[Sca-cooks] Sca-cooks Digest, Vol 6, Issue 81
Diane & Micheal Reid
dmreid at hfx.eastlink.ca
Mon Oct 30 12:17:41 PST 2006
You know we could simply modify the so called rule.
You should at least try the wine you intend to cook with thus covering
those of us who use wine sparingly.
It is after all flavour compliment your looking for the other properties
are by products.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Phil Troy / G. Tacitus Adamantius" <adamantius.magister at verizon.net>
To: <jenne at fiedlerfamily.net>; "Cooks within the SCA"
<sca-cooks at lists.ansteorra.org>
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 3:32 PM
Subject: Re: [Sca-cooks] Sca-cooks Digest, Vol 6, Issue 81
> On Oct 30, 2006, at 1:28 PM, Jadwiga Zajaczkowa / Jenne Heise wrote:
>>> Every thing I have heard about useing wine to cook with is if you
>>> would not
>>> drink it don't cook with it.
>> This is one of those things that bugs me. I generally don't drink wine
>> for pleasure, and when I do, I only drink a small handful of types.
>> makes this rule not useful for me.
> I can see why, but for most people it's a pretty good rule, and then
> there's the fact that it's a modern rule based on the principles of a
> fairly modern gastronomic approach. Wine is there, when it is there,
> to enhance the quality of a meal, but not to compensate for any
> weaknesses it may display. In general, if the meal is such that you
> either want to get drunk while tackling it or need the wine to help
> slide it down your throat, you've got more trouble than a glass of
> wine will fix.
> On the other hand, if you simply don't like wine enough to feel
> comfortable drinking and experimenting with enough of it to acquire a
> frame of reference, then yes, you might have trouble applying this
> rule. But that doesn't make it a bad rule, per se. Even the original
> poster was asking for advice, which would presumably be based on
> others' frames of reference.
>> I also wonder if a medieval steward would agree with the idea? I
>> kind of
>> suspect not, but it is only conjecture.
> Probably not, at least not to the full extent you're seeing here.
> Certainly there's a lot of period stuff about bad wine and what you
> can do to fix it, Biblical references to using the good stuff first
> when everyone can taste it and the cheap stuff later when everybody's
> good and sloshed, which _may_ in part reflect the opinions of some
> relatively modern translators, and also some period condemnation for
> those wealthy enough to have good cellars, but who don't keep decent
> wines on hand -- was it Richard II about whom it was said his
> standard offering was better to be strained through the teeth than
> tasted in the mouth? Clearly less-than-stellar wine was known and had
> its uses, but when you think about some of the bottling and other
> production technology changes wrought in the 17th century, you sort
> of have to figure that these were changes in the vintning industry/
> occupation, essentially milestones in the path the field was already
> taking. It's probably less of an egregious violation of authenticity,
> if authenticity is a concern, to use a better wine than you need than
> to use one worse than you need.
> It's possible that there's a greater range of quality available to
> us, as wine buyers who don't necessarily live in wine country,
> between recent preservation, packaging, and transportation methods.
> Lots of people don't realize that a lot of French vin ordinaire is
> sold in plastic or waxed paper cartons like milk in the supermarket,
> in France. This is not the best wine by any means.
> However, it still may be somewhat better than the lowest of the low
> sold in boxes here.
> Sca-cooks mailing list
> Sca-cooks at lists.ansteorra.org
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.17/505 - Release Date:
More information about the Sca-cooks