Two-Buck Chuck Strikes!

From ABC channel 6:

6abc.com: California's Wine Surprise: Charles Shaw Chardonnay, better known as "Two Buck Chuck," beat hundreds of other wines and was named the top prize in a prestigious tasting competition in California.

"The characteristics that we look for in our gold medal winner & a nice creamy butter, fruity & it was a delight to taste," said 2007 California State Fair Commercial Wine Competition judge Michael Williams.

The affordable wine beat out 350 other California chardonnays to win the double gold. Second place went to an $18 bottle, and the most expensive wines at the event, at the price of $55, didn't even medal.

To find this prize winner, you need not go to a fancy wine shop or elite retailer. Charles Shaw Chardonnay is mass produced in California and only sold through the quirky Trader Joe's grocery stores.

"We choose to sell good quality wines at $2 a bottle because we think it's a fair price," winemaker Fred Franzia told ABC News' Ryan Owens. "We think the other people are charging too much."

Get What You Pay For?

After its big win, ABC News decided to put the cheap stuff to a blind taste test and see if it would repeat the victory. It was disguised and served along with chardonnays of various prices, including a $120 bottle.

In this test, Caroline Styne, co-owner and wine director of two trendy Los Angeles area restaurants, judged the wines -- but to a different outcome. She ranked "Chuck" dead last, but second-to-last was the $120 variety.

No one said this was an exact science. Just ask the chief judge of the competition that gave the gold to a wine that costs less than a latte.

"There's going to be people out there that don't like the wine and that's OK," said chief judge G. M. "Pooch" Puchlowski. "You know, there are a lot of wines I don't like. & So you drink what you like, don't drink what you don't and you go home a happy camper."

Comments

[Nicholas Weaver]

One other factor: It is never the SAME two-buck-chuck...

Although Franzia does excellent inter-lot quality control, the results aren't perfect, and although the acid and alcohol are pretty well controlled, the rest can't be.

Thus lot to lot variation is high (very high, given the bargan-basement cost of the wine bought to go into it).

It wouldn't suprise me if the entry was a "picked lot", one that tasted particularly well.

Also, TBC Chard is a nice contrast to many california Chardonneis, as it is both a lot cooler (12.5% alcohol compared with 14+%) and doesn't have much (any) oak/butter from barrel fermenting and Mallolactic fermentation.

Its a nice quaffable Chard, but it does not rank up there among the memorably good. But the whole POINT is that it is a nice quaffable chard, and it succeds at that admirably.

[Hal]

If you do blind wine tastings, I think you will find that taste is not much related to price above about $3 a bottle. There are wines that are not good but they usually sell for next to nothing. But once you get past the $3-4 mark, wines are simply a matter of individual taste. In my considered opinion, the whole wine ratings business is phony. I recall an eminent "nose" who when asked what he drank himself, replied "usually the cheapest since they (in the same category) basically taste pretty much the same."

[rilkefan]

"usually the cheapest since they (in the same category) basically taste pretty much the same."

So bizarre - I regularly open a $10 bottle of some wine I've never tried and find myself astonished. E.g., a Lohr Chard the other day.

And I've had a drinkable glass or two of Shaw, but I've had several I had to pour down the sink behind the host's back.

But it's pretty easy to spend some money and find something absolutely wonderful - excuse me while I take this bottle and drink the whole thing life is suddenly worth living wonderful.

[ogmb]

I guess the key question here is whether the bottle was provided by Trader Joe's or picked up at the local Trader Joe's store. On wine tasting being a phony business, has anyone ever looked at whether the judgments of prominent wine tasters correlate? It shouldn't be too hard to do logistically, although of dealing with the egos can be sketchy...

[Peter]

Buying wine at a store is much, much easier than ordering it in a restaurant when you're on a date, especially early in the dating relationship. It's akin to walking through a minefield. One mis-step can result in disaster.

Order a wine that's too inexpensive, and the woman may think you are a cheapskate ("Night Train Express? How wonderfully generous of you!" [end sarcasm]) Order a wine that's too expensive, and she'll think you're just trying to score ("Chateau Lafite-Rothschild? I'll bet I know what you want for 'dessert' tonight, big boy!") And most of all, you have to avoid sounding like a wine snob ("A full-bodied taste with subtle oak and vanilla undertones, coupled with a robust black cherry aftertaste? How creative of you!" [end sarcasm, the repeat]) It's scarcely worth the trouble.

[Paul]

The TBC I've tried is hardly drinkable. I always try it and then dump it. I think this "tasting" may have been rigged.

[ken melvin]

The story of Franzia and Bronco is more interesting.

[ken melvin]

The story of Franzia and Bronco is more interesting.

[Winston]

The problem with Charles Shaw is that its really variable. I've had wonderful 2 dollar wine and fairly bad $2 wine. For my money, I'll take the Mondavi Woodbridge wines, which are about $3 more but have a higher average quality and are MUCH more consistent.

[Justin]

My wife and I have had to pour Charles Shaw down the drain every time we've bought it. Started calling it 'Up-Chuck Chuck' as a result. Maybe next time we should hold a 'tasting competition' so they actually give us some of the drinkable stuff.

[Neil B.]

Why does, or doesn't, this situation violate fundamental economic principles?

[Jonathan W. King]

The people who point out that two buck chuck is variable are completely correct. It's also the case that the Chardonnay seems to be better on average than the other varieties; we had a bottle of the Shaw Shiraz that was really pretty bad. I think the reason why the Chardonnay is better on average is that California vineyards are probably more over-planted in those grapes than in others.

The real point, however, is that two buck chuck is really no better or worse on average than most other wine made from California bulk grapes, which is why it is a much better deal than bottles of wine that are two to four times as expensive but no different. And this is also where I think Brad DeLong's fascination comes in: Two Buck Chuck may not be a fascinating wine, but it *is* a fascinating economic phenomenon.

So, just to throw out another idea, it's pretty clear to me that you could put together (say) a six buck chuck that would be reliably better than two buck chuck and probably on average better than the average ten to fifteen dollar bottles of generic California stuff. But I am willing to bet that the market would not be anywhere near as large, so it's just not an optimal choice for the bottler of Charles Shaw. Similarly, there's no reason why they couldn't put Charles Shaw in boxes instead of bottles and drive the per milliliter cost down by maybe a third or more, but that, too, would not be the optimal choice. Clearly the best choice is to charge $2 (or $3.29 around here) for a bottle with a cork that dominates almost everything for less than $8 per bottle and occasionally embarrasses something you'd pay even $20 or more a bottle for. That's the magic product people will buy by the case, maximizing TJ's profit by hugely increasing their volume.

[ned]

My understanding is that this was not an "off the shelf" TBC, but rather one that the winery was told in advance would be picked up at the winery. Plenty of time to empty a bottle of really good Chardonnay into a TBC-labeled bottle.

[Paul]

I imagine ned is right. TBC is disgusting in most instances and not worth buying if you like wine. I imagine you could make a spritzer with it.

[wood turtle]

Re: dating and ordering wine.

Are women really that hard to please? Then maybe you should just take them to McDonald's with a hidden bag of mad dog 20=20 to go with your meal.