Cameron Hughes Wine

Cameron Hughes Wine

I listened with more than usual interest to MJN's podcast interview with Cameron Hughes (sorry MJN, you may have done this a while ago; I'm slowly working my way through your oeuvre).

Hughes is an interesting guy. He buys the "declassified" juice from major, unnamed vintners (because, for instance, though the stuff may be good, it just doesn't fit their flavor profile), and resells it under his label.

So, to use MJN's example, you might be able to pick up an Opus One for ten bucks. But you'll never know, because Hughes is compelled not to reveal the identity of the source.

As part of Hughes' model, he sends out email blasts to folks so they know, for instance, that the Oak Brook Costco is going to be receiving a few dozen cases of Lot #X. Frequently, or so I'm told, the stuff sells out in a weekend.

You can also buy through his site.

Check it out: http://www.chwine.com/

But how does it taste?

Sorry to be cynical, but I am - you know this is the model for most cheap wine, right? They buy other people's excess, blend it together and produce something that is sold for cheap.

It would be roughly akin to going to a restaurant that offers $10 5-course dinners, produced from scraps and excess dishes left over from the "best kitchens in town" the night before, but they can't tell you which ones. Rumor has it that includes Achatz, Bayless, Bowles, etc. But you have no idea where this meal comes from or what your $10 will get you.

How patient are you with that model? At least if I go to Marshall's, I can touch, feel and even look at the label on the designer clothes at clearance before I buy them. Sure, you get a label here and an assurance they start with really good stuff, but by their admission, the most they do is blend, and the base wine will be different in every lot (and by definition tho it is from "premier winemakers," it is stuff they did not want to use in their first or second labels). I will sell my palate for a deal, but I prefer to have some idea what I am buying.

I guess it could be fun as a kind of treasure hunt, doubly pleasurable when you get a tasty one at such a bargain. But can anyone who has sampled some of these lots tell me how it tasted?

Please.

Just call me no fun.

No fun,

I heard MJN's podcast, and The Wife went to Costco looking for a Cameron Hughes lot on Saturday, but none was there. I'm on his email list, so when some comes into the area, I'll know about it.

The idea is, you try a bottle. If you like it, you buy more; if you don't, you're out ten bucks.

He's been getting some good press:

http://winexpression.com/2006/11/07/5-r ... ing-notes/

http://corkdork.typepad.com/corkdork/20 ... _amer.html

http://www.sjl.us/main/2006/12/cameron_hughes_.html

That's all I can say for now, but I do intend to buy the next bottle I see of his, and I will post about it.

David "Big Fun and Getting Bigger" Hammond

If you head over to erobertparker.com and do a search you will find many posts that complment the CH wines. He also posts there now and then.
I'm pretty sure someone posted TN on a complete collection of his wines
with in the last year.

I've not been lucky enough to find the wines at costco but I've heard very good things about Cameron's wines. Of course, you must rank them with there peers (<$20 bottles of CA wine)

here's what we drank today

This is a totally unfsir comparison of course, but I recall 2 buck chuck got a lot of favorable press at first, too.

My cynical point is that I have to wonder whether the buzz is about "beating the system" or what is in the glass. And I am not sure about the idea of buying and tasting some, and then going back to buy more if you like it, since it looks like the lots are very small and going fast (because of the buzz of course). Ah, the whiff of a shortage... Great marketing.

Anyway, if I want to explore under $20 wines (and I do), I am much more interested in exploring parts of Spain, New York, Washington, the South of France, Chile, South Africa, New Zealand or ??? where, if I find something I like, I can go back and get more, and continue to enjoy it over a series of vintages.

Anyway, the business model is not for the long term. He is basically operating as a junk man with a good palate and taste for blending. The only way he can stick around is if the winemakers he sources his juice from own part of his operation (otherwise, they will cut him out and do this themsleves somehow since he adds minimal value to their product so why should he get profits they could just as easily capture?), and in any case once he makes his name, he will move upmarket by creating his own blends with contracts for his sources. Higher prices and better margins in that.

There also is a big opportunity to manipulate the press - all he needs to do is create one or two really good lots that he holds back and lets the press sample. Since each lot is unique and very limited in quatity, there is a high likelihood that one you can get is not the same as, or anything like, what was reviewed. Not saying that is the case, but it easily could be.

Really great marketing, though. And at some point, the buzz builds on itself. Enjoy it while you can. Hope the wine you get is tasty and I look forward to hearing about what actually is in the glass when you do get some.

Go get 'em Cameron.

dicksond wrote:
There also is a big opportunity to manipulate the press - all he needs to do is create one or two really good lots that he holds back and lets the press sample. Since each lot is unique and very limited in quatity, there is a high likelihood that one you can get is not the same as, or anything like, what was reviewed. Not saying that is the case, but it easily could be.

There is nothing about this statement that is exclusive to wine makers such as CH and I don't really understand why you would even bother to make the comment is this conversation....

dicksond wrote:The only way he can stick around is if the winemakers he sources his juice from own part of his operation (otherwise, they will cut him out and do this themsleves somehow since he adds minimal value to their product so why should he get profits they could just as easily capture?), and in any case once he makes his name, he will move upmarket by creating his own blends with contracts for his sources. Higher prices and better margins in that.

I do heartily recommend MJN's interview with CH, as these issues are addressed, directly or indirectly.

According to the interview, CH does have a working relationship with vintners, and the reason they sell to him is not that the juice is "junk" but that it is very good but not in line with the specific flavor profile of the usual bottle from that specific winemaker. The grapes are of good stock, carefully matured, well tended and processed, but ultimately just not right for a specific vintner.

Incidentally, and you probably know this, the Charles Shaw name that goes on the three-to-four buck bottles of the stuff is owned by Shaw's ex-wife who got the name in the divorce settlement and sold the name to a cheapo bottler to stick it to her former husband. Revenge: serve well chilled.

Hammond

David Hammond wrote:According to the interview, CH does have a working relationship with vintners, and the reason they sell to him is not that the juice is "junk" but that it is very good but not in line with the specific flavor profile of the usual bottle from that specific winemaker. The grapes are of good stock, carefully matured, well tended and processed, but ultimately just not right for a specific vintner.

My immediate question (supporting dickson's point) was, why not just package this up under another label and sell it themselves.

And my immediate answer was, there may not be enough of it to justify the trouble and expense to make it worthwhile.

mhill95149 wrote:

dicksond wrote:
There also is a big opportunity to manipulate the press - all he needs to do is create one or two really good lots that he holds back and lets the press sample. Since each lot is unique and very limited in quantity, there is a high likelihood that one you can get is not the same as, or anything like, what was reviewed. Not saying that is the case, but it easily could be.

There is nothing about this statement that is exclusive to wine makers such as CH and I don't really understand why you would even bother to make the comment is this conversation....

Because CH is selling a concept, more so than wines. All he needs is one or two good wines to "prove" his concept works. People who actually make wine are responsible for each cuvee and each vintage. In the CH model, each cuvee is unique, never to be replicated (sure that is true for all winemakers, but if you are making essentially the same wine, same source, same grapes, same winemaker, just a different vintage, there is a lot more continuity).

Anyway, I can poke holes in the business model and you can defend it, and in the end that is all pretty meaningless. Have you tried the wine? Then tell me about it. Hopefully it is consistently wonderful and proves me wrong.

I will look for it at my local Costco, and might even buy some for fun.

dicksond wrote:
Anyway, I can poke holes in the business model and you can defend it, and in the end that is all pretty meaningless. Have you tried the wine? Then tell me about it. Hopefully it is consitently wonderful and proves me wrong.

Meaningless is sounding more and more like the theme here

David Hammond wrote:According to the interview, CH does have a working relationship with vintners, and the reason they sell to him is not that the juice is "junk" but that it is very good but not in line with the specific flavor profile of the usual bottle from that specific winemaker. The grapes are of good stock, carefully matured, well tended and processed, but ultimately just not right for a specific vintner.

I guess I can't help myself - what else could he say? We buy other people's crap and hope that if we price it right you suckers will buy it?

I have now officially read his entire web site and it is full of that message. There seems to be a world full of winemakers making wonderful wine that they choose not to sell because it does not fit their marketing plans (damn those marketers!). He does them a favor by taking it off their hands at cost, and then does all of us a favor by selling it direct to us and a small number of selected retailers, making it available rock bottom prices because he has eliminated the middle man. (Fortunately, CH is not a middle man, even though his entire career has been in wine distribution and importing - no he is a different, unique and brand new thing!)

Wow, what a novel concept!! Actually, I was most reminded of Priceline in reading through his positioning, only since hotel rooms are so perishable and you eventually know exactly what you are buying, that makes more sense. Still Priceline has its limits and the hotels have figured out how to do a lot of it directly with improved web sites and better pricing models.

From a marketing point of view, selling a Black Box is wonderful, though, because it can be anything you want it to be. And CH is masterful marketing, combining some of the best of Internet disintermediation, with the whiff of premium, inaccessible wines, with the whole "never pay retail again" concept. If he could just figure out a way to add in a way to help me meet girls and improve my performance, he would have it all.

Still, this does not mean the wine isn't good. Just that the marketing is a hoot for me and I do not believe the business model makes sense, long term.

Enjoy.

David Hammond wrote:Incidentally, and you probably know this, the Charles Shaw name that goes on the three-to-four buck bottles of the stuff is owned by Shaw's ex-wife who got the name in the divorce settlement and sold the name to a cheapo bottler to stick it to her former husband. Revenge: serve well chilled.

I thought it was that the husband was forced in the divorce settlement to pay a proportion of any profit for the sale of the wine so he deliberately priced it to be unprofitable (not sure who gets any tax writeoff)

leek wrote:

David Hammond wrote:Incidentally, and you probably know this, the Charles Shaw name that goes on the three-to-four buck bottles of the stuff is owned by Shaw's ex-wife who got the name in the divorce settlement and sold the name to a cheapo bottler to stick it to her former husband. Revenge: serve well chilled.

I thought it was that the husband was forced in the divorce settlement to pay a proportion of any profit for the sale of the wine so he deliberately priced it to be unprofitable (not sure who gets any tax writeoff)

My source is the MJN interview with CH; I can't say I have certain information either way...but if it happened the way you relate it, the husband would also be cutting into his profits, which would not make much sense, but it could have happened.

David Hammond wrote:

leek wrote:

David Hammond wrote:Incidentally, and you probably know this, the Charles Shaw name that goes on the three-to-four buck bottles of the stuff is owned by Shaw's ex-wife who got the name in the divorce settlement and sold the name to a cheapo bottler to stick it to her former husband. Revenge: serve well chilled.

I thought it was that the husband was forced in the divorce settlement to pay a proportion of any profit for the sale of the wine so he deliberately priced it to be unprofitable (not sure who gets any tax writeoff)

My source is the MJN interview with CH; I can't say I have certain information either way...but if it happened the way you relate it, the husband would also be cutting into his profits, which would not make much sense, but it could have happened.

It was a divorce thing, so in that context, rationality flies out the window.

Here's a less interesting version of how Franzia came to own the Charles Shaw brand
http://www.snopes.com/business/market/shawwine.asp#add

From what I've found
Yes there was / is a Charles Shaw
yes he owned a winey (failed)
Yes he and his wife divorced (1991)

Well, according to CNN and Snopes and the Western Farm Press, it's all false, simply someone making money out of wine no one else wanted:

http://www.snopes.com/business/market/shawwine.asp

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/West/01/22/wine.decline.ap/

http://westernfarmpress.com/mag/farming_bc_keeps_wine/

http://www.wineloverspage.com/wineadvis ... 0120.phtml

http://preview.vinolin.com/post/show/id/16698

There was a divorce, the original Charles Shaw winery was sold after a divorce, but the guy making 2 buck Chuck is Fred Franzia and Bronco wine company who bought the name.

isn't it funny how many urban legends or stories seem to revolve around Charles Shaw wine??

anyway... back to Hughes


costco is a big seller of cameron hughes wine.

i bought a bottle there not too long ago. i fell for some lame sales guy's pitch (i think he actually worked for them).

he kept yelling "$30 juice for $12!" like it was black gold... "juice" ..ugh

i got the lot #14 merlot. it was good, though not complex and very straight forward. i don't know if it was $30 good or not, but at least $12 good. sometimes with californian wines it's harder to distinguish ...

..i was curious about it back then and found this blog w/ info on what hughes does: http://www.vinography.com/archives/2006 ... anc_1.html