LTHForum.com

Wow, no Patty's?

So true. I feel like what should really be rewarded or recognized with burgers is consistency because it seems to be the most elusive aspect.


I agree. For me, it's extremely rare (pardon the pun) that a burger with a mess of toppings on it is anything more than a novelty. And to tie it to your earlier point, there are so many ways that the basics of a burger can go wrong, mastery over all those elements on a consistent basis (good meat, properly seasoned and cooked, appropriate, fresh bun, judicious application of condiments, etc.) is, in my opinion, enough to distinguish a burger as great.

=R=

Interesting omission of Patty's. You would think that Jeff R. would know better.

Moody's is on his list. Moody's would make my Top 30 list too, only because I can count only 25 places in Chicago at which I've had a burger. The Moody's burger was the worst. David Burke's would be down near Moody's on my list, certainly not Top 10.

Since I like my burger simple, I can make a better burger then most places (outside of a couple bars in Wisconsin). All you need is good burger meat, a properly made patty, a fresh bun (I like potato buns), maybe some good cheddar or swiss cheese, and good grilling technique. The piling on of toppings ruins a burger for me.

How can these two places make the list and Patty's doesn't. Five guys is a pretty good burger, but I have had better at any number of mom and pops around the city. And don't get me started about Moody's; apart from having perhaps the best beer garden in the city I cannot understand why anyone would pay nearly 10 dollars for an overcooked burger on a pathetic bun. Moody's tastes like every burger I ever ate in some friends back yard at a party. You know the burger that has probably been over the flame for at least 20 minutes served on the buns that cost 99cents for a twelve pack with optional toppings of a slice of "American" cheese, iceberg lettuce, and flavorless tomato. Maybe I just answered my question; some people love nostalgia.

I enjoy these "best of" lists, looks like a pretty good list imho with the exception of Capital Grille, and 5 Guys, I wouldnt have either on my list.

I can't believe Jury's didn't make the list!

What am I missing about Jury's burgers? I tried it and couldn't even finish half of it. It tasted like a patty out of a salisbury steak TV dinner. I wanted to like it. I tried to like it, but just couldn't.

I'm wondering if my burger was an exception to the rule at Jury's because everyone raves about their stuff. My patty tasted like any old pre-formed overly processed patty you'd find in your neighbor's freezer.

I think another visit is in the cards.

At one time, Jury's had an exceptional burger, but for the past several years now they've been living on their laurels IMO. Jury's used to be in my regular rotation, but I completely stopped going about a year or two ago. The burgers are but shadows of their former selves.

About having all of the 'stuff' on a burger like Kuma's, the burger itself is big, juicy and beefy enough to shine thru even with all of the toppings.

As far as the thinner burgers (5 Guys, Top Notch, Schoops, That’s-A-Burger, Epic) they are really in a different class. Somewhat like comparing pan and thin crust pizza.

As much as I love Patty's burger I think hers was too far off of the radar to be included.

Given the inclusion of Prairie Grass Cafe, Abigail's Bistro and Cross Rhodes, all of which are in the northerly region, I'm not sure I agree. But, for whatever reason, it was not included. Too bad, because it really is a great, distinctive burger. And the house-baked bun is an extra added treat.

=R=

Okay folks, I will tell you why Patty's burger didn't make Chicago Magazine list.
Did you really think Chicago Magazine is going to include a little diner in Skokie in their best of the best list ?
Did you really think majority of the Chicago Magazine readers are going to trek to Skokie to have the best hamburger?
It is food politics and evidently the buck stops here.
Patty's Diner is not ready for the big boys yet, and you know what, just as well, because the real Patty's Diner is not
about that, you can groom her, put make up on her, however in the end she is still the Janis Joplin of Chicago Diners, the best.
There is a lot of good burgers out there, the important thing is where do you like to enjoy yours, if it is Patty's lucky for you, enjoy it, I do.

There's no way this list could have been compiled without arousing the suspicions of someone somewhere who has a favorite that wasn't mentioned. As ronnie points out above, several northerly places were mentioned, and not all the places mentioned are fancypants high-profile joints, so I just don't buy that there's some politically-motivated conspiracy to exclude any location or type of place. Of necessity, some places had to be excluded, and no doubt some of these places are favorites of somebody.

I like Tugboat Annie, but Janis Joplin works..........

I don't buy the "politics" angle either, especially given the inclusion of some little hole in the wall around Wellington and Broadway in Chicago which I've passed by a thousand times and not tried (I will now). That being said, I have now read the article and what is missing to me is a statement assuring me that the places ranked consistently perform at the level they did when tested for the article (how many times did they visit each establishment?). Almost any restaurant could prepare a great burger once . . . even a few times . . . if need be. Show me the restaurant that does it every day and that's the place I admire.

Also, and I hate to keep repeating this, but what bothers me is any assumption that a great burger is not a great burger until you throw on a myriad of toppings, and this assumption is often made by the same people who proclaim that one should not put anything besides salt, pepper and maybe a dab of butter on a great steak. What miracles occur when grinding beef that destroy the pure essence of beef? Show me the place grinding its own meat, and with a mix which includes brisket, rib eye or other flavorful cut and I'll take that burger plain any day over your average burger made with ground chuck and topped with cheddar.

Amen, brother.

I don't know about Chicago Mag policy, but just curious: how many times should you visit a place before you can conclude they do a good job every day? And should you also visit at different day parts (because if you always go for lunch, then it's likely you're having the same team prepare your burger every time)?

To be really responsible, it seems you'd have to visit each place three times during lunch and three during dinner, and maybe on weekends as well as weekdays; for 25 places, that's a minimum of 150 visits. I am sure that's not happening in any surveys conducted in any publication in Chicago or anywhere else.

BR, I believe you're raising a good point, I just don't see how you'd achieve the level of accuracy you'd need to make judgments with the complete confidence you're looking for.

Though no mortal could go to 25 places 6 times each (at least not in any reasonable amount of time), such feats are possible on boards such as this where the collective wisdom of many is accumulated...but then you have to factor in the variable of individual taste.

It may be that he thought Patty's was closing soon, or perhaps already closed.

My main point is really to take the article for what it's worth and to understand the limitations of the taste test (which you have explained in greater detail). If you go to one of the ranked places and expect to receive a great burger, cooked precisely to your specifications, based upon Chicago Magazine's rankings . . . well, you might have seen it coming when it arrives poorly cooked. But for Chicago Magazine, I'm sure this issue will be a great hit as burgers are a very, very popular topic (and hey, some beautiful pictures too which made me very hungry for a burger).

Gimme a break. That's-A-Burger made the list, so it's pretty obvious neither of those arguments is valid.

Ruby does include some joints, but the list is overwhelmingly bar/restaurant burgers, proof that he 1) likes that style more and 2) it's easier to make a burger that impresses when you have $10 to play with rather than $2.25. That's why for me, it doesn't make sense to lump upscale burgers and joint burgers together in a ranked list-- even less than it does to lump deep dish and thin crust together. Ranking will say more about your relative liking for the style than the relative goodness of the individual places.

I have a theory why Patty's didn't make the list, but it's not widely shared here, so never mind...

Does it have something to do with the fragile psyche of the writer?

Does anyone here know Ruby personally ? Or is Chicago Magazine out of the realm of LTH members.
I didn't want to imply that Patty's Diner was in anyway less than any other burger place mentioned in Chicago Magazine since it is about the food not the place, however that being said, places do become favorite of groups of people but necessarily of others, evidently Patty's after receiving multiple recognitions is not in the radar of Chicago Magazine which by the way thinks is the authority on Chicagoland food scene.
That is their right.
Just as Patty's received many recognitions from multiple publications and this internet forum from people who are connected to each other and that they are, that connection seems not to have reached Chicago Magazine.
That I am saying is the politics or maybe a better word the "networking" of people who are influential in the business of restaurant commentary.
However for the individuals like many in this forum, it is about the food which one shouldn't loose a sight of and not wheter
one burger is better than the other or the place that serves it, based on the preferences and bias of the author.
So what if Patty's didn't make the Chicago Magazine, Patty's makes a better list, the hearts of people that support it.

I do know Jeff Ruby, but I hardly see what that has to do with this.

The bottom line is that every publication - and every individual - has their own criteria for ranking food or anything else.

Take these lists for what they are: an opportunity to perhaps find out about a new place you weren't aware of, or to feel some form of excitement or pride that your favorite burger/your chef-friend's burger made the list.

It's not a be-all/end-all. It's a nice reference point for where to consider going/where to avoid.

dropkickjeffy is Jeff Ruby.

Has it occurred to you that maybe not everyone loves Patty's burger? Perhaps he's had it a few times and doesn't get the hype.

Ed,

You use of hype implies you don't think Patty's is a particularly delicious burger. On that I disagree.

Far as Jeff Ruby's list, I have no problem with it, its a better list than most I've seen, plus there are a couple of places I want to try on the list, most notably Flub a Dub Chub.

Patty's Diner Burger



Enjoy,
Gary

You know, there's people for whom that picture instantly refutes any doubts as to the supreme wonderfulness of the Patty's hunkabeef, and people for whom it only adds to them.

Fries look good, though. Better than those rasty old potatoes.

What irks me is that they left out .... kidding. What really disappoints me is that we have yet another article on the best burgers in town. How interesting! Has it really been two and half years since Time Out did their Burger special?

Hey folks. Jeff Ruby here. Thrilled to see you discussing the burger feature. I put a lot of time and effort into it, but of course, in the end, it's just another man's opinion.

There was no political motivation for any of it, other than to try and get a variety of styles, areas, and levels of complexity. No one ever told me what to include or what not to include. I had no agenda whatsoever - at least none that I was aware of - other than to cover as much ground as possible and have fun with the writing.

As for repeat visits: you're killing me. I did the whole thing myself and ate burgers basically all summer so even with one visit per place, I could not possibly cover the kind of ground that would satisfy everyone. I am only one man, and this is far from scientific. As someone (I think it was BR) pointed out, not all of these places are necessarily consistent. I loved Cortland's when I went, but lord only knows how it would have fared the next night. Take that for what it's worth.

Why no Patty's? Aaron Deacon wins the prize. I had heard rumors that the place was not long for this earth, and the last thing I wanted to do was anoint a place as one of the best only to see it close in the meantime. I'm glad I was wrong, and it's still open. I took a chance on That's-A-Burger, which was having problems with its landlord, and that has been nerve-wracking enough.

Anything else? My psyche is about as fragile as boulder. Take your best shot.

Best,
Jeff