Burger Club

[tommy]

not that there's anything wrong with that.

[elyse]

Oh thank God. I was just about to close down Burger Club.

[KatieLoeb]

Is JAckson Hole still open?  I used to love their burgers back in the 80s when I spent a lot of time in Manhattan....

Rich:

Great minds think alike...

It's been about as long for both of us having had a Jackosn Hole burger. Apparently they've taken a nose dive in quality since

[elyse]

I liked Jackson Hole in the late 70s and early 80s. I thought they took a nose dive around 83.

[tommy]

I liked Jackson Hole in the late 70s and early 80s.  I thought they took a nose dive around 83.

don't be silly. you weren't even born in the lat 70's.

[bergerka]

What do you mean we can't have bacon?

Bacon COMPLEMENTS a good burger, but IMHO doesn't DISTRACT from the quality of said burger.

no pork. beef.

Beef AND pork! I strongly disagree with whoever said that Bacon burgers are for those who like bacon rather than burgers. Bacon by itself is, well, just BACON, but the combination of beef and pork can be downright otherworldly.

BUT...for the purposes of burger club, I withdraw the bacon complaint. I guess. I'll just sulk a little, ok?

*sulk*

*sulk sulk*

*sulk sulk sulk*

There, I'm over it.

K

[Suzanne F]

Picaman: great work. The most important comment I have is that it's not caramelization, it's Maillard effect. An oft-made error, nothing to be ashamed of.

Is the idea that we have a numerical scale, and rate each factor? We can always assign different weights to different factors, which takes care of elyse's valid concern that the meat should come first.

Will we have to work out objective criteria (e.g., for juiciness, 0 = dust in the mouth, 1 = requires condiment to be swallowable, 2 = moist enough to swallow, but still on the dry side, 3 = moderately juicy, 4 = very juicy, 5 = requires wristbands), or just rely on each club member's subjective interpretations? Then we average the scores across each category? And the columns are for individual club members' scores, so we can total each person's scores?

I would have the toppings as the tiebreaker. Maybe also the Toastiness and Seediness, because neither of those is absolutely necessary, but can add to or detract from the overall burgerness. After all, a good burger requires nothing but a good burger and a good roll. Everything else is commentary.

This is really exciting! Once we get this system set, we can go on to rating sushi, and foie gras, and pizza, and steak, and finally force the NY Times to use some consistent standards!

[tommy]

Maybe also the Toastiness and Seediness

i can tell you right now that McHale's is pretty seedy.

[jhlurie]

Maybe also the Toastiness and Seediness

i can tell you right now that McHale's is pretty seedy.

Heh. And their burgers are too.

Have fun at NY Burger Club. I don't think I can make this first one, but may shoot for a future one.

Of course on this side of the Hudson, Burger Club is pretty easy. We go to White Manna every time. Someone was spotted outside of a Jackson Hole once, but we pelted him with Burger buns.

[tommy]

Of course on this side of the Hudson, Burger Club is pretty easy.  We go to White Manna every time. 

now don't be silly. we've got pages devoted to great burgers in the Garden State. White Manna, dare i say, is just ok, but doesn't fill all burger needs.

[Suzanne F]

Maybe also the Toastiness and Seediness

i can tell you right now that McHale's is pretty seedy.

I know; I've been there a few times. Only for beer, though, not burgers. I love that place.

[elyse]

I liked Jackson Hole in the late 70s and early 80s.  I thought they took a nose dive around 83.

don't be silly. you weren't even born in the lat 70's.

That's right. I forgot, dad.

[tommy]

Maybe also the Toastiness and Seediness

i can tell you right now that McHale's is pretty seedy.

I know; I've been there a few times. Only for beer, though, not burgers. I love that place.

toasty in the winter too.

[elyse]

Picaman: great work.    The most important comment I have is that it's not caramelization, it's Maillard effect.  An oft-made error, nothing to be ashamed of. 

Is the idea that we have a numerical scale, and rate each factor?  We can always assign different weights to different factors, which takes care of elyse's valid concern that the meat should come first.

Will we have to work out objective criteria (e.g., for juiciness, 0 = dust in the mouth, 1 = requires condiment to be swallowable, 2 = moist enough to swallow, but still on the dry side, 3 = moderately juicy, 4 =  very juicy, 5 = requires wristbands), or just rely on each club member's subjective interpretations?  Then we average the scores across each category?  And the columns are for individual club members' scores, so we can total each person's scores? 

I would have the toppings as the tiebreaker.  Maybe also the Toastiness and Seediness, because neither of those is absolutely necessary, but can add to or detract from the overall burgerness.  After all, a good burger requires nothing but a good burger and a good roll.  Everything else is commentary.   

This is really exciting!  Once we get this system set, we can go on to rating sushi, and foie gras, and pizza, and steak, and finally force the NY Times to use some consistent standards! 

Suzanne, you totally lost me on the scoring system. But I'll go along for the ride.

I seriously don't think toppings should be a tiebreaker. What is someone has none? I think we'll be fine without the tiebreaker. I have faith.

I will say that I may not love any of the burgers. I have only had about four amazing burgers in my life. One was in the Virgin Gorda when I was 8, one (2) was at... Park Cafe (?) across from the old train station in Providence when I was about 19 or 20, and I can't think of the other two or three. There must be another two or three. I'll think on it.

And don't even get me started on pizza!

[elyse]

Maybe also the Toastiness and Seediness

i can tell you right now that McHale's is pretty seedy.

So, you went? When?

[tommy]

Maybe also the Toastiness and Seediness

i can tell you right now that McHale's is pretty seedy.

So, you went? When?

i've been to McHale's many times, but not for a burger. but that's not important right now.

[Suzanne F]

Who, me? I worked briefly at a place on Restaurant Row. I NEEDED McHale's each day when I finished work.

[elyse]

Maybe also the Toastiness and Seediness

i can tell you right now that McHale's is pretty seedy.

So, you went? When?

i've been to McHale's many times, but not for a burger. but that's not important right now.

[elyse]

Who, me?  I worked briefly at a place on Restaurant Row.  I NEEDED McHale's each day when I finished work. 

No, I was talking about tommy. He's wanting to try the burger at McHale's. I thought he went without us.

[picaman]

The most important comment I have is that it's not caramelization, it's Maillard effect.  An oft-made error, nothing to be ashamed of. 

Well, I learn something every day...today it was Googleing "Maillard effect." Going forward, I promise to not cook my burgers past the soft-ball stage

I seriously don't think toppings should be a tiebreaker. What is someone has none? I think we'll be fine without the tiebreaker. I have faith.

I agree with Elyse here - I vote for no tiebreaker. We could cross the bridge over that improbable event when we come to it.

Then we average the scores across each category? And the columns are for individual club members' scores, so we can total each person's scores?

Exactly. As I see it, the final burger score is the total of each category's average.

Will we have to work out objective criteria (e.g., for juiciness, 0 = dust in the mouth, 1 = requires condiment to be swallowable, 2 = moist enough to swallow, but still on the dry side, 3 = moderately juicy, 4 = very juicy, 5 = requires wristbands), or just rely on each club member's subjective interpretations?

I vote for subjectivity. That way each person brings his/her own set of criteria on which to judge each category. If I hate seeds, "Seediness" will mean something different to me than to the person who likes seeds. I'd say just define the range (1 low to 5 high?) and let the category average define the burger's success in that category. It's an aggregate opinion anyway.

Enough for now--gotta concentrate on the Cubbies and cooking dinner

Jamie

[Suzanne F]

Aw, it would have been fun coming up with definitions.

But just in case we come across a real loser, can the range go from zero on up? I'd hate the thought of giving, say, a Big Mac ANY points on ANYTHING.

[picaman]

Aw, it would have been fun coming up with definitions. 

I was being lazy and expedient. Define away!

Jamie

P.S. Totally agree with the "zero" issue.

[tommy]

I'd hate the thought of giving, say, a Big Mac ANY points on ANYTHING.

i may very well be ruining the curve for everyone in that case.

Edited October 4, 2003 by tommy (log)

[Blondie]

I heard that Rush Hour on Ludlow had great burgers, so I did a bit of recon. I think we can skip it - not in the same league as Molly's or the Corner Bistro. With 'inoteca being across the street I can get an amazing panini (til 3am) for a dollar or so more than Rush Hour's burger. That's a no-brainer.

[herbacidal]

Aw, it would have been fun coming up with definitions. 

But just in case we come across a real loser, can the range go from zero on up?  I'd hate the thought of giving, say, a Big Mac ANY points on ANYTHING.

really? on a scale of 1 to 10, i'd be willing to give it a 1.

that sauce ain't too shabby.