Some “sandwiches” are meant to be eaten on a plate with K&F.
Yeah, I like a nice char (almost burnt) on the outside with a warm pink center. You can’t do that with a thin patty.
I have the same issue with filet mignon: A piece of meat that thick, no matter what your preferred level of doneness is, a lot of the steak is going to not be at that doneness. Get the inside rare, and the outside will be well. Get the outside rare, the inside will be cold raw. Get the inside well, and the outside is going to be burnt to a crisp. In no case is the whole steak going to be how you like it.
I’ve noticed this trend, too, and I find it distinctly unappetizing. I’m no burger connoisseur but it looks gross and seemingly more difficult to eat without squishing it down yourself
If you bring it slowly up to temp then sear for flavor, you can get very even doneness. I like medium rare, so I do my steaks at about 250 for about a half hour and finish two minutes a side on a blazing hot pan. It is pretty much uniformly medium rare on the inside.
Sure you can. High heat, into the pan, flip, out of the pan. Bob’s yer uncle. I know it works, because my wife likes her burger to be mooing. I don’t usually smack hers down as much as mine, however. It should be noted that thin burgers work best on a griddle or in a pan, not on a barbecue.
That doesn’t look like a meatball to me. It looks like a thick-ish burger with mushrooms on top. The mushrooms are making it look rounder than it is.
If they’re going to serve giant burgers then it should be a law that they’re served on butter toasted buns that will hold up. I truly hate any sandwich that falls apart after the 3rd bite.
You might be right, but it’s not close to flat/uniform thickness, and doesn’t look very close to as wide as the bun – it looks like something that would be hard to eat.
Anyway, this is just my preference.
I just tried this with a torch for the first time, and was very excited with the results.
Cooked it to 125 at 170 degrees, then torched it right on the countertop. It was pretty fun.
Cook’s is big on this “inverted” cooking process. I’ve learned to cook a lot of things long and slow with a hot finish, and it works beautifully. Searing first works if you have a restaurant-grade grill or broiler (= much hotter and better heat-holding than any but the very best home-grade stuff).
The other trick is to bring thick meat up to a warm temperature - 65-75 degrees internally. Especially for steaks and chops, it promotes a much better sear-to-pink ratio. Trying to cook thick meat out of the fridge means some combo of a burnt exterior, red interior and lotsa gray in between.
I’ve actually found that it makes little to no difference between starting with room temp and fridge meat using the slow heat first, hot sear method. (And I believe that was CI’s conclusion, too.) I tried it side by side, and you’d think it should matter, but it doesn’t seem to.
The Jackson Hole chain in New York City starts them out in a ball shape, cooked on a grill under a small metal bowl, before flattening them out for the final few monutes. (Back in the 1980s, there was a burger place in Berkeley that made them the same way.) However, I don’t remember seeing any ball-shaped patties as the finished product, unless you count meatball sandwiches.
Also, to expound on the reverse sear method–I know I proselytize a little bit about it here–you can find a nice explanation that includes photos here. That explains the basic idea behind it. If you look at the pictures here, you can see the difference between the usual grilling method (above) with the reverse sear (below.) The reverse sear has a much more even level of doneness. I’ve gotten it even more uniform internally than that using the oven and a cast iron pan. (Or the blowtorch method mentioned above works well, too.) I do this with sausages, too, bringing them up to doneness, and then searing for flavor. It’s a very flexible technique.
