In article > ,
Milhouse Van Houten > wrote:
>
>I was reading over some of the old threads on this topic, and opinions
>ranged from these being poor to passable, but since that's so relative, can
>someone compare them with the other common bargain wine, Charles "Two Buck
>Chuck" Shaw (cab sav, merlot, etc)? Thanks.


Two Buck Chuck is better than most box wine. However, it is owned by
Franzia so it is basically just box wine in a bottle. Let's call it
gourmet box wine.


Dimitri

Milhouse Van Houten wrote:

> I was reading over some of the old threads on this topic, and opinions
> ranged from these being poor to passable, but since that's so relative, can
> someone compare them with the other common bargain wine, Charles "Two Buck
> Chuck" Shaw (cab sav, merlot, etc)? Thanks.

Someone -- I think it was either the Los Angeles Times or
Orange County Register, did an article about 6-9 months
ago (in their weekly wine column) comparing Two Buck Chuck
to a box wine. I don't remember which box wine they
chose, but it was one they considered passable, and a lot
better than the Chuck. The point of the article was not
to pre-judge based on the packaging. The article is
pretty much exactly what you're asking for.

I just took a look at the OC Register archives, and I -think-
it's the fourth article he

<http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=OC&p_theme=oc&p_action=search&p _maxdocs=200&p_text_search-0=%22Charles%20Shaw%22&s_dispstring=Charles%20Shaw %20AND%20date(all)&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date& xcal_useweights=no>

However, you have to pay about the cost of a bottle of the
Chuck to see the article (money better spent, in my opinion).


Larry Coon
University of California

Milhouse Van Houten wrote:

> I was reading over some of the old threads on this topic, and opinions
> ranged from these being poor to passable, but since that's so relative,
> can someone compare them with the other common bargain wine, Charles "Two
> Buck
> Chuck" Shaw (cab sav, merlot, etc)? Thanks.

The forum in http://www.wineloverspage.com had a thread about this. A lot
of people chimed in, but IIRC most of them were of the opinion that both
were equally bad. Robin Garr, (the owner of the page) felt that the Shaw
was much better, and there was one other poster thought the Franzia was
much better. The forums is easy to search, so I suggest you go to that
site and read the thread.

BTW, I have noticed that in addition to the usual suspects for box wine
(Almaden, Vella, and Franzia), the stores here have begun carrying Hardy's
and Corbett Canyon. I like the Hardy's. The Corbett Canyon I have not
tried yet, but I see that it is made by the same company as Franzia (The
Wine Group). Shaw is not available here, so I have no idea how they
compare to Shaw. Any opinions?

I like the Hardys also. It's supposed to be the same wine that they
bottle, but I'm not sure which wine.

shumway wrote:
> Milhouse Van Houten wrote:
>
>
>>I was reading over some of the old threads on this topic, and opinions
>>ranged from these being poor to passable, but since that's so relative,
>>can someone compare them with the other common bargain wine, Charles "Two
>>Buck
>>Chuck" Shaw (cab sav, merlot, etc)? Thanks.
>
>
> The forum in http://www.wineloverspage.com had a thread about this. A lot
> of people chimed in, but IIRC most of them were of the opinion that both
> were equally bad. Robin Garr, (the owner of the page) felt that the Shaw
> was much better, and there was one other poster thought the Franzia was
> much better. The forums is easy to search, so I suggest you go to that
> site and read the thread.
>
> BTW, I have noticed that in addition to the usual suspects for box wine
> (Almaden, Vella, and Franzia), the stores here have begun carrying Hardy's
> and Corbett Canyon. I like the Hardy's. The Corbett Canyon I have not
> tried yet, but I see that it is made by the same company as Franzia (The
> Wine Group). Shaw is not available here, so I have no idea how they
> compare to Shaw. Any opinions?

"Dick R" > wrote in message ...
> I like the Hardys also. It's supposed to be the same wine that they
> bottle, but I'm not sure which wine.
>

This is not Hardys fault since they show a picture of
the bottle of wine on all four sides of the box of wine:
Hardys Stamp of Australia series, a very good quality
to price contender in the low expectation range of wines.

pavane

"Milhouse Van Houten" ha scritto

> I was reading over some of the old threads on this topic, and
opinions
> ranged from these being poor to passable, but since that's so
relative, can
> someone compare them with the other common bargain wine,
Charles "Two Buck
> Chuck" Shaw (cab sav, merlot, etc)? Thanks.

Pardon me: do you mean "wine in a carton box", when you say
"boxed wine"?
If it is so, well... I stopped with them.
One sucker in Italy also did a 5 liters "carton" wine, it's
terrific.
They averagely cost less than half of the worst bottled wines.
And rate as well.

Vilco

On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 21:18:05 GMT, shumway > wrote:

> I like the Hardy's.

I haven't tried the Hardy's yet, but my local wine merchant
recommended Black Box Wines from Napa (he also carries Hardy's). They
only make a Chard so far, but if you're drinking Hardy's Chard, you
might give Black Box a try. Nothing special, of course, but quite
drinkable.

-- Robert