In my increasingly distant youth, humanity was divided into two categories: those who rooted for the Mets and those who backed the Yankees. This was in the days, mind you, when the Mets proffered the likes of Ed Kranepool and Marv Throneberry. It was hardly grand cru baseball.

The Yankees, of course, represented Success. I was always suspicious of Yankee fans, much in the same way that I wondered about young Republicans. (As the conductor Sir John Barbirolli said about the impetuous young cellist Jacqueline Du Pre, “If you have no excesses in the full bloom of youth, what will there be to pare away on the long road to maturity?”)

All of this is a long-winded way of conceding that, as Wordsworth famously said, “The child is father of the man.” I’m still suspicious of the wine equivalent of rooting for the gold-plated Yankees, where my colleagues tell you about yet another $100 Napa Valley cabernet or extol a first growth Bordeaux. Are such wines good, even extraordinary? Sure they are. Big deal. Where’s the challenge? Where’s the heart? It’s like rooting for General Electric.

The wines recommended this week might be characterized as underdogs, except for the fact that they’re stupendously good. One even comes from Napa Valley – but not the gold plated part. At their respective prices, each delivers exceptional quality for the money. Not least, you get the pleasure of rooting for the right teams, the ones that earn your wine allegiance the old-fashioned way: by offering wonderful wine at plausible prices.

HERE’S THE DEAL

SAUVIGNON GRIS “VALLE DEL MAIPO” 2004, COUSINO-MACUL

When I first explored Chile’s vineyards in the early 1990s, one of the properties I visited was Cousino-Macul. It’s long been one of Chile’s better wineries, as well as one of its oldest estates.

In the course of tasting its wines, I was struck by the particular goodness of what I presumed was sauvignon blanc. With considerable courtesy I was informed that the wine was not, in fact, sauvignon blanc but an obscure relation called sauvignon gris that was once grown in Bordeaux before the phylloxera root louse caused wholesale replanting in Bordeaux (as elsewhere in Europe) starting in the 1880s.

In the mid-19th century, one of the Cousino family members journeyed to Bordeaux to bring back cuttings for the family winery, which was founded in the 1860s. Other Chilean winegrowers did the same. The result is that today Chile is a kind of heirloom seed repository of ancient Bordeaux grape varieties.

For example, what the Chileans once marketed as merlot was, in fact, an old Bordeaux variety called carmenere. It’s often said that the Chilean winegrowers thought their carmenere grape really was merlot, but that’s not so. They knew perfectly well that it wasn’t, but in fairness, they couldn’t say precisely what it was, either. Besides, the merlot name was golden, so why not use it? It was only in 1994, when a French professor was studying Chilean vineyards, that the vines were correctly identified as the ancient carmenere variety. Today the Chileans proudly sell the wine under that name.

We have another “Jurassic Park” wine experience in sauvignon gris. In this case, the Chilean growers sailed under the better-known name of sauvignon blanc. They knew sauvignon gris wasn’t identical to sauvignon blanc, if only because, at harvest time, the grape skins of sauvignon gris developed a pale pink hue which is absent in sauvignon blanc. (This also explains why sauvignon gris is also known as sauvignon rose.) But the two varieties were interplanted in the same field. Better to sell it as sauvignon blanc, growers reasoned.

However, starting with the 2002 vintage, Cousino-Macul released a 100% sauvignon gris under its proper name, separate from sauvignon blanc, which the winery also produces. It’s good marketing to be sure, but also a worthy effort, as the wine is clearly different from anything else.

And how is sauvignon gris? It’s swell. Thick-textured and aromatic, with whiffs of hay and wildflowers and a gentle taste of grapefruit, this is a terrific dry white wine for the money. It’s reminiscent of sauvignon blanc, but richer, denser, and more full-bodied. More than an oddball, this is legitimately fine dry white wine that will very likely encourage grape growers elsewhere to consider installing sauvignon gris in their own vineyards. It’s that good. $12.95.

CABERNET SAUVIGNON “NAPA VALLEY” 2001, TREFETHEN

Can a Napa Valley cabernet sauvignon ever be considered an underdog? Granted, the Napa pedigree is a boon, but it’s my impression that Trefethen Vineyards has never received the acclaim it deserves for its cabernet sauvignon.

The reason is that Trefethen’s vineyards are located in the cooler southern end of Napa Valley, where cabernet sauvignon tends not to achieve the same ripeness (or ultraripeness) that delivers the huzzahs lavished on Napa Valley’s most acclaimed cabernets.

In the great 2001 vintage, however, Trefethen created an outstanding cabernet sauvignon reflecting not only the fully ripe and beautifully balanced pleasures of that lush vintage but also the distinction of place of the cooler Oak Knoll District where most, although not all, of the wine is grown.

Trefethen Cabernet Sauvignon 2001 is blend of cabernet sauvignon (89%), merlot (9%), and petit verdot and malbec (1% each). The winery reports that 82% of the blend is from Trefethen’s estate in the Oak Knoll District on the Napa Valley floor, while the balance comes from its hillside vineyard in the foothills of the Mayacamas Mountains, which is in Napa Valley but outside of the Oak Knoll District boundary.

This is intense yet balanced cabernet sauvignon with a scent and taste of black currant and ripe cherry allied to a deft use of oak, which adds a spice note as well as a gentling effect on the tannins. One of the ripest-tasting Trefethen cabernets that I can remember, it’s striking – and compelling enough to make your guests sit up and take notice. This is a bargain in high-end Napa Valley cabernet sauvignon. $39.95.