Comments on: Blind-tasting Two-Buck Chuck

By: Jesse Porter

Jesse Porter — Sun, 04 May 2008 09:50:04 +0000

I agree with Pamela at #9 — the bottle of 2005 CH Chard is not the same one you’d find in Trader Joe’s. But that’s because he deals in such huge quantities, sourcing grapes from all over, that “batch variation” is simply part of the CH experience… are we really all so cynical to chalk it up to conspiracy theories? Does no one actually want to acknowledge that — god forbid — a bulk wine producer who sources big ripe fruit from Central Valley actually managed to create a tasty, decent wine? Maybe it was lightning in a bottle, maybe it won’t happen again next year, but can we all really be sure this wasn’t just a solid vintage of CH Chard? As the old adage reminds us, if you put a bunch of monkeys at typewriters, eventually they’ll write Shakespeare…

By: Pamela

Pamela — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 02:13:27 +0000

Atom, I notice you do not talk about flavor. The bottom line is that one must defend the wine on its taste.

I had an opportunity to blind-taste several vintages of the Charles Shaw (CH), along side four other chardonnays (two which were comparable in price and two at a slightly higher price structure >$20). I had no knowledge that the award winning two-buck chuck was amongst the flight. Many of the wines displayed nice characteristics, which ranged from simple and straightforward to complex wines that carried distinct uniqueness. After scoring, the director revealed the wines; I scored the CH “gold winner” the lowest score of the bunch because it lacked character. Looking back at my notes, the only thing I had to say about the wine was that it lacked character and had an unpleasant aroma.

I agree with Jim’s #3 statement above; several other wine publication editors agree with us on this point – if you honestly believe the bottles of wine the judges tasted are the same the ones you and I buy in the store, you are living in a dream world.

By: Atom

Atom — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 22:41:23 +0000

I have been a fan of 2-Buck to $20 per bottle for many years. Maybe the reason 2-Buck was chosen is because that is the wine they actually thought was the best. At some point, price has nothing to do with quality but law of supply and demand. If no one values the brilliancy of a diamond, at the end of the day it is a hard hunk of coal.

Once upon a time before today's varied amount of vodkas that are available, Absolut came out and was THE top shelf spirit. Now it is typically bar stock. Price doesn't mean it is better, unless of course you are the one who paid more for it.

By: Pamela

Pamela — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 04:08:15 +0000

Good commentary Jim.
My thought is that it’s really a shame that state fairs are damaging the reputation of some of the reputable wine competitions. I myself, judge for a number of competitions, and this aforementioned Two Buck Chuck award is simply erroneous and inappropriate and one can only presume fraud at some level. I am not going to point fingers or make any assumptions but something is not right here. On another note, its interesting how the Cornell study about how wine labels ruin a restaurant meal (have you seen it?) and the double gold awards coincide; is this coincidence or was the award used to balance out the (somewhat) bad publicity…

By: Boredeaux-Bo

Boredeaux-Bo — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 16:39:47 +0000

These competitions are losing more and more credibility with me every day …..LOL!
The average consumer would probably love it…that is the truth, of course the avg consumer feels that $10 or $12 is a lot of money for a bottle of Red Wine when you can buy a big box or a jug for $4.49 at Safeway or Albertsons.

By: Agent Red

Agent Red — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 20:34:34 +0000

I think I’ll create a $1.00 wine, call it “One Greenback Jack”, give my own “World’s Fair Triple Platinum Best of Fair” medal and make a fortune! Yeah…

By: Epicuria

Epicuria — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 00:54:15 +0000

This just defies credulity. Using the rules of Critical Thinking, if Mr. Franzia has played fast and loose with various regs in the past, even going to the can for some skullduggery, why should this old dog change his spots now. The judges are top notch; they are not the folks who would reward an everyday quaffer with golds. There is simply no quality control in such competitions, making it too tempting to submit wines that can't be found on the supermarket shelves even though they may have the same label.

Another reason to commend Dorothy Gaiter and John Brecher, the husband and wife team who write the Friday wine column in the Wall Street Journal. They buy all their samples for their tastings-by-type-of-wine at retail stores in multiple states.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 21:05:13 +0000

I think you raise solid possibilities for explaining the medal. As for your own blind tasting, I’m not surprised that 2 Buck scored well. I think a large portion of consumers’ palates are shaped by wines in the $4-$8 range, and so 2 Buck would likely have fit the taste preferences of a majority of the sampling group (though you did have a few others in that price range as well). Could the order of tasting play a part - residual taste impacting subsequent tastings? Was there a consistent pattern in the wine ranking based on the order in which the wines were tasted?

By: barclay

barclay — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 16:35:10 +0000

I’ve certainly wondered with some of these “Gold Medal” winners if judging aspects focused on things like: Color of Bottle Glass, Adhesion of Label to Bottle, Strength of Cardboard Case, and the like… since the wine can sometimes just be freaking terrible.

By: Rxxwine

Rxxwine — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 09:35:08 +0000

Maybe they need a 2 buck chuck reserve for 4 dollars! Why is it so hard to believe that a professional winery is capable of making a great wine? I have tasted some supposed great wine’s and spit them out due to either being flat or over oaked and why does price matter if its good its good. I guess it goes back to keeping up with the Jones’s or ridding a moped!