Wine in a can

wine in a canThe problem with wine in a can, which several Big Wine companies want to be the next big thing, is not necessarily price or quality or the idea that it’s canned wine – all of which are huge obstacles.

The problem is that Americans aren’t particularly interested in drinking wine that doesn’t come in a traditional, 750-ml bottle, and no one in the past 40 years has convinced us otherwise.

The chart at the link shows that the glass bottle accounts for almost three-quarters of the wine sold in the U.S. As the report accompanying the chart says, “After years of packaging innovations, the traditional 750-ml wine bottle is more important to the domestic wine industry than ever.”

Trying to break us from the 750-ml bottle has been all but impossible, and even the wise guys on Shark Tank underestimated the challenge. Which means that wine in a can will have to offer something that we can’t get from wine in a bottle, and that isn’t novelty. The Wine Curmudgeon, who goes where no other wine writer dares, recently put wine in a can – the Underwood rose ($7/375-ml, sample, 12%) – through its paces, and I’m not optimistic about its future. And not because it’s almost impossible to swirl wine in a can:

• Price/value: Not pretty. The can is half the size of a bottle, and it’s sold in a four-pack, so you’re spending $28 for two bottles, 8 to 10 glasses of wine. In other words, you could buy two bottles of $10 Hall of Fame wine, spend almost one-third less, and get better wine. Or you could buy a three-liter box of Black Box for about $24, and get four bottles – eight times as much wine – and about the same quality.

• Quality: Meh. It’s Big Wine wine in a can and tastes remarkably like E&J Gallo’s Dark Horse rose. This is a neat trick since the Underwood has an Oregon appellation, and the Dark Horse is from California. The wine is drinkable, but lacks the crisp and fresh qualities I want in rose; almost any $10 rose in a bottle will be more enjoyable.

• Ease of use/convenience: Very easy – just pull back the tab and drink. Plus, it’s easier to keep cold, and especially in an ice chest. These are wine in a can’s selling points, but even they probably won’t be enough. If I can buy quality craft beer for $12 a six-pack and get the same convenience, why would I pay twice as much for less wine of lesser quality? Or not bring boxed wine, which also works in a cooler, to the beach?

The biggest disappointment with wine in a can? I wanted to like it, if only because it’s such a poke in the eye for the wine business. Perhaps someone else can solve the pricing problem. Until then, though, wine in a can doesn’t offer enough value. So why bother?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Want to buy cheap wine that's worth drinking? Tired of getting scammed by high prices? Then click here, fill out the form, and get the Wine Curmudgeon in your mailbox every day.