2003 Quilceda Creek Cabernet Sauvignon- USA, Washington (8/24/2014)
Stood up for 24 hours and carefully decanted. Thanks for the heads up from previous reviewers regarding sediment. Got a clean pour into the decanter where I left the wine for 2 hours. This wine is nearly opaque black to the very thin clear rim, but the color is bright. I was expecting a massive fruit bomb but that was not this bottle. The restrained nose features wild blackberry, dried herbs, licorice and pan roasted spices. The palate is fresh and bright without any jamminess or excess weight. Rich, seamless, and very polished flavors are almost weightless and uplifting. While wines like this are sometimes compared to Bordeaux, this is quintessentially Washington and about as good as it get up there–or anywhere. We wine geeks often speak of “finish” and “length”, that lasting impression of the flavor and character of the wine after you swallow. This discrete wine lingers gently on the palate just begging you to take another sip. Although I’ve had quite a few great wines this year, this gets my nod as “Wine of the Year”. I can only dream that I might taste something more memorable. 97 points. Drink now through 2019. (97 pts.)
I believe this was one of RP’s 100 point wines, and as such, I think I sold the one bottle I had, based on other QC tastings I had, other vintages. Interesting to see that it doesn’t show as a ‘fruit bomb’, as that’s exactly what I found in the QCs I tasted - perhaps age has done wonders for it!
I was expecting a monster and was very pleasantly surprised by how elegant and polished this was. 2003 was that last vintage of QC that I bought. I am now very glad that I did.
It was a Jay Miller 100 pointer, and RMP agreed to the scoring at a Hedonist Gazette event IIRC.
I had the wine on release and it was an oak monster to be sure. But, with 10+ years on it maybe the oak has begun to integrate. I know that the 1998 QC Estate Cab was pretty damn good ten years out.
There are many wines where the view on WB seems to be “The wines from the 1980s and 1990s are great now, but the style changed and the new ones are fruit/oak bombs that won’t age.” Yet we don’t really know yet how much is that the style changed, versus how much is that the newer ones just aren’t as old yet as the 1990s and 1980s vintages.
I’m not arguing that it’s just the latter, and the answer surely isn’t the same for every wine, but I’m particularly curious about Quilceda. The 1990s bottles I’ve had have been terrific, the 2000s ones have seemed too oaky and tannic as of when I tried them, and I’m not really sure how much is style and how much is age. This TN is encouraging, particularly since John isn’t a fruit/oak bomb enthusiast, and seems mostly to favor the other side of the spectrum.
Sometimes, we can get trapped in the cycle of “This wine is all about big fruit, it won’t age, so just drink it young,” but then by drinking them young we don’t get to discover that they actually did become something better later on. Again, I’m not saying that is always or mostly the case, just that it’s a constant challenge in the “should I let this wine age or not” question we always face.
When the 2003 QC came out it was called things like liquid snickers. I have had many bottle of many of the QC wines both before and after (but mostly after) 2003. I do not believe there has been any meaningful change in wine making approach and philosophy (but you’d have to ask their wine maker if you want a more certain answer). In all the years I have been drinking wine, the best wines by far were wines like this. Full of fruit, intensity and structure that, sometimes with a little time, coalesce into something spectacular. If the fruit quality is not there, no amount of wine making will matter.
This does not mean people need to like wines like this. Many probably wouldn’t. But the fallacy is presuming that a dense wine (like this) can’t taste balanced and polished.
I had the 2001 this week. I agree this is a unique wine. Heavy in character with a unique menthol mineral with the very dark fruit. I really like them and see them as capable of aging many years. remarkably consistent year to year which I see as a good thing. I am happy to own them.
Good news. Past examples have been too over the top for me, exception being the 1998-2000. Still have some of those left and plenty of 01-05 so I will wait and hope to enjoy a similar experience.
Lot of fashion in wine. QC has benefited from, but then been the victim of going in and out of fashion. I have enjoyed some of the vintages that have had enough age (i.e. 1998 and 2000 so far) and have hope that the rest will turn out well as well.
Coincidently, I just opened a bottle of this last week. I felt it was nice enough, but nothing special. I scored it a good 5-7 points below what you did. I’d consider trading it for some burgundy, but it is pretty unlikely that someone who wants these wines has a ton of burgs in their cellar, so I’ll just hold on to them. I used to love this style of wine- but this is evidence that palates do change.
If you look at the alc level in these wines discussed above about 98 or 99 they start to increase from 13.5% slowly up to over 15%. To me, the 98 and older wines seemed more in balance versus being huge fruit and oak of later vintages. I think we are just starting to see how 00-05 vintages are aging. Will be interesting to read notes here and on cellartracker. At one time I was happy to probably 75+ bottles in my cellar. After sampling a few, I’m ok that I’ve passed them along to someone that will enjoy them more than me.