Two Buck Chuck comparison tasting (San Francisco): Pale ruby color; nose fades very quickly but before it does it is kind of interesting, mildly complex, not all fruit (fading fruit); palate is medium-full bodied, slightly oxidized, thins out towards the end; finish is short. Interestingly enough, this nose is much more interesting than the 2012 version, though the palate is more unpleasant. 77
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
This outperforms wines costing many times more, and at $2.99 (in my region) is rather effective at reducing average spend per bottle. For me, the wine is consistent. It isn't bashful aromatically, and is quite flavorful on the palate. The finish is non-existent but on the bright side it isn't harsh by any means. I think there's a lot of wine that costs $10 that is far worse than the Charles Shaw.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
Decent wine. Medium body, some burnt caramel on the nose, short finish. One dimensional but good for the price and ideal for a simple glass at home watching movies. Would buy again.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
Professional reviews have copyrights and you can view them here for your personal use only as private content. To view pro reviews you must either subscribe to a pre-integrated publication or manually enter reviews below. Learn more.
1/2/2014 - aagrawal wrote: 77 Points
Two Buck Chuck comparison tasting (San Francisco): Pale ruby color; nose fades very quickly but before it does it is kind of interesting, mildly complex, not all fruit (fading fruit); palate is medium-full bodied, slightly oxidized, thins out towards the end; finish is short. Interestingly enough, this nose is much more interesting than the 2012 version, though the palate is more unpleasant. 77
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
11/15/2009 - jawegs wrote: 78 Points
This is my staple cooking wine, makes great wine sauces. The remainder is OK to drink after 2 good bottles of something else.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
1/21/2009 - RobertDwyer wrote: 83 Points
This outperforms wines costing many times more, and at $2.99 (in my region) is rather effective at reducing average spend per bottle. For me, the wine is consistent. It isn't bashful aromatically, and is quite flavorful on the palate. The finish is non-existent but on the bright side it isn't harsh by any means. I think there's a lot of wine that costs $10 that is far worse than the Charles Shaw.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
1/10/2009 - mikepcarney wrote: 65 Points
For friends to drink who don't know wine. Also to cook with. It has its uses for $2.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
11/23/2008 - Alekos wrote: 82 Points
Decent wine. Medium body, some burnt caramel on the nose, short finish. One dimensional but good for the price and ideal for a simple glass at home watching movies. Would buy again.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment