sf > wrote in newsl88m79u7fhilrnp892hk685nqh83u3jad@
4ax.com:

> On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 15:37:58 -0700, Christine Dabney
> > wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 14:57:12 -0700 (PDT), merryb >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >Have you tried cooking with the red you like? I've always heard that
>> >you shouldn't cook with something you wouldn't drink.
>>
>> Exactly. Cook with a red that you find drinkable.. You may be
>> cooking with red wines that really aren't very good anyway, and if you
>> find one that is good and drinkable, that is one that you might want
>> to consider using. If it is not good to begin with, all of that will
>> come out in your dish. This may mean that you need to consider more
>> expensive red wines, but it doesn't need to break the bank.
>
> I had the conversation with my DD last week. I use a red I didn't
> want to drink in a bourguignon... and she gave me that line about
> using a wine you'd drink. I told her that expression started so that
> people wouldn't use cooking (salted) wine, not because you should cook
> with expensive wine. Maybe you don't want to drink that $8 bottle of
> wine with your meal, but that doesn't mean it's not suitable for
> cooking your stew.
>


Exactly........ at the end of the day, when the dish is cooked, most of the
wine is cooked down, and once that is done, unless you start with a bottle
that tastes like a 'dead wet dog'..... you'll end up with the same flavour
whether you used an $8 bottle, or an $80 bottle.

There was *NO WAY IN THIS FREAKIN WORLD* that I would have used a bottle of
my Kaesler 'Bogan' to make a red wine casserole!!!

However, I'd never resort to 'cooking wine'.

--
Peter
Tasmania
Australia