A thread from last year asked opinions about a menu.
Sounds tasty, but not what I’d consider ‘fish & chips’. Yes, technically that’s what it is; but when talking about the dish we call ‘fish & chips’, there is an understanding that the fish isn’t ‘encrusted’ or ‘pan-fried’. So let’s talk about the fish in ‘traditional’ fish & chips.
This thread is about the batter. I’ve found that there are three kinds. The most common is rather thin and crispy. The kind I like is thick and crunchy. I like this kind, because I like a lot of vinegar and the crunchy shell is just made for soaking it up. The third kind is an abomination. The fish is ‘breaded’, rather than ‘battered’. This kind also seems mostly to be made with processed fish.
Someone I talked to said that the batter must be thin. Thick batter overpowers the fish. I disagree, provided the fish is good. I think the combination of a crunchy batter that doesn’t disappear the moment you start chewing, good-quality, firm and flaky fish (a thick fillet, if you please), and malt vinegar and salt makes a better balance.
I seem to be in the minority though, because nobody up here makes the batter that way. I’m talking half an inch of batter with loads of bubbles in it, and a good thick piece of fish. It’s the way they make it at Ye Olde King’s Head in Santa Monica. (For scale, those are ‘steak fries’. The photo is of the ‘King Size’. I can handle the one-fillet portion comfortably.) I’ve tried Alton Brown’s recipe, and I’ve come close to YOKH’s version by doubling the baking powder. Done right, you get a nice crunchy batter without it being bready.
I like the thin-batter fish with tartar sauce. That batter doesn’t soak up the vinegar well enough for me. Tartar sauce stays on.
Thin and crispy. I had them at The Golden Hind in London, the batter was light and crispy, and had a slight vinegary taste to it. They used lard to fry them in. Not sure if they stilll do.
And malt vinegar on both the fish and the chips here.
I like a fairly thick, crunchy batter on the fish that I eat. The problem is that most people don’t cook it correctly. When a thick batter is improperly fried, it can really soak up the oil. Excellent heat control and relatively thin, quick cooking portions are key for my fishy happiness.
Keep the vinegar and that abomination called tartar sauce off my food. Good fish needs nothing but a bit of salt.
What I like best is the fish from Catfish Charlie’s in Corpus Christi, TX, which is a catfish fillet in a thin n’ crispy cornmeal batter. Don’t need any of your malt vinegar or tartar sauce (yuck!). Just fries and a beer.
However ymmv, since while charlie’s is the best, the thin cornmeal batter is common throughout Texas, at least the places I’ve been. Possibly throughout the gulf coast. So it may be a kind of regional thing. Take that as you will.
They had that cornmeal batter at a place in Oregon. I don’t care for it. My wife grew up on fish and chips, and she thought it was terrible too. I’m with the OP. The batter should be very thick and crispy. I don’t consider fish and chips to be about the fish so much as the deep fried crunchy goodness soaked in tartar sauce, vinegar or mayonnaise. The fish should be a flaky white fish. I tried salmon once, and it overpowered the batter. It was too meaty. The same goes for swordfish.
When I visited London, the Fish and Chips I had (admittedly, only one) were not soggy, they were thick and crispy like I like them. The New Zealand ones were soggier. I suspect that’s the difference between take-out and sitting in a restaurant.
Question about the cornmeal: Is it actually a ‘batter’? That is, is it a viscous liquid into which the fish is dipped? (Like what you dip corndogs into.) Or is it a ‘breading’, which is a dry mixture that adheres to the fish?
Up here, Salmon is King. It’s certainly an option in many places. A friend insisted on halibut, which is also popular. For me, I prefer a nice cod. I don’t find halibut so superior to cod as to justify the increased price, and I don’t like vinegar on my salmon.
I prefer thin and crispy, just like the one I had yesterday. But I used to regularly go to a cafe that had thick and crunchy, and it was delicious! I miss it.
Mind you, I also prefer my chips to be soggy and soft, instead of crisp and firm. I think I am in the minority with that one.
Thick please. Johnny, have you been to Moby Dick’s on east beach in White Rock? The filet itself is a bit thin but damn tasty and the proper thickness. Also really good fries-I don’t like fries much but theirs are awesome.
It kind of depends… I expect thick and crunchy in some cuisines, in other gastronomies I expect something more delicate. But for my own personal preference, well I grew up on Arthur Treacher’s. What is that. medium crunchy with a hearty beer batter.?
The try chippy round the corner from me. And the one a bit down the road. And the one further down than that. We do have a chain called “Posh Fish” and a few restaurants in the city that do crunchy batter, but my overwhelming experience is soggy. Which, despite everything, I do enjoy on occasion for nostalgic reasons.
FWIW I don’t consider breadcrumbs to be batter: that would be “breaded” fish.
