Wednesday, April 8, 2009

Mini-burger MATCH UP!


Just cos March is through, must the MADNESS really stop. "No sir, it must not."

With that, I bring you a welterweight showdown of epic scale and truly vivid dramatic scope. These beefed up contenders may seem small, but in a mano-e-mano, no-hold-barred, duke 'em up (or out) who emerges victorious?

In this corner the crown prince of the franchise characterized by royal deliciousness and a laissez-faire "Have it Your Way" attitude, the Burger King Burger Shot.

And the challenger, the blue-collar man with a shady past, the Jack-in-the-Box Mini-Sirloins.

Even before I got my hot little hands on these twin treasure chests, the opening salvos of the coming war were released. You see, the BK Burger Shots were almost half as expensive (burger for burger) than the Mini-Sirloins. One to BK for price.

Still, that lack of cost shows. Lets go to the side-by-side comparison...

...would you look at that. That deflated sad-sack on the right is the contender from BK, while that robust fellow to his right is the Jack-in-the-Box entry.

And look at the wreck that is the alleged "tear-an'-share" concept BK has given us. Between you and me, it looks like an open lesion. Appearance has to go to Jack.

Lets talk taste! First up, the Burger Shot:

Okay this thing has a soft, golden, carb-riddled bun that has the texture of cotton-candy and the weight of a Buick. Because of the aforementioned 'tear and share' concept, it has the propensity to get pretty manhandled in transport from box to gob, but no harm, no foul, right?

The first-taste impression was a little disconcerting. Dominant taste? Ketchup. Hmm. There is however a tasty pickle and a bit of gooey yellow cheese-fooode which aren't so bad. Inside, the meat is nothing to write home about, (Har.) and even comes with what I MUST assume are artificially applied grill marks. Really, if you've eaten at Burger King in the last sixty years, the taste of the burger shot will not surprise you in the least. What was surprising was the little touch of rare-ness in the burgers I got. See exhibit No. 1-

I donno if you can see that sickly pinkness, but there you go. I imagine that it can't take too long to grill these little firecrackers, so maybe mine came right off the heat with a quickness. Still, as I said, the taste was mediocre at best and outside the novelty of eating a really small burger, you'd do just as well ordering a cheeseburger.


Look at this thick little beastie! And no, the bun doesn't have that "spun-from-a-unicon's-mane" lightness but they gave it a kiss of toasty, which was a nice touch. And the beef! Look at them side by side:

Ah! Don't be fooled by that pickle on the left. That BK patty is about as thick as a hobo's wallet and, compared to Jack's, about as tasty. The beef on these things was good quality, make no mistake. That was the dominant flavor of the Mini-Sirloin. Just beefy-beef. The onions too, were tasty and welcome. All around, good news for lovers of diminutive ground-meat sandwiches.

Seriously, clear winner here. Taste trumps value. Looks are just a bonus.



Just don't eat them all in one go.

5 comments:

Mike, Tia & Annabelle said...

Wow! I just wasn't expecting that for some reason :) Thanks for the match up Ed, next time I'm in the mood for a mini burger I'll keep this matchup in mind. Very insightful.

Airie said...

Ah yes, good ol' Jack-In-The-Box. You know, Abram worked there as a youth for several years, and will defend them to the bitter end, even when I refer to it as "Gag-In-The-Bag," a title started by some extended family member in Idaho after it's shining moment with curious contamination/disease issues. I'll have to have Abram read this one. You just made a new BFF Edward. ;)

Jeremy M said...

I'm sad that there are no Jack-in -the Box here in Kansas to verify your claims. Thanks for taking the time to protect us all from sub-par snackies.

Edward said...

Jeremy M...as in Merrell? My favorite brand of Jeremy? Egads man, hail and well met!

Michael said...

Awsome Gimbel!