I say yay. It tastes pretty nasty, but it’s cheap, and the people around me who buy wine (uh, no, they wouldn’t buy directly for someone who’s under 21…) are all broke college students.
OK, so I guess it IS possible 
The good news is that you’ve lived to type about it 
I’ve only ever seen it for $2.99, or “Three Buck Chuck.” It certainly tastes as good or better than most $10 bottles. Reporting on the Shiraz, Chard, Cabernet Sauvignon.
Wow. It looks like it’s pretty much an even split of opinion.
My vote goes for nay. Tasted like vinegar to me. You can actually get a fairly decent bottle of wine for $3, but you have to go to France to get it. The cheap table wine I had there beats the hell out of the $20 Napa crap.
No.
The label Charles Shaw is owned by Bronco Wine Co. (Fred Franzia… yes, *that * Franzia.)
The grapes are for the most part not grown in Napa at all, but all over California (though to answer part of your question, yes, by other growers.) The final wine product is cellared and bottled in Napa. It is true that the wine glut of the past few years has made Charles Shaw a possibility, but it’s hardly unique in the industry. Most wineries have less expensive brands to unload excess juice, many buy grapes from outside growers, etc.
As far as whether it’s a bargain, I think it depends on your tastes. Personally my husband and I think it’s a pretty good one, and usually have a case of one varietal or another filling the bottom of the wine rack. We’ve had a few bad bottles, but overall, worth $1.99 at the very least. And like Hunter Hawk suggested, it is good for cooking with too.
Chuck is two bucks in California, but three bucks elsewhere. Guess Chuck’s only two bucks if it doesn’t go far in trucks.
If you look at it as a two dollar bottle of wine, you’ll be satisfied. As said above, it’s a well-priced wine in the under $10 category. I’m not a wine snob by any stretch of the imagination, but I’ll happily slap a description of “It’s drinkable!” on it. Of course, “drinkable” means it doesn’t burn holes in your stomach. I use it most often for marinating meat or otherwise in cooking.
The problem is that it’s a crap-shoot. I’ve bought two bottles of the exact same varietal and the exact same year, and one was was drinkable and the other was not. Since the grapes are purchased from all over you don’t get much reliability. It’s also a dry wine - those who prefer residual sugar wouldn’t like it.
I think it’s an absolutely passable table wine. Not something to drink for special occassions, but as good or better than many wines in the $8-$12 range.
I drink a lot of wine, and I absolutely endorse Charles Shaw’s product for every day drinking. IMHO, there should be more drinkable wines in the $5 range. The few times I’ve traveled through France, it was easy enough to get a decent bottle of wine for this price. Same thing in Hungary. Even in England you could find a drinkable bottle for 3 or 4 quid ($6-8). It’s a shame there aren’t more affordable wines for day-to-day drinking here.
It must variable stuff indeed. Of the four bottles of different types I had last year, I have had 1 okay-for-cheap bottle, 2 better then the average $10 bottle, and 1 quite startlingly good bottle of wine. In the interest of science, I better open another bottle and to my data collection. I would not serve it to wine experts, but it seems to be a good value. I have never had any that was sour or bitter. It is the stuff to turn to if you are mulling wine, or throwing fruit in it. It is a fun label, but mabey not real consistant.
Headache in a Bottle…Like reverse Advil.
That’s a good question, and it probably deserves it’s own thread, but here’s the quick and dirty IMHO:
Price is only a very rough estimate of quality. I generally only look at wines $12 and above, as that seems to be the rule of thumb, but that’s not saying that an $8 (on sale) bottle isn’t very good, or that a $30 is great (or even passible). I try to find a few brands in each varietal that are good and stick with that for the most part.
First of all, the “work to grow a grape” is not constant. There are good years and bad years, and that’s why vintages can very so widely. Modern vinters use methods to try to make their labels more consistant from year to year, and for all that people may hate the Gallo Bros., they were at the forefront of this movement. Wine snobs detest it because it makes the wine “less natural”, i.e. you don’t have as much fun lording your obscure wine and vinting trivia over people who have other interests, but it means with scientific blending and sampling techniques you have a more consistant process and a more reliable product. (One of the current issues is adding water to some California Pinots in the fermentation stage during a hot year to reduce the alcohol content. It does absolutely nothing to the taste, but the oenoistas decry the practice as foul.)
This is why I often prefer California/Oregon and other “New World” wines over their European counterparts. Many of the European vinters are stuck in the 17th Century and refuse to be scientific about the wine (though they’re coming around), as a result, some years it can be fantastic, some years it can be crap, and it’s almost always more pricy than the comperable and more consistent California varieties. (Also, the Eurpeans have figured out that they can sell any kind of blended crap overseas, so unless you know your European wines well–a time-consuming task–you can be sold a real bill off goods as a “great” Bordeaux.) Europe makes some great wines, no doubt about it, but you have to know what your picking and be prepared to pay the price.
Not all wine is collectable, by the way. The now-popular Beaujolais Nouveaux and other “fresh” wines must be drunk within a few months of bottling. They aren’t great wines by any stretch, but they’re certainly passible and are quite cheap (mostly $6-$7 and rarely over $15).
Don’t neglect the handling of bottle wine, either. Often you’ll find some excellent wines for suspiciously cheap at the local Safeway or Costco World Mart. Be very wary; I’ve gotten these before that are definitely turned, either transported at elevated temperatures or upright in too dry a condition allowing air to sneak in around the cork.
So, rule of thumb: between $12 and $20. Less if you want a daily “table” wine–I like the Big House Red, a California blend (though I personally detest the screw on cap)–and perhaps more if it’s a big celebration. Unless your friends are oenophiles, they’re probably not going to notice the different between Turning Leaf and a $30 bottle of wine anyway. Remember, it’s just a drink, a social lubricant, something to wash down dinner. Unless you are a hard-core wine enthusiast, isn’t not a lifestyle, and you don’t need to go broke trying to live it.
Check out this recent thread for more wine suggestions.
Stranger
Two/Three-Buck Chuck is, indeed, variable. I’ve got pals (in the SF Bay Area) who buy one bottle of a variety, open it in the parking lot to check quality and if they like it, go back and buy a case or two. Being on the east coast and in the land of incomprehensible-to-a-transplanted-west-coaster liquor laws, I buy a couple of cases of chard whenever I’m near Framingham, MA.
It’s “pizza wine” for every-day drinking. It’s not for company, it’s not for “special”. It’s just for every-day drinking. And if you do happen to get a mediocre bottle/case, it’s not a huge investment.
This may be just urban legend, but according to my wine snot relatives, Charles Shaw was a FORMER king-high-muckety-muck wine snot, who got his ass handed to him in divorce court, the wife got the winery, sold it, and they started selling 2 dollar bottles of what was formerly expensive wine. Could be wrong though, from what psycat90 says.
Oh, and I like the Merlot and he Cab just fine. I’m too pedestrian for that really complex (read:expensive) wine. Frankly, if I’m paying 20 bucks for a bottle of ANYTHING, it’ll be whiskey.
It is. Send your wine snot relatives the link to Snopes .
It’s $3 depending on where you live b/c of shipping costs, I believe. I live in Boston, and my local Joe’s sells it for $3.
I’d say tasty bargain. I’ve certainly had better cheap wine, but it’s better than anything you’d spend $2-3 on, and a lot you’d spend more on. I tried the Shiraz, but didn’t think it was that great, though I’ll probably try other varieties at some point.