Trader Joes $1.99 sauvignon blanc/merlot is pretty good

[Jugernot]

Originally posted by: BigJ
They need to start boxing that stuff up. Give Franzia some real competition.

The Charles Shaw label is owned by the Bronco Wine Company, headed by Fred Franzia (formerly of Franzia Brothers wines).

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: MixMasterTang

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: zinfamous
I'm no stranger to $100 bottles of wine. I've spent some time tooling around the Chianti, Burgongne regions, etc, dropping stupid money on Brunellos and such

I'm not an idiot, nor are my taste buds dead, when I say that for $2, you're getting the best damn deal in the wine industry.

and better than most wines you can find at 10 or $20

We've kind of gone off topic talking about the days of drinking actual terribly shitty alcohol. I'll see if I can't give two buck chuck a try tonight. Might as well pick up a few bottles for pregaming before I go out to the bar to celebrate the big 2-2.

yeah...I noticed that later

I must say though...that 2 buck chuck is NOT Franzia...strangely different world there.

when you consider (well, before the blasted Euro), that a decent bottle of wine in France would cost you about $1, and a phenomenal bottle could be had for $10, paying $2 for a good bottle of wine is not that unrealistic. sure...it's France, but the Napa and Sonoma regions certainly aren't environmentally handicapped in terms of being able to produce premium wine....

I don't think you've been to France for a while because $1 is worth only about .60 Euro which won't get you much. But yes, for 2-4 Euro you can get some great wine over there.

here, I bolded a little parenthetical from my post that you must have glanced over

I was actually still in Italy the day the Euro switch happened. Chaos. but damn...wish I had just withdrawn all of my money in Euros. The majority of that at the time was a loan to pay for the 6 months-trip; Hell, I could have paid that back with some money left over if I had converted it to Euros

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: aldamon
I would find that offensive on every tasting.

Originally posted by: Descartes

.....earth, mushroom, leather, tobacco, etc. are all qualities of an older, better wine that most people fine offensive on first tasting.

well, he did forget the classic "pencil lead" taste.

those are incredible qualities to good wine, that imo, is less of an acquired taste than something like malt whiskey.

 

[AreaCode7O7]

Originally posted by: Descartes

3) Better grapes come from better land. This means land that hasn't been depleted of resources, has ample sun (depending on the type of grape), etc. You can buy an acre in Napa for $3M or so, but you can get 20 acres in Mendocino for a lot, lot less. Yes, some of that has to do with the fact that it's "Napa", but it's a lot more to do with the climate. You simply cannot produce the same quality of grapes, so land costs are higher. This means the resultant wine is higher.

Whoa whoa whoa, them's fightin' words! I'd argue that Mendocino and Lake Counties produces grapes that are equal to any coming out of Napa. Napa happens to be closer to San Francisco, making the tourist portion of the wine industry much more in reach. That and the history shared by Sonoma and Napa as the foundational California wine counties earned the names they have now, and keeps them running on the leading edge. A lot of Napa wineries buy and use Mendocino grapes. Napa wineries do have an edge of Mendocino wineries, in that the name recognition they carry allows them to attract the best winemakers around. You can argue (probably successfully) that better wine comes out of Napa, but I don't think you can successfully make the argument that better grapes come out of Napa.