Notes:

Looks normal when poured into a glass. Medium legs. Little on the nose.

Tasting gives an immediate blast of fruit and wood, that quickly gives way to . . . nothing. Over the next 10 minutes this evolved. Less wood, less fruit; now it just tastes sweet.

It was $4.99 at the local Grocery Outlet. They may have been lying about it not being the cheapest wine.

Thinking I’ll make some simple burgers tonight and see if it’s worth drinking any more.

by laseralex

17 Comments

  1. Stone_The_Rock

    Obviously it’s not the cheapest wine, look at the label…

  2. IllAd9097

    Was it really the second-cheapest wine, or is it just marketing? That’s the question…

  3. The joke here is that generally speaking, in restaurants, people order the second cheapest wine from the wine list.

  4. Status-Investment980

    Grape juice. I’d love to meet the person who came up with that horrible label. It’s like they have completely given up on life.

  5. Shwifty_Plumbus

    Jokes aside. The odds are in your favor here a Willamette valley Pinot noir is gonna be good most of the time.

  6. Spiritual-Profile419

    I took it as a swipe at two buck chuck generally thought to be the cheapest wine.

  7. Uptons_BJs

    I’m actually surprised that the second cheapest wine at 4.99 is a willamett valley Pinot noir. That’s like, a not shit appellation with some prestige!

    Like, you’d expect a generic “California” or Vin de France

  8. norcalnatv

    “Cheapest” is nothing close to the metric I’d prioritize when making a buying decision on a Pinot Noir.

  9. Bentheredonethat_

    I worked in Wine marketing for a few years and this bottle certainly catches the eye.

    However I’d expect this to be priced at 10$ a bottle since 4.99$ is most likely the cheapest wine you’ll find after the inflation of prices over the past few years.

  10. JuDGe3690

    Second-Cheapest Wine*

    ***

    ^(*) ^(When compared to ~~Two-Buck~~ *Three-and-a-Half-Buck* Chuck)

Write A Comment