2007 Quilceda Creek Allocation

The 2007 Quilceda Creek allocation offerings are in. The cabernet in 750 mL format is $125, and $275 in magnum. Buy your entire allocation.

Unlike Sloan and Screaming Eagle, Quilceda Creek has resisted the urge to raise its prices in recent years. In addition, the 2007 vintage as a whole is a good bet for Washington state. The Wine Advocate gave the whole region a 92 score for that year. While the 2007 Quilceda Creek is still unrated by the Advocate, over the last 5 years this winery has turned out a string of high scoring cabernets. Three of the last five Quilceda Creeks earned 100 points, and the other two got 99.

Owners of the 2002-2006 vintages have done well in the marketplace. Even in this difficult market, the 2002 and 2003 are well north of $200 at auction, with average prices around $275 each (wineprices). Less auction data is available for the 2004, 2005, and 2006, but retail customers can expect to pay $225, $299, and $169 respectively for these three (wine-searcher). I expect auction prices to be about 20% less than the cheapest retail.

Is there risk? Of course. The 2001 Quilceda Creek got only 98 points from the Advocate, and it trades at $177 (wineprices), and that is a recent breakout to the upside. In 2006, it was barely over $100 on the secondary market. As pricing for the 2006 and the 2001 suggest, you need both a 99+ score, and a few years of cellaring time to double your money.

Clarendon Hills Astralis - Investment Grade?

In a word, maybe. Australia has been tough on wine investor/speculators.

The past five years have shown little motion in such Australian blue chips as 1971 and 1976 Penfolds, which are both languishing around $500. Wild Duck Creek Duck Muck seems to loose $100/year regardless of vintage, and Chris Ringland Shiraz is stuck south of $1000 for the 1998, with other notable vintages auctioning for half or a third of that price.

Clarendon Hills Astralis gets released around $300 in a great vintage, but patient speculators can usually pick it up around $200 -$250, if they are willing to wait for the right auction. I got the 1996 Astralis for $160, held it for two years, and then drank it. I have also enjoyed the 1995 on two occaisions, and the 1997 on at least three. These early vintages are just getting out of their dumb phase, and they have emerged with their rich glycerine and fruit intact. It still takes the whole dinner for the bottle to open up fully - yet I don't feel that the wine is holding anything in reserve either. Its Sine Qua Non - like jammy character is morphing into something, but what? Astralis has everything going for it: 100 year old vines, brilliant winemaking, ...all it needs is a track record - something that Chris Ringland and Penfolds already have. Astralis was first produced in 1994, and it will take another 5 years to know for certain if these early vintages can age gracefully.

If you want a safe Australian bet, then 1976 Penfolds and 1998 Chris Ringland are your fist choices. It might be years before they get thier proper recognition in the marketplace, but if speculators ever discover Australia, these wines will be the first to move higher. If Astralis shows it can age, then it could make a bigger move. If you like a little more risk, or just need a cheaper entry point, Astralis could be ready to join Australia's big boys.

1970 Petrus Review

High shoulder, not so bad for 39 years, I had seen worse. Capsule was visibly worn, a sign of ??? I became concerned; the capsule was bonded to the bottle. Unpeeling it revealed seepage and corrosion, and - mold. The cork came out about 2/3 with the waiter's friend before collapsing into bits. Somewhere in the debris branded bits of cork revealed "POM" and "197". So, it might be oxidized and baked, but at least it was genuine. I was certain that I had waited too long to drink it. There was a coarse sediment. I resisted the urge to decant. Experience with the 1945 and 1964 Petrus had taught me - at great cost, that these are delicate wines. Decantation kills.

I poured a few drops into my smallest Riedel Sommelier. It was their Sauvignon Blanc glass, sometimes marketed for "mature Bordeaux". At first, it felt strange drinking red wine from what was clearly a glass for white. I sipped. No trichloroanisole, no volatile acidity, not baked. I was cautiously optimistic. Some tertiary flavors were present, wet mossy earth, tea? I inserted a rubber cork and packed it up with the glasses for the trip to the BYOB restaurant. Then it hit me -Fruit. I swallowed it 30 seconds ago, but these flavors kept going. This wine was alive.

At the restaurant, the wine performed brilliantly. It was surprisingly robust, while also being delicate and balanced. This was not a "big" wine, but it was absolutely a steak wine. It screamed steak. It made my halibut taste like steak. The small glasses were the right choice. If you have 1970 Petrus, it won't improve -drink it up.

2003 Montrose vs 2003 Cos D'Estournel

If you have these both in your cellar, and you want to know what to sell and what to drink, my suggestion is that you sell the Cos and drink the Montrose.

Both wines are about $240 retail and $170 at auction these days +/- the usual $30/bottle for condition, provenance, owc, etc. The Montrose is about $20 more than the Cos in both markets, and it is worth the extra.

In a side by side comparison, the Cos was more cedary and was itself a great wine, which needed several hours to open up. The Montrose had a richness of mid-palate that only the best wines ever achieve. It was not Californiazed, but to be fair it was showing more fruit to go with its obvious glycerin.

Overall, both are great wines, but the Montrose requires no intellecualization or justification. Just pour it and let your guests react. Yes, it is still very young and will improve, but you won't feel the need to point that out. It speaks for itself.

In the same tasting, I also drank the 2000 Montrose, and it was not even close to the 2003. I'd sell that one too.

2006 Scarecrow

Scarecrow has a reasonably priced allocation this year at $175/bottle. Buy it, if you are on the list.

This wine has the advantage of having been rated by Parker, so we're not buying something completely unknown. The 2006 earned 94+, which is Parker's lowest score for any Scarecrow, but with the 95 point 2005 retailing at $400, you're probably safe paying $175 for the 94+.

If you plan to flip this one, then I recommend doing so quickly. The 2005 Scarecrow has fallen substantially from the $620-$650 level seen in March 2008.

Be ready at midnight on March 21st to claim yours.

2006 Screaming Eagle Allocation

The 2006 Screaming Eagle allocations are available - for $750 a bottle.

The rules are changing, and the top CA cults are no longer an automated buy. See my Sloan post for an example of one to skip.

If you're fortunate enough to be on the list, you probably still want this one. After adding item tax, shipping, and shipping tax, my 3 bottles came to $2507. This is $835 delivered. An auction house will take 20% of the hammer price, so 2006 Screaming Eagle needs to fall below $1002, for you to loose money on this.

Longtime members of the Screaming Eagle allocation club will remember the 2003 offered at the (then) outrageous price of $500. That seems like a gift now, and for wine speculators, it was.

You can cut the auction premium to as little as 10%, if you use a discount auctioneer like JJ Buckley, who will auction it online with no reserve. For most wines, it still won't be worth it. But 10% on a Screaming Eagle is actually worth capturing. Plus, demand is still high enough for Screaming eagle to sell at a reasonable price on an internet auction. I wouldn't try this with most other $1000+ wines, like a 1985 Henri Jayer Echezeaux, for instance. The Jayer market is too thin to trust it to a no-reserve online auction.

Earth to Sloan.....

In spite of the raging global depression, Sloan wines just offered a second round allocation of their 2005 Cabernet for $360/bottle. If you are a speculator, skip it.

These allocations are shooting closer and closer to the auction price each year. Many of them are already at 80% of the auction price, which to me is "fully priced" since anyone flipping their allocation is clipped for 20% by the auction house.

The current ask on 2005 Sloan is $500/bottle (winebid.com), which includes the auctioneer's premium. A seller can expect $400 -if the lot sells.

Sloan will charge for shipping on top of the $360, and by the time you pay to ship it to the auctioneer, there's no money left in this deal.

It may make you feel better to know that they offered it at $225 to their preferred customers already.

Many wine speculators will be finding their way on to the allocation lists during these difficult times. But they will be offered higher and higher prices. The only reason that I can think of to buy any of these wines now, is to be on the list for the 2007s -which are supposed to be the best vintage ever to come out of CA in 30+years. Buy carefully, if at all. I think when they hit the market in 2010-2011, most 2007s will be held by very weak hands.

How to Match Red Wine with Fish

Smoke it! If you love red wine and want to enjoy it with something healthier than a steak, then cedar plank smoked salmon is the answer.

Cedar planks, once a specialty item, are now available at most supermarkets. Soak the plank in water while the grill heats up, add the salmon, and cook it for about 25 minutes. Soaking the plank is essential for good smoke generation; a dry plank will make your dinner catch on fire. I like to season my salmon with salt, pepper, and a light coating of sugar (1t/lb, approx). The sugar soaks up the smoke and sweetens the salmon's natural fat.

Grill smoked salmon has a full bodied flavor, so you can serve it with Cabernet or Syrah. If you want to match the tobacco notes of an aged Bordeaux, then I recommend using mesquite chunks as your smoke source.