February 14, 2016 - Dense, somewhat murky dark red. Bouquet has very round, broad cabernet fruit with melded tannins. Silky, smooth. Has a European quality to it. Somewhat muted aromas disappoint just a bit. A very good mature WA wine. Could only ask for more aromatics.
April 4, 2014 - Decanted 90 minutes prior to tasting. Surprising amount of fruit on the nose. Wine has appearance of an older wine with some brown at the rim. First impression was somewhat tart and astringent. Fruit was muted and fading. Followed over next two hours and the tartness faded and the fruit came back. Interesting wine but definitely past it's peak.
September 11, 2013 - Seattle Wine Group - Sep 2013 Tasting - Theme: Aged WA Bordeaux Blends (Amaroso Room - Wine Storage Bellevue): Setting: Bottle “A” in the blind tasting. Notes were taken before I knew the wine identity.
Sight: This wine is hazy, with no evidence of gas. The wine does show particles. Color is ruby at the core and fades to garnet 1/4” from the meniscus. Medium concentration of color. Legs are thick and move slowly down the glass.
Nose: This wine does not smell flawed. Strong intensity. Aromas are black cherries and mint, with a trace of cherry cough syrup on the edges. No trace of minerals. Very light smell of oak, mostly in a hint of wood smoke. I pick up some heat on the nose. Not sure where to place this wine.
Palate: This wine is medium bodied. The fruit is subdued, but I can’t tell if its bound up or simply faded. Given that I expect this wine to be over 10 years old, I will go with faded. Still, I did not pick up much secondary notes either. What I was left with was primarily a medium size dose of oak.
Structure: This wine is dry. Acid is medium-plus. Alcohol is medium-plus. Tannins are medium-plus and not well integrated. Finish is medium. Complexity is low.
Conclusion: Although the fruit is very subdued and the wine appears unfiltered, I will guess this wine is new world; no earthy or mineral notes. From the acid and alcohol indicators, this appears to be from a slightly cool vintage. Unknown quality producer.
Final Conclusion: This is an “OK” bottle of wine. It’s obvious that it’s an older vintage, but I couldn’t get much out of it. The flavors were subdued, the nose was difficult, the finish wasn’t too long or complex. All in all, I wasn’t very impressed.
My Ranking: 7th out of 8 bottles
Group Ranking: 6th out of 8 bottles
November 13, 2011 - 11/11 Perfect window - well balanced - velvet cream mouth feel - drink now. 92 pts.
May 17, 2011 - Ephemeral, since it's our last bottle! Delicious, high acids, fruit and even tannins left. It does NOT seem like a 12 year old wine! Perfect with amatriciana pasta. Strong, yet feminine. Tasted too good to analyze. Smooth, very easy drinking. Sad it's the last bottle. Nice work Quilceda!
June 14, 2009 - Decent fruit with tannin that still give good grip. A pretty big dose of acid on the finish.
October 27, 2008 - 87-88. Not good at first, much better with air. The last glass was the best.
November 19, 2005 - Seattle Tasting Group does Quilceda Creek (Seattle, WA): Hot on the nose and a little minty. The palate shows some olive and big, red fruit. For me this doesn't balance out as well as the 1998, although it is coming around. I wouldn't be disappointed to order this as a bargain wine in a restaurant, but the $30 retail pricetag is steep for what thsi delivers.
November 19, 2005 - STG Quilceda Creek tasting at Eric Levine's house. Dark ruby. Earth, spice and a charred character. A little sour on the finish. 50+10+8+5+6 =79
November 13, 2005 - I got absolutely nothing from this wine - neither on the nose or the palate. I popped and poured at cellar temp. On smelling nothing, I decanted, shook, swirled, incanted, etc. Nothing over the next 4 hours. After 24 hours open in the decanter, still nothing, so down the drain it went. Very disappointing! Perhaps heat damaged???