nsxtasy wrote:We ate at Honey 1 at lunchtime today. Neither of us was particularly impressed. The ribs were rather fatty, and the flavor was rather bland. The fries were okay (average), the barbecue sauce (we got it on the side) was okay (a bit sweet, a bit bland), and the cole slaw seemed very commercial (supermarket cole slaw).

My dining companion likes ribs chewy and smoky with little to no fat, and likes both Smoque and Carson's equally well and better than Honey 1. I prefer my ribs somewhat chewy with little to no fat, but with more of a barbecue sauce taste (from dipping and/or basting the ribs in sauce during the cooking process, NOT from dumping it on right before serving), and I prefer Carson's over Smoque, and Smoque over Honey 1.

Well certainly you've made it known via past posts that you aren't a big fan of Honey 1 and are a big fan of Carson's, and I don't question your preferences - we all have them. I'm curious, though, on this post how to reconcile your comparisons without more specifics. You say both you and your dining companion prefer ribs with "little to no fat". That's fine, again, your preference. Since you are comparing Honey 1's product against Smoque and Carson's I'm curious as to which products you are comparing. Honey 1, to my knowledge, only offers spare ribs (typically a fattier rib than, say, baby backs) while I'm not aware that Carson's offers anything BUT baby back ribs. Smoque offers both. So - I wish to know what you are comparing - Honey 1 spares vs Carson's babybacks vs Smoque's ? Just a rather strange comparo - typically we see people comparing apples to apples.

Kman wrote:typically we see people comparing apples to apples.

Comparing Honey 1 to Carson's is like comparing apples to zucchinis.

While I'd agree that the fries are always average and the cole slaw (or any side for that matter) never deviates from "commercial", 9 out of 10 times, Honey 1 makes the best ribs in the city for my tastes. Sounds like NSX either got that 1 in 10 bad batch or really, really likes Carson's.

Carsons(bake-b-q) better than Smoque, or Honey 1... ?

that is the best one I have heard in a long time. best joke of the year.

jimswside wrote:Carsons(bake-b-q) better than Smoque, or Honey 1... ?

that is the best one I have heard in a long time. best joke of the year.

Even by baked-ribs standards, I consider Carsons to be one of the worst. My brother is a big fan of baked ribs and some years ago (pre-LTH days) we did a systematic tasting of all the major baked-ribs spots in town. Carson's came in dead last. (But their potatoes au gratin are delicious).

Best,
Michael

eatchicago wrote:

jimswside wrote:Carsons(bake-b-q) better than Smoque, or Honey 1... ?

that is the best one I have heard in a long time. best joke of the year.

Even by baked-ribs standards, I consider Carsons to be one of the worst. My brother is a big fan of baked ribs and some years ago (pre-LTH days) we did a systematic tasting of all the major baked-ribs spots in town. Carson's came in dead last. (But their potatoes au gratin are delicious).

Best,
Michael

Back when they had a suburban location(before it was shuttered, which sad enough was probably the most wood that location had ever seen).. I liked their garlicky salad dressing.

Kman wrote:Well certainly you've made it known via past posts that you aren't a big fan of Honey 1 and are a big fan of Carson's

This was my first visit to Honey 1 and I have never posted about it previously.

Kman wrote:I'm curious, though, on this post how to reconcile your comparisons without more specifics. You say both you and your dining companion prefer ribs with "little to no fat". That's fine, again, your preference. Since you are comparing Honey 1's product against Smoque and Carson's I'm curious as to which products you are comparing. Honey 1, to my knowledge, only offers spare ribs (typically a fattier rib than, say, baby backs) while I'm not aware that Carson's offers anything BUT baby back ribs. Smoque offers both. So - I wish to know what you are comparing - Honey 1 spares vs Carson's babybacks vs Smoque's ? Just a rather strange comparo - typically we see people comparing apples to apples.

Well, we are comparing ribs to ribs. And you can only compare the kinds of ribs that are available at each place. If you go to Honey 1, you get fatty spare ribs. If you go to Carson's, you get baby back ribs that aren't fatty. When I went to Smoque, I tried what they had - both, IIRC - and neither was particularly fatty.

Tastewise, the Honey 1 ribs (spare ribs) have a mild (and, to me, overly bland) taste, with only a hint of smoke and none of barbecue sauce. The Smoque ribs (actually, all their meat products) have a distinctly smokey taste. The Carson's ribs have a taste more redolent of barbecue sauce as well as meat (because they dip the ribs in sauce before cooking, I'm not sure but they may baste them as well), rather than smoke and meat. And I prefer the taste of ribs that have some barbecue sauce to them.

Both reasons are why I prefer Carson's. I also like the ribs at Merle's, although not as much as Carson's.

Different people like different places; in some cases the differences can be attributed to different cuts of meat, and in others to different cooking techniques. In fact, the Carson's website makes a pretty good statement about that on their website:

Carson's website wrote:Carson’s enjoys a large and enthusiastic following of loyal customers. Still, there are areas across the country (Kansas City, Memphis, Texas and the Carolinas) where methods are very different from Carson’s. What's your preference? Hickory, maple, or oak wood? Baby Back or Spare ribs? Dry rub? Sweet, mild, hot, or smoky sauce? Vinegar, mustard, or tomato-based? No sauce, perhaps? ... there are many opinions on what makes good BBQ

jimswside wrote:Carsons(bake-b-q) better than Smoque, or Honey 1... ?

Carson's ribs are NOT baked; they are slow cooked in a pit smoker. As also noted on the Carson's website:

Carson's website wrote:Carson’s, uses the "indirect method", of smoking our meat on a large traditional BBQ pit smoker. Smoke and low-level heat generated from hickory (off to the sides) slowly cooks while also penetrating the meat with wonderful wood flavor. The smokers have a rotisserie system within the pit which permits them to slowly smoke 180 slabs at a time. While some barbecue purists insist that sauce never be part of the process, Carson’s believes the opposite…those purists have just never tasted a great sauce! Carson’s Signature BBQ Sauce is spectacular and that’s why we use it generously. Many places brush sauce on the meat in the final grilling stage or offer it at the table. Carson’s goes much further. Before we load our meat into the pit, we dip it into our sauce. This allows the sauce to permeate the meat as the hickory slowly does its job. Some suggest the sauce might cause the meat to burn. Carson’s sauce is on the sweet side and it does not burn, especially when smoking at temperatures between 190° and 250°. So, no boiling! No tenderizers! No dry rub! No beer! Just authentic, slow-cooked barbecue.

Based on going there and trying what they offer, I still like the ribs at Carson's (and Merle's) more than the ribs at Honey 1 or Smoque.

I dont even want to begin to point out the contradictory statements in that blurb from Carsons website..
that is pure marketing BS plain and simple but be that as it may..
Carson's is what it is.. a lot of people like it so they must be doing something right..they have been around long enough and no one stays in business that long because of lack of customers so Im not going to knock them...
personally though I think there is more authentic BBQ ribs to be had in Chicago nowadays in contrast to Carsons..
have you tried any other BBQ places besides Smoque and Honey 1?

nsxtasy wrote:Well, we are comparing ribs to ribs. And you can only compare the kinds of ribs that are available at each place. If you go to Honey 1, you get fatty spare ribs. If you go to Carson's, you get baby back ribs that aren't fatty.

This is truly absurd and I think the main reason everyone is taking your opinion with a few grains of salt. You might as well add in Honky Tonk's beef short ribs to the comparison, too. It'd make just as much sense.

For future reference:

Spare ribs : Baby back ribs :: bacon : pork loin.

nsxtasy wrote:

Kman wrote:Well certainly you've made it known via past posts that you aren't a big fan of Honey 1 and are a big fan of Carson's

This was my first visit to Honey 1 and I have never posted about it previously.

Oh, OK, my bad. Somebody must have hacked your account yesterday - might want to check into that.

http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/583849

Kman wrote:

nsxtasy wrote:

Kman wrote:Well certainly you've made it known via past posts that you aren't a big fan of Honey 1 and are a big fan of Carson's

This was my first visit to Honey 1 and I have never posted about it previously.

Oh, OK, my bad. Somebody must have hacked your account yesterday - might want to check into that.

http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/583849

That post is about the same visit, when I went there for lunch yesterday. I posted it at about the same time as I posted here - 27 minutes earlier, to be precise.

Sounds like you're trying to falsely accuse me of something shady. Shame on you!

Head's Red BBQ wrote:have you tried any other BBQ places besides Smoque and Honey 1?

Yes - Merle's, which I like; Hecky's, which I don't particularly care for (too chewy, and I'm not fond of their sauce); and a bunch of other places but not recently.

gleam wrote:This is truly absurd and I think the main reason everyone is taking your opinion with a few grains of salt.

No, what is TRULY absurd is that you and a few others cannot accept an OPINION which is different from your own - which is why you attempt to bring up "red herrings" like saying an opinion is not valid because it is based on the types of food that happen to be offered by any particular restaurant, when in fact those restaurants produce the same type of food and are frequently compared with each other in the same discussions.

You can argue all you want, but the FACT is that that is my OPINION - no matter how much you and others wish to deny it. The intolerance towards any diversity of opinions here is shocking, and a detriment to the enjoyment of food by all of us.

nsxtasy wrote:That post is about the same visit, when I went there for lunch yesterday. I posted it at about the same time as I posted here - 27 minutes earlier, to be precise.

Sounds like you're trying to falsely accuse me of something shady. Shame on you!

Are you sure it wasn't your twin brother?

Ok folks, we have a smoldering difference of opinion here, which is exactly what this place is all about. By now, we must all understand that we're not all going to agree on everything, so let's just accept it -- hell, let's cherish it -- and move on. The points have been covered and I suggest we let this specific inquistion die down and resume the focus on what we like and don't like about Honey 1 BBQ.

Thanks,

=R=
for the moderators

Well certainly you've made it known via past posts that you aren't a big fan of Honey 1 and are a big fan of Carson's

That is not a fair thing to say! If nsxtasy was repeating the same information HERE, I could understand, but not everyone reads every food forum out there. I think many people post their opinions in various places including LTH, Chowhound, their own blogs, the Reader, Yelp, etc. and although some of the audience overlaps it's definitely not all or most.

nsxtasy wrote:
Sounds like you're trying to falsely accuse me of something shady. Shame on you!

Not trying to falsely accuse you of anything. I simply noted that you have made it clear that you don't like Honey 1 (one of the worst meals you had in 2008, right?) and love Carson's . . . and then went on to ask how you compared back ribs to spare ribs. As I noted I was genuinely confused how your comparison was conducted. I had already read CH before coming here and your post certainly made a big impression on me. I honestly wasn't even paying attention to the exact date or time you posted over there, I just remembered having already read it. If you believe I was trying to impugn your integrity then I apologize - certainly wasn't my intent.

Nothing like a BBQ thread to get the juices (and tempers) flowing.

While i have never been to Carson's, I have been to Russell's and while it is certainly not my idea of good BBQ, they must be serving a need since they have been in business for so many years. The fact is that many people love the "Fall off the bone" style of ribs with a sticky, sweet sauce and while the various expects might turn their nose up to such heresy, the fact is that the market determines what will be available. Fortunately, we have a market that can support both a Carson's and Honey 1. I think that it is all important to recognize that there are divergent opinions and accept them for what they are; a person's point of view.

HI,

Let's exchange peace gifts and move onto the thoughtful discussion of food this board was built on.

Happy New Year!

Regards,

Muttster wrote:Nothing like a BBQ thread to get the juices (and tempers) flowing.

While i have never been to Carson's, I have been to Russell's and while it is certainly not my idea of good BBQ, they must be serving a need since they have been in business for so many years. The fact is that many people love the "Fall off the bone" style of ribs with a sticky, sweet sauce and while the various expects might turn their nose up to such heresy, the fact is that the market determines what will be available. Fortunately, we have a market that can support both a Carson's and Honey 1. I think that it is all important to recognize that there are divergent opinions and accept them for what they are; a person's point of view.

Familiarity has a lot to do with it. I remember fondly the ribs at Sally's on Western (pre roller skating incarnation) from when I was a kid. Now that I've traveled the country and places like Honey1 have come around it makes me wonder what I'd think of those ribs if I had them today. I don't remember them as 'fall off the bone'. But I also don't remember any smoke either.

I also remember Talbott's, also on Western. They had a dry rub baked rib that many people loved. I went there often with my father. I can pretty much guarantee they never saw a piece of wood in those ovens.

Russell's is another one. I was working in Rolling Meadows and one of the women working there came back to the office, all excited, when she discovered a Russell's on Algonquin not too far away. She remembered the one on Talcott from when she was a kid. She talked all of us into going there one day for lunch. Let's just say that, of the 6 of us that went, she's the only one that ever went back.

Yes, familiarity plays a big part in what we enjoy when it comes to food.

Cathy2 wrote:Let's exchange peace gifts and move onto the thoughtful discussion of food this board was built on,

I think that this post by dicksond on this topic is one of the most thoughtful posts I've read on LTH. Like I say on that original thread, I think it should be included on the Reference (nee Useful Stuff) section of LTH, since this argument crops up so frequently.

Funny, looking at that old thread, I hadn't even tried Uncle john's yet. Oh, so young and foolish!

midas wrote:Familiarity has a lot to do with it. I remember fondly the ribs at Sally's on Western (pre roller skating incarnation) from when I was a kid. Now that I've traveled the country and places like Honey1 have come around it makes me wonder what I'd think of those ribs if I had them today. I don't remember them as 'fall off the bone'. But I also don't remember any smoke either.

I'm sure familiarity is a part of it. I remember going to Gale Street Inn and eating their ribs many years ago and being reasonably satisfied. If I'm not mistaken, they have "fall off the bone" ribs. I haven't been there in quite a while and I have no idea if my recollection is correct or if I would like them now.

I would hope that we could in some cases identify differences of opinion with differences of style, as I have done in my posts above. For example, if I were in a rib discussion and someone said, "I really like ribs with a dry rub and a strong smoke flavor to them", I would suggest going to Smoque, where they specialize in that particular style. The same way I've mentioned that I like ribs the way Carson's makes them, slow cooked back ribs so there is very little fat, and with a nice "tug" on the bone resulting from the slow cooking in their smoker, dipped/basted in barbecue sauce imparting that flavor to the meat - so that someone might say, "Since you like that style, in addition to Carson's which makes them that way, you might also enjoy the ribs at XXX." In other words, sharing that specific differentiating information rather than simply saying "I like the ribs at XXX."

Granted, not all differences of opinion are associated with different cooking techniques, but to the extent that we can explain what it is we like about one place or another, we can increase the chances of finding the kinds of food that are most likely to please, based on our own personal preferences.

nsxtasy wrote:

Head's Red BBQ wrote:have you tried any other BBQ places besides Smoque and Honey 1?

Yes - Merle's, which I like; Hecky's, which I don't particularly care for (too chewy, and I'm not fond of their sauce); and a bunch of other places but not recently.

you may want to try Honky Tonk or if you are out in the burbs Sweet Baby Rays or even Smokin M's..you may be pleasantly surprised

Cathy2 wrote:HI,

Let's exchange peace gifts and move onto the thoughtful discussion of food this board was built on.

Happy New Year!

Regards,

I thought thats what we were doing?

nsxtasy wrote:I'm sure familiarity is a part of it. I remember going to Gale Street Inn and eating their ribs many years ago and being reasonably satisfied. If I'm not mistaken, they have "fall off the bone" ribs. I haven't been there in quite a while and I have no idea if my recollection is correct or if I would like them now.

It's funny too, I remember back when Carson's opened up on Ridge. Not only would I go there often, but it was really a special event when I went. Now that I've been exposed to others I have no desire to ever go there again. I did try the one on Harlem a few months before they closed up. It just didn't suit my tastes anymore.

I would hope that we could in some cases identify differences of opinion with differences of style, as I have done in my posts above. For example, if I were in a rib discussion and someone said, "I really like ribs with a dry rub and a strong smoke flavor to them", I would suggest going to Smoque, where they specialize in that particular style. The same way I've mentioned that I like ribs the way Carson's makes them, slow cooked back ribs so there is very little fat, and with a nice "tug" on the bone resulting from the slow cooking in their smoker, dipped/basted in barbecue sauce imparting that flavor to the meat - so that someone might say, "Since you like that style, in addition to Carson's which makes them that way, you might also enjoy the ribs at XXX." In other words, sharing that specific differentiating information rather than simply saying "I like the ribs at XXX."

As has been said before, there's something about BBQ that just stirs emotions. People that prefer it one way tend to have disdain for those that like it another way. It's kind of the way most of us (most, not all) feel about people that put ketchup on hot dogs.

Granted, not all differences of opinion are associated with different cooking techniques, but to the extent that we can explain what it is we like about one place or another, we can increase the chances of finding the kinds of food that are most likely to please, based on our own personal preferences.

And that's the way it should be. Think of it like Chinese food. People that are accustomed to, and like, what we refer to Jewish American Chinese such as Kow Kow would likely hate true Chinese food. I know that when I was in Beijing it was like nothing I had eaten before. Trying to compare Kow Kow to real Chinese food is like comparing apples to oranges. But that doesn't mean that those that like Kow Kow are wrong for liking it. They're just wrong if they think it's really Chinese food.

midas wrote:And that's the way it should be. Think of it like Chinese food. People that are accustomed to, and like, what we refer to Jewish American Chinese such as Kow Kow would likely hate true Chinese food. I know that when I was in Beijing it was like nothing I had eaten before. Trying to compare Kow Kow to real Chinese food is like comparing apples to oranges. But that doesn't mean that those that like Kow Kow are wrong for liking it. They're just wrong if they think it's really Chinese food.

The problem though is that we are viewing food as some sort of a static standard that never changes. While I would agree that Chinese American food (never had Jewish American Chinese) taste quite different from the food in Beijing, the food in Beijing in quote different from that of Lanzhou in the north central part of China and that is different from the food in Guangzhou. Migrational patterns coupled with geographical and economic restraints has modified our idealized perception of Chinese food to the point that it is now extremely difficult to define what Chinese food actually is (or American food for that matter.)

So what does this have to do with BBQ? Maybe it would be helpful to look and judge BBQ as a representation of a certain style of BBQ. That way, when people who discuss the "meat jello" style of BBQ describe how they love a certain restaurant that produces product in the style that they prefer, the fans of "tender but firm spare rib" style won't be too offended nor will those who define BBQ as "pork shoulder with a vinegary sauce". There is way more that this but its too early in the morning for my brain to process it all.

There is plenty of room in the BBQ tent for everyone.

I kinda wonder if all the Carsons locations have shuddered because real bbq is starting to show up in Chicago. Sure, they do/did a lot of business, but maybe only by default. Real q joints start showing up on the north side, and since there are actually options for folks to have real q, Carsons mkt share starts dwindling to the point of stores selling off their smokers..err...ovens and closing.
Also, another thing to keep in mind, real bbq is pretty hard to get a consistent product out - especially commercially. Baking sauce on ribs is pretty easy to do commercially.

Some spares will be fattier than others, and baby backs are generally MUCH leaner than spares. Comparing fattiness of ribs to ribs using spares and b-backs is simply not a correct comparison. Sure, it may have been your only comparison to make, but saying something like "these ribs were fattier, so I didn't like them as much" is somewhat irking since, well, they are SUPPOSED to be fattier. Nsxtasy - don't get me wrong, I respect your postings, enjoy them, and will continue to do so, but, I resectfully disagree with how you compared the ribs here. If Honey 1's ribs were the worst ribs you've had, in comparing them to baby backs, then its not really their ribs you dislike, it's "Chicago Aquarium Smoker spare ribs" you dislike. I am keeping in mind, however, that you could have gotten a bad batch - since these are not sauce baked ribs, these are Aquarium smoked. We've ALL had bad batches of those* I usually try to give a joint two or three tries before writing them off as "bad."

*Have yet to have a bad batch at Uncle John's though.

Head's Red BBQ wrote:you may want to try Honky Tonk or if you are out in the burbs Sweet Baby Rays or even Smokin M's..you may be pleasantly surprised

I had ribs from Sweet Baby Rays a year or two ago, at a function where their catering services were used. I don't know whether the ribs were any different due to being served off-site, but I'll tell you, I liked them quite a lot! My recollection was that they were the "dipped/basted in sauce" style, but I could be mistaken about that. I do remember for sure that they were served with barbecue sauce on them, whereas on-site, as with most places, I'm assuming you have the option to have sauce served on them or on the side (which is how I generally ask for my ribs, especially when trying a place for the first time).

Muttster wrote:So what does this have to do with BBQ? Maybe it would be helpful to look and judge BBQ as a representation of a certain style of BBQ. That way, when people who discuss the "meat jello" style of BBQ describe how they love a certain restaurant that produces product in the style that they prefer, the fans of "tender but firm spare rib" style won't be too offended nor will those who define BBQ as "pork shoulder with a vinegary sauce". There is way more that this but its too early in the morning for my brain to process it all.

There is plenty of room in the BBQ tent for everyone.

Yes, that's exactly what I was suggesting - just as I have described my own preference for a "slow-cooked, dipped/basted in sauce" style.

seebee wrote:If Honey 1's ribs were the worst ribs you've had, in comparing them to baby backs, then its not really their ribs you dislike, it's "Chicago Aquarium Smoker spare ribs" you dislike. I am keeping in mind, however, that you could have gotten a bad batch - since these are not sauce baked ribs, these are Aquarium smoked. We've ALL had bad batches of those* I usually try to give a joint two or three tries before writing them off as "bad."

*Have yet to have a bad batch at Uncle John's though.

Honey 1 weren't the worst ribs I've had*. In fact, I wouldn't even say that they were bad. I actually thought they were decent. However, I was disappointed because I was expecting to enjoy them more than I actually did, based on most of the comments that had been posted in this topic (there are some exceptions too; prior opinion here had not been unanimous in praise).

Oh, and about that "familiarity" concept - While all of us may have a predisposition towards styles and foods we are most familiar with, I'm attracted to LTH (and I suspect most others here are as well) so that I can expose myself to styles and foods I'm not familiar with, and people's opinions about them. I consider myself a reasonably adventurous eater, and I'm interested in trying new foods/places, especially ones that others enjoy, and forming my own opinions about them. I'll add a counter-example on the "nsxtasy must like those because that's what he's/she's familiar with" concept. I grew up on the East Coast, and I was reasonably content with the thin-crust pizza and occasionally the bready "Sicilian" pizza served there. I came to Chicago in the early 1970s, and tried Uno/Due. My reaction was "WOW! This is DELICIOUS!!!" and I never looked at pizza the same way again. I had the same epiphany when Chicago magazine wrote about a small pizza parlor on 63rd Street called Giordano's, and I went there and had yet another "wow! moment". Two new (to me) and different styles of pizza, and with both it was "love at first bite". So familiarity doesn't preclude me from trying and liking (even loving) new styles and new foods. That's why I'm willing to try other recommended barbecue (and non-barbecue) restaurants to see what they have to offer. Thanks to those (e.g. Binko) who have appreciated that.

* If you're curious about the worst ribs I've ever had, I tried an award-winning rib restaurant in a small city in Ohio this past year, and... let's just say it's the only time I can remember leaving over most of my rib dinner and not taking it home.

nsxtasy wrote:...for example, I occasionally eat ribs at Chili's, primarily for reasons of convenience rather than preference (I am not calling the ones at Chili's great, but they're pretty decent for a national chain restaurant

Ken,

I was about to type out a reasoned response re Carson's v Honey 1 then read the above. Instead next time I see you I will simply give you a hug. I respect a man who is consistent in his opinions and style, even if they are not aligned with my own.

Happy New Year my friend, stay healthy and, moreover, true to you.

Enjoy,
Gary

(post deleted)

nsxtasy wrote:That's the context that you've conveniently ignored with your not-so-subtly mocking post.

Dude,

You're on a melting ice flow drifting out to a frigid uncompromising sea and, incredibly enough, slinging insults to the few, actually very few, who aren't easing your way to open ocean.

You are smoking for a fight, but not going to get one from me.

I will, however, make one small observation in that Chili's ribs have about as much in common with Carson's as Carson's with Honey 1.

Happy New Year,
Gary

G Wiv wrote:I will, however, make one small observation in that Chili's ribs have about as much in common with Carson's as Carson's with Honey 1.

Plus, Chili's ribs have a song.

Dudes - we're heading back into the what is BBQ "discussion", which we didn't resolve last time, and the poor horse...

I've been studiously avoiding this train-wreck-into-a-burning-orphanage-full-of-escaped-zoo-animals, but I would like to point out one thing: it may be 812 to 1 against Nsxtasy opinionwise, but he's the first person to comment substantively on a recent actual visit to Honey 1 since July 8th.

And six months after reporting on a very promising new barbecue operation in this thread and the Reader, I remain the only person here who has ever even tried it, apparently.

Time for some of this energy being devoted to defending barbecue to go instead toward trying it and posting about it, perhaps?