went as far as saying the 1987 was a 98 on a hundred point scale. I tend to agree that is was up there, and worthy of at least a 95 or 96.
The unanimous favorite was the 1987. It was just downright stunning. Next up was where some controversy arose. Some liked the 1992 for its youthfulness and freshness. I felt as the night wore on that the 1989 was the next best. Again the group of 7 felt, from what I could tell, that the 1988 was more than likely next best, followed by the 1991 or 1990. I may be wrong though as we all felt the wines were so close it was difficult to judge.
Some observations--there was a dramatic shift in style of the wines from the 1989 to the 1990. The 1989 and earlier had more of the Claret style I've grown to love in older Zin's, especially those from Ridge. They also hade the higher declared percentages of Zinfandel. The 1990 and forward were more fruit forward, and deeper in color, but not as balanced, structured. Fruit bomb would best describe the 92.
The 91 was going in and out of my liking it, loving in, thinking it was just very good all night. The 1990 of the three "modern" style wines was the most ready. The 1992 has the most life ahead of it. The 1988 of the three older style vintages was the most ready to drink. The 1989 continues to be a wine that keeps improving as it ages.
We had the 89 and 90's side by side a few months back. The results were similar showing that if nothing the wines are consistent and bottle variation is not in attendance.
To end the night I also brought along some 1993 Renwood Fiddletown and Grandpere Zinfandels from Amador county. Sorry kids. They didn't belong on the same table. They were good, but not in the league of the Geyservilles.
Cheers.....
Andy Abramson
Comments:
Post a Comment
