Radar's guide to drinking on the cheap

The New York Times recently ran its latest "10 under $10" wine list, evaluating a slew of cheapish wines and picking the best of the bunch. While this sort of information is undoubtedly useful for many, there are components of society—freelance writers, junior staffers at Condé Nast or the New York Times, drifters at the bus station—for whom even $10 is a financial burden.

With these people in mind (and perhaps moved by some newfound egalitarian streak), Radar decided to lower the bar. A lot. Thus, we arranged an elite panel of highly discerning palates to taste wines that cost less than $4 a bottle. Franzia and the so-called "bum wines" were omitted—the following all come in real glass bottles, and almost all are topped with actual corks. Happy drinking!

Radar's panel:
• Investment banker Philip Enan
• New York Times Syndicate editorial assistant Jake Tracer
• New York Times graphics editor Rubina Madan
• Paralegal Erika Myrill
• Engineer Jeff J. Smith
• Radar editor Paige Ferrari

The tasting took place on an East Village rooftop. Spitting was strictly forbidden.

---

THE WHITES:

1.
Trader Joe's Charles Shaw Blend California Sauvignon Blanc 2005,
$2.99

The Verdict: Trader Joe's "Two Buck Chuck" become the toast of the cheap wine world several years ago, when journalists, enraptured by the idea that they could now afford wine in a real bottle, began trotting out the underdog Joe in tastings against $75 cabernets. Perhaps some bottles really do taste fantastic; this just wasn't one of them. "Flabby," "Dead on the palate," "Smells like cat pee," griped our panelists. (Yes, we know that eau de feline urine is often considered a good thing in Sauv Blanc.) "Do I detect a hint of ammonia?" asked Enan. Like the contents of a beaker in a lab experiment, this is a wine for "wafting," not smelling directly.

Kind of like: Windex. (Which, incidentally, retails for more than a bottle of Chuck.)

---

2. Lost Vineyards White Table Wine, Portugal (non-vintage), $1.99

The Verdict: As the most dubious-looking wine of the lot (no varietals were listed on the front), we went in with low expectations. We emerged impressed: Great things, it seems, do occasionally emerge from the plastic bucket near the checkout counter of your neighborhood discount wine retailer. While a little green-smelling, this bottle had a pleasing acidity that's often lacking in inexpensive whites. If this were a Real Simple story, we'd call it "fun," "lively," and "a good buy." If this were an Esquire story, we'd call it "versatile," "balanced," and "clever." As this is a Radar story, we finished the damn thing in six minutes.