Jump to content

UncleBuck

Burnt Ends
  • Posts

    4368
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by UncleBuck

  1. 8 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

    I’ll continue to serve a dish made with meat, peppers, onions, tomato purée, chili powder, garlic, and black beans.  I’ll top it with cilantro, cheese, and onions.  Maybe I’ll add some weird ingredients in the spirit of experimentation.  See if it tastes good.  I’ll call it chili.  My guests will recognize it as chili.  It’ll probably be fucking delicious. If it’s not, at least I learned something.

    But I’m definitely never posting it in here ever again.  Jesus Christ.

    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. 

    • Hook 'Em 3
    • Like 4
    • Haha 2
  2. 4 minutes ago, GreenspointTexas said:

    Does anyone here actually get to a legit bbq joint,  look at the menu, and then leave because of the price(s)?

     

    wtf

    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).

     

    • Like 1
  3. 3 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

    So why is brisket such a poor profit driver?

    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.

     

    • Hook 'Em 1
  4. 4 minutes ago, NoName said:

    i understand that prices are going up but not everyone is using prime brisket, which is what burns me about it. if you are out here using choice and charging for prime that's shitty to your customers and you will get my business exactly once.

    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. 9 minutes ago, Texzilla58 said:


    From a pure business standpoint most pit would drop brisket like a hot rock and sell sausage, chicken, and pork.

    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. 21 minutes ago, dmtx said:

    I hope they throw on a few beef ribs

    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. 16 minutes ago, Herbie Hancock said:


    Every now and then I miss the good ol days of
    Chili Mac MRE's, and when I finally decide I really hate myself i'll make some homemade Mac n cheese and throw in leftover chili, but noodles and chili right out of the gate is.....something.

    a joke. We'll do frito pie. Sometimes some cornbread. I've been doing mine just straight lately. Maybe some onion. 

    • Like 1
  8. 7 minutes ago, Jerry Callo said:

    I appreciate that.  

    One of the reasons ribs have such a premium price at most Texas barbecue joints is due to the brisket.  Ribs, sausage, and sides are priced for high margins to make up for the tight brisket margins.  Maybe this rib centric place will have better prices since they don't have to compensate for brisket.  I would welcome a rib joint that had reasonable prices.

    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. 48 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:


    when I want a single meat, it’s always ribs 

    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. 

  10. 3 hours ago, dmtx said:

    I'm still wondering how sustainable this venture will be, unless they plan to offer/add other meat options

    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. 

  11. On 10/12/2023 at 10:05 AM, po elvis said:

     

    I was on a parisa kick for awhile. We drive thru that area all the time and would pick some up especially on the way to Concan. Relaxing in the frio with a cold beer and some parisa and crackers was not a bad way to spend a saturday or sunday.

    This BBQ place is going to have parisa, but I am not sure how they can put a twist on it to make it any more than just another parisa. Over at Burnt Bean they have barbacoa, but it is different and so good because it has a smokiness usually not had at other places.

    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.

    11 minutes ago, utee94 said:

    How much for just one Rib...bee's?

     

    That plate is $75, prob

  12. Just now, South Austin said:

    It's Dutch's fault for the stupid fucking thread title.

    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...

  13. 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. 

    CaptureTime.PNG.6800cbef3cf1a5f975e8f712559bc333.PNG

  14. 7 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

    this is the quote, about halfway through the article, from 1877

    "Speaking of hot things, at San Antonio they have a dish called chili con carne. It is of Mexican origin, and is composed of beef, peas, gravy and red pepper."

    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

  15. 10 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

    Fair enough, and I obviously strongly agree with your last point, but that's the central bone of contention - whether Texas Chili can also include beans and still be Texas Chili. I say it can, and that every argument I've ever heard to the contrary is basically nonsensical.
     

    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. 

  16. 44 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

    @UncleBuck this is a reasonable take, but I'll quibble with this one bit, that beans were in addition to the orginal chili. OF COURSE the Chili queens routinely mixed in peas/beans in the original chili. These are people living on the fringes of society, eeking out a living using the literal cheapest ingredients they could- tough and borderline rotten meat, roadkill, scraps, and extenders, tenderized and homogenized with heat and water for endless hours, and covered up using a grabbag of flavorings brought together from 4-5 different different European, indigenous, African and Caribbean food cultures. We have a a reasonable enough idea of what was in the Chili, and beans were almost certainly often in there, whether they presented that way or not. They didn't brag about the horsemeat, either. 
    I'm not the stickler for authenticity, because there's nothing less Texan than letting somebody tell you how to like your chili, but two things we can most certainly exclude from Chili are 
    1) fresh tomatoes and most particularly,
    2) Any high value beef cut

    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. 

     

     

    • Hook 'Em 1
  17. 18 hours ago, TexasHooch said:

    ...though I don't think that it elicits the same level of pretend outrage that adding beans does. 

    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. 

×
×
  • Create New...