I attended a blind tasting of Washington state Bordeaux varieties/blends on Tuesday night.
While there were a couple of exceptions, I came away with the perception that Washington is moving more and more to the forward, candied end of the wine spectrum, but that the wines (at least the ones I tasted) don’t have the stuffing to pull off that style in the way that Aussie Shiraz or Central coast Pinot Noir does. In two cases I tasted wines that while ripe were also full of character and nuance, so it can be done.
We warmed up our palates (blind) with the
2004 Columbia Crest Grand Estates Cabernet Sauvignon (Columbia Valley) $10
While not in my favorite style, this was a well made wine and clearly a great value. There’s plenty of ripe fruit, but much less of the candied character than some of the wines. Not a lot of complexity, but for $10 I would not expect it. (86 pts.)
The formal blind tasting then commenced with ten wines (!):
2004 Columbia Crest Grand Estates Merlot (Columbia Valley) $10
More forward on the nose than the Cabernet, but heading more to the candied end of the spectrum, with less body to back it up. A fair bit of alcoholic burn on the finish took this one down the scale for me. (82 pts.)
2003 Chateau Ste. Michelle Indian Wells Merlot (Columbia Valley) $18
Much more forthcoming on the nose than either of the first two wines, this had dark berry and some leather aromatics. Nice structure to keep it in balance and a long finish. I’ve liked this wine in the past and continue to like it (even if it is Merlot) Very good value at this price. (89 pts.)
2004 Janiuk Klipsun Vineyard Merlot (Red Mountain) $40
Who put the maraschino cherry juice in my wine? I found this to be a thin, candied, hot wine (much like but worse than the Columbia Crest Merlot) that had me baffled as to its origins. Was it basic Aussie Shiraz or really bizarre Central Coast Pinot? I had no idea this was from Washington, and pretty much hated it. (79 pts.) It should be noted that I was by far the outlier of the group on this wine, as most everyone else really liked it.
2004 Novelty Hill Stillwater Creek Vineyard Merlot (Columbia Valley) $25
Much less candied on the nose, but there it is again on the palate. Again very hot on the finish, though not to the degree of the Janiuk. We actually had some food at this point, and it was better with food than without (the Janiuk did not improve with food). I was still not a fan, as the wine was much too candied for me. (81 pts.)
2003 Wineglass Cellars Merlot (Yakima Valley) $24
My wine of the night by a wide margin. Wonderful nose of black currant, leather, warm herbs, turned earth and a touch of spice that was much more complex than anything else we had all night. This actually reminded me of Bordeaux in a ripe style; great balance and fruit presence, and a very long finish. Fantastic wine, and at $24 it’s a steal if you can find it. I visited this property back in1999 and was impressed then. It’s good to see them still doing fine work. I might actually have to order the next time a mailer shows up. (94 pts.)
2005 Cadence ‘Bel Canto’ (Red Mountain) $55
Well here we are, back again in candy land. What a contrast to the great balance of the Wineglass Cellars (the wines were served in pairs after the warm up bottle). Simple red cherry fruit and a (mercifully) short, hot finish doomed this wine for me. I was back thinking cheap Aussie Shiraz with this wine. (80 pts.)
2001 Lolonis Cabernet Sauvignon ‘Winegrower Selection (Redwood Valley, CA) $31
Ringer #1 of the night, but it actually fit in fairly well. I found it drinkable, as it was not nearly as hot as some of the prior wines, but it was a straightforward, one-dimensional wine with nothing to really recommend it other than as a crowd-pleaser. But I would be much more likely to open 3 bottles of the Columbia Crest Cabernet for a crowd than 1 bottle of the Lolonis. (85 pts.)
2001 Cameraderie Cellars Cabernet Sauvignon (Washington State) $45
This was a wine I really liked again. It had much more complexity on the nose, even if it was in a riper style than the Wineglass Cellars Merlot. There was good balance, earthy elements as well as fruit, and no alcoholic burn on the finish. We had some marinated steak at this point, and the wine just danced with it. Very, very good stuff (though for $21 fewer dollars I am definitely going with the Wineglass Cellars Merlot), and well worth drinking. (91 pts.)
2003 Wineglass Cellars “Rich Harvest” (Yakima Valley) $50
At the start of the night we were asked to identify two ringers. One was from a different area (the Lolonis), and one was different grapes (the next wine). I missed on both accounts, as I pegged the two Wineglass Cellars wines as my different wines. My reasoning was that I thought their Merlot was from Bordeaux, and I thought this wine had some Rhone grapes (the next one did) due to a somewhat bretty aromatic element on the nose. I was thinking Mourvedre from the moment I put my nose in the glass. In a way this wine made me think of ESJ Rocks and Gravel only tuned up to become a Parker baby (not a good thing). In any event, while I thought this was ok (not great) blind, it was certainly not characteristic of a Bordeaux blend. (84 pts.)
2005 Latitude 46N ‘The Power and the Glory’ (Columbia Valley) $28
Gosh I hate the name. Anyway the wine is good, especially as it didn’t have the problem of many of the wines (neither fish nor fowl), as it tasted like Aussie Shiraz, smelled like Aussie Shiraz, and had plenty of weight and richness to pull it off convincingly. No burn at all on the finish. Really quite tasty if you like the style (I don’t but can see why it appeals.). (90 pts.)
And that was the rest of the story. I’m going to revisit Wineglass Cellars (I still have a 1996 Cabernet in my cellar) to see how I feel about more of their wines.
