Talk:Charles Shaw wine

message: I've removed a sentence at the end that expressed opinion about the quality of Charles Shaw wine without attributing it to a notable source. Also I believe the statement about Fred Franzia having no business relationship to Franzia wines was misleading. According to my research he was formally a part of Franzia Brothers Wines before it was sold to Coca-Cola. He then left and started Bronco Wines. Frazia Brothers became simply Franzia after it was bought from Cocoa-Cola by the Wine Group. I fixed the statement to reflect this info. --Cab88 19:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Update

message: It's no longer trader joe's only. They sell this wine at kroger here in Atlanta.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.233.241 (talk) 00:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You need a source for that. Bronco says it's exclusive to TJ's as does TJ's.  Kroger may be reselling. Exclusively is accurate until you can find a reliable source otherwise. Drmargi (talk) 18:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, some states don't allow house brand wines, i think.  the Trader Joe's in Portland Maine told me that Maine does not allow house brand wines, but that it's extremely common for one winery to make a bunch of dummy companies to sell their wine to.  Charles Shaw is definitely available outside of TJ at least in Maine and given its popularilty Im pretty sure no one would escape detection if they were literally just buying from TJ and reselling in their own store. —Soap— 03:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: All you need to do, , is provide a reliable source that says places other than TJ sell Charles Shaw wines. What someone told you is not good enough, and neither are your personal observations. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:59, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I could take a photo or something but I'd rather not.  All I can say is the website of Charles Shaw itself lists other locations: http://classicwinesofcalifornia.com/findourwines.html —Soap— 05:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Bronco makes many wines besides Charles Shaw. I do not consider their own website a reliable source, since it does not list the TJ stores where I regularly shop. A photo is not a reliable source, but a newspaper or magazine article would be, . Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it's a moot point because apparently the original source doesn't say it was ever exclusive to Trader Joe's in the first place.  Possibly it never was.  Let me know if you have any other questions. —Soap— 05:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Distributed Exclusively

message: Wasn't there a feature on the wine almost ten years ago, just after I first heard about it? MMetro (talk) 02:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 20/20

message: There is action being organized among nonprofits and bloggers to get consumers to demand Trader Joe's stores take Charles Shaw wine (made by Bronco Wine Company) off the shelves until all of its grape suppliers (particularly one that is known to have broken California laws about working in the heat--Bronco subsidiary West Coast Grape Farming) are complying in practice to every last requirement of California law about working in the heat, and preferably going beyond that out of respect for the spirit of the law.
I would like to cover this consumer action on the Charles Shaw page as a part of the brand's history, but I'm not quite sure how to phrase and format it.
I could use some help.
Thank you very much,
Kitkatwp (talk) 00:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It sounds tricky and potentially involving a number of WP:NOT issues. You should be asking yourself if the things you wish to write are of more-or-less lasting value in an encyclopedic article about this wine brand, and if you believe that you can contribute WP:NPOV text on the matter. In particular, considering your phrases about "known to have broken California laws" (I haven't followed the issue so I don't know the facts), you should probably consider WP:LIBEL carefully. Perhaps it's easier to judge what is of encyclopedic importance at a later time, rather than when the action is on-going. Tomas e (talk) 10:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Bronco Wine Company

message: The following sentence seems misleading:
:"Due to the three-tier system, in other states the price can go up to around $4."
Virtually every item, whether associated with a "three-tier system" or not, costs less money near where it's produced. It seems to me like it's misleading to say that this price discrepency is "due to the three-tier system", rather than, say, transportation costs. Could this be either explained better if it's correct, or corrected if not? Thanks!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.236.194 (talk) 04:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I took it upon myself to modify the offending statement. 169.229.11.151 (talk) 23:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It'd be better to have a citation, but the original reason was more correct. Transportation costs are fairly negligible; the markup from $2 to $4 in some states is due to middleman costs as a result of the three-tier system. --Delirium (talk) 09:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing comment about three-tier system 

message: Charles Shaw wines are affectionately known as "Two Buck Chuck." Due to transportation costs and other factors, in other states the price can go up to around $4. As such, the wine is often referred to as "Three Buck Chuck" or "Four Buck Chuck" relative to the price. The price of the wine, however, does not reflect its quality. A Napa brand nominally, Charles Shaw sells for such a relatively low price because of the wine market's oversupply and the brand's economies of scale.http://www.snopes.com/business/market/shawwine.asp
:Added strikethrough to text not in question. Drmargi (talk) 21:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is where we diverge.  I don't agree that Snopes is reliable; in fact a recent article from CNN (now that's reliable) Business 2.0 that includes an extensive interview with Franzia and a history of the brand proves its entry on Charles Shaw is both wrong and out of date.  Snopes is respected as a collector of urban myths, yes, but also known to be wrong, incomplete or inaccurate about what is actually true.  They posit the (dated) wine glut explanation, which was true in the late '90s but not now, but their sources are peripheral; moreover they fail to update their entries.  If you are at all familiar with the region, you might know that aside from a very small port-style winemaking colony around Madera, all the bulkers like Gallo, Franzia, Bronco and Mission Bell grow and produce is wines to that price point.  Franzia did buy up bulk wine during the glut, but only to extend wine he was making from his own vast holdings in Madera, Modesto and Stanislaus Counties.  The wine glut explanation in and of itself never was the reason for Two Buck Chuck, and the proof is in the continuation of the brand long after the glut ceased to be. Given this, then, can you document that the wine glut theory is still, if it ever was, the accurate explanation using a reliable, industry or allied media source not a website listing urban myths with no knowledge of the industry?  No.  And until you can, you don't have a statement that is reliable to an encyclopedic standard. Drmargi (talk) 02:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You still have not provided any sources to counter the claim, and Snopes is a reliable source used frequently on Wikipedia.  Regardless of your opinion, you don't have any justification for these edits until you come up with something other than "I declare Snopes to be wrong."  Right now you're running a fine line between edit warring and outright vandalism, as you are removing well-sourced content with no real justification.  Provide a citation backing your edits or move on. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 06:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Be very, very careful before making such accusations.  You're on thin ice yourself.Drmargi (talk) 06:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputed text

message: The entire section is a POV press release. It needs to be rewritten, unless Wikipedia is the proper place for press releases. If that doesn't happen, it needs the bee deleted. The *facts* surrounding the death of the farm worker are OK, but the rest in nothing more than labor union PR bullet points that reference some California law that indirectly relates to the complaint, but not to any news sources about the complaint. Completely POV. I'm going to give it a few days and then delete it. Proxy User (talk) 15:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Labor Dispute

message: ‘Chuck’ is a common slang word for vomit in many English countries ... is this similar in the US ? This makes the in store advert rather amusing: Two Buck Chuck (Two Buck Vomit)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:9313:B900:44CE:4463:2E4A:F6A8 (talk) 15:56, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting! No, it doesn't have that meaning here, or else the marketing department would be in some hot water. "Chuck" is a nickname for "Charles". 2603:7000:8807:FFF1:7D9E:20C7:6554:D91E (talk) 02:22, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Name