I don’t know why it never occured to me previously to start a thread on this since the topic relates closely to my very reason for existing. But it took seeing BoringDad’s location on one his posts to get me in gear.
Well, better late than never, eh? To the point:
I live in Southern California, where most everyone has heard of Roscoe’s House of Chicken and Waffles. By far my favorite dining establishment. It has been my honor over the years to introduce many a friend and acquaintance to the joy that is served in the form of buttery goodness and crispy skin on a plate. But nearly everyone whom I have exposed or attempted to expose to Roscoe’s has been EXTREMELY reluctant because the concept is so bizarre to them. I have friends who still refuse to go because they just don’t get it.
So I ask you, fellow Dopers: assuming you haven’t already been exposed to Roscoe’s (or some other restaurant with the same specialty – I know they’re out there), does the idea of chicken and waffles being served together bother you at all? Would you try it?
By the way, favorite quote from a friend (who still won’t try it) upon having the concept explained to her: “Do…do they have to be on the same plate???”
I live in Cleveland and became familiar with Chicken and Waffles several years ago. I laughed when I first heard about it, but friends insisted we go eat there. We did, and the food was great every time I went there.
The place was called Phil the Fire’s on Shaker Square. Unfortunately, Phil went out of business. He tried to expand to open a second restaurant downtown and spread himself too thin, from what I understand.
I’ve tried very hard over the years, but I honestly don’t remember what my initial reaction to the concept was. I think that my mom and I started eating there after Arsenio Hall helped make them famous. I remember that he used to have it brought to him while the show was taping because the studio where the show was done is across the street from the original Roscoe’s in Hollywood.
At any rate, it’s so natural to me now that I can’t even comprehend how you’d find the combination odd. It just works – trust me.
You…you understand! <wiping tear from eye>
Personally? Not usually. But I tend to eat kind of weird anyway. No matter how many things I have on my plate, I typically finish one item before moving on to the next. So my waffles don’t even see the syrup until I finish my chicken (usually a chicken omelette, actually). However, I tend to think a little syrup enhances many things (particularly biscuits and sausage), so syrup landing on my chicken wouldn’t faze me.
Rocoe’s is great. I’ve been to fried chicken place in the country where you get biscuits, and you can have them with gravy or honey, so the leap to waffles doesn’t seem that great to me.
I, too, was a Phil the Fire addict. I dragged the guy I was dating all the way out to Shaker Square just to try the chicken and waffles based on a review in the paper…it was wonderful, and I was hooked. Then I spent most of an Indians game searching for his stand at Jacob’s Field just to enjoy that sublime combination of chicken, waffle, hot sauce and syrup. Then for one of my last meals before weight loss surgery, I ate at his new downtown location which was beautiful, and empty. he closed soo after, and I miss that wonderful chicken.
I can see how that would work; there’s nothing really odd about it - many BBQ and Chinese sauces/coatings are sweeter than they are savoury, and they go well with chicken; corn and squashes/pumpkins are sweet and they go well with chicken. Why not?
It never struck me as any odder than eating, say, cornbread and chicken. Some people’s cornbread is pretty sweet.
Also, when I make waffles, I make a topping that is like chipped beef. . .it’s ham, mustard, maple syrup, heavy cream and scallions. It’s got sweetness to it, but is primarily savory.
That might sound better on a biscuit to you, and maybe it is, but I’m telling you: it’s unbelievable on a waffle.
I’m a Clevelander, too, and now live near Shaker Square, but never went to Phil the Fire’s. I don’t object to the idea of chicken and waffles, but am puzzled enough by it (and unmotivated enough, I guess) that I’ve never tried it.
Roscoe’s the name and they call me the king
Grand master of the chicken and waffle thing!
It’s worth renting Tapeheads just for that scene…
I have not tried chicken and waffles, but I’d be perfectly willing. There’s a fancy southern restaurant in Seattle, Alexandra’s on 2nd, that serves it, but when I was there I had seafood pan roast. Besides, expensive chicken and waffles seems beside the point.
Belgium? Ick. No offense, but I’ve never understood the point of that variety. I don’t like crispy waffles. And it’s too hard to spread the butter evenly.
Okay, I’m down with chicken & waffles. Have been since I was a teenager and had it at a little roadside cafe in south-central PA. But the way yinz are talking here, it’s more like chicken…with breakfast waffles (syrup and butter and all). Huh? Chicken & waffles, to me, is waffles (just the waffles, none of the extra stuff) smothered in chicken and gravy. No syrup, no butter (other than what might have gone into the gravy), just chicken, gravy, and lovely pastry.
Am I thinking of a different kind of chicken & waffles?