Sublime No. 4 - All Good Things Come to an End

By the time the intermezzo was served last Saturday night, I had already downed seven glasses of wine. Now they were short glasses, under three ounces a pour, but still, I have to admit that from this point on my judgment was impaired. I have only the most general recollection of what transpired from this point of the evening on.

Our fifth course was braised short ribs, which have made an interesting transition from immigrant food, something my grandmother might have prepared, to haute cuisine. The pairing was Barolo, the prestige wine from Piedmont, made also from the Nebbiolo grape. The aforementioned article, discussing the six most exclusive wines of Italy, led off with Monfortino, a Barolo that is not produced every year, but only when the vintage is good enough to justify making the wine. Thus, so said this article, all Monfortinos are exceptional. And for the beef course, our host served up three Monfortino Barolos, 1934, 1978, and 1997. The ’34 was way past prime, thin, light pink, and really tasting more like a digestif than a dinner wine. Interesting, and noteworthy for its age. Susan thought it got better as it aired, but for me it remained a novelty. I thought the other two were great, but our host proclaimed the ’97 too young, too green. Apparently Barolos, especially great Barolos, need a long time for the tannins to soften. He thought the 78 was just great. Who was I to argue? Another exceptional wine.

Lastly, we tasted the wine for which I had waited all evening, Amarone. Amarone is made from Valpolicella grapes that are left to dry out before pressing. The result is a juice that is concentrated, in flavor, in texture, and in higher alcohol. The conventional wisdom is that Amarone is so strong that it overpowers anything, with the one exception of strong cheese. So we drank a 1995 Quintarelli Amarone with our cheese course. Quintarelli is one of the two most famous producers of Amarone, so once again we had the chance to drink the very best, the most exclusive wine of this variety. I found the Amarone to be unique, in a sense unlike any of the other wines I have ever tasted. It was thick and concentrated, but not at all sweet. It had the rich texture of a dessert wine, but it was dry, clearly a food wine. I think there must be dishes that can stand up to Amarone – rich meats with strong flavored sauces or glazes. Osso Bucco for example. But it will be hard to discover these pairings, because one does not often find Amarone on wine lists. Let’s consider it a project for the future.

So there you have it. In one evening we drank the mythical Fiorano, four different 100 point wines, three Gajas in one perfect course, the best Brunello and Barolo that Italy has to offer, and an exceptional Amarone. I can’t imagine I’ll have the opportunity to duplicate this experience, unless of course, our host chooses to open his cellar for another charity auction. Speaking of that, he took us on a tour of the cellar after dinner, but that’s another story altogether.

Sublime No.3 - The Perfect Pairing

So back to the wine dinner. If you will recall, we had just finished the third course, had compared the Brunello with the Masseto, and had noticed that the places were now being set with not one glass for the next course, but three. One of the ideas behind a dinner like this is that you have small glasses of wine with each pairing, so that even though you are sampling a different wine with each course, you are not getting blasted. But how does that work when you are served three glasses with a single course? Really, by now, who cared? One wine, three wines, how many fabulous wines could we drink in a single evening? Bring it on.

The next course was paired with Barbaresco, one of the two prestige wines from Piedmont. The grape is nebbiolo, which we’re told is a fussy grape, and one that only grows only in a narrow area of Piedmont. Apparently, vintners have tried to raise this grape elsewhere, but never with any success. And the Barbaresco for last Saturday was Gaja, one of the most recognizable and prestigious of all the Italian winemaking names. And the reason we were given three glasses each was that we were tasting three different Gaja Barbarescos, all single vineyard wines. The names of the vineyards are Costa Russi, Sori Tildin, and Sori San Lorenzo. These names don’t really mean much of anything to me in and of themselves, but I’ve seen these wines on wine lists, and the prices are always huge. Not quite astronomical, not necessarily Lafite or Petrus; but way above my price range, that’s for sure.

The Barbarescos were all great, in my opinion. We tasted and compared, everyone expressed their preferences, our host declared that while two were excellent, one was disappointing; but I have to confess that although I could detect differences among the three wines, I was unable to say which one I liked most, or least. That’s partly because all three were so great that I found the question irrelevant.

But the real reason I couldn’t discern any defects in any of the wines, was that the pairing for this course was the most perfect pairing of wine and food that I had ever tasted. Tony served up a guinea hen with a fois gras sauce. It went so well with the Barbarescos that every taste was a trip to sensory paradise. Really, every taste of this dish, washed down with any one of those Gaja Barbarescos, sent me off on some kind of ecstatic fit. As great as the other wines had been, and maybe on their own they were better than these Gajas, nothing yet had matched the sensation of this perfect pairing of food and wine. We’ve got two great wine courses yet to go, and more amazing and memorable wines to taste, but this was the high point of a spectacular dinner for me. Not only that, but considering the price of these exclusive wines, I doubt I’ll ever have the chance to duplicate this experience again. I’m just glad I didn’t pass out or have a conniption at the table. Anyway, time for the intermezzo.

Sublime No. 2 - Twice One Hundred

I would be hard pressed to say exactly what was the highlight of last Saturday’s Italian Wine Dinner. In fact, it’s probably no more possible for me to pick out any one wine, or any one course, any more than I could say that the 2003 Orange victory over Kansas was more gratifying, or more enjoyable, than the following year’s October sweep of the Yankees and the Cardinals. Both were fabulous, and what’s the point of picking one over the other? All I can tell you is that the two wines about which I will post tonight were both unbelievable. In retrospect, I’m amazed I didn’t pass out from pure sensory overload.

We had the chance on Saturday to taste four different wines that had been scored 100 points by Wine Spectator. I would have settled for one. I would have been happy with a few in the mid 90s. But never mind what I would have settled for; this was not a night for modest expectations. Our second course was a white truffle risotto, paired with a 1957 Soldera Reserva Brunello de Montalcino. So let’s do that one at a time. Brunello de Montalcino has become one of the glamour wines of Italy. There are no inexpensive Brunellos; and the whole DOCG thing imposes strict requirements on wineries who produce Brunello. So we’re starting off from a pretty high level. Then it just so happens that, in preparation for Saturday’s dinner, I went online to read up on Italian wines, and came across an article about the most prestigious, the most select wines of all. What was the most exclusive Brunello of all? Soldera. Now I can’t pretend to know anything about 1957, but all I know is that this was one of our 100 point wines.

Before I describe the Brunello, though, let me move ahead to our next wine, the only Super Tuscan of the night. Ornellaia Masseto, another 100 point score from WS. The Super Tuscans are the category of wines which were grown outside the boundaries of the old rigid Italian winemaking rules. For example, in Tuscany, one was supposed to raise Sangiovese, and make Chianti or Brunello or Montepulciano. One was not supposed to grow cabernet, or merlot, or God forbid, blend Sangiovese with one of those French grapes. But vintners began doing that; everyone loved the wines; and the Super Tuscans became so popular, and eventually so prestigious, that the wine bureaucrats relented. Good thing too, because this Masseto was fantastic. It’s 100% merlot, and has become known as the Petrus of Italy, or so says our host. I know some of us are not merlot lovers, but this is the second time in very recent memory that I have tasted a spectacular merlot. Rich, luxurious, infinitely long finish. A really decadent wine. And it was paired with veal roulades, served in a rosemary olive sauce. Fabulous.

Here’s the really interesting thing, however. The Masseto was the most luxurious wine we had all night; and if we had to drink only one wine, I would pick the Masseto. But, despite that, the Brunello went better with food. I think that’s really the key to the great Italian wines. This Brunello was much more austere than the Masetto. It was drier, more understated. But it accompanied its dish better than the bigger and plusher merlot. Now keep in mind, both of these wines were completely spectacular. At this point in the evening I was having trouble concentrating; I couldn’t make small talk, as one is supposed to do at dinner parties. I couldn’t think about anything aside from the sensory explosions that were happening inside my mouth. And this minute distinction between these two wonderful wines was nothing more than an observation, not by any means a critique. It was interesting, however, because it shed light for me on the virtues of Italian wine, and their comparative merit as an accompaniment to good food.

Anyway, if I was in heaven after the first course and the Fiorano, now I had made it up to the fifth or sixth circle of Paradise. Except of course, Dante would not have had anyone in paradise enjoying the pleasures of great wine and food. Only who cares where Dante would have placed us on Saturday night? I only know that the evening wasn’t quite half over; I had tasted one incredible wine after another; and as I was finishing my Masetto, the servers came around and gave each of us three glasses for the next course. Holy moly.

The Sublime to the Ridiculous

This is a whisky blog, not a wine blog, of which there are hundreds, maybe thousands. So I have refrained from posting about great wines we have enjoyed, some of which have been quite memorable. But Saturday night, Susan and I had a chance to drink a number of truly incomparable Italian wines, many of which can no longer be found on the open market. And so I’ve decided to make an exception, mainly so that I can record my recollection of these wonderful wines, while they are still fairly fresh in my memory.

The setting was an Italian Wine Dinner, seats at which were auctioned at a charitable fund raiser; Dr. Ron and Trudie purchased four seats, and then were kind enough to invite us. When they first mentioned it, we thought we might be out of town this weekend, but our plans changed, and we accepted. Lucky for us that happened. I don’t feel comfortable disclosing our hosts, but suffice it to say that he has a most impressive cellar, with a particular interest in Italian wines. Dinner was seven courses, each paired with one or more wines.

Before dinner, we had a glass of a sparking wine made from the same grape as Proseco, but with the French champagne method. It was dryer and crisper than most Italian sparkling wines I’ve tasted – light and crisp.

The dinner started off with a bang, as we were served a 1990 Fiorano. I had only heard of Fiorano in the most general sense, a kind of mythical white wine, of very limited production. Online, I’ve learned that Fiorano was made on a tiny vineyard by an eccentric prince, who apparently followed few of the traditional winemaking rules, who refused to commercialize his wines, and who eventually plowed under the vineyard where the white Malvasia and Semillon grapes were grown. The wine has been out of production since 1995, and only about 14,000 bottles were ever made. Readers will know that I’m no fan of white wines, but this white was unlike anything I’ve ever drunk. Most white wines are drunk young, because they don’t age well, but what was distinctive about this Fiorano was that it aged so well. Apparently, the older the wine gets, the fruitier it becomes. In any event, it was gold in color, and tasted rich and complicated. Think of all the layers of flavor in a great ice wine, and then try to imagine that in a dry white. Every taste seemed to have a new surprise for me. It was paired with sea bass served in a garlic and grappa infused seafood broth. (Tony did the cooking.) So the first course ended, and I was already in heaven. And I’d got there from drinking white wine. Imagine that. And imagine where we’re headed with all the reds waiting to be poured.

Before posting about the remaining courses from Saturday night, let me digress to mention Sunday afternoon, when the Orange barely managed to beat William and Mary. When this game started off well, and Cuse ran out to a 12-2 lead after five minutes, I thought that we might get to see one early season game where they performed as predicted. After all, they had played well in the second half of each game; the problem had been the slow starts. However, once W&M shook off their jitters, and started hitting threes over the zone, they climbed back into the game, aided by the fact that the Orange went cold. It was two or three points at the half – the usual. In the second half, they came out of the locker room all energized, ran up a double digit lead, but then went cold again. Just like the first half, W&M began hitting from outside, closed the lead, and then suddenly, with two minutes to go, the Orange trailed by four. It would have been a hell of a game if we had been playing Georgetown, but William & Mary? Somehow, things fell our way at the end. Twice their guys stepped on the end line and turned the ball over; we hit some foul shots, and got a key putback; and in the end, won by three. Maybe it was good preparation for those close conference games, but honestly, I can’t envision any conference team being as small and slow as W&M. We still had no inside game; we had no flow in the halfcourt offense; we ran well when we got turnovers, or long rebounds, but we weren’t able to get out in the break as much as previous games. Melo sat more than he played. Moussa Keita looks like he might contribute on D, or under the boards, but not on the offensive end. It’s still 4 on 5 when either of the freshmen centers are on the court. Coach is playing more and more with a smaller lineup, Jackson in the post and Joseph along with either Southerland or CJ Fair at the forwards. We give up size, but at least it’s 5 on 5. And he also had an entire lineup off the bench in the first half – Moussa Keita, Southerland, Fair, Mookie and Waiters. Those guys played well I thought. They hustled; they rebounded; Waiters had a couple decent drives, one off a steal. No one shot lights out, but in the first half, they played better than the starters. Coach needs to develop more confidence in these guys, and then at least we are ten deep. So from a statistical perspective, it will be easier to find someone, anyone who can hit his jumpers.

They need work. I only hope they improve; that the zone functions better, so they keep opponents’ scores down. They’ll need that because many games they’ll find it hard to score. And maybe they’ll learn to play together better; instead of playing five individual games, maybe guys will look for their teammates cutting underneath. And maybe coach will hire a hypnotist for Fab Melo who will put him under a spell. He’ll wake up with this desire to get his hands on the ball when he’s under the hoop, and instead of watching little guys scramble for boards, he’ll box someone out, and then go grab the ball, not when it’s on the floor, or in an opponent’s hands, but when its above the rim, where his seven foot advantage allows him to be the only rebounder. Right! That will happen next game, I’m sure. Speaking of the next game, on Friday, we play Michigan, then NC State, Cornell (a tournament team these past couple years) and then number 2 Michigan State.

That will be an interesting, and telling stretch. I hope we can win two of those four games. We’re not going to dominate anyone this year, but if we can hang in with a decent team, and play well at the end, as we did on Sunday, who knows? Maybe we can go 500 in the conference. From where I’ve been watching, that would be an accomplishment this year. Oh well.

Overrated?

Last year, the Orange entered the season unranked, when they really deserved to be ranked in the top ten. This year, the opposite is true. Although they are ranked as high as ten in one of the polls, it pains me to say that they really should be unranked. In Friday night’s opener against Northern Iowa, we all gave them the benefit of the doubt, as N. Iowa had been a tournament team, reaching the Sweet 16, so it didn’t seem so bad that the Orange were offensively challenged in the first half. But today, against a modest Canisius squad, the Orange looked very little like a top ten team.

I think the chief reason everyone had such high expectations was that they believed Fab Melo was going to be the second coming of his namesake. Forget about it; that’s not going to happen, at least not this year. Melo, and the other freshman center, Moussa Keita, are both going to be projects. No way either one will have much of an impact this year. In each of his first two games, Melo had more fouls than points or rebounds. And although I had heard about him being a huge defensive presence during practice, he has yet to block a single shot this season; Canisius guys were shooting over him all afternoon. The most effective lineup in my opinion was Jackson in the middle, and one of the young guys, either Southerland, or CJ Fair, at the other forward spot. At least that puts five players on the floor.

The other big problem was a complete absence of half-court offense. For the most part, the offense today consisted of guys either firing up three-pointers, or trying to create a shot for themselves off the dribble. Last year we were among the leaders nationwide in assists per game. In the first half today, we had six assists. I think the biggest difference is that they miss Rautins, who created movement for the offense away from the ball. The best we could do today was to have one of the guards get into the lane, and then try to dish to someone underneath. But if this offense couldn’t score consistently against Canisius, how is it going to work against the likes of Pitt and UConn?

Scoop does a good job of leading the break, so in the second half today, when Canisius cooled off, and we began collecting rebounds, and getting out on the break, then the offense began to click. The team ended up with 18 assists; and ran up 54 points in the second half. So I guess that was good news, although I can’t see that happening quite so easily against Big East teams. The other good news is that there are a number of decent outside shooters, so for the second straight game, we had good production from three-point range. Other than Joseph and Southerland, who couldn’t hit from the outside today, the rest of the team shot 50% from three-ball range. There are about five or six genuine threats from the outside, and I’d like to think a couple of them will be hot on any night. But what happens when no one can hit from the outside?

That exposes another weakness on this team; there is no go-to guy. Certainly no Melo; and not even someone like Wes Johnson, who couldn’t take the game over, but who could at least be counted on to provide some offense when everyone else cooled off. Rick Jackson, who admittedly looks much improved over last year, and who has played steadily at both ends of the court, isn’t really a creator with the ball. I read somewhere that Kris Joseph was picked as a second team all-american by someone, but that’s a stretch, in my mind. He likes to get in the lane and try to create, but unless he can hit from the outside more consistently, teams are going to play off him, clog the lane, and keep him from doing much of anything except drawing charges. There’s really no one who can carry the team through a dry spell.

I was encouraged by the play of two of the freshmen, Waiters and Fair. I think they’ll be able to contribute off the bench; to give the starters a rest; and to help the team get up and down the court for forty minutes. This team is going to need that; they’re going to need to run a lot, and to have fresh legs in the game. Boeheim hasn’t sounded real optimistic about these two, but I liked the way they played.

Anyway, I hope I’m wrong, but right now, I’m not certain this team will make it to the tournament. I know that’s heresy, and maybe they’re just rusty. But I saw last year’s bunch in November, down in the Garden, and they killed Cal and Carolina. This year’s squad struggled to beat an undersized and unimpressive Canisius team. Sorry to say it, but right now, there is really no comparison.