As a frugal consumer I am always on the look out for the best value available for my dollar – whether the purchase is a car, an electronic gadget, or more importantly – a quality bottle of wine! I don’t know about you, but I like to experiment and expand my knowledge whenever possible. I am always looking for that next bottle that really stands out. Not the one that says “OK” but the one that says “wow”!  Of course, by the same token, I want it to say “wow” without breaking the bank:-)

Now I suspect that for the most part 2009 will not be remembered with fond memories especially if you were one of the people or one of the wineries, wine distributors or retailers adversely affected by the economic downturn. So finding that quality bottle of wine at a reasonable price point is more relevant than ever.

With that said, I will look back with fond memories regarding some great deals I was able to make during 2009 primarily due to a glut of inventory in the distribution channel. In some cases, wines that normally sell in the $25 range were available for purchase for around $10, while other bargains a result of wine sold and re-branded with a new label.

So did I find a lot of wines with that “wow” factor? After all .. we are speaking about wines that normally sell for over $25 a bottle. To be fair, not all the time. Price in wine does not determine quality or value of and by itself. Good wine simply means it has no defects. Great wine on the other hand means that not only was it free of defects, but in addition it had balance, aromatics and taste that for you as an individual is very attractive. Said another way … wine is somewhat subjective – what is “wow” to one may not be to another. With that said, in several cases the new find was more than memorable – it was great!

But here’s the conundrum: While I take a lot of joy in finding those bargains from a consumer point of view, I am concerned about what the loss of profitability is doing to the wine industry players – to the growers, to the producers, and to general distribution as well.

Unless the costs are decreasing with the price, someone is losing money. Now I am not concerned about the global conglomerates or the huge regional distributors who have to give up a margin point or two. I am concerned primarily with the small family growers who may lose contracts or renew at very low price points or the quality winery that was already working on a shoestring, who may be driven out of business.

I know that in life and business it is survival of the fittest. Natural selection is normal – businesses come and they go. However, I have had the pleasure of meeting or interacting with many small produces who genuinely take tremendous pride in their work and their product. It would clearly be a shame to lose that enthusiasm, not to mention the quality wines that are produced.

So will I strive to pay more per bottle? Not likely.  As with the majority of consumers, 2009 emphasized a need to pull in the reigns – search for the best buys and conserve capital. But I am hoping that those most adversely affected will be able to weather the storm. There are already too many players whose main focus is solely or mainly profit, so my concern is with the outfit – be it large or small – that focuses on quality and takes great pride in the product they produce.

Good luck … and let me know how I can help.

Over the past few years I have read and / or seen stories regarding Fred Franzia and the Bronco Wine Company, suggesting that “when consumers pay more, they’re just paying for flashy marketing, not quality”. Let me say first that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and I have to acknowledge a reasonable amount of  respect for smart marketing and investment in regards to any successful business, and yes, you can make a good, drinkable bottle of wine for less than $10 (not a great one… but a solid, everyday wine).

However, I couldn’t put my pen (ah, keyboard) aside when I read the latest story this morning from ABC News ‘Two Buck Chuck’ Wine Aims for Both Quality and Quanity.  Why? Because I have always been one to view things from a logical perspective, and this is simply illogical to me.

So .. here goes:

• Granted the Bronco Wine Company can muster huge economies of scale, but at $2 to $3 per bottle there is likely less than $.35 worth of grapes in every bottle of Two Buck Chuck. If it takes approximately 75 grapes per glass  or 300 grapes per bottle, there can’t be much attention or care paid to the main ingredient.
• It costs almost $1200 for a new French oak barrel (don’t think these wines see much new oak
• Other than Beaujolais Nouveau (focus here again on marketing not on making great wine), I see few who would suggest that any wine let alone red wine is at its best the day after fermentation ceases.
• If all wine is equal, there likely would be just two to three huge wine produces per country – like a wine Walmart or Lowes or Home Depot, that slugs it out in the market with wine being just another commodity with the only differentiation being the label and perhaps the shape of the bottle. (Its not.. there are almost 7,000 wineries in North America and 1o times that worldwide.)
• One can argue that the Central Valley produces the same quality of grapes as Napa, or the Northern Rhone, or Walla Walla.  But if that were true, the cost per acre in the Central Valley would rival those in the other named appellations, or the converse, the cost of acreage in the other appellations would be closer to that of the Central Valley. Further, why in the world would a vineyard owner want to plant grapes on the side of mountains where only hand picking (expensive) is possible instead of on flat valley floor where picking can be mechanized, unless there is the ability to produce something more appealing and of higher quality?

The whole point is that quality in any agricultural product comes from great seed or rootstock, favorable conditions, meticulous farming methods, and a passion for producing the best product possible. (Maybe that’s why tomatoes or corn grown locally by passionate farmers always tastes so much better than produce that has endured tough transit conditions from far away farms. )

Now in a great year you can get lucky – wine from the same vineyard may be better.  Under perfect conditions the wine may be better based on perfect weather, less pests and longer hang time, but this to me is the anomaly not the norm.

Now to be fair on the other side of the coin, it is also true that high price has little to do with quality. What is the main difference between a $100 wine and a $600 wine… yes … you guessed it: $500!  The price difference at this level is primarily demand and/or prestige, not higher quality –  just a supply that is often much less than the demand.

Two more comments and I’m done:

• I had the misfortune of tasting the latest Two Buck Chuck a few weeks ago at a gathering.  I tried with some apprehension, but with an open mind. The color and clarity was fine, but the nose (smell)  was ho hum at best, and the taste was so poor (translation: simple fermented grape juice with little redeeming qualities) that I clandestinely poured out my glass when no one was looking as the calories were not worth it!  If this is indicative of what a quality or any decent wine should taste like, I think I will switch to water – less calories and more satisfying.
• Wonder what Paul was drinking in Sideways when he said, I won’t drink no ….Merlot!

Again, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, Mr. Franzia to his and me to mine. But I think I would totally lose my enthusiasm for wine if Two Buck Chuck was considered the standard in quality wine. My opinion.