1. Home
  2. General Wine Forum
  3. [TN] '01 Ridge Geyserville

[TN] '01 Ridge Geyserville

With tonight' dinner of BBQ ribs, cole slaw and rolls, Jean asked for a Zin. Consultation of the database revealed that the most ready "Zin" we had was:

2001 Ridge Geyserville nose: initially oaky, briery, tar, raspberry palate: medium-full body, oak-influenced, becoming more acidic, tar and fruit

Initially, this wine seemed overly oaky and blowsy, but as it sat open it became more acidic and structured. No shortage of fruit here, it was better with the ribs, which brought out the more savory elements of the wine. By the end of the bottle, it had morphed into a wine firmly in the Geyserville mold, but still very primary. No hurry to open these, folks.

Mark Lipton

Reply to
Mark Lipton
Loading thread data ...

Blowsy????

My 1951 Webster's unabridged (I like most things with a little age on them...) says "red faced, fat and flushed; unkempt." Is that what you meant? If so, good on ya - I've never heard that description of wine, but it certainly is picturesque... J

Reply to
Ronin

Yep. More metaphorical than is my wont, but I use it in the sense of a wine lacking in structure, overly soft and forward.

Works for me, Mark Lipton

Reply to
Mark Lipton

Since I've been reading your reviews for a number of years now Mark, I knew exactly what you meant. Thanks for the TN, I have a few bottles left and I might drink one soon and hold the other.

Reply to
Bi!!

Interestingly, a friend brought a bottle of 2000 Ridge Geyserville over on Monday and we both agreed that it was

a) A Zin worth drinking b) A Californian wine available in the UK worth drinking c) despite being a Zin and Californian, worth drinking.

Sadly, both our experiences with Californian wines available here has been on the bad side of mixed. Either good but well overpriced, OTT (usually in terms of oak, extraction & residual sweetness), or overly Parkerise, so we've tended to avoid them.

I remember a very poor experience of Opus One in the Far East a few years ago which left me underwhelmed by the wine and very glad that someone else was paying.

The Geyserville was nice in that it was obvious that it had structure under the "in your face" elements. We both reckoned it could stand at least another 5 years.

Is the 2000 considered better than the 2001?

However, in terms of US wines (not CA), we'd both love to know how the Columbia David Lake Signature CS 1985 is drinking as it was one of our standards a few years back. With a group of friends I believe I bought most of the UK allocation, and it is long gone.

James

Reply to
James Dempster

I wouldn't put too much on wine experiences in the Far East. I had an excellent sleeper bottle of Portugese red wine here in the States.

2000 Alentejano made of trincadeira and aragonez grapes. I found it later in Macao, (in the Portugese trade mission store) and it tasted like it had been shipped through the Suez in unrefrigerated containers, then stored on the roof. Thoroughly nasty...
Reply to
ronin

If you open one soon, I'd give it a decant about an hour before drinking, I think. As usual, Paul Draper's notes on the back of the bottle should be ignored only at your peril: "...best if consumed at age

7 to 10 (12/02)"

Mark Lipton

Reply to
Mark Lipton

DrinksForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.