ThePortForum.com

Bought on a whim for a tenner.

This is undoubtedly the worst thing I have put in my mouth since I was 17 (don't ask). It's full foulness cannot be described, especially by me as I have taken just two sips of it. One when I opened it and another a few nights later to check I wasn't mistaken. And I wasn't. For a wine that has no actual faults it's awfulness is an achievement. It is bland, it is foul, it is cramped, it is dull, it appears to have been made without the intervention of grapes. For surely a thing so ghastly could not be a product of nature, only of men. Very unhappy, malicious men.

I am intending to use it in gravy, but I may not bring myself to do even this. It may look cheap, but you have been warned, don't do it.

But it was OK apart from that?

LGTrotter wrote:I am intending to use it in gravy, but I may not bring myself to do even this.

Don't - nobody wants horrible gravy.

DRT wrote:

LGTrotter wrote:I am intending to use it in gravy, but I may not bring myself to do even this.

Don't - nobody wants horrible gravy.

I agree with Derek... A good chef would advise to only cook with as good as quality wine as you would be happy to drink.
Reduce down a Taylor's 1945 instead

Doggett wrote:I agree with Derek... A good chef would advise to only cook with as good as quality wine as you would be happy to drink.
Reduce down a Taylor's 1945 instead

No. Use for gravy wine that is just sub-drinking standard.

But horribleness is just horrible: give it to the dog.

jdaw1 wrote:

Doggett wrote:I agree with Derek... A good chef would advise to only cook with as good as quality wine as you would be happy to drink.
Reduce down a Taylor's 1945 instead

No. Use for gravy wine that is just sub-drinking standard.

But horribleness is just horrible: give it to the dog.

Or a homless Frenchman if you have one handy.