Reference wines

At a dinner recently, I had to play pin-the-wine-on-the-dinner blindfolded. I wasn't sure what was being served and I wasn't sure what wines would already be there. I knew another guest F was bringing two of her much vaunted wines, the Quilceda Creek 2002 Cabernet (WS 93, WA 100) and Ridge 2005 Chardonnay Santa Cruz Mountains (WS 95, #2 in top 100).

What to bring? My standard Aussie shiraz's seemed so pedestrian. Sure I could have dug something really nice out, but it would still be just shiraz. And what if the food was chicken or fish? A white was out of the question. I can't afford to tarnish my reputation so badly at this point.

And so it was a return to the classics. A Pinot. Nobody can really complain about a good pinot. As I dug through the collection, which are more like the stacks, as in a messy library, it came down to what I could find. An Oregon (Cardwell Hill) or a Carneros Creek pinot? Both were new to me and I felt both could use a bit more bottle time, at the 12 year drinking window on both had just opened. As I pondered this.... I had a bolt of insight. I would bring one of my much un-vaunted Columbia Crest Merlots. The Grand Estates line that I love. Only this was from 1997. A twelve year old bottle, which is likely older than half my readers. Probably best drunk by 2002. Seven years past its prime. Fortunately, I had two of these babies, so I could afford to waste, I mean, share one bottle with friends as a surprise wine.

Back to the Pinot decision. A last minute closet search turned up the Nautilus 2006 Pinot (WS 91, $19) from New Zealand. Perfect. I've wanted to try this as the few NZ pinots I've tried can be very nice.

The appetizers were chicken and lamb and pickled veggies. The attendent wines were a GS (as in GSM) rose (aka blush wine) from Paso Robles and a sparkling rose. The hosts also opened up a German reisling, name forgotten. It was quite aromatic but not especially flavorful on the palate. Others said it wasn't very sweet, but I detect a hint of sugar against the rich texture. (My score: 88).

Near the end of the appetizers, we opened the 1997 Merlot. Wow. Everbody recoiled a bit upon smelling it. Very rough, a bit like a kitchen cleaner, hiding the fruit. F would not even get near this. But the host M tried it and said it was like a Pinot. And he liked it. Hmm.. I had to agree a bit. Over the hill, so it was smooth and dilute with dried cherry fruit and had flavors of an old non-earthy wine. And an unmistakable strong note of pine oil or pine resin (like retsina). And the smell of wet paper did start to come about. Some liked it, some despised it. But it was a nice wine to try and learn from. My score: 87 or a 65.

The main course for the evening was salmon wrapped in filo dough so it almost looked like a burrito. The hostess, K, would brush lemon butter between the sheets and on the raw chunk of salmon. Throw some vegetables before wrapping, bake and that was it. There was a simple salad on the side. And by the way, the salmon dish was magnificent. The fish was perfectly cooked, the lemon and butter flavors persisted beautifully and the filo dough was lucious. I want this recipe. Wow.

K and F had a last minute wine change, as the recipe specifically recommended the Sea Smoke 2005 Pinot Noir Southing (WS 92, $40) which F had. So no Ridge. And now we had two pinots. Both of which were excellent. (And I discovered at dinner that C who is normally quite reserved, "just hates pinot!".. so much for nobody can complain about good Pinot).

The Nautilus was pinkish in color and not especially big, with cherry, a hint of rose and gentle spiciness. A bit tart in a nice way, esp compare to the Sea Smoke. But it was the texture that won me over. Rich and tongue coating, despite the only moderate flavor. Interesting. This probably is what is meant by the silky texture of Pinot. A lovely wine. My score: 91 or 92.

The Sea Smoke was a dark beauty. Complex, with a sense of gently smoked or roasted spices (anise, five spice, perhaps ginger) backed by moderate black berry. Nice round, rich smooth texture. Wow. This seemed to be 2 or 3 points better than the Nautilus. I had no idea any wine, let alone a pinot could taste like this. Definitely another reference point in my mind. My score: 93-94.

And what about the 100 point Quilceda Creek? Disappointing and no one was more vocal than F about this. She even bemoaned how highly rated wines were always so disappointing lately. (My message is secretly spreading.) This wine had moderate flavor with refined purple berry and gentle spice and oak. Smooth, easy to drink. It tasted high end but was just too restrained to be great. My score: 89-90.