Easy Thick Cut Pork Chops

It's bee a long while before I posted. I got some inch and quarter cut chops and cooked them up simple. Here is the recipe:


PREP TIME: 5 minutes.
INACTIVE TIME: 35 minutes (bringing pork to room temperature and resting)
COOK TIME: 30 minutes


INGREDIENTS 

• 4 thickly cut pork loin chops (1-1 1/2 inches thick) brought to room temperature.
• Olive oil
• Kosher salt and pepper

DIRECTIONS

1. Preheat oven to 350 F. 
2. Having brought the pork chops to room temperature, moderately season with the kosher salt and pepper on each side. 
3. Lubricate a cast iron skillet or flat pan with olive oil and heat on highest heat until nearly smoking
4. Place the chops in/on the pan. Sear 2-3 minutes on each side. Do not turn for at least two minutes. It should be golden brown before turning. Repeat on the opposite side . You may even want to sear on the sides. Also, if you are cooking more than four, or have a small skillet, it may be best to sear the chops in batches. Lay the seared ones aside on a plate, and then place them all back in the pan before placing in the oven. 
5. Place in the oven and cook 10-15 minutes. This may seem not long enough to some, but remember they have been cooking on the stove. Americans tend to overcook pork. When the juices run clear when poked with a small knife, the pork is done. Remove. Covering loosely with tin foil, drain the chops on a plate with newspaper or paper towels, and allow to rest for five minutes. Then serve.  
6. Pair with a dry white or red. Serve perhaps with mashed potatoes and fresh green beans. 

I Ate His Liver with Some Fava Beans and....

Note: I must say, that in light of this piece, that I am by no means an expert in wine. But that is the reason I started this blog. I needed something to write about, and I figured why not wine? So, if I come off as ignorant or pretentious, forgive me! As this article shows, I learned something! 

So, I was going to review my next box wine, but I think I'll go about this differently. So the box wine, a Cabernet Sauvignon, by Almaden, I was not too happy with. Then I got a Chianti Classico Riserva by Bianti, vintage 2010. The Chianti did not seem to have a lot of depth, but I realized, in my humble understanding, that it was a big wine. I learned to like it. The Cabernet of the box wine is also big. But after drinking the Chianti, I drank the Cabernet; and since I had drank the Chianti, I noticed more depth in the Cabernet. Basically, the big, rather depth lacking Cabernet, suddenly had some depth. I tasted tarty fruit. It's pleasant, but interestingly not as pleasant as the Chianti. I must say that I like a more complex wine than the big Chianti, but I would buy it again to taste something different. It was a 2010, which was a good year for Chianti I am told. Though the Cabernet became more complex, I still preferred the simple and big Chianti. It is worth noting that I drank this Chianti to celebrate the premiere of the third season of NBC's Hannibal. In the movie Silence of the Lambs, Dr. Lecter, when he talks about the census taker and the fava beans, he says he drank it with a nice big Amarone.. But in the movie it is simply a nice Chianti. The liver is the important thing! This big Chianti that I drank, like Lecter's big Amarone, indeed would go well with a nice liver. It has a sort of pleasant metallic taste. So a nice big wine for sweetbreads.

Water and Wine, This Curse of Mine

The priest pouring water into the wine before the consecration during the Mass

So I took my wine back from yesterday because it was bad--corked or some other similar flaw. So I did not buy the same wine obviously, but a cheap Chianti that I have gotten in the past that is of good quality. Well, it was flat. Watery. It is drinkable and I am not going to pour it down the drain. Historically wine was watered I read, and it was considered low class to drink wine straight up. It is one reason Christ poured water into the wine at the Last Supper, and to this day it is done in the Christian liturgy of course. But no one waters their wine down anymore. 

But though the wine is bad, I am not going to dare take it back. If this were an actual wine shop, MAYBE. But two times in a row? I just think they will think me crazy or something. In fact, I've been getting a lot of bad wine this year it seems. Is it even possible to get many bad wines within a year if say you buy two bottles a month average? I've tried to say to myself that maybe it is myself, that I do not like the wine perhaps. But often these have been wines I have had before and liked. And when wine smells musty and cardboard like and has the same taste, I am pretty sure it is not just me. But I want to ask someone if I am just experiencing some twilight zone style coincidences, or if just maybe this is no unheard of?

Bota Box 2011 Zinfandel

So, I suppose this is a good chance to do a series on box wines. I'm on a budget now, and though I may be able to get a bottle a month, my Social Security Disability limits what I can spend. What, with rent, school, debts (maybe. Depends on if I feel like paying the banksters), and food (a food card is not enough) it is hard to buy bottles, and box wines are a great alternative for those on a budget. To the snobs, remember that you were once a college student, too!

I will also be cutting down on my intake. Say 2-3 glasses a day. Box wines allow that, since the bottle is not good after a couple days; and even the second day, it lacks something. I think I am going to try and live like a Stoic. Seriously, not just a figure of speech. I am going to start reading them again, and do Zen meditation, too to mix it up. Stoicism is great though. Cato, they said, drank the cheapest of wines, which if he were living today would be Franzia. I will do Franzia, but this month it's something less Americana. I think Franzia is a comedic image of your everyday American wino. It's been a while since I have had it, but it's worth revisiting. Actually back in 2010 is when, I think. My roommate got the stuff.

In any case: very fresh on the nose, like rain. I get woodsy aromas, too, or maybe that smell of fresh sawdust. There's something sweet but I can't quite name it.

Taste-wise it is rather tannic, not completely unpleasant, but putting in the decanter might help. But since I am only going to have a glass or two I won't worry about it. Besides the tannins, what comes to mind is holiday cranberries.The finish is interesting though. I have never eaten saw dust mind you, but sometimes you can kind of taste something by smelling it. It's worth putting in a decanter. Maybe I will leave it in the glass and see after say an hour. Yes, that seems the best idea.


****
Post-decanter 

Yes, softened very well. Now I get that rainwater smell that I like so much. I think of that plastic kids swimming pool, but I think rainwater is a more sophisticated adjective. I also get that sawmill smell layered in there, and the smell of cranberries, in a cranberry scented candle maybe , because there is a sweetness somewhere beneath it. Cinnamon maybe.

As for taste, the tannins have calmed down, though still somewhat strong. However after a medium finish of the tannins, it's really soft on the tongue. Berries too and maybe a little pepper. Quite a complex wine for something out of a box. Also there is a sweetness, and the box does say it has hints of chocolate or something like that. I love how they advertise wine. The main negative though is the tannins.

I give it an 86.

Next month I think I will try Black Box. Also, I might put a recipe up soon. I made some wicked quails last night. Rubbed with goose fat and everything! The negative of quail is there is so little meat for such a pricey meat. But it was worth it. Better than lamb.

Is it just me or is the wine really bad?

I have been getting a lot of bad wine this year. It makes me think maybe I am just imagining it, but I don't think so. I think the place where I usually get my wine (the closest store) may not be storing their wine well. But then again, I knew I should not have gotten this wine! I think the last time I had it, it was bad. Today it is drinkable, but not enjoyably so. The finish is really what's bad. Even on the nose this is so. At first it is like a pleasant bottle of wine, and then there is a musty finish, though it is not really strong. Taste wise it better when I swish it, but it is still sour with a musty finish. Hopefully, it will open up and the bad will go away. I decided to let it breathe. We'll see how it does in a couple hours. I really knew I should have gotten that other bottle, but it was more, and I was able to get two of these with a twenty. A year or two ago this was  very nice wine. To be fair to the store, it may be a mistake or chance with the maker. After all:

 So it may be nobody but God's fault. But still....I knew I should not have gotten it! Why didn't I listen to my judgment. Don't you just hate when you do that? It makes you want to beat yourself in the head:

2011 Gabbinao Chiatni Classico

 I got this wine for a good deal, about $15 marked down at my local Kroger wine shop. One the nose I do not get much, mostly berries, pepper, and even some vanilla interestingly. Tongue wise I get a very pleasant finish, and the finish is really what seems to make this wine pleasant. It is pepper with a sweet leather, if that makes any sense. The finish is long. You get the leather and pepper drinking it, too. I also get on the finish a stoney taste, which is likely the dryness mixed with the tannins. That lasts the longest taste wise. I really like it. I think I cannot be the only weird kid who used to eat all sorts of stuff, like rocks. Well, I did not swallow them, but I'd put them in my mouth. In any case, this was a pleasant wine, especially once it opened up. I suggest that--open it up for at least an hour. Right of the bottle it was not that great, though it was decent. Of course temperature matters. My house is about 70 degrees, so throwing in the fridge could have helped. As for score, I would give this an 87. Medium to full dryness.

Which Steak

So, I said I would write about cooking perhaps from time to time, and nearing the end of Lent, and not drinking wine, it is time for a blog entry. For my birthday I did have a good wine with a t-bone steak. So which steak to cook for when?

A t-bone is good for one of two people. It's big and awkward, not to mention a bit pricey. Size wise, it is more expensive than the prized filet, and so it really is better for a couple people for this reason. A thing to note is that the t-bone is simply the strip steak and the filet, so if you want to serve more you could play butcher and serve a filet and strip for each t-bone. Generally, however, the t-bone is best served for two in my opinion. Also it is best grilled, not just taste wise, but practically speaking. You cannot really fit more than one in a pan, so it is easier to grill. Also to avoid the awkwardness of the steak on your plate, after letting it rest, cut the meat from the bone.

The filet is the best, most expensive cut, though you can usually get a single filet for less than a single t-bone. But you get a lot less meat! But the meat is better! Given the price it is good for a romantic dinner for two, but if you have the money you can serve it to more than one person certainly.

The strip, or New York strip, is you next best cut, and is your best, top line steak for company. It's a good, tender cut, cheaper than the filet and less awkward than the t-bone.

If you are on a budget it's ribeye or sirloin. It is not so clear which is best, but for company, especially casual company, these are the best cuts to have. Also if you want steak for one or two, this is you best steak on a budget. A decent thickness is important. In regards to beef and pork, I find that the thinner cuts are better for frying and a thicker cut is better for general purposes.

Also, do not "bake" steak. It seems to be an American habit to bake everything for "health". You can sear it and toss it in the oven, but do not just cook it in the oven. Broiling is an alternative though if you do not want the mess since you can use one pan and not make a mess on the stove. Of course do not waste money by broiling a filet. I would not even broil a strip steak. I would broil a sirloin or ribeye. 

Serve with red wine. Oh, and do not cook beyond medium rare if you actually make it worth the money. And let it rest after it cooks. About ten minutes, placing aluminum foil LOOSELY over it. Again, loosely. Wrapping it will steam it. And no "steak sauce". Make your own pan sauce. Julia Child is a good teacher.