The place for all things wine, focused on serious wine discussions.

WTN: Ridge Geyserville '13...(short/boring)

Moderators: Jenise, Robin Garr, David M. Bueker

no avatar
User

TomHill

Rank

Here From the Very Start

Posts

8313

Joined

Wed Mar 29, 2006 12:01 pm

WTN: Ridge Geyserville '13...(short/boring)

by TomHill » Mon Mar 28, 2016 9:46 am

Tried last night:
1. Ridge Geyserville AlexVlly/SonomaCnty (73% Zin/17% Carignan/9% PS/1% Mataro; 14.7%; bttld Dec 2014; Drk: 9/14-9/22-9/24: EB) 2013: Very dark color; strong blackberry/boysenberry/bit raspberry/Zin rather spicy some dusty/OV bit earthy/sauvage/rustic nose w/ classic Geyserville bass notes; soft big/rich/lush blackberry/boysenberry/Zin lightly spicy/dusty/OV light vanilla/smokey/oak balanced/structured flavor w/ some ripe/smooth tannins; very long/lingering bit earthy/sauvage/rustic/classic Geyserville strong blackberry/boysenberry/raspberry/Zin light spicy/dusty/OV finish w/ some smooth/gentle tannins; a lovely balanced rich Geyserville. $40.00 (LCSWS)
______________________
A wee BloodyPulpit:
1. I had the new '14 Geyserville last week and was mightly impressed by it and thought it atypical of Geyserville and more towards the DryCreekVlly/LyttonSprings model. So I thought I'd go back and revisit the '13 Geyserville, to get a better feel for the differences.
This '13 was, to me, a much more mainstream/typical expression of Geyserville. Lower in acid & more classic AlexVlly, somewhat more ripe/rich/lush/extracted, more of the feral/sauvage character I expect in Geyserville. The '14, to me, showed much more spiciness, more dusty/OV character, a bit lighter in extraction, a bit more brisk acidity,
I preferred the '14 as being more complex & interesting. The '14 has more Carignan in it. Jeez....hope I'm not going over to the dark side!!
Tom


TomHill wrote:1. Ridge Geyserville AlexVlly/SonomaCnty (60% Zin/24% Carignan/12% PS/4% Mataro; 14.6%; bttld Jan 2016;
Drk: 10/15-10/22-10/23: EB) 2014
: Dark color; very strong blackberry/raspberry/Zin very spicy/bright some dusty/OV bit earthy light vanilla/smokey/Am.oak/subtle DraperPerfume quite aromatic/perfumed lovely complex nose; lightly tart bright/vibrant/scintillating raspberry/blackberry/Zin/very spicy quite dusty/OV very balanced/structured light vanilla/Am.oak/bit smokey somewhat savory/earthy flavor w/ modest ripe/smooth tannins; very long/lingering lightly tart modest vanilla/Am.oak/smokey strong raspberry/blackberry/Zin very spicy rather dusty/OV balanced/smooth/silky/bright finish w/ some smooth/ripe/polished tannins; a beautiful if atypical Geyserville; smells & tastes less Ridge Zin and more like Geyserville; lighter than Geyservilles of old and less of the old Geyserville sauvage/feral/rustic character; less about power and more about elegance & restraint; an absolutely electryfing wine. $36.00 (Z-List)
________________
A wee BloodyPulpit:
1. It seems Ridge has hit 'em out of the park on their '14 Zins. I was blown away by the '14 HookerCreek...now the same w/ this Geyservilla '14. I can hardly wait to try the LyttonSpring and Pagani '14 next Fall.
I always have a tough time choosing between the Ridge Pagani or Geyserville which one I like best. The both have a sauvage/feral/slightly rustic character to them and are usually the biggest of the Ridge Zins. This Geyserville '14 is more towards the style of the LS Zins...more bright/elegant/vibrant Zin fruit. This Geyserville strikes me as more DryCreekVlly in character than any Ridge Zin I can recall. An absolutely stunning Zin, it is.
Did I mention how much I hate wines like this....wines that keep calling you back to have anuther glass...so that, when you sit down for dinner, the btl is 2/3'rds gone.
Tom
no avatar
User

David M. Bueker

Rank

Childless Cat Dad

Posts

36000

Joined

Thu Mar 23, 2006 11:52 am

Location

Connecticut

Re: WTN: Ridge Geyserville '13...(short/boring)

by David M. Bueker » Mon Mar 28, 2016 12:03 pm

This seems to be a more positive assessment of the 2013 than you had previously posted.
Decisions are made by those who show up
no avatar
User

TomHill

Rank

Here From the Very Start

Posts

8313

Joined

Wed Mar 29, 2006 12:01 pm

Hmmmm....

by TomHill » Mon Mar 28, 2016 12:44 pm

David M. Bueker wrote:This seems to be a more positive assessment of the 2013 than you had previously posted.


Hmmmmm...I'm not finding in my TN's where I posted on the '13 Geyserville when I had it a year ago, David.
I don't think I ever got those TN's posted that I can find. Point me to it if you can.
But I do remember tasting the '13 at this same point in time. I thought it was a good Geyserville but just that.
It didn't blow me away enough that I went back & ordered more of it. Big mistake. This '14 I will be ordering more of, though.
Tom
no avatar
User

David M. Bueker

Rank

Childless Cat Dad

Posts

36000

Joined

Thu Mar 23, 2006 11:52 am

Location

Connecticut

Re: WTN: Ridge Geyserville '13...(short/boring)

by David M. Bueker » Mon Mar 28, 2016 12:47 pm

You mentioned your opinion of the 2013 in your post on the 2014 on WB.

When I first had the '13 about a yr ago...I was underwhelmed.
Thought it was nice, quite nice, but just that. I need to go back & revisit the '13.
Decisions are made by those who show up
no avatar
User

TomHill

Rank

Here From the Very Start

Posts

8313

Joined

Wed Mar 29, 2006 12:01 pm

Re: WTN: Ridge Geyserville '13...(short/boring)

by TomHill » Mon Mar 28, 2016 1:29 pm

David M. Bueker wrote:You mentioned your opinion of the 2013 in your post on the 2014 on WB.

When I first had the '13 about a yr ago...I was underwhelmed.
Thought it was nice, quite nice, but just that. I need to go back & revisit the '13.


Yup..that was it, David.
Maybe the wine as gotten better in that intervening yr.
I liked the '13 better this time than I recalled it a yr ago. But not enough to
go out and buy more of the '13.
Tom

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: APNIC Bot, Apple Bot, Bing [Bot], ClaudeBot, DotBot, Google AgentMatch and 0 guests

Powered by phpBB ® | phpBB3 Style by KomiDesign