Charles Shaw 'Two Buck Chuck'

[winesonoma]

actually, the Wine Enthusiast broke down the numbers on how you could more or less make the economics of TBC work, even at $2 or $3 a bottle.  needless to say, all getting-what-pay-for rules apply.

←

Well spit it out. Glass, label, bottling, shipping, profit says the wine is $ .20 in the equation.

[CtznCane]

For what it is, repeat IS, it is good. Straightforward, drinkable, not complex, but for 2 bucks,ya can't knock it as a cheap wine to have around. I will admit though to cooking with it as well and it turns out fine. Is it my choice of wines to drink? By no means. Does it have its place in my house? You bethcha!

[Mark Sommelier]

No need at all to cry for Charles F. Shaw who thought up the idea of the wines known affectionately (or with passionate hatred) these days as "Two Buck Chuck". 

Shaw, taking advantage of the wine glut in California, started buying up grapes and bulk wines in (if memory serves) 2001 and dealing them largely through the chain "Trader Joe's". Everyone is making good money on these wines and to the surprise of quite a few the wines compete nicely with many in the $5-8 dollar range and people continue to buy them by multiple cases. No loss-leaders these! In fact, considering the millions of cases that have been bought - some good profit here.

I have tasted the Cabernet, Chardonnay, Merlot and Sauvignon Blanc wines in the series.  All earned acceptable scores of 80-84. At that price, unbeatable and that seems to be what a good many people want to drink. 

Anticipating a question - Nope!  Not wines that I would buy for my personal drinking pleasure.

←

Daniel,

The Charles F. Shaw winery went bankrupt 10-15 years ago. Bronco bought the name several years ago and produces this bulk wine from the glut of grapes that exists everywhere in California except the Napa Valley. You can believe that the bottle, cork and label cost more than the wine in the bottle. The fact that many people find it palatable is a good thing. I work as a sommelier. I firmly believe that there are only two kinds of wines: what you like and what you don't like. On one of the wine boards, the subject of the Two Buck Chuck red wines came up. One guy said that the cabernet sucked. Another guy said that the merlot sucked. The third guy said that if you mix the cabernet and merlot together, it was awesome. I chuckled.

[Daniel Rogov]

Hello Mark,

I was referring not to the name of the owner but to the name of the winery,which does indeed remain "Charles F. Shaw". On the the other points we are in agreement.

It is my understanding that the winery purchases their bulk wines at present for about US$0.78 per gallon. Even taking into consideration the low price bottles,labels, bottling expenses, corks and distribution this still leaves the winery a profit of about 40 cents a bottle. Sell 8 million cases and laugh your way to the bank.What the heck....that would easily buy the Lambhorgini after which I so devotedly lust.

[KOK]

Here is what snopes.com had to say about Two-Buck Chuck. They noted the divorce theory and the airline security theory.

Thanks,

K

http://www.snopes.com/business/market/shawwine.asp

[LindaJ]

Just last weekend a friend served me a glass of Shiraz blind. It was undrinkable. I nearly fell on the floor when I went into the kitchen and saw the bottle. It was my first and hopefully last experience with it. My everyday French or Australian wine-in-a-box plonk is way better.

[rich]

Thought I'd revise this as the 2003 Chuck Cabernet is on the stands. I think it's the best Cabernet they have released. Fruity, light tannins and very drinkable. At $3 on the east coast, it's fine with simple foods - it's a $10 wine. The 2005 Sauvignon Blanc just came as well - it's okay, has a grassy quality but very light - probably a $5-6 wine.

The recent Merlot, Chardonnay and Shiraz are not worth $3 or $2 or $1 - tasted them in-house and wouldn't buy a bottle to use as a weapon...

[winewizard]

Oh well...28 views and no one has anything to say.  Thanks anyway! 

←

Pickles:

While it is drinkable: I wish to point out sage advice:

"Never buy the cheapest wine in any category as its taste may discourage you from going on. The glass, cork, cartons and labor are about the same for any wine; as are the ocean freight and taxes for imported wine. Consequently, if you spend a little more, you are likely to get a better wine; because the other costs remain fixed. Cheap wine will alays be too expensive".

[Sneakeater]

At $3 on the east coast, it's fine with simple foods - it's a $10 wine.

←

This is exactly right. Two Buck Chuck cab is an excellent value because it's a $10 wine for $2 or $3. The problem is, it's hard to moderate one's praise (obviously I'm not talking about rich here), so often people make it seem like it's a very good wine instead of merely a surprisingly drinkable one. And also, of course, a lot of time people read the fairly faint praise this wine deserves as meaning more than it does, so irrespective of what the reviewer has said, they expect it to be a very good wine instead of merely a surprisingly drinkable one.

[NapaRover]

as noted, $2/3 buck chuck is (one of hundreds) of brands the began as the glut of california juice exploded on the market a few years ago. Fred Franzia (franzia box wine etc) and owner of bronco wine group is simply packing extra juice and selling it (for a profit!) to TJs. He provides them and a few others with many "house" brands....as do most larger producers. He had been in the news a lot a while ago with the courts about using the "Napa" appelation on some of his wines...the usual "what % of actual wine in the mix has to be napa before it cant be labeled Napa". The stories of how the brand evloved are urban myth.

If you have has had dealings with wineries and producers in the economics of a bottle of wine (at the mass market/distrubition level)...the cost to produce the actual wine is minimal....i.e. a $2 bottle and a $12 bottle, both cost $1.25 or so for the juice...the rest is packaging, marketing, warehousing, distrubution and "brand preference" (figures are not literal but the idea is). Ive seen cost breakdowns on a range of $10 wine and $100 wine from the same producer/brand, and cost of juice etc was not significantly different.

Im not commenting on quality (Shaw is swill to me!), but just thought I'd share some experience on the marketing and economics of what most mass distributed wine is about.

Small productoin, small lots, estate grown, thats a whole other story.

Edited June 18, 2006 by NapaRover (log)

[leviathan]

Due to the wine glut, there were other wines and still are other inexpensive wines that didn't taste bad. Yet, it was Charles Shaw that captured lightning in a bottle, not the other inexpensive wines. One of the keys to Charles Shaw, which most people don't mention, is its connection to upscale retailer Trader Joe's and how Trader Joe's was selling it exclusively. Trader Joe's and Costco are perhabs the only big retailers that could have lent this product enough respectability. The consumer expects high quality bargains at those two retailers. If it had been Wal-Mart that had been selling it, Charles Shaw would have never become the phenomenon it became.

[JohnL]

as noted, $2/3 buck chuck is (one of hundreds) of brands the began as the glut of california juice exploded on the market a few years ago. Fred Franzia (franzia box wine etc) and owner of bronco wine group is simply packing extra juice and selling it (for a profit!) to TJs. He provides them and a few others with many "house" brands....as do most larger producers. He had been in the news a lot a while ago with the courts about using the "Napa" appelation on some of his wines...the usual "what % of actual wine in the mix has to be napa before it cant be labeled Napa". The stories of how the brand evloved are urban myth.

If you have has had dealings with wineries and producers in the economics of a bottle of wine (at the mass market/distrubition level)...the cost to produce the actual wine is minimal....i.e. a $2 bottle and a $12 bottle, both cost $1.25 or so for the juice...the rest is packaging, marketing, warehousing, distrubution and "brand preference" (figures are not literal but the idea is). Ive seen cost breakdowns on a range of $10 wine and $100 wine from the same producer/brand, and cost of juice etc was not significantly different.

Im not commenting on quality (Shaw is swill to me!), but just thought I'd share some experience on the marketing and economics of what most mass distributed wine is about.

Small productoin, small lots, estate grown, thats a whole other story.

←

Your cost to produce the juice comparisons are flawed.

Very fine wines for the most part cost a lot more to produce than basic table wines.

Most fine wines are from limited growing areas--often single vineyards. Yields are most often well below those of so called industrial vineyards. Fine wines are often made from vineyards that require a lot of work--canopy management, crop thinning, etc.

In the winery, these wines receive a lot of focused and labor intensive treatment as well as expensive oak barrels (mass market wines are more often flavored with oak chips etc.).

Interestingly, it is in the area of marketing where many fine wines are more efficient than mass market wines.

Most truly fine wines are sought after by their much more discerning market and require little if any "marketing or advertising."