Do you use really good wine for cooking?

[CharlieD]

I like to use the same wine I like to drink. Good or not, that I do not know. It is good for me and I make sure it is good enough for my guests.

[Jeff G.]

If you won't drink it, don't cook with it.

Flavor is flavor regardless of how it is used. Bad tasting wine will carry that bad taste into anything you cook.

[Caine]

I buy a jug of Carlo Rossi or Gallo when it's on sale. It's drinkible, but I don't drink it, I use it strictly for cooking. The wines I drink I would never consider using to flavor a recipe any more than I would consider using 24k gold leaf to decorate a cake.

[Fisher's Mom]

I have used some more expensive wines for sauces ($25) but I usually use modestly priced, good tasting wines ($10) and honestly, I don't notice much of a difference in the taste. I will say that I tried using a very sweet, very cheap wine once and the sauce was so sweet, it was almost like candy - yuck.

Recently, I got a box of red wine to see if I could make a good sauce with it and I was surprised to find it worked very well. I also used it in a slow cooker roast and it was very tasty. So I think the common advice here of using inexpensive wines that taste good to drink is very good advice.

[auntdot]

If there is anyone who can tell a sauce, a robust sauce perhaps made with a demi, using a ten buck bottle of a decent red from a hundred dollar one - good for him. My palate is not that sophisticated.

It is the subtleness of flavor that separates an expensive fine wine from a nice relatively inexpensive one.

But toss in all sorts of other flavors to a sauce, including herbs, and, at least to me, the delicate flavors of the expensive wine would be overwhelmed. I certainly could not appreciate the fleeting flavor of, perhaps, apricot the more expensive wine is supposed to impart.

It is kinda like taking a fine single malt Scotch and mixing it with Coke. You might as well mix the stuff with 'shine.

Maybe there are some very delicate concoctions that are served with little more than a reduction of wine that could be tastier with a pricier wine. If so, I don't know about them.

To me the addition of wine to many dishes and sauces is a fine thing to do and certainly improves the dish because it adds the fundamental flavor of the grape. After that the subtle flavors are lost. But if one picks a wine with a nasty taste, those flavors will survive. Off tastes, for some reason, never go away. Rats.

Does not seem fair but that that is the way things go.

So I sign onto the cook with a wine you can drink concept.

Just my take on things. Take care.

[BreezyCooking]

Bravo Aunt Dot. I find the inexpensive - yet still drinkable - California wines just terrific for cooking. Gallo is my jug wine of choice - I use the Chablis Blanc in seafood dishes & sautes; & the Burgundy & Chianti in my Cassoulet & Italian sauces. They always turn out well without any unpleasant aftertaste that one would get from a really poor cheap wine.

[college_cook]

I love wine, but I'm not really a huge drinker, so the mood has to strike me. I often end up using 3/4 of a bottle just for various cooking applications because I won't drink it soon enough before it turns bad.

[Billdolfski]

Originally Posted by auntdot

If there is anyone who can tell a sauce, a robust sauce perhaps made with a demi, using a ten buck bottle of a decent red from a hundred dollar one - good for him. My palate is not that sophisticated.

It is the subtleness of flavor that separates an expensive fine wine from a nice relatively inexpensive one.

But toss in all sorts of other flavors to a sauce, including herbs, and, at least to me, the delicate flavors of the expensive wine would be overwhelmed. I certainly could not appreciate the fleeting flavor of, perhaps, apricot the more expensive wine is supposed to impart.

It is kinda like taking a fine single malt Scotch and mixing it with Coke. You might as well mix the stuff with 'shine.

Maybe there are some very delicate concoctions that are served with little more than a reduction of wine that could be tastier with a pricier wine. If so, I don't know about them.

To me the addition of wine to many dishes and sauces is a fine thing to do and certainly improves the dish because it adds the fundamental flavor of the grape. After that the subtle flavors are lost. But if one picks a wine with a nasty taste, those flavors will survive. Off tastes, for some reason, never go away. Rats.

Does not seem fair but that that is the way things go.

So I sign onto the cook with a wine you can drink concept.

Just my take on things. Take care.

^^
This.

You certainly don't need to break your bank or use up something you would rather drink, but just like everyone else said, "don't cook with something you wouldn't drink."

[wysiwyg]

I think Aristotle said: "If it ain't good for drinking, it ain't good for cooking"

[Maverick2272]

Originally Posted by Andy M.

If you're drinking $100 per bottle wine, I would suggest you should use something less expensive in your cooking.

When you hear the expression, "Don;t cook with a wine you wouldn't drink.", the real truth is that you should use drinking wine to cook with and NEVER use cooking wine. So if you are cooking a beef dish that calls for a red wine in the cooking, save the $100 cabernet sauvignon for the table and use a less expensive yet drinkable cab for the stove.

Cooking wines contain salt and taste awful. They will make your dish taste awful as well.

Amen!! And I will have to remember the advice about using dry vermouth insted of white wine in the recipe. We just dont make that many recipies calling for wine in them, so spoilage is often a problem for us.