Comments on: Charles Shaw and Wine “Quality”

By: BK Cho

BK Cho — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 18:33:24 +0000

I have read an article that some wine has higher ethyl cabamate level affecting human health even causing cancer. Since I have consumed the wine many years the eye popping article concerns me.
What is the ethyl cabamate contents in the wine (Charles Shaw), there is FDA safety level recommended. Thank you. BK.

By: Mathman

Mathman — Sun, 12 Aug 2007 14:41:29 +0000

Markets are efficient, using information to make money. Scores attract my attention because the markets use them. Mathematics of scores is real. Before we can talk about why scores are real, lets consider why we sense scores are not accurate. Writers more famous that we are equally confused, See http://www.jancisrobinson.com/articles/jr429

Josh gives the example of Kosta Brown, measured 2-times. Laube and Parker have an Error of 8-points. So, the single wine has an error of ±4-points.

So why do markets use scores? Someone is using scores to make money, but they can only do it if they have some reliability.

Retailers like Zacchy’s are buying and selling 100 wines, not a single Kosta Brown. An accuracy of 3-4 points is better than guessing says our retailer. When you buy 100 wines there is a 70% chance that the score is accurate to within 1 or 2 points, pretty good for business purposes

By: Josh

Josh — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 23:56:07 +0000

Tim,

Thanks for the comment.

Consistency is something that a good wine reviewer has to have, but there is substantial error involved in even the same palate rating a wine on two separate occasions. That doesn’t even begin to explain how Laube can rate a wine 96 and Parker 88 (Kosta Brown for example). They both taste for intensity, after all. If there is some knowable and definable characteristic out there called quality, why can’t we identify it consistently?

I’m not saying that ratings don’t have validity. Clearly people think that Parker giving a wine 95 points is something they need to take note of, if not try to buy immediately.

What I am saying is that 95 points doesn’t equal Quality, writ large. As in, “this is a universally good wine that anyone tasting it will agree is of high quality”. That just doesn’t exist in wine.

By: Tim

Tim — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 20:50:53 +0000

I mildly disagree that wine quality can’t be defined. In my own tasting, I look for complexities in aromas and flavors first, then rate the wine based upon varietal correctness and finally deduct points for any faults. While I agree that wine tasting is totally subjective, I do think that a consistent procedure will make a given tasters ratings have some validity.

RE: Charles Shaw Chard. I’ve always thought this was thin and bland but it’s my parents house wine so I have some each year. After the metals I went to TJ’s and bought a couple bottles. In tasting the ‘05 a couple weeks back, I found it to be clean with reasonable varietal characteristics but very simple. I rated it a 78 (2.5 stars). The second bottle will go into a blind tasting against the best of the other Chards in the CA Fair this year. It should make for an interesting podcast and a few decent blog posts.

By: Scott

Scott — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 16:36:49 +0000

I have heard quite a few people say that Charles Shaw is pretty decent, though I’ve never tried it myself. I agree that quality is somewhat subjective, but I believe the judges’ medals still help.
I enjoyed reading your blog!

By: farley

farley — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 14:43:07 +0000

El Jefe is right. I do it myself: disregard/disbelieve the wines that I consider low quality and how they somehow manage to get medals, but when my favorites win, I dance a jig.

Josh, you’re right, too. A customer raving about a wine in the tasting room (or store or restaurant) does even more good than scores and awards. It’s an issue of figurative versus literal….

By: El Jefe

El Jefe — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 06:09:31 +0000

The funny thing is, medals work when they work, and they don’t when they don’t. Same as reviews, same as 95 point scores. It’s a funny thing – so you put your stuff out there, and you see what sticks…

By: Tina

Tina — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 17:07:47 +0000

In the case of Two-Buck Chuck, the power of medals is far-reaching. I stopped by a local Trader Joe’s just one day after the State Fair results were announced, and every last bottle of Charles Shaw Chard had been cleaned out. (I was there to buy a bottle for my own blind tasting.) I tried a TJ’s in another city a couple days later and found just a few bottles left. (There was still plenty of other Charles Shaw wine to be had, but practically no Chardonnay.) The gold medal was just the validation consumers needed for TBC–just a few days earlier, the wine was fully stocked on Trader Joe’s shelves.