We are more of beer and cider drinkers around here. So I have a big bottle of white sometimes, or the occasional red for my hubby. Typically most wine that gets opened might get a glass or two drunk, but most of it ends up in the cookpots.

So in general, I get the little bottles of wine for cooking. Sometimes those disappear.

I can relate, Olychick...not much wine left in bottles at our house!

No wine in my pantry. Not with two young grands that haven't been exposed to alcohol . ...Oh look grandma has white grape juice..yum...crash.

I'm working on getting a small bottle of bourbon for my beans though.

Used to be, deglaze with a splash of wine meant open and kill a bottle. The best was buying a pint of something that I didn’t keep in stock, like cognac, give it a taste and by dinner time realize there wasn’t enough left for the recipe.

The trick is to buy good wine and store it correctly, so there's always something to drink if you're so inclined, and buy adequate wine for the cooking. I cannot tell the difference between Two Buck Chuck and $100 wine when it's cooked in the food. The exception is when you're making a wine sauce or, especially, a reduction which gets its flavor from the wine. But, it's still hard to tell the difference between $10 wine and $100 in a reduction. When there's a big sale on palatable cheap varietals that go beyond Chuck and seem good for cooking, I'll buy a bunch and mark them with a big fat C. They don't go in the wine rack, but that keeps them from getting confused with other transitory bottles. I don't drink a lot, nor do most of the family, but when I do, I don't want meh wine! That's why there's always plenty of decent to drink but below my drinking standards to drop over the turkey.

BTW, the same holds on beer, perhaps even more. Ultra-cheap beer is good only for drowning slugs (and I don't even have slugs here). I buy whatever is on sale for cooking. For awhile it was Stella Artois, currently Corona. If someone wants to drink it, that's fine, but it's not chilled, so the fine ales are more likely to wander off...

There's always this "stuff." I still cringe when I see it at the market. :-O

plllog, speaking of $10/$100, we did a lot of taste testing wines for our daughter's wedding. It was pretty interesting how many of the less expensive bottles won over the pricier ones...although none of the contenders came close to $100.

Oh, chloebud, I bought that way back in my twenties when I didn't know any better. Nasty salt filled junk.

Lately, it is surprising how good the Barefoot wines are for the price, and my son swears by whatever Costco sells.

We generally keep at least two dozen bottles of wine in our house at all times - one dozen red and one dozen white. It takes the two of us two days to go through one bottle, but we do replace it when it's gone. The wine we buy generally costs from $8 to $13 a bottle, but I think I've found some for $7 that I liked. When we go to wineries in Paso Robles, we have to spend at least $20 a bottle, and so we do not buy very many there, but there are a few that we especially like. However, we do have several favorites that we get here in the $9-$12 range. I don't mind drinking wine that has been stored in the refrigerator for one or two days, but I will let it warm up a bit first, as it is too cold straight from the fridge. We have champagne in the garage refrigerator that has been there a year or so, but we keep it in case a certain guest visits who always wants some.

If you are running out of wine, then you are not stocking enough. And just because you have it on hand doesn't mean that you have to drink it right away. This is the store that go to near our house.

Lars, I like to store all the opened wine in the frig. It doesn't seem to oxidize as fast. I do like to let it warm up a bit, reds more than white.

If I need white wine for cooking, I use what I drink, and if I am cooking with red, I'll go buy something The white wine that we buy for drinking is nowhere near the cost of the reds that we drink. I rarely cook with beer, so it would depend on what kind of beer I need for the recipe. If I have what I need on hand, that's what will be used.

The reds we buy are generally Côtes du Rhône (which can also be white), Sangiovese, and Pinot Noir - none of which are as expensive as Cabernet, which neither of us like. Sangiovese is similar to Chianti, but the Chianti we like is more expensive than the Sangiovese we like. Of the white wines, the Chardonnays tend to be the most expensive, but I have found Chardonnay from France for about $9 that I really like. Although we live in California, most of the wine we buy is from Italy or France, and that is cheaper than the California wine, which does not make sense to me.

Sherry, I just wanted to tell you Barefoot is exactly what we ended up using for our daughter's wedding. As I recall, it was between that and Yellow Tail.

I'm a big Pinot Grigio fan myself, and my husband loves the reds. He's always coming home with a new bottle to try. I just continue to happily sip my PG...such as right now. :-) I also use PG when I need a white wine for cooking. I'm not a fan of Sauvignon Blanc. Chardonnay is nice but some are too rich and oak-y for cooking. For cooking with reds, it's usually a Merlot, Shiraz, Pinot Noir or Cabernet...or whatever I find in my husband's stash.

Not too long ago, a few months back, reported in the science section. A couple of chemists had succeeded in creating cheap wine without even using grapes which no one could tell if the wine was not as good as wine costing $100 a bottle.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2088322-synthetic-wine-made-without-grapes-claims-to-mimic-fine-vintages/

https://www.popsci.com/making-imitation-wines-with-science

dcarch

I am also a big Pinot Grigio fan, but the last bottle of white we opened was a Sauvignon Blanc, Chatelain Desjacques (from France) that is $8.99 at our local store. Of the white wins, Pinot Grigio and Sauvignon Blanc are my favorites, except for the more expensive Chardonnays, which we almost never buy, as we are too frugal. Right now I am drinking a Basciano Chianti Ruffina 2014, which I like well enough, but not more than the Pasqua Sangiovese, which is about $4 less.

Since we've wandered into a discussion of price in general (not why it's unnecessary to throw pricey wine into the cooking), I need to tell you that I don't generally drink $100 wines. Many of them are too tannic for most folks to enjoy. Some of them are merely rare, rather than better. I do use the overs from open bottles for cooking, so in that way do cook with what I'd drink, but I wouldn't open a bottle of the good stuff for the pot. My idea of the good stuff is in the $20 range (though some favorites creep up toward $50), but I live in the land of wine and roses, and the full on retail price is probably double. I have had $100 wine that was worth the price, and $10 that was complex and well balanced. Good and bad can be had at all price levels. And Two Buck Chuck (current $2.49, I think) really is passable. It's wine lake blend and they put in the effort to make it taste good.

Re cooking with beer, I don't find a big enough difference to fuss over kind of beer, rather than quality, so long as it's good tasting and not too bitter. The exceptions are for baking or beer batter a light lager is best, and dark ales are another thing altogether and specific to certain recipes. For a family home dinner beer braise, it doesn't really matter between pilsner, lager and IPA.

"And Two Buck Chuck (current $2.49, I think) really is passable."

plllog, it's $2.99 now in CA. Our daughter and I like their Pinot Grigio. She's gotten in the habit of bringing me various other brands of PG...all pricier but nothing over $20-ish. I think the last one we tried was Santa Margherita PG. Like many others, we both agreed Charles Shaw's PG is better. Their Sauvignon Blanc is just bad, but then I don't like SB in the first place. My husband likes their Shiraz. I agree with your "rare rather than better" comment.

For a period of time I was not able to drink alcohol at all, and shamefully admit to using that awful Holland House Red and White on occasion... blaaaach!

I like Sangiovese, but my preference is usually Cabernet Sauvignons. I have some Chardonnays and Sauvignon Blanc's I'll drink on rare occasion. The reds I prefer are $17 - $20. Whites a bit cheaper. I used to use cheaper wines in my cooking, but don't really keep them anymore except for whites, so I use what I drink for the most part. I keep port, sherry, beer, rum, etc., also but only for cooking. A friend had some very cheap... it was white and I can't remember what it was! But I thought it quite good. I've never had a $100 bottle wine, but if I were with someone who's palate I trusted, I'd love it try that for a special occasion. After which DH would kill me... ; )

Frankly, I do not think my palate for wine is sophisticated/good. I just know what I like. Gonna have to look for the Barefoot mentioned and give that a try as well as some others mentioned.

I used to love beer; IPA's and locally made brew - somewhat malty. Not sure why, but beer only tastes good after a long hard day in the yard... and even then, not so much of late. I usually can't drink the last little bit in the bottle.

Short story long: We splurged (for us, which isn't saying much!) on our honeymoon hide-a-way home rental. It had both a small wine cooler and a coffee bean roaster. I loved the dual temp control for the wines I brought (DH doesn't care for wine, the heathen (grin)... he's a bourbon man), while DH loved the fresh coffee. After finding ourselves inundated with fleas 3 days in we fled. Refund = wine cooler, coffee roaster (I already had the fancy-smancy grinder). I tend to keep the wine cooler over-stocked. It's the one overkill item which is still plugged in during our renovation. DH roasts beans on a cabinet door balanced on a box. ; )

I do find we tend to run low on liquor - the harder stuff. Mostly because we don't drink a lot and therefore don't keep a lot on hand. I love an icy-cold, wet, dirty gin mini-martini, as well as Bourbon Manhattan's (DH's favorite). And Margaritas sometimes if we eat Mexican on the weekends. Aside from wine, I typically use only bourbon for cooking with any regularity (baked beans). I do make a smoked bourbon salt which we love.

Egads, sounds like we're a couple of heavy drinkers, but honestly DH might have one drink on a weekend, while I drink a small glass of wine most weeknights. Clearly I'm going to have to start drinking more ; )

" I just know what I like. "

Same with me, 2Many...and that's all that matters. :-)

The making of expensive wine and 2 Buck Chuck wine are basically the same:

Grapes + yeast + time. Why one is so much more expensive? Promotion $$$ & high profits.

"don't cook with wine you wouldn't drink" is all promotion to sell you more expensive wine.. It makes no sense as far as cooking is concerned. Cooking wine is like seasoning or cooking sauce. Cooking seasonings and sauces are never good for plain eating or drinking. Have you ever try to drink soy sauce? Worcester sauce?

--------------------------------------------------

The following sums up about the snobbish wine culture:

"The emperor has no cloth"

"Never give a sucker an even break" & "The is a sucker born every minute"

dcarch

I typically drink chardonnay (not something I want to use in cooking) and occasionally pinot noir. I keep a bottle of very dry vermouth for use in various dishes that call for 1/4 cup or less.

For a period of time I was spoiled by a wine snob, my sister’s ex. To put it in perspective, a $100-something bottle of Caymus was a house wine that he might serve guests who he knew wouldn’t appreciate the good stuff. I never developed a palate to where I could put into poetry the hints of this and lingering notes of that, but it definitely got to a point where I no longer enjoyed your average “great value” $20 bottle anymore.

I was more into hard liquor though, and there I was particular but not based on price. Some types, like vodka, my favorite was cheap. Scotch I liked many, but all expensive. The only gin I’d drink was middle of the road.

Some people drink certain brands for show, but I’d never question someone having an actual preference for expensive brands. For me a $60 bottle of vodka would be a waste of money, a $60 bottle of scotch about the cheapest I’d force down.

Remember the "Give Me A Break" TV show with John Stossel ?

He did a vodka blind taste test in a bar. All picked a cheap vodka as the best tasting one, not the trendy expensive one the bar was pushing and everyone was drinking.

He also did a wine taste test, with expert wine tasters, same result.

dcarch

I use cheap vodka - I cannot tell the difference, but gin is a different matter. I don't know Scotch at all, but we do keep Irish whiskey on hand (I use it in some recipes), and I can definitely tell the difference between cheap rye and expensive rye, which is what I think Irish whiskey is. We buy Bushmills.

I have tasted straight soy sauce to compare different brands, and I have also drunk small amounts of black vinegar - huge difference there with various brands. I've gone to olive farms to taste various olive oils, and they vary significantly as well.

It's taken a while, but I have found out which wines I like, but then they change from one vintage to another.

"All picked a cheap vodka as the best tasting one..."

From my own experience, that's been a common occurrence.

I have 400 bottles in the basement. no not a wine cellar, the basement. 115 year old house with a unused coal bin. There is always corks floating around the house but never seems to be any open i can cook with... Luckily i don't have to go far to find some

There are biases in blind taste tests that are important to account for. Trained tasters are different. They know what to look for, and how to use their senses to get the most out of a tasting. For the general public, however, in a taste test they'll take a polite little sip, which is the worst way to compare. But alcohol and previous flavors both dull the senses of smell and taste, so taking a more natural sip brings its own problem. Then there's the question of the glass. Different glass shapes can really alter one's experience of flavor. That's fine if you're comparing all of one variety, but if you're comparing cabs to merlots, for instance, or Irish to Scotch whiskey, the anonymous glass can alter the real flavor. Add to that the polite little sips, and you have untrained tasters choosing the sweeter one almost every time, though for a full serving of multiple mouthfuls, they often prefer a more complex flavor.

I'm a firm believer that taking notes is the best way to find what you really like. Buy a bottle and try it before buying a case. Talk to a sommelier in the store or restaurant to get recommendations both for what to try and what kind of food pairings will enhance it. Then write down all the info of the wine, the suggestions, what the day/weather was like when you drank it, and the prevailing smells, what the food was and how it tasted, as well as one's reactions to the wine itself. Your own wine journal (keep it in your phone for convenience) will be a better resource than a formal tasting, IMO.

But I'm totally with Dcarch on the "cook with what you drink" thing. Marketing more than reality. More that cook with what you drink, it should be cook with what you would drink. If it's too bad to drink, it'll make the food taste bad. The exception being a reduction. Reducing the wine intensifies the flavors. For that use a better wine that's lighter on the sour/acid/tannic notes.

____________________

Chloebud, I'd only seen that price on the "fancier" varieties. Sounds to me like we have to be like Fox and change the name to Three Buck Chuck. :)

But I'm totally with Dcarch on the "cook with what you drink" thing.

Depends. For a glug or even more I agree. A bottle for something like coq au vin and the wine is going to make a difference.

Agreed, FOAS. I did say a reduction or wine sauce was the exception. :)

plllog, we've stuck with "Up-Chuck" ever since the price for Charles Shaw went from $1.99 to $2.49...and now $2.99.

Plllog - Yes you did. My mistake. :)

Lars, I wondered if that was just my imagination. A while back I had thought I'd opened a bottle of a noted 'better year' on one of my favorites, and thought it tasted different, not as good as usual. Then realized I'd opened the other year, which always seemed off to me. Perhaps my 'buds are a wee bit better than I thought.

I got used to cheap gin for so long that it was perfectly fine for me. Then we splurged once and bought some with that lovely juniper... can't go back now. I love that taste of juniper : )

Since on the subject... anyone here decant/aerate their wine? I have never, but wondered if that was nonsense or had some validity to it?

2MD - I was the opposite with gin. Couldn’t stand too much Christmas Tree taste. Beefeater was nice and clean. No Tanqueray or Bombay for me. Hendrick’s has that hint of cucumber which I liked but rarely splurged. Cheap gin, barf.

Time to breath definitely makes a difference with reds! Decant, preferably into wide base for more surface area. The Modernist nuts say throw it in a blender, does the same thing but faster. Seems logical but barbaric.

...logical but barbaric.

Too true! After it's decanted, assuming it isn't so old and bedraggled to have sediment, there's no reason I know of not to beat the heck out of wine, but it sure does feel wrong! But golly, it oughta work. Maybe not full on Vita-Mix, however. I think that downright alters molecular structure!

We serve better wine than most of the guests appreciate, but they will bring plonk. It's well meant. I have Venturi aerators, which I prefer to decanting. There's often enough chaos here, and enough different wines open at once (it's just the way it is, no lectures please), that I prefer to keep them in their bottles.

What I really like are the red wine stopper aerators. Stick it in the bottle and if they want the wine they get it aerated. I do have a white wine aerator, but I don't think it does that much. It's worth it with some good wines, but not brilliantly different, and it doesn't help poor ones at all. OTOH, decant a meh red with the hand held aerator and some breathing time and it can turn quite decent. Stick the stopper aerator in plonk and it becomes drinkable. Usually. There was one--I should have kept it in the kitchen rather than sending it to the table when it walked in the door--I was so embarrassed. It was SO bad. I think aerating just enhanced its faults. There was an older lady whose taste buds are maybe not so great anymore who drank quite a bit of it. I didn't try it until it was half gone. Horrible. Not even good enough for cleaning paintbrushes. Thinking on, it probably would dissolve the poor little hairs...

BTW, for those keeping opened wine in the fridge (or elsewhere), you might want to try a decanter with a float on it. The "lid" sits on top of the wine and seals out oxidizing air, and it'll fit wherever you can fit a wine bottle (except where a narrow neck is necessary). This is the opposite. You decant into a flat wide for air exposure to loosen up the wine, but then you use the float decanter to stop exposing it to the air. It's a balancing act. :) The aerator into the float decanter makes it easy, if untraditional.

First, box wines were no good. Now box wines can be good.

First metal caps were bad. Now metal caps are OK.

Wine drinking is good for your health, but no evidence to show that.

BS! BS! BS!

dcarch

Huh? Most of that is attitude. The technology of wine boxes and metal caps isn't necessarily bad so long as the wine is protected. Boxed wine used to be the kind of bad wine that would ruin your food if you cooked with it. The savings on inventory and shipping costs, breakage, etc., have encouraged winemakers to put decent wines in boxes. That's a misnomer, however. The box is outer packaging. The wine goes in plastic bladders. There are arguments as to whether you can taste the plastic, whether bad chemicals leach out into the wine, etc. I don't know the answers to that. Metal caps have plastic liners which make the seal and keep the wine off the metal. Is that so different from plastic corks? I don't know about that, either, but natural corks besides being scarce and expensive, do leave the potential for failure that plastic doesn't. Many good quality wines have some sort of plastic seal in contact with the wine. Not enough data to know just how okay that is but the industry seems mostly pleased.

Red wine has antioxidants which you can also get from other sources such as grapes and berries and their juices. They're good for you but it doesn't have to be wine. Many people relax when they drink wine. Alcohol is mostly a sedative. But you can train yourself to find brussels sprouts relaxing. It's more the repeated expectation of relaxation that gives you the pavlovian response than the small serving of alcohol. Either way, however, relaxation is good for you at the end of a hectic day.

My observation is sometimes the wine quickly disappears....down the drain. ;-) They opened a Grocery outlet nearby, so I have been trying a range of wines at very good prices. Some have become favorites; others "disappear". It is still a learning process to uncover the gems, but at least it does not cost a bundle for failures (many of the fails are more correctly simply not to my taste) and I quickly purchase extras when finding favorites. Paying $10 for wine that is selling for $40 elsewhere has spoiled my wallet though, and it has to be a wine I really want to drink, or for a special occasion, to get me to fork over full price any more.

Julia always suggested using dry vermouth for cooking. I have done so now for 52 years and it's delicious. But only someone who really likes vermouth will polish off that bottle. I keep mine in an under-counter pull-out with the oils and vinegar. It does not need to be refrigerated and lasts forever with no deterioration.

Thanks FOAS and plllog, I think while in midst of reno I'll try the aerator first. I'm typically not susceptible to the psychobabble or influence of 'makes a difference!' propaganda, but I have to be honest and say I prefer my reds from the wine fridge to ones in the colder refrigerator. Time to decant from that temp, though, would bring it too close to room temp for me. I'm not one to think ahead and cool mine down prior to decanting... so I haven't : )

plllog - ha ha ha! Dissolve the paint brush hairs! We've some friends who enjoy wine and socialize with them. They drink only whites, and keep an oversize bottle of something red (it's blocked from memory!) under a cabinet... opened. For perhaps a year. Sediment? Ha! It's so dark and murky with chunks! I have never asked for a glass since. I now know to bring extra bottles at BYOB's because mine tends to go first... and it's nice to share and try other wines.

Anglophillia, I finish our dry vermouth, but then again, I like martinis : ) We keep sweet vermouth for the Bourbon Manhattan's. I've never used sweet in cooking, but have the dry vermouth. In some chicken dishes it's quite good.

I know I know. I do have a mental illness. I ask too many questions.

I can't understand the wine aeration and wine temperature thing. If aeration is so important and subtle aroma of wine is so desirable, why not just warm up the wine like sake? why chill the wine?

"According to the researchers, the reaction of TRPM5 in our taste buds is much more intense when the temperature of food or fluid is increased, sending a stronger electrical signal to the brain and resulting in an enhanced taste."

Before refrigeration, people have been drinking wine for thousands of years at room temperature in summer. Are we saying that everyone was wasting good wine?

Sorry. I will try to be quiet now.

dcarch

Actually I, too, was surprised at the chilled red wine. I take mine out of the wine fridge well in advance of drinking to get it up to room temp.

Very simple to test the “breathe”. Open a bottle of wine and pour a glass. Take a sip. Let it sit for 20 minutes and sip again. The difference can be significant.

And opened vermouth does deteriorate! Doesn't get as funky as an opened white does because it had extra alcohol added...but there is a definite difference between old vermouth and new.
Who was it said that most expensive reds were too tannic for inexperienced drinkers? OMG not so!! If you find that you are drinking the wine much too young!! Stick it away for1 0 years of so....or at least 3!
As for not being able to tell the difference between expensive vodka and cheap....really....try it....side by side...Popov to Kettle 1 and Belvedere and Grey Goose....you'll see! But it doesn't matter in a bloody Mary!!
And as for gin, bunch of years ago I belonged to a dinner club where the members were heavy into martinis....but each had their own preference for the gin. I had to stock Beefeaters, Tanqueray, Bombay Sapphire and regular. One day several of us were at the Club ordering martinis and i was moaning that they were out of Tank....my friend said to try Bombay (that was before I became a fan)...so the bartender set up half shots of all he had ( but no tanqueray)....and we did a blind taste....passing the glasses around....and all agreed that Bombay was the smoothest...less "pine tree" less bite and all around good.

I have a can of Bud Light on the counter and am about to hydrate some flour and yeast with it....will add some salt too....good stuff.

Mostly I am a Scotch drinker....don't like most single malts, prefer a blend....current fave is Famous Grouse....cheap....but not too cheap.
Slante!

dcarch, one of the most wonderful things anyone ever told me was 'question everything, and make up your own mind'. That was my Mom : ) Sure, people drank wine before refrigeration, but I'm sure they also did things better and worse according to current tastes and trends. It may be personal preference or what one gets used to. DH used to complain that meals were too hot... now he 'comments' if they aren't steaming... so do I, now that I think of it.

Very good chocolate, to me, has a far better flavor at room temperature as opposed to cold, but I'm not a fan of it melted. I will melt cheaper chocolate and enjoy it on ice cream...

FOAS, my wine tastes better after it sits in the glass a bit. But I wonder is that from breathing or the warmer temp? Guess I might have to test this on myself tonight. I could leave a glass in the wine cooler, and one on the counter, and give it a shot.

Linda, I drink wet, dirty martinis, so the juniper flavor is dulled in mine I imagine!

Re wine temp, "room temperature" does not refer to American houses. It's about old European stone houses, and in the mid-60s F. Storage temperature should be literally cave temperature, which is the mid-50s. Most of the year my kitchen is 75-80°F. For reds, cool, not cold or warm brings the best flavor balance and appreciability. Warmed wine isn't usually good, unless it's rich, not so complex and full of mulling spices. I.e., you're not really tasting the wine. The reason for putting opened wine in the fridge is to keep it from deteriorating as fast. Pour a glass and let it come to temperature before drinking it. Whites are different. Most are better cold, but Northern river cold, not icebox cold. This brings out the crispness. Too cold and it doesn't taste like much.

This is orthodoxy, of course, but I've experienced it myself, and really, since that's the temperature the vintners are assuming it's going to be served at, it would make sense that the wines are optimized for that temperature. I will put a red in the fridge to cool down if it's been in the kitchen, and forget it, so have experienced it too cold. I have left it on a sunny counter, and experienced it warm. Best is cool. At the time approved temperature. This is not scientific, of course, but I figured there are plenty enough out of the boxers to challenge the orthodoxy, and I haven't heard anyone seriously wanting to upset this apple cart.

From Wikipedia: TRPM5 is a calcium-activated non-selective cation channel that induces depolarization upon increases in intracellular calcium, it is a signal mediator in chemosensory cells. Channel activity is initiated by a rise in the intracellular calcium, and the channel permeates monovalent cations as K+ and Na+. TRPM5 is a key component of taste transduction in the gustatory system of bitter, sweet and umami tastes being activated by high levels of intracellular calcium. It has also been targeted as a possible contributor to fat tastesignaling.[7][8] The calcium dependent opening of TRPM5 produces a depolarizing generator potential which leads to an action potential.

I only understand part of that, but I notice that it doesn't affect all taste sensors. That may explain why some foods taste better hot or cold but I don't see how it implies warm is better for wine. Dcarch, do you prefer warm wine??

Yeah not 80 deg. Mid 60’s is room temp for me in the cooler seasons.

Found a new wine yesterday at our favorite store: Butterfield Station Chardonnay 2017 from Firebaugh Ferry, Sonoma County. It was only $4.99, and I liked description at the store of being citrusy, and so I thought for that price we had to try it. I actually like it better than the French Chardonnays we have been buying, but they are all different. This one tastes more like a Chablis or Sauvignon Blanc, but anyway I especially like it.

I also ordered a wine aerator, even though we don't drink that much red wine. Still, if it improves the flavor, then I'm for it. I won't use it for white wine, and when we went to the store, we bought 12 bottles of white wins and 4 of red - mainly because we have a lot of red on stock.

Linda, I'll have to try to find your Scotch. I've never liked Scotch, and so I wonder if there is one that I might like.