Jump to content

UncleBuck

Burnt Ends
  • Posts

    4368
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by UncleBuck

  1. I don't see why you would. I mean, I wouldn't post a picture of my chicken fried steak in the Texas BBQ thread.
  2. No, but when you're paying by the lb, you might get less lbs, and/or maybe not go back (plus the price per pound is on the websites and social media, so maybe you don't go in the first place).
  3. Because if they marked the price up as you normally would for cost and production, the sticker price would be even more shocking than it already is. So they mark up the prices of everything else at a certain percentage higher than normal to cover it.
  4. Yah that's ass. My curiosity is if places like Smitty's were using choice, and doing just fine, but now seeing the lines down etc... they switched to prime from some specialty "farms" brand etc...
  5. A lot of them have said they don't think they can go any higher on the brisket prices. I remember a few years back Pinkerton's being at about $26-$28lb. Checked about a month back and they were at around $32. At the same time I checked a few years ago, I remember Smitty's was somewhere around $11-$14lb, they're now up to $26-$28 (EDIT: Just checked and they're at about $27. Pinkerton's at $30) I think. I wonder how much of Smitty's increase is actually brisket prices, or them trying to keep up, and buying more expensive brisket, feeling the pressure of dropping out of the top 50/Seguin getting all of that love etc...
  6. I'd hope they wouldn't. I think that's a whole part of this experiment, seeing if keeping it simple and can still do it. Whether it's BBQ, craft beer, etc..., it's hard for these creative guys to just pick a solid lineup and roll with it. Always gotta change, rotate, add news things. Hard to blame them, but sometimes it becomes too much.
  7. a joke. We'll do frito pie. Sometimes some cornbread. I've been doing mine just straight lately. Maybe some onion.
  8. I think you're at least near to right on. Not sure about rib mark-up across the entire spectrum of Texas BBQ, but a lot of these joint owners have said the sides and other non-brisket/beef-rib meats are what they make most of their money on.
  9. Back from page 17. My 2nd place pot from last year. 3 weeks away. Spices come in today. Might try a test pot Sunday.
  10. Any time I put on a chili, The Lady gets a pot of water boiling for the spaghetti noodles.
  11. I know a lot of people who feel the same way. They're the wings of BBQ. A rib shack probably couldn't work just anywhere in Texas 20 years ago, but it can definitely do well in today's landscape. EDITED to add: Also, you just offer one meat, and two simple sides that are rather cheap, and that really helps. Not sure if that's the plan, just two simple sides, but it appears that way from the pics. That's huge. Limits the amount of money the customer will spend by not getting a little over everything, while also keeping it pretty much a set price. This also then makes things easier on you.
  12. Can't wait for their burnt ends joint, Endee's
  13. I think it's more sustainable at the moment than opening up another Cen-Tex style bbq joint, at least for them. This isn't the traditional Texas BBQ scene anymore. Texans dig pork ribs, and Goldee's has the clout. Wouldn't surprised if this doesn't become a trend.
  14. Can't deny he looks very viking-ish.
  15. Tried Parisa in C'Ville for the first time back in April en route to Bandera for the Charlie Robison show. Didn't know what I'd think about it, but that first taste was one of my favorite food experiences ever. I'm still not really sure how much I like it, but I really want some more. Even did my research and made some not too long after that trip, and it wasn't terrible, but it also wasn't Dziuk's. I would like to see other places try it, but outside of that region, IMO, because I also feel it's a tad disrespectful (literally, just a tad, as I don't think it's terribly disrspectful) to come right in their front yard making Parisa, unless of course that's where you're from. That plate is $75, prob
  16. Is this the part where I'm supposed to say "I dutch'd your mom last night" or something? I can't remember how this goes...
  17. Maybe to kinda get back on track: Ordered some goods for the competition chili last week. Haven't used the Cowtown Light before, but probably gunna use it as a substitute for the gebhart I'd use, which was only maybe 2 tbsp out of 9 tbsp of the chili powder bill. We'll see what I do after a test batch.
  18. That cannot be disputed. I've mentioned it before that there were peas in it, and I can't find the quote, but it wasn't the article you posted. But that's 1877. By the time that the chili queens were done in the 1930s, their chili con carne, and what finally became to be known as "Chili/Texas Chili," was just meat, peppers and gravy. Tomatoes were accepted at some point. Texas Chili was not the chili con carne of 1877. That's one of the origins we know, including the dry chili bricks the northern mexican army used in the late 1840s etc... I'm sure it'd be even much more different if we go back to the Spanish Canary island settlers of the 1730s, which is another origin, whose recipe may have been being cooked by an early version of the SA chili queens in the early 1800s pre-Mexican occupation. edit: I'll get accepted/excepted right at some point ffs
  19. I think things should be defined clearly. Chili con Carne was/is it's thing, which became to be Chili, which is its own thing. Then we have Chili with Beans, which is also its own thing, as again, it completely changes the dish. We lose the origin of things when we don't define them clearly, so I'm big on that. I don't have a problem with people putting beans in an existing "Texas Chili," but I'd take some issue being invited over for "Texas Chili," and then there are beans in there. Now, I wouldn't be mad, or I wouldn't turn it down, I'm not one of those assholes, but I'd definitely feel tricked, as that is not "Texas Chili," it's "Texas chili WITH beans." As a matter of fact, that's how most out-of-staters refer to chili without beans, "Texas Chili." IMO, putting "Texas" in front Chili IN Texas is redundant. We know Chili is a meal in itself in Texas. So are beans. Throw a little pepper sauce in 'em, some fried potatoes, cornbread or whatever. So you mix two meals, and call it by one of them? Nah. I don't get that.
  20. Yah, I don't have a problem with a lot of that, where I guess you'll lose me is on your "things we can most certainly exclude from chili." 1. "High value" 150 years ago is much different from today, for starters. We know the queens used a mix of pork butt and beef in the 1880s, that and just beef seemed to be most common. I'm sure there were a lot of times they used whatever they could, especially long before that, but for the most part, these pork and beef cuts they used weren't high value. Hell, brisket was a garbage cut until somewhere after the mid 1900s ffs. 2. As *chili became to be defined*, tomatoes were absolutely accepted. Again, we're not talking chili con carne, what it was known as before the chili queens took it to the world, we're talking about what we came to define as "Chili" in the mid-ish 1900s. Remember, The Chili Queens were going on until the 1930s, by then it was almost exclusively beef. 1940ish we see tomatoes. 1950s it's widely referred to as "Chili." IF I make a chunky chili without tomatoes, I'll call it Chili Con Carne. If I make my regular, competition style chili grind chili, with a little tomato sauce in it, or add tomatoes to it at home, I'm more inclined to call that "Chili." And I'd also consider them to both be chili "without beans." No one's advocating that it should be made and eaten like like the Spanish settlers in SA in the early 1700s did, and no one's saying you can't eat yours however you want to eat yours, but when it became known as "Chili," that was a certain thing.
  21. The chili queens would sometimes mix other things with chili, I'm sure beans would have been the number one thing. Only actual mention I've found left it open to interpretation as to whether the beans were actually IN the chili or on the side, but I wouldn't see why it wouldn't sometimes be added to the pot to stretch the pot at the end of the night. Have definitely seen it documented the use of peas to stretch it out. But, as we've stated many times on this chili WITHOUT beans thread, those were/are "in addition" to the original chili. It's then chili with beans, or chili with peas. Chili with peas and beans. Chili on top of avocado toast. You don't throw your pantry in the pot and still call it chili. I mean, for all the shit we give Cincy for the Skyline Chili, at least they have the decency to specify by name that it is not actual chili. I've eaten beans in chili, and it's good. I'm sure I'll do it again. As the chili queens would tell you, and my grandparents etc..., it's a good, inexpensive way to spread out a meal when you're feeding a lot of people. For the chili queens, that meant a little more money. For regular folk, it meant feeding more mouths in the family. But there's no doubt that it takes a chili, or chili con carne, the original, and turns it into something else. From the texture of the beans themselves, to the texture of the gravy. It's just a completely different thing, which is okay, but here on this thread, as the title suggests, we're not talking about that. As for the tomato part previously mentioned, sure, originally they weren't a part of these recipes. But whenever whatever group it is that decides these things met somewhere around the mid-ish 1900s, and the white smoke emerged from the Alamo, variants with tomatoes/tomato sauce made the cut. Is what it be.
  22. Keep this on hand anyway, to add to your beans.
×
×
  • Create New...