Interesting comment by Tanzer on QC

WINE TALK
1

Quoted from the 06 QC Cab review.

“Quilceda Creek’s flagship bottling has become more of a competition wine lately than this producer’s examples in the '80s and '90s…”


…discuss…

[popcorn.gif]

2

Can you post the entire note – I’d like to see the context. I’ve only ever had QC once and it was the '04 and I, um, was not a fan. It did not do well in that particular competition. That same night I won a bottle of the '06. headbang

3

Yeah, does he mean competition in the context of a sanctioned blind tasting event or the weekend OL where people want to bring the highest scoring wine they can find?

4

There is the “fair use” doctrine…

5

Fair enough newhere

6

Phil, If I gotta get my dictionary out every time we play…

7

There’s so much more emphasis on how high your wine will score rather than enjoyable and realistic drinkability. Once you get that 100 pt. rating, it’s a lot to live up to I would imagine, so trying to duplicate that might be more about manipulation than of what the vintage gives you in terms of weather, and what you do with it. Great wines will be made my attentive winemakers, even in tough vintages, but having cookie-cutter wines every vintage really doesn’t show what that particular winemaker did during the conditions that vintage brought them. Maybe I’m not making sense, but that’s how I am reading it.

8

Been “Bone” dry since Monday…

this is what happens.

Not good.

9

Just wait a couple of days and I’m sure that the note will get picked up by some shelf talker.

Needless to say, he liked it. A lot.

10

Wow…I would have gone the other way.

(shit Phil…you’re right. I’m no good sober…)

11

I read it as competition in terms of “wine produced for score.” Or something to that effect. You would think that this is a bad thing but he scores it somewhere between 472 and 482. [berserker.gif]

12

Just had my first QC the other night in a lineup of mostly California Cabs, the 2006 Quilceda Creek Cabernet. What a disappointment–some interest on the nose, with a big waft of dark berry, but the palate came across as almost downright simple.

I would have scored 87 points or so…

13

That has been most of my views when tasting the QCs. Between 87 -92 at the most. A friend who raves about them, who I serve the wines blind to him many times, does rate them high (blind) on occasion, but at least the same amount of times, turns his nose up. I love when that happens, so I can spend $100+ to laugh at him. Hmmmm…a comedy shop ticket probably costs less than half of that. Maybe I should rethink my entertainment expenses??? [scratch.gif]

14

Not a subscriber to the IWC, but how were his reviews of the QC from the 21st C.

If he dissed them all along, then he is consistent. Otherwise this is just a troll.

15

I believe he started rating them with the 98 vintage and he has been consistent in the 92-95 range.

16

I had some experience with Quilceda Creek in the late 80s and early 90s. More recently, I’ve had the 2002 and 2003 bottlings. My impression is that the style changed dramatically between the two eras. The 80s era QC cabs were medium bodied, complex and very distinct, even in their youth. They were not crowd pleasers and no one would have ever confused them with a Napa Cab.

17

Just to put the proper gloss on this – he score the wine 95+! I believe the comment was more directed as to its changed (I do not really know since I’ve never had it). I believe similar “criticisms” have been levied at the CdP producers in the past, the allegation being that they catered to RP.

18

i had the 06 QC a couple weeks ago, along with a 05 Harlan, 04 Araujo, and a vintage of HSS that i cant remember!!! well, it was late at night. anyway, i liked the QC much better than 87, and thought it had more going on in the front end than the Harlan, but less in the back end than that wine. we really wanted to mix the 2…

had an older QC, maybe '92 - '94 ? sis help me out here, bout a month ago… and it was… 87…

19

Quilceda 1992 and 1993 were not great vintages. 1994 is a great vintage but can be savagely tannic relative to other QC vintages. There was a very distinct style change to a riper/later-harvest style in 1998. I am pleased to say that the 1998 and 1999 are drinking very well with the 1998 become more and more typically Quilceda like (as compared to older vintages which I have had back to 1982). I do worry that the 2002 and 2003 are especially extreme, but time will tell.

20

I beleive it was '94. The last two older vintages of QC I’ve had were uninspiring, I think the other was a '99 a year or so ago. I have not tried the '06 yet.