Oscar Mayer better than Vienna Beef

From Emily Nunn and our friends at the Chicago Tribune:

Chicago Tribune, July 2, 2008 wrote:Using six experienced tasters, we tried seven brands of all-beef franks (for no other reason than you have to stop somewhere—there are a lot of hot dogs out there). We boiled rather than broiled to avoid confusing the flavor of the grill with the flavor of the meat.

Here are our winners, with tasters' comments. The rest are listed in order of preference.

The results

1.Oscar Mayer Jumbo Premium Beef Franks . . .

2. Vienna Beef Jumbo Beef Franks . . .

In search of a top dog

When I saw this piece, I have to admit that I was stunned. I'd really like know who was on this panel and what their qualifications are. Who knows, maybe a bunch of local hotdog stands will now dump Vienna in favor of Oscar Mayer.

=R=

Not a lantsman in the bunch is my guess.

Interestingly enough, this morning Consumer Reports (whose findings I always feel are suspect in that they evaluate for "best value" rather than "best in class") made an appearance on the Today Show and chose Ballpark Franks and two other skinless varieties as their "best" hot dogs.

The Oscar Meyer PREMIUM All-beef franks are an excellent product. And there are quite a few other excellent franks out there (as well as some complete garbage).

It seems to me that the only way to really test the franks is to do a blind taste test of the product putting aside the prejudices that you have.

jlawrence01 wrote:The Oscar Meyer PREMIUM All-beef franks are an excellent product. And there are quite a few other excellent franks out there (as well as some complete garbage).

It seems to me that the only way to really test the franks is to do a blind taste test of the product putting aside the prejudices that you have.

I do enjoy many other types of hotdogs besides Vienna Beef but I wouldn't even put these particular OM's in my top 20.

=R=

Also, skinless franks are an entirely different monster - one I go out of my way to avoid. To me, the snap of the casing is one of the things that makes a dog worth eating. Funny - I grew up with OM and hated hot dogs my whole life until moving here; I doubt it's just marketing or prejudice....

The day before that article I bought some Hebrew National franks at the Jewel's for possible consumption over the weekend. (It wasn't convenient to head up to Romanian Kosher.) I was distressed to see them coming in at #5! Hopefully I will disagree with that assessment.

stevez wrote:Interestingly enough, this morning Consumer Reports (whose findings I always feel are suspect in that they evaluate for "best value" rather than "best in class") made an appearance on the Today Show and chose Ballpark Franks and two other skinless varieties as their "best" hot dogs.

That's what Consumer Reports is supposed to do - show you what products in each category give you the best bang for your buck, although for big ticket items (which a package of hot dogs is not) they do rank best in class along with best value.

The day I start listening to the Chicago Tribune, and Consumer Reports with regards to hot dogs, or anything for that matter, is the day I become a tofu hot dog eating vegetarian.

OM hot dogs are terrible imho,

my favorites:

Bests Kosher
Hebrew National
Nathans
Daisy Brand
Vienna

Fujisan wrote:That's what Consumer Reports is supposed to do - show you what products in each category give you the best bang for your buck, although for big ticket items (which a package of hot dogs is not) they do rank best in class along with best value.

Small point, but I disagree with this. Every rating list I've ever seen in Consumer Reports ranks in order of quality/performance/taste (depending on the product). Then, if something is a particularly good bang for the buck, it earns a "Best Buy" designation. The third-rated brand/model in the list could be the first one to get a "Best Buy," for example.

To reverify for myself what I just said, I did a "for instance" check on their ratings of light beers just now. The first one to earn a "Best Buy" is the seventh-rated on the list, Busch Light. All six light beers that CR ranks higher are more expensive.

I wrote:The day before that article I bought some Hebrew National franks at the Jewel's for possible consumption over the weekend. (It wasn't convenient to head up to Romanian Kosher.) I was distressed to see them coming in at #5! Hopefully I will disagree with that assessment.

jimswside wrote:my favorites:

Bests Kosher
Hebrew National

Color me comforted. Thanks, Jim.

riddlemay wrote:

Fujisan wrote:That's what Consumer Reports is supposed to do - show you what products in each category give you the best bang for your buck, although for big ticket items (which a package of hot dogs is not) they do rank best in class along with best value.

Small point, but I disagree with this. Every rating list I've ever seen in Consumer Reports ranks in order of quality/performance/taste (depending on the product). Then, if something is a particularly good bang for the buck, it earns a "Best Buy" designation. The third-rated brand/model in the list could be the first one to get a "Best Buy," for example.

To reverify for myself what I just said, I did a "for instance" check on their ratings of light beers just now. The first one to earn a "Best Buy" is the seventh-rated on the list, Busch Light. All six light beers that CR ranks higher are more expensive.

I guess what I meant was that their food rankings are kind of useless because they don't rate them on a 100 point scale like the big ticket items. Instead, food products are lumped either into Excellent, Very Good, Good, and Fair categories. For hot dogs, Hebrew National, Hebrew National reduced fat, Boar's Head, Boar's Head lite, Nathan's Famous, Ball Park, and Sabrett are all in the Very Good category (no hot dog was in the Excellent category) with the HN reduced fat and Boar's Head lite getting the quick pick rating because they are lower in fat. They are ranked highest to lowest in each category but you have no idea how much better or worse the hot dogs are compared to each other.

Fujisan wrote:For hot dogs, Hebrew National, Hebrew National reduced fat, Boar's Head, Boar's Head lite, Nathan's Famous, Ball Park, and Sabrett are all in the Very Good category (no hot dog was in the Excellent category) with the HN reduced fat and Boar's Head lite getting the quick pick rating because they are lower in fat. They are ranked highest to lowest in each category but you have no idea how much better or worse the hot dogs are compared to each other.

They also don't necessarily use the same criteria that I (or any reasonable person) would use to quantify their results. Giving a hot dog the edge because it's lower in fat? In what bizzaro universe is that even a consideration?

stevez wrote:They also don't necessarily use the same criteria that I (or any reasonable person) would use to quantify their results. Giving a hot dog the edge because it's lower in fat? In what bizzaro universe is that even a consideration?

If only that's what they actually wrote....

They write:

Though no hot dog in our tests was excellent, the best-tasting ones were the full-fat beef varieties. The nutritionists we consulted refused to put them in the “never, never eat” category. Instead, they say that a sound diet can reasonably include any type of food, in moderation. So if you just occasionally indulge (say, a few times each summer), you don’t have to fret about savoring a regular frank and you can simply buy the ones that taste best. But if you or your children eat hot dogs frequently, it might be wise to choose a lower-fat variety and add condiments for flavor.

This is also clear from their rankings. (Their "quick picks" are the two low-fat varieties that fell in their top group, but as pointed out upthread, the quick picks are not the highest quality, but reflect a variety of factors. In this case, taste, cost, and nutrition.)

Yes, I would never pick a hotdog based on anything other than taste. That's why I buy from Roumanian. But I only eat dogs 2-3 times per year at home. But the aim of the magazine is to give as much information as possible to people with a variety of preferences can form their own opinion. I appreciate the nutrition information (I had assumed that hot dogs had way more calories than what they report!), their advice to eat in moderation and choose based on taste is right on.

I do not have a problem with them not giving cardinal rankings (that is, rankings on a scale so we can see exactly how much they liked one product relative to another). I don't put much stock in these types of fine distinctions - such as those for wine and Zagat's restaurant ratings. If one scores a 90 out of 100 and another scores an 80 out of 100, I interpret that to mean that most people would rate the higher scoring one as noticeably better. But the difference between an 87 and and 85? That type of fine distinction relies too much in individual tastes. Sure, it doesn't hurt me to have cardinal rankings. But I wouldn't make decisions based on small differences.

For the record, so to speak, I never put any stock in any of CR's recommendations for food, drinks, and a variety of other things. But I think it's important to represent their article fairly.

I'm a big fan of Wimmer's Wieners. I grew up on them in Nebraska and every other hot dog pales in comparison to it for me. Great bite into the natural casing and a nice flavor. I believe you can purchase them in parts of Illinois but I have yet to see them in the Chicago area.

Now I'm so hungry for them I might need to order a bunch online.

I really find it worthwhile to get my dogs fresh from a butcher. It's not like dry-aged steaks. You can pretty much afford to splurge on a pound of good hot dogs. Paulina, or the one in Lincoln Sq. are my usual spots. And I'm sure many others do a really nice job though I don't get out of the hood that often. I always mix it up: some knockwurst, some Thuringer along with the standard dogs. Then we all share around and have a sort of mixed grill instead of just "hot dogs." One of my favorite summer meals.

Just like I don't trust Cook's Illustrated to come up with a good mexican/chinese/etc recipe, I don't trust Consumer Reports to review food. Or computers, generally. But especially not food.

Here's Cook's Illustrated's ratings for hot dogs:

Highly Recommended

1. NATHAN'S Famous Beef Franks 8 dogs, 1 pound, $4.99

Recommended

2. JOHNSONVILLE Stadium Style Beef Franks 6 dogs, 14 ounces, $2.99
3. HEBREW NATIONAL Beef Franks 7 dogs, 12 ounces, $4.69

Recommended with Reservations

4. OSCAR MAYER Beef Franks 10 dogs, 1 pound, $3.99
5. KAYEM DELI Jumbo Beef Hot Dogs 8 dogs, 1 pound, $3.99
6. BALL PARK Beef Franks 8 dogs, 1 pound, $3.99

Not Recommended

7. BOAR'S HEAD Skinless Beef Frankfurters 10 dogs, 1 pound, $4.29
8. KAHN'S Bun Size Beef Franks 8 dogs, 1 pound, $3.99
9. HEALTHY CHOICE Low Fat Beef Franks 8 dogs, 14 ounces, $3.49

Coincidentally, I just got a call today from a friend in the foodservice industry. He mentioned he had just done a tasting of different consumer hot dog brands.

He raved about the new Ball Park Angus Beef Franks, and said he liked both Hebrew National and Nathan's better than Vienna.

Seems to me this calls for an LTH hot dog tasting.

LAZ wrote:Seems to me this calls for an LTH hot dog tasting.

Like we haven't already been having one for years.

Hi,

Actually at the first picnic, there was an attempt to do a tasting of various hotdog vendors. Unfortunately they were thrown onto the grill this-way-and-that, after a while who knew where they came from.

Regards,

stevez wrote:Like we haven't already been having one for years.

Most of the evaluations I'm aware of relate to hot dog stands. Has there been a side-by-side brand comparison of consumer hot dogs? I only know about this one.

LAZ wrote:

stevez wrote:Like we haven't already been having one for years.

Most of the evaluations I'm aware of relate to hot dog stands. Has there been a side-by-side brand comparison of consumer hot dogs? I only know about this one.

Not directly an LTH thing but my friend Jason, who lives in New Jersey, conducted a fairly comprehensive comparative hotdog tasting panel, right around this time last year. Fwiw, I provided the Chicago brands that were sampled sampled by the panel.

It would definitely be fun to conduct a large-scale one here.

=R=

ronnie_suburban wrote:Not directly an LTH thing but my friend Jason, who lives in New Jersey, conducted a fairly comprehensive comparative hotdog tasting panel, right around this time last year. Fwiw, I provided the Chicago brands that were sampled sampled by the panel.

It would definitely be fun to conduct a large-scale one here.

Interesting survey. I suspect that Chicagoans might have different tastes and we would likely structure things differently. For example, they only boiled three brands of dogs.

I would try the dogs boiled or steamed and grilled and I would score on flavor, texture and juiciness. Separating saltiness from overall spicing doesn't seem right to me and there's an implied fault in "greasiness."

The categories might be beef (natural casing); beef (skinless); and other.

ronnie_suburban wrote:Not directly an LTH thing but my friend Jason, who lives in New Jersey, conducted a fairly comprehensive comparative hotdog tasting panel, right around this time last year.

I don't even want to repeat this, because it's anathema to me, but I learned on the above website that Hebrew National is "owned by industrial foods giant ConAgra." My world is shattered. A bit of consolation comes with the news that "it came as a bit of a surprise to some of us that Hebrew National, despite its ConAgra parentage, continued to score relatively high with some of our judges..."