The judgment of California: Charles Shaw chardonnay is state’s best

Home » Features » Food & Wine

Sunday, July 01, 2007

Comment

The Charles Shaw 2005 California chardonnay (yes, the $1.99 “Two Buck Chuck” made by Bronco Wine Company sold at Trader Joe’s) was judged Best Chardonnay from California at California State Fair Commercial Wine Competition.

The chardonnay received 98 points, a double gold, with accolades of Best of California and Best of Class.

“Since we judge all wines totally by variety without different brackets for price, this double-gold achievement by the Bronco winemakers is astounding,” said G.M. Pucilowski, chief judge and director of the competition.

While the complete results of the competition are scheduled to be announced July 12, Renata Franzia, from Bronco’s Franzia family received the results Thursday.

Dr. Richard Peterson, veteran winemaker and a State Fair judge for 20 years, said, “We have the most open judging I know. There is nothing to bias judging. We get numbered glasses. We don’t know the region, brand or price. We evaluate the judges frequently to make sure they’re tops in the field. Charles Shaw won because it is a fresh, fruity, well-balanced chardonnay that people and wine judges — though maybe not wine critics — will like.”

Bronco president Fred Franzia said, “The customer has responded to our great values and now the judges to our quality. This is why we’re in business: To put the best wine possible on the customers’ tables at a reasonable price. I just wish some other retailers and restaurateurs had the courage and good sense to make these super-value wines available to more American wine consumers.”

40 comment(s)

Bobby Cox wrote on Jun 29, 2007 2:53 PM:

" A wine I made just won a double gold and best Viognier in Texas. I was getting all big headed, now back to earth. Oh Well. "

Chaz Buzowski wrote on Jun 29, 2007 4:11 PM:

" This was judged among the best in the state of California, which include Napa and Sonoma. Ever hear of them? Besides, what do they use to make wine in Texass? Cactus? Tumbleweed juice? Tobacco juice? "

Laurie wrote on Jun 29, 2007 4:38 PM:

" Congratulations Two Buck Chuck! It just goes to prove that an expensive wine isn't always the wine of choice! "

Patricia B wrote on Jun 30, 2007 7:19 AM:

" Well touch you Chuck! Aren't you just the oenologist extraordinaire. Calling yourself Chaz doesn't bespeak class or taste, any more than price ensures quality in wine or anything else. Watch the price of this wine go through the roof now. Maybe they'll call Two Buck Chuck 20-dollar Chaz? Or not. "

wine 4 pleasure wrote on Jun 30, 2007 10:50 AM:

" The 2 buck Chuck at my Trader Joe's is $3.00. I have purchased it and HATED it. I thought it was to tart and rather stale. Sorry, but I think I will put my $3.00 towards another brand. "

aaron wrote on Jun 30, 2007 12:21 PM:

" Judging wine will always be a somewhat subjective endeavor, especially if you're talking about the judging happening at state fairs like this. If you tried to tally the number of county and state fairs out there that get into the game of rating wines, you'd die counting. While I don't believe you have to be an MS to critically judge wine, I think you'll find that most of these "judges" at fairs like this have little or no background in wine. So, as a wine merchant, I always take these medals with a grain of salt (as do I with mainstream magazines as well, but for different reasons). The harsh truth is that getting to a point where you can accurately critique any wine involves two things simultaneously: tasting as many wines from as many wine regions as possible, and then reading/studying on the varietals and winemaking history of each region. Without the perspective and background on a wine, simply tasting it will only tell you whether or not you enjoy it at that moment. And these scores and medals don't exist to tell us whether Joe the judge likes the wine, they exist to assign merit to a wine based upon how it compares to other of the same type. "

Rob wrote on Jun 30, 2007 6:25 PM:

" Heck, it's 3 buck chuck here in Indianpolis. "

Chuck wrote on Jun 30, 2007 7:25 PM:

" I'm not 2 Buck Chuck, but I like to drink it. I'm not sure that the Chardonnay is the best in California, but it is enjoyable and affordable. Their other wines are nice as well. In California, it costs $1.99 plus sales tax. If it costs more elsewhere, too bad! This is a wine that costs me under $70 for 2 cases, so I can drink it everyday, not just on special occasions. "

Joe wrote on Jul 1, 2007 2:52 PM:

" I heard about Charles Shaw's wine getting two gold medals art the California Stae Fair on Friday morning. I went out and purchased a case on Saturday morning. I figured what the heck, I've spent $24 for a bottle on a number of occaisions. I asked my wife to do a wine tasting that afternnon. The wines included Two Buck Chuck, a 2005 Chardonnay from Sonoma ($12), and a 2003 Chardonnay from Santa Maria ($16). My wife, who has a good sense of wine, chose Charles Shaw's as here facorite. She also noted that it tasted like it had less of an alcohol flavor to it, which it did 12.5% compared to up to 14.3%. Botom line, this is a great table wine. "

BAY AREA wrote on Jul 2, 2007 3:01 PM:

" If Charles Shaw can produce an award winning wine (their wines have come in 1st and 2nd place in years past as well!) and sell for $1.99, it makes you wonder why you are paying through the nose for the $40 wines from Napa! did those other Napa wineries just take $1.99 Shaw wine and re-bottle it, add some extra flavoring, then sell it for $60? What do you get for a $60 wine? What are you really paying for? If C. Shaw can make a great wine for $1.99, then the other Napa/Sonoma Co. vinters should be able to do it as well and if they can't, then their wines should taste 20 times better. "

J.S. wrote on Jul 6, 2007 9:16 AM:

" I've got to say I really wonder about the quality of the judging that goes on at the state fair. I mean, I like 2 Buck Chuck, and for the price, its a decent wine, and I drink a lot of it. But the *best* in California??? I've known for a long time that the beer judging at the state fair is about the worst in the country (they literally grab people off the street to judge ... people have complained for years ... but no state fair official seems to listen or care) ... so I wouldn't be surprised to hear that the wine judging has also hit "the bottom of the barrel". "

Evan Williams wrote on Jul 7, 2007 7:53 AM:

" To those who disparage the quality of judges in the State Fair Competition, I woudd inform you that the State Fair is the ONLY wine competition which requires is judges to pass a rigorous sensory evaluation test; and ongoing testing and education insure the capabilities of the judges remain sound. If you look at the credentials of the judges, you will find largely winemakers, educators, critics and a few in the retail and restaurant business. I was on the panel which scored Chales Shaw against the runner-up, the 2005 Wente Riva Ranch Chardonnay, Arroyo Seco. I voted for the French oak barrel fermented, aged sur lies and malo-lactic Wente, but a slim majority preferred the fruit forward and simple, but not unattractive, Chales Shaw. I have since purchased a case of the Charles Shaw and it is not at all like the wine submitted for judging. The recently purchased wine was redolent of potassium sorbate, a trait not present in the sample submitted for judging; in fact the winning wine did not show any evident manipulation at all. Keep in mind that with sixty million cases produced, the batch being bottled probably varies weekly! It is perfectly legal to select the absolute best lots to bottle first and submit for judging, but most consumers do not realize that the wine they purchase will likely not be anything like the wine which was evaluated in competition. This is unfortunate, but that's life... "Caveat emptor!" "

Napa Homemaker wrote on Jul 7, 2007 3:45 PM:

" I might be persuaded to cook with this wine . . . but drink it? "

Evan Williams wrote on Jul 7, 2007 9:32 PM:

" Correction: Sorry for the typo, Charles Shaw makes SIX million cases a year (72 million bottles) not sixty million cases. "

Richard Chen wrote on Jul 10, 2007 9:32 AM:

" Completely agree with Evan's comments. How do you know if the batch submitted to the judges was "special"? There were 3,000 wines this year all tasted BLIND. Do you think there was no "gaming" involved? While I'm not going to disparage wine merchants and winemakers like others that reflexively disparage judges who come up with surprising results, there are too many people who think that they have superior palates just because they are in the trade. The question I ask of them is how often you taste blind? Do you taste comparatively a wide range of varietals and across the world? (I once witnessed at a tasting a winemaker from this valley spit out with disgust a wine, saying "yech, a red that's sweet!". Well, guess what, we were tasting dessert and fortified wines and a port is supposed to be sweet.) And how often pecuniary considerations enter your evaluations of wine? When I took an exam (a series of blind tastings) at UCD to be qualified as a judge at the State Fair, there were >60 people attending. >80% were in the trade as winemakers, merchants, distributor salespeople and "

hahahahaha wrote on Jul 10, 2007 9:38 AM:

" these responses show just how influenced everyone is by the $$ over the tast. "2 buck Chuck win an award! they must have been drunk!" hahahahahaha "

Richard Chen wrote on Jul 10, 2007 1:13 PM:

" to hahahahahaha, two points. First, to raise the issue of gaming the system does not imply that the judges are back-pedalling---simply the integrity of the system is only as strong as its weakest link. Of all the judging events, the State Fair is the most blind and least likely to introduce biases but it is impossible to eliminate personal preferences over styles. Second, the most important, drink what you like and don't let anybody tell you what you ought to like, regardless of the $$. "

Chief wrote on Jul 10, 2007 6:54 PM:

" I bought a bottle of the Two Buck cab a few years ago,tasted it and poured it down the drain. My wife rejected it as a cooking wine. Because of that bad experience,I never tried the chardonnay, but I'll now get a bottle. "

C. wrote on Jul 12, 2007 5:29 PM:

" Bay Area, Ever heard of a little thing called Capitalism? I believe it was the guy at Duckhorn who was thinking about selling his wines for $40 until his friends told him he should charge at least $75. Guess what he did? I'm drinking the $2.99 Charles Shaw as I write it. It's certainly better than their reds. "

Lynda wrote on Jul 12, 2007 8:52 PM:

" Geez, wine is all about personal taste. If 2-Buck Chuck tastes good to you, good for you! I have had some very "bad" (in my opinion) wines that were quite spendy. The cost should not affect your palate. "

Ross wrote on Jul 13, 2007 7:30 AM:

" A triumph of taste and quality over price and snobbery. My hat's off to Charles Shaw. "

Ensi wrote on Jul 13, 2007 9:04 AM:

" I have learned that this wine is 'very good'. I heard some words about fruits, as well. But... would anyone tell a bit more about Charles Shaw Chardonnay? I mean except of descriptions like 'extraordinary', 'great value', etc. These claims tell nothing for a wine drinker. "

leila rosino wrote on Jul 13, 2007 9:31 AM:

" I've bought the chardonnay for years, at 1.99 a bottle. I like it, and have no problem pouring it for friends..some of who would only drink a bottle of wine that cost over 30 bucks a bottle. You just dont let them see the bottle! "

Jay wrote on Jul 13, 2007 10:29 AM:

" Coming soon: "Near Beer wins Gold Medals!" "

trader joes employee wrote on Jul 13, 2007 10:41 AM:

" i find it amusing that after this article was printed our charles shaw chardonay sales have gone through the roof. People who used to turn their noses up at the display are now buying it by the caseload. By the way, charles shaw is one of the few wineries with a POSITIVE business model. They arent in debt like many of the other wineries in the napa valley "

AustraliansinUSA wrote on Jul 13, 2007 4:22 PM:

" Wow since finding 2 buck chuck at Trader Joes we will never go elsewhere, its almost Americas version of the great cheap Italian and French table wines (that for some reason we cant get here in the USA!) PS one criteria for where we live is that it has to have a Trader Joes close just for the 2 buck chuck ! ( I know we are sad sad people) "

Cookie Monster wrote on Jul 13, 2007 4:47 PM:

" Laughable. Those poor benighted "judges" have been had by the evil Fred Franzia, who is laughing all the way to the bank. The quality of the wines submitted to this "competition" must be pretty awful. The Chuck you can actually buy at Trader Joe's is undrinkable! "

JR wrote on Jul 13, 2007 8:30 PM:

" Can not believe 2-buck Chuck chard could win any contest. The first year/vintage it was introduced; it was ok. Every vintage after that, it is terrible. It is one of the few wines I have ever poured down the drain. The only people I see purchasing it at Trader Joes are 85 year olds (God bless them) who have no taste buds left and are on a fixed income. "

G Tsai wrote on Jul 14, 2007 10:12 AM:

" Picked-up 2 cases after my wife told me the news while she was working out at 24 hour fitness. Opened one tasted, we headed out again picked-up another 3 cases and 1 case of its Merlot just for the heck of it. Spent about $150 for 6 cases of California's best wine. I'm no wine expert, it's always a headache to pick some good wine to drink or serve my guests. I have spent tons of money on wine, honest to God...still don't have a clue to pick a good one from a huge bin of wines. Now since I know this one is the best(at least the best of Chardonnay that I have ever drank), I have to stock-up for the supply of next year or so. "

garypen wrote on Jul 14, 2007 11:37 AM:

" I love reading the comments of these wine snobs finding fault with the results. Face it you arrogant twerps. The emperor has no clothes. You've been walking around with your noses in the air, simply parroting what you've been told by wine "experts". Well. It's all crap. Enjoy your $50 bottle of Chateau Paidtomuch. "

Zach Braff wrote on Jul 14, 2007 12:13 PM:

" I've had a lot of wines in my day, and while I wouldn't say Charles Shaw is the best I've ever had, it is by far the best value I've ever had. I used to think it was such a shame that you could get good wine in Italy and France that are so inexpensive you can drink it regularly, and had to make drinking wine in the U.S. a special occasion thing because of the high prices. Now we can drink wine regulalry without spending a mint. Ironically, we hold up Italy and France as the gold standard for wine drinking, but can't seem to stomach the idea of an inexpensive table wine here as they have there. I think people have invested so much money and energy on becoming wine snobs that they will not open their mind to Shaw being a good wine for fear it will undermine everything they've been touting for years. French and Italians drink inexpensive wine every day and night and they have been raised in a wine drinking culture for generations. they don't think a wine has to be expensive to be good and neither should we. A same if you do, because you're just wasting money to create an image of status. "

really odd wrote on Jul 14, 2007 7:34 PM:

" I went to the web site of the state fair and looked at last year's results. This competition/award is weak at best. The best known and most highly scored wine producers were nowhere to be found. Some that come to mind: Screaming Eagle, Opus One, Harlan, Peter Michael, Caymus, Joseph Phelps, Kistler etc. etc. etc. Yes, it is interesting event, but best of California it is not. Not even close. Let's move on to something more interesting, say like watching the grass grow. "

Jon Raw wrote on Jul 16, 2007 1:52 PM:

" Surprising, but what's more surprising is the scathing comments by the wine snobs. Zach Braff had some good comments about the European wine culture and that good wines don't have to be expensive. The people who are saying that Shaw is a terribly wine haven't possibly tasted it with an open mind. I'd like to see what they thought in a blind taste test. It may not be California's best, but you can't argue that it's not a decent wine and an AMAZING value. "

trader joes employee in cali wrote on Jul 16, 2007 7:26 PM:

" alot of people talk trash about shaw but there sure are alot of people driving from out of state to buy it by the CASELOADS just because the so called 'terrible' wine is one dollar cheaper here than at home.. talk all the dirt you want about it.. but it is a decent wine for the price the way it flies off the shelves. (esp after this latest contest) and the amount of publicity it recieves should speak for itself "

Evan Williams wrote on Jul 17, 2007 4:16 PM:

" To "Really Odd" I would say you are absolutely correct in your observation that the super premium producers are "nowhere to be found" at the State Fair Wine Competition... or virtually any other competition, either. The reasons are simple (1) They don't need to, their wines are selling quite well already, thank you very much. (2) There is no up-side for them; if they win people would say, "For that price, they'd BETTER win!" If they don't garner at least a gold medal, some would gripe, "Look at that XYZ winery, what a rip-off! They charge all that money and they can't even rate a gold medal!" It's a no-win situation for them, so they by and large elect not to play. Can you blame them? These competitions are great venues for smaller and lesser known wineries to attract attention and make a name for themselves, as well as for some of the larger producers to have their value wines evaluated in an blind and impartial format(which frequently results in the public discovering some very nice wines at extraordinary prices)and yes, there are still many venerable and highly regarded vintners who still submit their wines to competitions. "

Ducie wrote on Jul 18, 2007 10:16 AM:

" Of all the wines that I've had, I believe this to be one of them. "

Steph wrote on Jul 19, 2007 9:23 AM:

" Yes, you need an education and a title to decide which is a enjoyable wine. The rest of us, the dirty masses, forget it. "

Mark wrote on Jul 20, 2007 3:21 PM:

" 1. Evan, what exactly does "rigorous sensory evaluation test; and ongoing testing and education insure the capabilities of the judges remain sound" mean? What sensory evaluation and education test is administered? 2. To say this is California's best is a joke. Chuck's wines along with many other generic grocery crap wines are routinely part of our regular blind tastings and the wines uniformly disappoint. Most of his wines reek of VA and cheap fruit. Just because a wine is cheap doesn't mean it has value. Sure most Californian wines are overpriced and aren't worth it (aren't good value), but it doesn't change the fact that cheap fruit and VA = Chuck Shaw wine. 3. I agree, drink what you like. There is, however, an objective aspect to all of this. I will bet any of you out there that every MW and MS would put Charles Shaw's wines in the generic, cheap tasting, wine category and not one would put those wines among California's best. When every expert agrees on something there is a degree of objectivity that can't be denied! I like velvetta cheese on my nachos but would never make the argument that it is good cheese! Mark "

Evan Williams wrote on Jul 26, 2007 4:01 PM:

" Mark, The sensory evaluation exam required of judges (administered by UC Davis) quantifies a judge's competence in evaluating degrees of acidity and sweetness, defect recognition, additive recognition, scoring consistency, and the ability to recognize the same wines repeatedly with varying flights. Judges also particpate in continuing education during annual seminars. This most recent one was a presentation by Dr. Ken Fuglesang on varying types of brettanomyces. In my opinion is Charles Shaw chardonnay the "Best in State"? Absolutely not, nor did I score it as such (as I said earlier, I voted for the Wente Riva Ranch 05), however, wine is subjective and, unfortunately, I do believe some judges erred on this one. It happens. Somehow I think that a majority of judges from this year's chardonnay panel may not be judging next year, or may be judging on other varietal panels; just a hunch. "

Skeptic wrote on Aug 16, 2007 11:08 PM:

" The judges might have to pass a test, but the judge I saw interviewed on national TV talked about the buttery oaky flavor of Charles Shaw which is bizarre since the whole point of the wine is that it never sees the inside outside or any other side of an Oak Barrel and is meant to compare to the classic clean mineral taste of traditional French Chardonnays. Which incidentally had a lot to do with why the wine won, as the competition has a history of favoring classic as opposed to oaky chards. He may have liked the wine but certainly didn't know what he was talking about! Furthermore these are the same winemakers that take wine from many regions across California and tried to label all of it as Napa Valley for which they were taken to court and lost. Now it has to be properly labeled. Today's Charles Shaw is labeled as Napa or Sonoma, etc... Which proves what? That they have a history of bending the truth in their favor. The reason I point that out is that a ridiculous amount of the wine is made -- like 100000 cases a month. To wit I don't think the competition just went out and grabbed a random case off from the local Trader Joe's but was given a case specially selected for it. "Charles Shaw Reserve" if you will. When you make one barrel and use it to fill 200 cases, you can predict that each bottle will taste pretty much the same. But when you make millions of gallons, some batches will probably be real good and many will taste exactly like what it is -- a large volume of ordinary grapes processed and fermented quickly in a big stainless steel tank. "

Join the conversation

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login? (requires cookies)
	Forgot Your Password?

Create an account

Comment Guidelines

The goal of the story comments section at NapaValleyRegister.com is to have an open, thought-provoking, civil community forum for all issues.

What gets your comment posted?

• Staying on topic

• Keeping your comment to 300 words or less

• Avoiding name-calling

• Addressing your comments to the message rather than the messenger

What gets your comment deleted?

• Personal attacks

• Derogatory remarks

• Name-calling of any sort

• Going off-topic

• Hate speech

• Racially-insensitive comments

• Implying guilt of a subject in a crime story before there is a court verdict

• Posting e-mail addresses

• Posting comments of a commercial nature

• POSTING WITH ALL CAPITAL LETTERS

• Linking multiple comments together with "to be continued..." to get around the 300 word limit.

The fine print

- Comments are either approved or denied. We do not edit comments.

- You are welcome to modify and resubmit a denied comment.

- Comments may take several hours to be posted.

- Comments posted are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of NapaValleyRegister.com, its employees or its parent company.

- Do you have information on a story? Please go to our virtual newsroom to send us a news tip.

- If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact online@napanews.com or add a comment indicating you have an issue and our moderators will review the comment in question.

Search: