Indeed. The article - its whole premise - is simply stupid, to the extent that should be apparent even to someone who does not know anything about wine and has never once cooked with it. The price of the wine - or of any other ingredient in the dish - does not matter; quality does. Always. At the very least, the wine should be drinkable and ideally enjoyable.
I don't think that you understood the article.
Stop projecting.
Quoted message said:
The author compared wines that taste good with wines that do not, for cooking. Yes, he mentioned prices but that was not the point. The point was that using a poor- tasting wine versus a good-tasting wine did not make a difference in the quality of the final dish.
The point is the wine is an ingredient. If one uses poor-quality ingredients - any ingredients - one inevitably gets lesser-quality dish, no matter what the author, a hack journalist, says.
My own experience, and it's just mine, is that it doesn't matter. I open up a bottle of two buck Chuck, and pour a few ounces into the food. We have the rest for dinner.
The point is the wine is an ingredient. If one uses poor-quality ingredients - any ingredients - one inevitably gets lesser-quality dish, no matter what the author, a hack journalist, says.
My own experience, and it's just mine, is that it doesn't matter. I open up a bottle of two buck Chuck, and pour a few ounces into the food. We have the rest for dinner.
Do you think the "Two Buck Chuck" is a poor-quality wine (as distinct from - quoting myself - not just an inexpensive but actually drinkable and, ideally, enjoyable one)? If so, why do you care to drink it, then, let alone cook with it?
Do you think the "Two Buck Chuck" is a poor-quality wine (as distinct
Not exactly poor, but it used to be better. Think of it like a French pool wine. Not something you would serve the king, but good enough for the daily meal. I prefer it to box wines, but my mom recently tried a bottle of 2$CHK merlot and panned it, preferring her beloved box of Franzia. Which is the worse wine? The Franzia or the $40 bottle of CA chard I tossed? It's too subjective to argue over.
Do you think the "Two Buck Chuck" is a poor-quality wine (as distinct
Not exactly poor, but it used to be better. Think of it like a French pool wine. Not something you would serve the king, but good enough for the daily meal. I prefer it to box wines, but my mom recently tried a bottle of 2$CHK merlot and panned it, preferring her beloved box of Franzia. Which is the worse wine? The Franzia or the $40 bottle of CA chard I tossed? It's too subjective to argue over.
Well, I buy wine objectively, the higher the Proof the more likely I'll choose it.
The point is the wine is an ingredient. If one uses poor-quality ingredients - any ingredients - one inevitably gets lesser-quality dish, no matter what the author, a hack journalist, says.
My own experience, and it's just mine, is that it doesn't matter. I open up a bottle of two buck Chuck, and pour a few ounces into the food. We have the rest for dinner.
Do you think the "Two Buck Chuck" is a poor-quality wine (as distinct from - quoting myself - not just an inexpensive but actually drinkable and, ideally, enjoyable one)? If so, why do you care to drink it, then, let alone cook with it?
I think it's good. Charles Shaw buys up leftover lots of wine, and bottles them at his plant in Napa. The wine is sold through Trader Joes.
Not exactly poor, but it used to be better. Think of it like a French pool wine. Not something you would serve the king, but good enough for the daily meal.
When looking for an everyday wine these days, I often choose either Minervois Ch. de Rustiques 2005 or Corbières Philippe Copin 2005. A bottle of either costs 2.99 euros. Both are full-bodied reds and are more than just drinkable. A bargain. I get both at the food hall of one of the local department stores. Needless to say, I use them in cooking, too.
