I’ve always thought this, but it came into my head again the other day because I tried a new wine on a whim - and wished I hadn’t 🤢 It was too sweet and had an aftertaste. I thought about pouring it down the sink, but I needed some cooking plonk,
so I just threw a bit into my sauce and hoped for the best. It was fine. I ended up using the rest of it across a couple of different recipes.
Whilst I wouldn’t deliberately buy bad wine, I think there’s quite an important difference between a wine where you’d sit and actively enjoy and savour a glass, and one that you wouldn’t keep for a special occasion, but would add a bit of extra flavour to a sauce (and would do for a quick glass while you were cooking). They’re very different experiences.
I was reading years ago about the launch of New Coke in the USA in the 80s (which, for the youngsters amongst you, failed spectacularly). One of the possible reasons for failure highlighted was that, although it had performed well in taste tests, the experience of drinking a whole bottle or can is very different from sipping a small amount from a sample cup. The theory was the sweeter taste of New Coke was pleasant in a small amount, but too much in a larger quantity.
It makes sense, doesn’t it? Lots of people enjoy drinking gin and tonic or vodka and coke, but far fewer drink neat alcohol. I like salt on my food, but I wouldn’t use a whole cellar-full on one meal. And I think it’s the same with wine - one that doesn’t stand up as a great wine in its own right can still enhance a dish when it’s one of several ingredients.
I also can’t help thinking that the “Don’t cook with wine you wouldn’t drink” and “Always use the best ingredients you can possibly afford” mantras are most commonly used by celebrity chefs who a) earn a lot more than the average person and b) probably have their own branded food and wine range, or a column in the Waitrose or M&S magazine where they’re expected to recommend the wines that make the most profit.