WTN: 2003 Quilceda Creek Red Wine

[Jenise]

This is the comparatively inexpensive red blend that Quilceda Creek makes with whatever isn't quite good enough for the flagship cabernets and merlot. I am a fan of the old style QC but have never actually tasted any of the new fangled spoofulated, Parkerized QC's, so I had kind of ignored this singleton, thinking it wouldn't be much to my liking, and only opened it last night to pour for friends who like Big Red Wine when sitting around the firepit on a warm night, as we were doing. It followed a five year old Joel Gott Zinfandel "Dillon Ranch" which is very clarety now and drinking quite well, and a Keenan Cab from California, whose vintage I never caught but it was post-2000, but I know it's owner paid $50ish and that we all agreed it tasted more like an under-$30 bottle.

We were all impressed with the Quilceda, surprise surprise. It had plenty of black fruits with a red currant-like acidity but was overall more savory in style, and it had good structure with interesting secondary nuances. Its elegant and drinks well now but should develop further in a good way for years. What's probably most important is what it wasn't: it wasn't sappy or overwrought in any way. It was probably a bit hot as all 2003's from Washington tend to be, but in these particular circumstances that aspect quite literally went up in smoke.

Thinking about it this morning, though, has me wondering if in fact the fruit that isn't good enough/big enough/rich enough/ripe enough for the flagship wine the pointy people want doesn't make a more or less perfect wine for the rest of us. David B, any thoughts?

I see that we are in the Food Forum but I'll add onto your note regarding a QC 2003. In this case it is their Merlot, and it was one heck of a wine. It had lots of fruit, but it balanced well with an earthiness and good acidity. I liked it so much, I wish I had more. The only fault I have is I foolishly brought it to dinner with a Montebello from the early 1990s and a 1985 Diamond Creek. It would have been so much better on its own.

[David M. Bueker]

Well I have actually never had the "red wine", just the flagship Cabernet. Interesting question though.

Me too, David.. and I quite like the QC.. yes, it is big.. but I'd put it in that category of big wines that manage to still be well balanced and structured; it is usually, for me, big Syrahs that pull that off best, such as Alban, Saxum or Amon-Ra. I'm surprised you, meaning Jenise, think the regular QC is spoofy... unless that is a catch-all for a bigger, riper wine. For me, spoofy is for a big out-of-balance wine, not just big. Big can be good too.

[David M. Bueker]

My positive experiences with Quilceda Creek end with the 2001. I actually have some 2002 and 2004, but don't like either wine. I've tasted back to the early '90s, and if I could have a cellar full of the wines from 1992-1994 I think I would do it. Delicious wines. The mid-'90s to very eary 2000s are not to that standard, but I like the wines very much. After that they descend into goop for my palate (or lack thereof).