Is that only with traditional corks, or also with composite corks or artificial corks as well?
Less so with artificial corks, but not as good as a screw top. Don’t know the stats though.
https://www.wine.com/list/wine/california/screw-caps/7155-106870-44
Here are a couple hundred of screw tops to choose from.
I’m not sure you’re correct there: a cork will allow a wine to age over the years through gradual diffusion of oxygen, alcohol, and water whereas a screwtop will not.
I’ve opened thousands of bottles over the years and my cork taint rate is something like 1%. I did once have two bottles on the trot that were bad so I surmise that they used cork from the same area of the same tree which was bad. That’s bad quality control of the cork, not the wine.
But yes, if you’re buying a wine for drinking, there’s no reason to discriminate against screw tops.
After purchase I always age wine, as drinking in the car is frowned on here.
There are screw tops that allow oxygen to diffuse at a more controlled and precise rate than corks. This isn’t an obstacle to using screw tops on any wine.
[quote=“Shodan, post:50, topic:823380”]
[ul][li]As has been mentioned, any wine you like is a good wine.[/ul][/li][/QUOTE]
This might be true to a certain extent, but it’s not always helpful. I presume the OP is sometimes buying wine that will be shared with others, some of whom might be more knowledgeable about wine than him. While there’s a benefit to understanding your own preferences, there’s also a benefit to understanding what makes some wine objectively good or bad. You might like a sweet white zinfandel with no aroma, but you’re not going to impress anyone bringing it to a party.
[QUOTE]
[ul][li]On a related note, do not cook with a bad wine. It just concentrates the badness.[/ul][/li][/QUOTE]
This, on the other hand, it not true and is a myth that needs to die. Some bad wine is perfectly fine (and even preferred) for cooking. It all depends on what’s wrong with the wine. If it has cork taint, or was opened a week ago and is completely oxidized or gone to vinegar, then don’t cook with it. But if the acidity is wrong, it’s overly jammy, or is just a plain wine lacking in nuance, it’s fine for cooking. You get no benefit from using an expensive wine.
Very few white wines are aged before sale-- a few months is normal. Most are sold within a year of harvest. Low cost reds that you typically see in a grocery store will be aged 2 years or less. If you see a much earlier vintage, it’s probably because they are trying to clear out stock before it goes bad.
Higher priced reds may be aged longer before sale, but 2 years is about standard for most reds before they are release. Some will last a few years, some decades (or even longer). But all wines will peak at some point, and then get worse over time.
As do we all, John. As do we all.
This was good too:
"Another test that Brochet conducted was even more damning. He took a middling Bordeaux and served it in two different bottles. One bottle bore the label of a fancy grand cru, the other of an ordinary vin de table. Although they were being served the exact same wine, the experts gave the bottles nearly opposite descriptions. The grand cru was summarized as being “agreeable,” “woody,” “complex,” “balanced,” and “rounded,” while the most popular adjectives for the vin de table included “weak,” “short,” “light,” “flat,” and “faulty.”
The linked story describes how (in a blind taste test) a white wine from New Jersey practically ranked the same among experts as a fancy French vintage (what are the odds that would have happened if they knew beforehand where the wines were produced?).
For fun (and maybe some practical suggestions) check out the wine expert’s weekly column in the Saturday Wall St. Journal. Last week she was going on about how disappointing an upscale restaurant’s “house wine” was, complaining about its inferior presentation. One wonders how she’d have reacted if served the same wine by a seasoned sommelier in a bottle bearing the label of a distinguished vintner.
Win(n)er! 
Ignorance fought!
Check out John Cleese’s Wine For the Confused. It’s pretty good. He cuts past a lot of the BS about wine snobbery; and pretty much confirms what several in this thread have already said. If you like it; it’s good.
I’m not sure that’s an entirely fair statement. You seem to be stepping around actual bad wine, then redefining wine that is simply not great to be “bad”. It’s possible some wine that is simply to bad to drink would work in food. Considering something like worcestershire sauce that no one would ever enjoy a glass of, is designed to be used in cooking, but it is a known quantity. A random unknown quantity like a bad bottle of wine is at best experimental if it would make food better, or much worse. And I certainly wouldn’t assume it would work for anything important. Expensive is not the opposite of bad. I would never tell anyone to cook with bad undrinkable wine, I’d tell them to cook with good cheap wine.
That’s true- some are aged more though- it kind of depends on where you’re buying your wine. Grocery stores- yeah, mostly 2 years and newer. Liquor/wine stores, like say Total Wine or Spec’s- you get the gamut from the cheap stuff all the way through the expensive bottles in the special cooler.
My point was that if they need aging, they’re typically aged before sale, and that the ones that still need aging don’t come with an instruction manual- it’s an inexact science at best.
My BIL (the winemaker from Australia) says 5% of wine should be consumed after a few years, 80% of wine is fine to drink as soon as you get home, and 15% should be consumed on the way home.
The 15% - that would include Cuvee Reserve Chateau Bottled Nuit San Wogga Wogga?
Yes, it depends on what you consider “bad”, and it depends on in what way the wine is bad. If it’s undrinkable because it spoiled, has some contaminant, or has that rotten swamp gas aroma, then absolutely don’t use it for cooking.
But there are wines that I would never drink and would still use for cooking. As a specific example, one of the first wines I made was a syrah. The grapes were a little overly ripe and I didn’t know how to adjust it correctly, so it ended with a little residual sugar and very low acidity. It might have appealed to someone who likes wine coolers, but it was undrinkable as a syrah. Yet it was perfect for cooking.
I’m really arguing against the more common way of saying it, “if you wouldn’t drink it, don’t cook with it.” While true in some cases, it isn’t across the board. My standard practice when I open a bottle that isn’t to my taste is to freeze it in an ice cube tray for future cooking rather than dump it out.
A valid argument Troutman, but I’d also state that wine I will drink will almost always work in cooking with it whereas a wine I wouldn’t stands a higher probability of making my dish suck.
Of course not! The dead rat is added flavour!