PrintIs a Fancy-Pants Burger A Contradiction in Terms?
Yesterday I posted my ten favorite fancy-pants burgers in New York City. They all cost more than ten bucks and aspire to hamburger greatness. They were:
1. Cafe D'Alsace
2. Telepan
3. Union Square Cafe (only available at lunch)
4. Spotted Pig
5. Cookshop
6. Country
7. Burger Bar at Grand Central
8. Nice Matin
9. Bar Americain
10. David Burke Sliders at Bloomingdale's
For addresses and phone numbers go to Menupages.
An ELE reader commended me on the list and mentioned Home's burger as one I should consider for the list. Adam Kuban, founder of A Hamburger Today, the nation's leading hamburger website, liked the list but wondered aloud about whether the fries should make a difference if what you're trying to judge is the burger.
Josh Ozersky, Mr. Cutlets, newly installed online Food Editor for New York Magazine and a serious burger maven, then weighed in with the force of twenty double quarter pounders with cheese. He said, and I quote, "The fact is Fancy Pants burgers are nearly indistinguishable...Eating them is just eating a meatloaf between two slices of obtrusive bread. All character in hamburgers exists in the lower realms, where the inside is an afterthought, and the surface speaks volumes."
Is Mr. Cutlets right when he suggests that fancy-pants burgers all suck?
Is any burger bigger than Shake Shack's doomed to failure? Do fries not matter? Is any roll other than a generic white bun a pretentious exercise in Foodiedom? Or is Josh a reverse burger snob, a purist who is ignoring the inherent deliciousness of a burger made with high-quality meat, cheese, bun and fries?
Add a comment:
Previewing your comment:
HTML Hints
Some HTML is OK: <a href="URL">link</a>, <strong>strong</strong>, <em>em</em>
Comment Guidelines
Post whatever you want, just keep it seriously about eats, seriously. We reserve the right to delete off-topic or inflammatory comments. Learn more at our Comment Policy page.
If you see something not so nice, please, report an inappropriate comment.
6 Comments:
The best burger I ever had was at Manka's Inverness Lodge in Inverness, CA--they used to have a weekly burger night, but they unwisely did away with it a number of years ago. Anyway, the burger was stupendous--juicy with flavorful char. Manka's takes pains to squeeze as many food pedigrees onto their menu as possible, and the Hobb's Bacon, etc. put the fancy pants on this burger.
Still, I like me an In-N'-Out sometimes. Sizzler does a pretty decent burger, and it's in the "gray zone" of burger snobbism--not fast food, not white tablecloth.
Folks, if you eat something and it tastes good, be happy. Some of us might not be down with dropping $20 on a burger, but is anyone making you? It is not ideologically flawed to hang with both fancypants and fast-food.
SaraBir at 8:44AM on 08/17/06
Since my childhood, which dates way back to a time when I think grassfed beef was still the norm, a burger thick enough to be rare on the inside was always considered a better burger at home or away. I don't think I ever got to taste a thin burger, of the sort that covers the range from McDo to Shake Shack, until I went away to college. And there is nothing "meatloaf" about a burger that is rare in the middle. Burgers don't start to have much appeal to me until they get thick enough to order medium rare and thick doesn't necessarily mean fancypants.
Fries don't matter much unless I have to pay for them. If they're included in the price of the burger, they matter just like the bun and the rest of the ingredients in the package. If they're something to be ordered as a side, they don't count.
I'm not a fan of American cheese, that is to say the processed cheese food loaf. I generally prefer hamburgers to cheeseburgers, sweet raw onions and tomatoes are great, but ideal might be melted gruyere or compte and onions fried on the griddle or grilled. Mustard with that, please.
I'm with you on the value of a "fancypants" burger, though our tastes in them may not be the same.
Bux at 10:39AM on 08/17/06
Mr. Cutlets is somewhat fanatical on the subject of buns. Yes, a basic, cheap-ass hamburger bun can be just right sometimes, but that doesn't mean it can't be improved on. Where a lot of fancy-pants burgers go wrong is in trying too hard. I take no pleasure in eating a burger that sits on a blimplike brioche so tall you need the detachable jaw of a python to bite into it. If a chef wants something fancier than a regular bun, fine, but they should keep in mind that it's not about the visuals. Eventually, somebody's going to have to eat the damn thing.
Eatability in general is my biggest issue with fancypants burgers. If the meat is too thick, again, it's hard to eat it without the aid of a knife and a fork. That silliness at db is Public Enemy Number One in this regard. It defies all the principles of eatability.
pete at 11:39AM on 08/17/06
I think Ed is absolutely correct in removing the work of first class chefs from the discussion of fancypants burgers. The db burger for instance, has really moved well outside the envelope of burgers, plain and fancypants. It tastes great, but legitimately may have no appeal to those specifically looking for a burger. Likewise, my favorite burger may have no appeal to others. What sucks for Mr. Cultlets, is what may attract others, including myself. Skinny burgers are second class burgers for me, but once a burger grows too massive, it looses all appeal as well. The diameter needs to fit within the confines of a bun, roll or even sliced bread and fit comfortably in my hand and I need to be able to comfortably get my mouth around the whole thing. The burger at Balthazar comes close to stretching my limit on size. I've not tasted any of Ed's nominees and thus can't say if the Balthazar burger should've been on his list. I'm probably not much of a burger fan anyway, as it's not one of the foods for I'll make much of a detour.
Bux at 10:00AM on 08/18/06
Bux, I'm sure Bill Telepan, Geoffrey Zakarian, David Burke and Bobby Flay will be delighted to hear they're not first-class chefs!
I agree with you that the flavor of the db burger is its most successful aspect. But why did Boulud have to dress it up like a burger when it doesn't eat like a burger? It's not a successful dish. It's a press release on a plate.
pete at 10:12AM on 08/18/06
Pete, I'm sure Telepan, Zakarian, Burke and Flay could hardly care less whether I think they are running a restaurant that competes with Daniel.
I don't know why Boulud had to dress the db burger like a burger. I doubt he had to do it at all. He chose to do it and I'm sure his choice was very much affected by the prospect of some publicity. For what it's worth, when I had one, I pretty much ate it like a burger. As for its success, Boulud constantly tinkers with his food. When a dish stays on the menu for years, it's almost always because his clientele keeps demanding the dish. Beyond what pleases your, or my, subjective taste, that pretty much defines "successful dish" for a restaurateur. We both seem to like the flavor, or taste, of the db burger and we both acknowledge a certain PR consideration in its creation, but I think its success has been judged by others and its appearance on the menu shouldn't detract from our enjoyment of db Bistro just because others are having fun.
Bux at 11:34PM on 08/20/06