Label bias - or I dumped a 100 pt Quilceda Creek

So our Boston tasting group gets together for poker once a month. Everyone throws in 50 bones, the winner hosts the next game and supplies food/wine.

Anyway, today one of the wines was a 100 pt Quilceda Creek. All wines are tasted blind, except of course for the host who knows them in advance.

I got to the 3rd flight (sans food) and wine #8 was driven by oak, oak, more oak, and some dense fruit hidden behind a wall of harsh tannin. I took a sip, and poured it back into the decanter, ick.

Turns out, it was a 100 pt Parker Quilceda. The scramble to the wine (post reveal) was epic.

[David M. Bueker]

I donated mine to a charity auction.

It's amazing how it works both ways. The first wine was a 2002 Jadot Beaune Theurons. I enjoyed it from the get-go, but once the label was revealed - I retasted it and I swear it was singing vs. the first tasting. In fact, I killed the final 1/8th of the bottle.

I guess I'm consistent. I didnt like the 2002 Insignia (from a 375ml) recently, or other wines that have a liberal dose of oak. I'd love to taste that Quilceda fruit sans the oak mask.

You definitely went back for more Quilceda once it was revealed, but I do recall you saying you were still not a big fan. For me, it was (by a close margin) my favorite of the night. I rated it 93 in my notebook C'est la vie.

Can you read your notes through the wine stains you spilled all over your paper?

when i saw this thread i wondered what 100 pt meant?

I'm so glad i don't read WS or RP reviews...

Peter, the vintage of your 100 pt. QC was....?

Clint,

I'm not Peter, but I was there. So, I can tell you the vintage was 2002. It was actually a Pierre Rovani review in the Wine Advocate.

RP did informally review the wine twice in his Hedonist's Gazette in Spring and Summer of 2006 at 98 pts.

-Michael

Goes to show that people evaluate wine blind using a more immediate criterion. Given that the wine is built for long aging, why shouldn't it merit a very high score even if it doesn't offer immediate pleasure to the same level?

[David M. Bueker]

Bernard,

Have you had the 2002? If you were talking about the 1994 or even the 2001 I would agree, long aging is key, but the 2002, 2003 & 2004 (I have not tasted the 2005 yet) seem much more obvious, and not as keenly structured. I don't see them aging as well.

Just my 2 cents.

You definitely went back for more Quilceda once it was revealed, but I do recall you saying you were still not a big fan. For me, it was (by a close margin) my favorite of the night. I rated it 93 in my notebook C'est la vie.

Can you read your notes through the wine stains you spilled all over your paper?

I asked to retaste it and the powers that be (everyone else) said no, that if I didn't like it I didnt like it. So I never got a second taste - but those type of wines (heavy oak) arent my cup of tea so it wouldnt have changed my opinion. The lemmings had their way . It was Gerry who broke a sweat to get to the Quilceda decanter. I was sitting at the Deucey table despondent about my luck.

It was the Jadot I re-tasted and loved even more (whether that was the result of the reveal or that the wine fleshed out is anyone's guess.)

Goes to show that people evaluate wine blind using a more immediate criterion. Given that the wine is built for long aging, why shouldn't it merit a very high score even if it doesn't offer immediate pleasure to the same level?

There is some truth in that line of thought, generally speaking.

But this wine was undrinkable to my taste - I poured my 1 oz pour back into the decanter after 1 slosh through the ol' taster. For my taste, it was Mollydooker Lite - which might shed it's heavy tannin, but that oak isnt going anywhere. It'd be like pouring maple syrup over pancakes and once the batter absorbs it, believing it's gone.

I think the Jadot definitely fleshed out as it got air and as it came up closer to room temp, but it was still pretty drying on the finish, I thought. On the whole, I thought all of the blind wines were qualitatively in a pretty narrow band. There was a diversity of thought about the Garretson starter wine and a lot of agreement that the Barolo at the end of the night was badly damaged. I thought the Garreston was at least quite interesting and different. The '01 Lavradores I had pegged as CdP, the '01 and '02 Clos Apaltas had strong green pepper streaks making me think of Bordeaux, Quilceda and Audlessa were quite overt and lush, perhaps as expected, the '99 Beaucastel was showing a bit tight, and the two Grenaches were just giant fruit bombs (The Derelict is like candy and the McPrice Myers is similar but more complex).

Starter:
2005 Garretson Wine Company Roussanne The Limóid Cior (USA, California, Central Coast, Paso Robles)

Flight 1
2002 Louis Jadot Beaune 1er Cru Theurons (France, Burgundy, Côte de Beaune, Beaune 1er Cru)
2001 Lavradores de Feitoria Douro Grande Escolha (Portugal, Douro)
2004 Quinta dos Aciprestes Douro Reserva (Portugal, Douro)

Flight 2
2001 Casa Lapostolle Clos Apalta (Chile, Central Valley, Rapel Valley, Colchagua Valley)
2002 Casa Lapostolle Clos Apalta (Chile, Central Valley, Rapel Valley, Colchagua Valley)
2003 Casa Lapostolle Clos Apalta (Chile, Central Valley, Rapel Valley, Colchagua Valley)

Flight 3
1997 Spottswoode Cabernet Sauvignon Estate (USA, California, Napa Valley, St. Helena)
2002 Quilceda Creek Cabernet Sauvignon (USA, Washington)
2005 Audelssa Estate Winery Summit (USA, California, Sonoma County, Sonoma Valley)

Flight 4
1999 Château de Beaucastel Châteauneuf-du-Pape (France, Rhône, Southern Rhône, Châteauneuf-du-Pape)
2004 d'Arenberg Grenache The Derelict Vineyard (Australia, South Australia, Fleurieu, McLaren Vale)
2005 McPrice Myers Grenache L'Ange Rouge (USA, California, Central Coast, Santa Barbara County)

Other wines:
2005 Château Au Grand Paris (France, Bordeaux, Bordeaux Contrôlée)
2005 Domaine des Croix Bourgogne
2004 Penascal Vino de la Tierra de Castilla y Leon (Spain, Castilla y Leon)--I never even saw this one!
1990 Marchesi di Barolo Barolo Millennium (Italy, Piedmont, Langhe, Barolo)

When I get my tasting notes together, I'll either post 'em in here or start a new thread.

-Michael

I really enjoyed that Garretson, for low-$20s. I know others weren't as excited about it.

That 1990 Barolo had some odd vegetal notes on the nose, but thought it tasted better than it looked/smelled.

When did you guys crack the 2005 Bdx? How was it?

You sampled the wine and then poured some back into the decanter? That's worse than the "if a gnat/fly/etc. lands in your wine would you drink it?" controversy. And this is flu season. I had the same sentiments about an Argyle Arcus Estate Pinot Noir as you do about the QC Cabernet Sauvignon--it seemed to be from very fine fruit but the fruitiness was overcome by too much oak. C'est dommage.

Argyle Arcus Estate Pinot Noir

I thought Arcus Estate belonged to Archery Summit, not Argyle. Have things changed or is this just a typo?

Typo. Thanks for the catch.

You sampled the wine and then poured some back into the decanter?

Honestly, there were some comments/raised eyebrows, but it is Peter, after all--what else can one expect?

You sampled the wine and then poured some back into the decanter?

Honestly, there were some comments/raised eyebrows, but it is Peter, after all--what else can one expect?

I was going to dump it down the drain when someone said put it back in the decanter (since we had small pours).

Not sure about the controversy though, did I stumble into the germ forum?

[David M. Bueker]

Alcohol cures all ills.