A Hamburger Today- aht.seriouseats.com

Burger Origin Smackdown

Posted by Adam Kuban, January 29, 2007 at 3:11 PM

Oooh, boy.

Burger expert Josh "Mr. Cutlets" Ozersky rears his head in the Los Angeles Times with an op-ed piece on the recent kerfuffle about the burger's birthing grounds. Mr. Ozersky's comments are borne of the research he's doing for an upcoming scholarly tome (to be published by Yale University Press) on the history of the hamburger.

First on Texas's claim:

My research assistant, Andrea Murphy, and I have painstakingly looked through the Tribune's archives and can safely say that this report does not exist. Furthermore, there is no Fletcher Davis on the fair's concession list. In fact, we found no documentary evidence for Texas' claim at all.

Then on Louis' Lunch's claim:

... the next hamburger Louis' Lunch serves will be its first. The restaurant makes a broiled ground-beef patty that is served on toast. Such a sandwich is, historically and semiotically speaking, not a hamburger. The hamburger as a recognized entity is a ground-beef patty on some form of yeast bun. Can Louis' really claim that nobody ever put ground beef on two slices of bread before? The Earl of Sandwich himself might have done that. In fact, an 1894 article in the Los Angeles Times described a late-night food vendor who sold tamales to drunks — along with "trotters, ham, egg and hamburger steak sandwiches" —one year before Louis' Lunch was founded.

And, to fan the fire, A Hamburger Today has some additional material from lexicographer Barry Popik that we will publish soon....

Want lies with your burger? [Los Angeles Times]

Post a Comment | Tags: Connecticut, hamburger history, Louis' Lunch, New Haven, Texas