2002 Erath Oregon Pinot Noir

[dananne]

Bright, almost firehouse red in the glass. Nose of cherry. Flavors are a bit simple, and follow the nose, with a bit of currant and red clay on the finish (yes, I've tasted red clay -- don't ask). Some light, prickly tannins show up late, but they're not overbearing. All in all, it's not a bad PN for the price, which is $13 (down from $15-$16 that it had been for the past three vintages, which is a nice change of pace). 13% alc. FWIW, WS 86; to '10. I usually pick up a bottle or two each vintage, but I'm not running out to buy any more of this. I'd rather spend the extra buck or two and use the money to stock up on the K2 from Keegan that I posted on recently.

[Bucko]

I've never been a fan of their wines...... Style? Quality? ???

[dananne]

Actually, as far as style is concerned, I find them all over the board, which is odd considering that it's an "Oregon" blended bottling. You'd expect better consistency, even taking into account vintage variation. If they have a house "style," I'm missing it. I loved the '99, and found it to be rather Burgundian. The last three have been sketchy, and it hasn't shown much in the way of varietal accuracy some years, either.

Quality? Eh. (Picture a shrug, which is hard to convey online.) For sub-$15 PN, I'm not expecting all that much, usually being satisfied with wines that actually reflect the varietal. Since many PN in that price range are either vapid or horrid, I'll take drinkable on most days.