Nalley
I can’t stand Stagg, something in my brain makes me think it’s a better brand. It has a couple different types of beans and you can see some peppers in it. I always buy it and end up disappointed, it’s really too sweet.
I make my own for eating straight out of the bowl, but Nalley for everything else.
Has anybody tried Chicken Chili? I’ve been tempted but wonder about the texture of the chicken. Chili is normally simmered for several hours. I’m not sure how chicken simmering that long. Would it be mush?
http://i5.walmartimages.com/dfw/dce07b8c-7ac8/k2-_e4d23180-31a6-49cf-9778-fab867a5a099.v1.jpg
I’ve never tried the canned version, but white chicken chili is quite nice as a change of pace. Use thigh meat if you’re going to stew it for a long time, but you can also just chop up or shred a rotisserie chicken and put in the meat towards the end of cooking time.
I make mine with shredded chicken. I pre-cook the chicken with some southwestern type seasoning, green salsa, whatever I have in the house. It has always turned out well with either an hour on the stove or all day in the crockpot. With longer cooking, I find I lose the texture of the beans well before the chicken goes mushy.
Is there chicken chili in a can?
Wolf chili, beanless.
Wolf chili sauce for chilidogs and the like.
Cincinnati-style “chili” is sublime and delicious.
Hormel’s white chicken chili is far and away their best offering, in my view.
You will notice that the name is not “chile con frijoles y carne.”
Denison’s. It’s cheap and good.
And at least, at least, three cheese coneys with onions and mustard.
I never had chili before moving to Texas. (I loved the stuff that Mom called “chili”, but I couldn’t call it chili. Northwest Ohio is where we lived when Mom made it. She also made it in Texas, still called it chili, still wasn’t.) When I tasted real Texas chili, I knew the Ohio “chili” wasn’t the same thing.
The best chili in Texas is home-made, but Wolf brand is second. As others have stated, “chili with beans” is an oxymoron: if it has beans in it, it ain’t chili; if it doesn’t have beans in it, it’s not “with beans”. I tolerate beans in chili, but understand that putting beans in chili that you yourself has cooked, means that you are having unexpected company, and need to stretch out the main dish. But if you put beans in it, they should be pinto beans – the only acceptable bean to add to chili.
Now that I am all grown up and stuff, I have worked software development contracts in various places around the country. Everywhere I go, I have to try my favorite foods (chili, BBQ, and Mexican), to see if I could ever live in that city permanently. This thread is about chili, so I will limit my comments to that.
Seattle is beautiful, but they just don’t know chili. First off, they do not carry Wolf brand. Secondly, I firmly believe that if you call it “chili”, it ought to have chili in it. It doesn’t have to be tongue-searing, but it should have some sort of a kick. I learned to buy chili powder at the same time I bought chili.
Also, it is nearly impossible to find chili WITHOUT beans in the great Pacific Northwest. But why, oh why do they have to put KIDNEY beans in it? Might as well add green beans as those too sweet beans.
Minneapolis was similar, but they had Wolf brand. That’s where I taught myself to use corn chips as a spoon. I also found Wick Fowler’s there so I could build it myself.
When I worked in Boise, the cafeteria where I worked had various types of chili, chicken, turkey, etc. Whatever variety they served that week, I was able to make it palatable by adding Cholula.
Now I am in southwest Ohio. In the town where I am working, they have two chili parlors, something I have never seen anywhere else. So, I was anxious to try out the local chili, and tried Gold Star first. Have you ever tasted something that had something in it that just didn’t belong? Try cinnamon in chili. That’s is just wrong!
Then I tried Skyline. I told the waiter that I had tried the other store, now I was trying his. He mentioned that he thought the only difference between the two was the amount of cinnamon.
I make my own chili now, thank you.
My mom (also in Ohio) used to make a dread concoction she called “chili soup.”
It was ghastly. Take weak chili with a lot of beans. Add stewed tomatoes and about forty gallons of water.
On the plus side, a family of my acquaintance put sugar in their chili soup. Mom never did THAT.
And cinnamon in chili is excellent. 
It is also not “chile con Carne y sal” so does than mean you can’t have any salt in chili either?
See Post #27 for a full explanation. Salt is a seasoning; beans are an ingredient (and Abomination.)
Wolf Brand all the way. It’s more expensive than the rest, but worth it.
I was complaining about the logic of using the name to define it. But seeing as how the Pre-columbian natives had Chilies(and created the word) and beans, and no cows, beans were certainly in Chili dishes before beef was.
Hormel, Hot, No Beans.
It’s just okay, but it’s the only canned chili without beans I can consistently find in most stores. Lately stores in my area have been stocking Wolf as well, but it’s more expensive and I don’t really taste much difference between them.
Do we have to dig out the threads on the San Antonio chili queens again?
I haven’t had canned chili in years, since it’s so easy to make your own. I used to like Chili Man.
I used to get Hormel, lately I get Wolf, never heard of any of the others (well, heard of Armour & Campbells, but for other things, not chili, seriously, Campbells chili?)
But the most important thing, way more important above brand, is that it has NO FUCKING BEANS. Or celibate beans either for that matter. There are no beans in chili and I will fight to the death (by way of farts) to defend that position.
Do we have to dig out a history book to point out that the Aztecs were there long before any chili queens?