Two Buck Chuck in the news again...
See this story from msnbc dated 5/28/07.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18868861/
I read reviews on vinquire.com about these wines, and the reviewers thought the merlot and shiraz were okay. what do you chowhounders think? i think that if i want to drink cheap, I'll stick to beer. I've had some horrible cheap wine. maybe it would be good to make sangria with, though.
I don't know if it'll work to click the link. I am not sure how to make it "clickable." You may just have to copy/paste it into your browser.
cowateni
May 28, 2007 03:48PM
I've had both quite drinkable and quite bad Three Buck Chuck(in AZ it's Three Buck). Seems to be very inconsistent even within varieties and years.
Permalink | Reply
>>> Seems to be very inconsistent even within varieties and years. <<<
Charles Shaw is bottled a number of different times during the year, so at any one moment, there are a number of different "batches" on the market. Variability is to be expected.
Permalink | Reply
For me it depends what you mean by drinkable. But...
I sometimes cook with the shiraz and the chardonnay. I can't stand the cab. I am afraid to try the merlot, since I normally don't like cheap merlot.
They are better than most other $2 or $3 wines (some frightening $2 gas station wine from my college days comes to mind), but is that really saying much? I agree with OP. Better to stick with beer if you're on a tight budget.
Permalink | Reply
"Last year, Two Buck Chuck ... accounted for at least 8 percent of California wine sold in-state ..." !!!
Permalink | Reply
By volume or by sales dollars? The latter would be much more startling.
Permalink | Reply
I do not like Charles Shaw, and so do not buy it. But I have to taste it relatively frequently. Charles Shaw, aka "Two Buck Chuck," is plonk. Sometimes it's decent plonk; sometimes, it's vile. The Syrah -- sorry, Shiraz -- can be decent; so, too, the Merlot and Chardonnay. I've never had a Cab from them I'd call "decent," though.
But keep in mind what Charles Shaw is TRYING to do. The wine isn't trying to be the next Château Lafite or Screaming Eagle. It's trying to be the best $2-$3 wine it can be. If you can buy a $2 wine that tastes like a $5-7 wine, I'd say you're saving 3-5 bucks!
Unfortunately, to my palate, it tastes like a wine that costs two bucks! But, YMMV . . .
Permalink | Reply
Interesting to compare differing reactions to the different 2BC varietals: I can't stand the merlot, find the shiraz OK if a tad clunky, and like the cabernet just fine. The best one to my taste is the sauvignon blanc, just a nice mindless something to pour very cold and swill on a hot afternoon. My first bottle of the so-called "Beaujolais" was grapey and foul, but my brother-in-law insisted that he and his (French) wife liked it so much they bought two cases, so I tried another bottle and it was...okay. YMMV, as they say on the car-nut boards...
Permalink | Reply
As noted on the label, that "Gamay Beaujolais nouveau" is Valdiguié. I didn't have the guts to taste it.
Permalink | Reply
They have a "Beaujolais nouveau"?!?! I can't believe it. And they aren't making it from Gamay? I bet it tastes like cheap candy, and agree with RL; I won't have the guts to try this one. RL, they say "Gamay" when it's really Valdiguie'? Or is it "napa gamay"? I thought that misnomer had passed.
Permalink | Reply
The ten-year grace period expired in the past month or so. "Gamay Beaujolais" and "Napa Gamay" are no longer allowed on American wine labels.
http://wine.appellationamerica.com/gr...
Permalink | Reply
It's about time. Thanks for the info.
Permalink | Reply
Interesting side note: Charles F. Shaw founded his winery PRECISELY to produce Gamay. He knew there was no "real" Gamay (i.e.: Gamay noir au jus blanc) in California -- he brought in cuttings directly from Beaujolais of the true Gamay variety.
His winery failed miserably, sold twice, and is now "Two-Buck Chuck."
Permalink | Reply
How funny (and sad, really). I would like to see real gamay grown in CA, released at harvest, etc. Too bad. Maybe with the success of his cheap wine, he can afford someday to try again. "Ten buck chuck" -- I'd buy it.
Permalink | Reply
>>> Maybe with the success of his cheap wine . . . <<<
Charles F. Shaw has NOTHING TO DO with the wines that, thoday, are bottled under the "Charles Shaw" label. As I mentioned above, the wnery has been sold twice, and the name has been changed from "Charles F. Shaw" to "Charles Shaw" and the brand is now owned by the Bronco Wine Co. -- makes of what is often referred to as "Two Buck Check" (or "2BC" on the internet).
Permalink | Reply
Ah. Missed that detail in what you said. Thanks.
Permalink | Reply
Charles Shaw's label for 2007 says "Nouveau Valdiguie."
Permalink | Reply
We've had some decent bottles, and for a time mostly used it to add to stews and such because it tasted fine and was, of course, cheap. After getting a bottle that was like grape juice with rotgut added we've steered clear. I suppose I might try another bottle in the future, but only if it's right under my nose and I have $2 in my pocket. Certainly won't seek it out the way we all did when it was first introduced.
I think I remember their merlot never being good, but it's been so long I'd hesitate to say for sure. There are definitley good bottles now and again, it's worth trying.
At the very least it's fun and you can say you had Two Buck Chuck. :D
Permalink | Reply
Hey, if it were consistent it wouldn't be 2 bucks. Have a backup of something real if you roll snake eyes. You paid 2 bucks for the draft beer you didn't finish because it got warm. I think we are over-grousing here. Robert Lauriston's statistic is eye popping for a state known for fine wine tastes. I hope it means, partially, that 2BC enables some to enjoy wine at all.
Permalink | Reply
With gas prices as high as they've been and rent in CA, I'm not surprised that so many folks turn to cheap wine. I know that when times were tough, Two Buck Chuck was the only way I could drink wine at all. I agree that the Shiraz is the best choice of the reds (the Cabs I had were awful). And their Pinto Grigio worked well cold, though it's harder to find than the ubiquitous Chardonnay and Sauvignon Blanc.
Permalink | Reply
Is it really called Pinto Grigio, or is that your tongue-in-cheek appellation? Whichever, very amusing.
Permalink | Reply
Oops. Typo! But I like that name...
Permalink | Reply
-in the past I've used VERY cold 2BC Sauvignon Blanc as a mystery wine at upscale blind tastigs - It was never picked as 2BC - always as a $12.00 or more choice - Shows to go you! (remember that the wine is produced often throughout production and is not reliable case to case) hey, it's just wine!
Thanks for the link to a very informative article.
Permalink | Reply
Call it what you want, imho it's still Plonk with a capital "P."
Permalink | Reply
2BC varies not from year to year but from week to week. As Chuck buys out surplus grapes from various growers, you never know what you're gonna get. What gets Napa winemakers goat is that the facility is in Napa, giving 2BC the legal right to put "Napa Valley" on the label even tho there are no Napa grapes in the mix. We try a bottle occasionally when we get a rec - this year's Chardonnay wasn't bad - worth $8. Crisp, not buttery. Like the Sauv Blanc from a few years ago, drink it icy cold. Don't serve it to your real wine friends!
Permalink | Reply