I can throw in my 2 cents comment, FWIW. But keep in mind that it
will be biased, as I don't share much of the cola-raised American
public's tastes in cheap wine.
My experience with cheap wines in the US is, that mostly all
American ones (both North and South) are too sweet for my tastes. The
boxed invariably so, and most of the bottled ones too. The only passable
bulk wine (which is at the lower limit of my acceptance level) is the
Carlo Rossi Paisano (4 liter jug). It is still too sweet, but has a nice
sour component, which makes it drinkable together with food. (The boxed
Hardee that was mentioned earlier, is too sweet too, even though
Australian).
What works best for me is cheap European wine, if you can find it.
Right now I have a batch of French Shiraz, "Les Etoiles", Vin de pays de
L'Aude, bought for $10/3 bottles, or $3.33 each. It has no abominable
sweetness, exhibits a nice tartness and astringency that cuts through
the food, and is ultimately quaffable. For the same price, the "Avia"
brand (Merlot, Cab and Pinot Noir) works well, with a caveat. The
vintages up to and including 2002 were made in Slovenia, and have all
the proper qualities, while the 2003 vintage is made in Chile, and while
still passable, exhibits the dread sweet aftertaste.
Other cheap wines worth trying to see if they work for you, are the
Chilean "Walnut Crest" and "Concha y Toro". To get the best bang for the
buck, buy the magnum (double, 1.5 liter) bottles.
The Australian Yellowtails are OK for quaffing, but too expensive
to be called cheap.
Finally, I personally would not recommend any cheap non-bulk
California wines, as they are generally too sweet, and worse than the
similarly priced Chileans.
Hope that helps. Cheers,
Elko


Bi!! wrote:
> George wrote:
>
>>In article <Kg_Vd.44384$7z6.930@lakeread04>,
>>says...
>>
>>Jim,
>>
>>I very much appreciate your taking the time to reply to my
>>post. I think I'm pretty much at the same place you started
>>at - one glass of red wine per day because the doc likes
>>what it does for my cholesterol. But I'm afraid that in
>>my case 20 years of heavy smoking curtailed my ability to
>>make the fine taste distinctions that might lead to my being
>>a true wine fanatic. I've tried a number of red wines over
>>the years, and could hardly taste any difference among them.
>>So I figured that spending the extra money for good wines
>>wouldn't be useful in my case. And I too have had a very
>>significant reduction in income, so I have to stick with the
>>inexpensive stuff.
>
>
>
> George,
> The Mountian Burgundy is a melange of different grapes blended
> from low-end vineyards etc. There is a little bit of everything in
> these kinds of wines and they are blended to be a bit lighter, sweeter
> and less tannic or astringent than the Cab or Merlot. Something to
> consider, IMO, drinking these wines for health reasons may be counter
> productive since many of the agents that may be linked to better health
> are in short supply in these kinds of wines. Large bulk wines tend to
> be stripped of much of their "healthy" components in order to make them
> taste better to the average American consumer. Additionally, these
> wines are made in factories that look more like chemical plants than
> places where anything healthy could be made. The addition of chemical
> additives to these wines to add the flavor components that make them
> inexpensive yet palatable is also a question that I have about these
> wines. You might want to check with your local wine store to find a
> wine that fits your budget yet is made in a more traditional way if
> you're looking for any health benefits at all.
>
>>The Almaden boxed Merlot and Cabernet taste the same to me
>>(not very good), but the Cabernet has more of an astringent
>>after-effect. I was afraid the Mountain Burgundy, being
>>even cheaper, might be even worse than the other two, but,
>>you know, for $9 I'll just go ahead and give it a try.
>>
>>Thanks again for your response.
>>
>>George
>
>