The Gene and Jude's chat reminds me to post on a recent visit to Jimmy's. The other night I was scooching along Grand and felt a bit of hunger pang right about Division. Just hungry enough, I thought, to give Jimmy's a whirl.
I'm on record as a non-Jimmy's lover, and this visit still did not fully change my opinion. Now, I've always praised their fries, and on this visit, their fries seemed even better. I mean I had lunch the other day at Mr. D's, and as good as those fries are, Jimmy's were even better. I'm not totally sure on this, but I bet if a side by side comparison was done with all the fries in the Chicago area, Jimmy's would come out on top. I like that they are cut just a little thicker, especially as compared to G & J's. The thick cut allows them to really produce the ideal fry texture. As I was mentioning the other day to Hat Hammond, I find a bit of poor trend towards overly crisp fries. Jimmy's epitomizes the extent in which fries should be crisp. That is, on the outside, but then within, they should be fluffy and soft*. They are exact. Now the hog dog.
I said, not fully change my opinion, and I am willing to raise my opinion a bit because the hot dog I had the other night was the best I've had at Jimmy's. Best at Jimmy's, however, still has not equaled an especially good hot dog. Sure, as pictured up-thread, it has the tell-tale bellly button of a skin dog. It still barely tastes of one. I heard argued recently that Jimmy's simply over steams their dogs, leaching away the bite. Perhaps. It just seems to lack the ooph of a good Chicago dog.
I will say, given the quality of the fries, I could live with the dog when I get hunger pangs around Grand Avenue.
*There is certainly a point on overly busy days (e.g. about any Saturday) that G&J's fries get too soft, basically under-cooked, but in general, I think the lushness of the fries there a virtue not a fault.
Think Yiddish, Dress British - Advice of Evil Ronnie to me.