Burger Club

[JosephB]

ALWAYS season before cooking!

I agee with you with respect to meat, but not with respect to fish with low fat content. Spinkle good quality sea salt on the fish after cooking.

[elyse]

I didn't, and wasn't listening to anyone who might have been. Except for those who didn't get theirs cookd as they asked for.

Afterwards, I changed a couple of things like "browning." I realized that while it was indeed brown, it was not crusty (for lack of char) whatsoever. So while the color was brown, the "browning" was not what what I had meant it to be, and I lowered my score, and added a note on the side.

This is answering Mikeyrad's question.

Edited October 13, 2003 by elyse (log)

[hillbill]

I had fun at the "Burger Club"

Anybody taking pictures?

[tommy]

I had fun at the "Burger Club"

Anybody taking pictures?

there are several back a few posts.

edit: here, c/o forkandpen, who, i'm thinking might be a Who fan, but i could be totally wrong:

molly's burger and fries

Picaman has sworn off glass and planes and is onto burgers!

It did have a nice thickness

At molly's - they care

Edited October 13, 2003 by tommy (log)

[elyse]

I had fun at the "Burger Club"

Anybody taking pictures?

there are several back a few posts.

Look for forkAndPen.

Thanks, tommy.

Edited October 13, 2003 by elyse (log)

[hillbill]

I had fun at the "Burger Club"

Anybody taking pictures?

there are several back a few posts.

edit: here, c/o forkandpen, who, i'm thinking might be a Who fan, but i could be totally wrong:

molly's burger and fries

Picaman has sworn off glass and planes and is onto burgers!

It did have a nice thickness

At molly's - they care

Thank you, I missed the links because I was looking for pictures embedded in the post.

Is there a particular reason why some pictures are embedded (like in the Varmint's Pig Pickin' thread,) and some are links?

[tommy]

Is there a particular reason why some pictures are embedded (like in the Varmint's Pig Pickin' thread,)  and some are links?

preference i suppose.

[Fat Guy]

Did anyone state their opinions before scorecards were filled out?

I hope the answer is no.  I think that many people in a group dynamic can be swayed once someone has stated a strong opinion.

The answer is yes. People tasted, discussed, scored, revised, etc., as would be expected in a social setting where the primary goal is to be with friends and enjoy a burger and the secondary goal is to engage in measuring and rating activities. It's hard to do both things well: if you go to a real wine tasting, where the wines are bagged, no food is served, etc., it's extremely boring to most people; which is why most people prefer social wine tastings that are essentially parties where a lot of wine is poured and discussed. You can learn a lot about wine that way too.

[tommy]

egullet has become so scientific lately.

[Nick]

Is there a particular reason why some pictures are embedded (like in the Varmint's Pig Pickin' thread,)  and some are links?

I think the links are better for those of us on a plain old modem. That way the thread loads faster - much, much faster in some cases. Varmint's pig pickin' was the greatest sort-of-live thread since Cabrales cooked the chicken (IMHO), but loading some of the pages on Varmint's thread took almost ten minutes on my hook-up. I waited because it was such a momentous event and really wanted to see the pics.

Maybe we ought to get a thread going on site talk to see what everyone thinks. Maybe I'm one of the very few using a modem.

Now back to burgers.

[elyse]

Yeah, I guess there was a bit of revision, but then again, we were still debating certain points of the chart. like if greasiness is a 5 on your card, it means you like the amount of grease, not that it was way greasy. We're still ironing these things out.

[mikeyrad]

Yeah, I guess there was a bit of revision, but then again, we were still debating certain points of the chart.  like if greasiness is a 5 on your card, it means you like the amount of grease, not that it was way greasy.  We're still ironing these things out.

Hmmm, in that case I can't consider this rating to be all that credible.

May I then suggest that rather than having one large "meating", set a time frame (2 weeks) and of course, a restaurant. BC members can then assemble in smaller groups, anywhere from one to six people max. No opinions are stated online until after the time frame has expired and all scorecards have been talleyed and posted. This accomplishes the following:

1) It allows us all to partake regardless of our busy schedules.

2) Since we would be sampling the "specimens" at different times, the possibility of basing our final outcome on a "bad kitchen day" will be eliminated.

3) It allows us to share our opinions at the table and enjoy the comraderie while limiting the impact of any one person's opinion on the entire rating.

[Suzanne F]

Mikeyrad: We certainly shared opinions at my end of the table. But I don't think that did anything bad -- it helped me refine my own definitions. This did not lead to groupthink.

As the BCer who got shot down for proposing an objective scale (very nicely, though), I ultimately agreed that the ratings should be based on each individuals' palate. Not at all scientific that way, but after all, can you imagine trying to get a zillion eGulleteers to agree on ANYTHING?

To put it another way, we're not looking for the objectively best burger in NYC; we're just considering the available burgers and analyzing their appeal (or lack thereof) to each of us individually. Then we roll it all into one number. I'm not entirely happy about that part, myself. Sure, we're going about this much the same way as the NY Times: rating without explaining our criteria. But then that's what this thread is for: to explain our likes and dislikes.

I haven't looked at the summary evaluation, so I don't know if each rater is identified. But that would probably be good, so that others can see what we each thought separately, and go by the folks whose palates are similar.

For the record:

• I prefer my burgers very rare, with a thin, well-charred crust (aka black-and-blue);
  
• I want it juicy enough to not need any condiment for moisture;
  
• I hate grease for grease's sake. Some is okay, but not much;
  
• An unsalted burger is anathema. Meat needs salt to bring out the flavor;
  
• All other seasonings are optional, and will not be counted toward the score (unless they cover over the flavor of the meat);
  
• A meaty aroma is very, very important. Smokiness from a grill is a plus;
  
• The bun should fit the burger, and should contribute flavor and texture to the whole. It shouldn't just lie there; and of course it should be fresh.
  

(edited to futz around with punctuation and capitalization )

Edited October 13, 2003 by Suzanne F (log)

[Fat Guy]

I think it's fine to go either way, but I hope we won't ever represent the burger club as something it isn't. Let's not hand out any best-burger awards or anything like that, unless we approach this in a rigorous manner. If on the one hand it's going to be a social club with an emphasis on fun, we should drop the pretense of an objective rating system. Attendees should take their own notes however they like and post comments here for others to chew on. That alone will create a valuable database for people to mine. If on the other hand it's going to be about finding the best burger, or the best burgers of several types, it is certainly possible to create decent methodology that a group of experienced diners can apply to that project but it does indeed turn the endeavor into something that approximates the work a journalist would do rather than what might occur at a casual gathering of friends. Nobody seems to be up for that. Or it may be that we need two burger club chapters: a larger social chapter and a smaller chapter of people who want to "work." Indeed the social chapter could benefit from the pre-screening and advance work of the working group. Just a thought. I think, either way, Sam Kinsey and I are going to do some in-depth test-kitchen comparisons soon and share our results with the site.

[mikeyrad]

Then we roll it all into one number.  I'm not entirely happy about that part, myself. 

I agree with you completely. The whole idea of an overall rating is ridiculous. Although, I can see a point in creating a spreadsheet that weights or devalues individual characteristics. As for me:

• I prefer my burger rare, medium-rare. That is a well-charred crust on the outside and red with a little pink on the inside.
  
• I also like a juicy burger. I don't mind sloppy.
  
• I'm with you on the grease.
  
• I like my burger lightly salted. I want to taste the meat first. I can always add salt later.
  
• Seasonings and additives (foie gros, a la db Bistro) do count for me. Why not reward a chef's creativity if he or she has built a better mouse trap - or burger trap, whatever?
  
• The aroma, and by extension taste is the most important aspect of my rating. Smokiness is a definite plus.
  
• The bun is unimportant to me unless it is stale. I generally eat my burgers open-faced or sans bun altogether. Dr. Atkins would be proud of me.
  

Edited October 13, 2003 by mikeyrad (log)

[Fat Guy]

The whole idea of an overall rating is ridiculous.

It's only ridiculous if the criteria are not well defined. If the various criteria that go into the overall rating are expressed clearly, understood in a relatively consistent manner by those keeping score, and weighted according to significance, it is quite possible to do convincing overall ratings on the narrow question of best-burger or best-burger-of-a-given-type.

[picaman]

As the BCer who got shot down for proposing an objective scale (very nicely, though), I ultimately agreed that the ratings should be based on each individuals' palate.  Not at all scientific that way, but after all, can you imagine trying to get a zillion eGulleteers to agree on ANYTHING? 

Maybe I'm being expeditious at the expense of scientific accuracy, but I think getting a disparate group of people to agree on standards or on weighting of criteria via posting on a message board is a Sisyphean task. Witness the debate earlier in the thread on toppings. In the end, I vote for an evaluative instrument that is nebulous enough to let participants interpret the criteria as they wish to, and that allows them to have fun eating a burger with a group of old and new friends as they record their thoughts.

That said, as self-appointed recording secretary , I'm happy to help in any way I can to adapt the evaluation to reflect the consensus of the Club.

Jamie

P.S. My co-workers are intrigued and seemingly jealous as all hell at my weekend Burger Club adventure!

Edited for pronoun reference.

Edited October 13, 2003 by picaman (log)

[Suzanne F]

Fat Guy, may I respectfully request that you back off a little? You're being so solemn.

Having rules is simply a mechanism to justify getting together to eat and drink and talk -- and maybe be able to write it off I went into this as a quest for good food first, a social occasion as a close second, with no real expectation that we'd come up with a definitive answer. So far, BC has been a total success for me.

[picaman]

and maybe be able to write it off 

Jamie

[slkinsey]

Having rules is simply a mechanism to justify getting together to eat and drink and talk -- and maybe be able to write it off  I went into this as a quest for good food first, a social occasion as a close second, with no real expectation that we'd come up with a definitive answer.  So far, BC has been a total success for me. 

I think the point is simply being made that the BC as it is currently operating is really a social gathering more than anything -- which seems to be what you're saying too -- and that perhaps we should give up the facade of a systematic evaluation and do away with laborious rating systems, spreadsheets, taking temperatures, weighing burgers and whatnot. If we're going to get together informally to try out some good burgers, discuss and post our impressions, why not just leave it at that? If other people have an interest in doing a more rigorous survey in parallel (and I am certainly interested in doing both) that's cool too. But one shouldn't confuse one with the other -- a sentiment that I see echoed in some of the other comments in re to the rating system and composite score. If people really love the forms and the thermometers and stuff, of course there's no reason not to continue with them...

[R Washburn]

Is Burger Joint (at the Parker Meridian) a good choice for the second meeting? It is a completely different category than Molly's. Burger Joint is more like a high quality fast-food burger (~4 oz., lots of toppings) whereas Molly's is a larger "pub burger", which is more about the quality of meat. It certainly isn't fair to directly compare a $5 cheeseburger with a $10 one.

The best time to go there is probably after 8PM, pretty much any day (M-Sat). It tends to be very busy at lunchtime, even on Saturday.

Maybe Burger Joint should be combined with a second destination. I usually eat two of them plus an order of fries, anyway. McHale's maybe? Or some other "pub burger" place?

[Suzanne F]

Sam: Oh, I love the facade of it all being real research. (I'm just an SSB manqué.) And I like having that framework within which to consider what I do or do not like about the burger.

RW: we're not really comparing one burger against another, so I'm not concerned about having very different styles. Each burger is judged on its own merit according to our individual tastes. As for trying another on the same day, that's been mentioned, and Our Fearelyse Leader expressed a preference NOT to. Me too, mainly because I can't eat that much -- Molly's held me until after 10pm! But that doesn't mean that other folks couldn't. Or maybe she and I could share the second one; we both hate to leave food.

[elyse]

Is Burger Joint (at the Parker Meridian)

Are you trying to piss me off?

[elyse]

Sam and Steven, if you want to make it more complicated than it is, be my guest. But Burger Club will remain as it is currently.

[JosephB]

Is Burger Joint (at the Parker Meridian) a good choice for the second meeting?  It is a completely different category than Molly's.  Burger Joint is more like a high quality fast-food burger (~4 oz., lots of toppings) whereas Molly's is a larger "pub burger", which is more about the quality of meat.  It certainly isn't fair to directly compare a $5 cheeseburger with a $10 one. 

      The best time to go there is probably after 8PM, pretty much any day (M-Sat).  It tends to be very busy at lunchtime, even on Saturday. 

      Maybe Burger Joint should be combined with a second destination.  I usually eat two of them plus an order of fries, anyway.  McHale's maybe? Or some other "pub burger" place?

It makes no sense to equate quality with size (Haven't you heard this before?). While the PM burger is not gargantuan (I think it it is appropriately sized.), it is made with high quality meat. I order it rare. My wife orders it medium rare. Try doing that with a fast food burger! You get it one of two ways: cooked or uncooked.

That said, I will concede that PM's presentation is akin to fast food. There's one line to order and pick up. Condiments are applied by the grill man. The burgers are delivered in paper wrappers; the fries in a paper bag. OK, it's a truck stop. But if you're looking for high quality meat at a fair price, this is your place.

By the way, PJ Clarke's serves the same size burger as PM ($8.50), except instead of grilling it, it's cooked on a griddle in butter, and instead of a paper wrapper, it's served on a paper plate. Onion? Look under the bun; you'll find it there. (Disclaimer: Clarke's recently changed hands. Although the new owners promised to keep the product and atmosphere as is, only a personal inspection would satisfy me.)