When is a burger not a burger? Pt. 2 (Bridget Foy's)

What up peeps? This week's installment on "My Inner Fatty" comes to you courtesy of my post over on AHT about a charming little eatery in East Philly called Bridget Foy's. Long story short, it's a brunch slash bar type thing that blah blah blah, whatever. If you want to read about the cheeseburger you can do so on Serious Eats... because I'm not going to talk about that here. Instead... spurned on by some of the responses to the initial post... I'm going to rehash the question of "what constitutes a burger," I'm going to discuss the ridiculousness of (some) commenters, and I'm also going to explain why broad sweeping generalizations aren't good! Basically, I'm going to write everything I'm not allowed to say on AHT here, using inappropriate analogies and colorful language. Fun times!

Now... the last time I brought up the idea of a "burger not actually being a burger," it was about the Monte Cristo burger - one consisting of a beef patty, smoked turkey, barbecued ham, and French toast - found at RUB Barbeque. In that post, I said that their creation was a sandwich, not a burger. Sure, Wiki's definition of a ground meat patty between bread would classify such a thing as a burger, but in this case Wiki's definition is looser than a cheap hooker. By what the "common braintrust" is suggesting, if you took meatloaf and put it between Wonderbread it'd also be a burger. That would be straight stupid... to me, RUB's creation... is no burger. Is it delicious? Yes. A burger? No.



I get it. In a lot of cases there's ambiguity on where to draw the line between calling something a burger vs. just a monstrosity of food. This isn't one of this cases. Bridget Foy's "Head House Market" burger definitely falls into the former category. Everything about it screams burger. It has a standard bun (yeah it's a brioche... but it's an uber sensual brioche), it has a patty comprised of an 8-ounce matrix of luscious beef, it's topped with a pretty standard cheese (gruyere), and it uses a fairly standard topping in grilled mushrooms. So where's the problem?



An egg? Are you freaking joking? Someone suggested I stop reviewing egg topped burgers because they weren't hamburgers, but were "breakfast burgers." Someone else suggested I stop reviewing egg topped burgers because they're "old news." Guess what bro-skis, no can do. First off... in case you didn't realize it when you were typing... the phrase "breakfast burger" has the word burger in it. I might not be the brightest guy on the block, but that suggests to me that an egg topped burger fits in perfectly at home on a site called "A Hamburger Today." So if it's alright by you, I'm going to kindly ignore your suggestion. As for commenter number dos who thinks egg burgers are boring and overplayed? So's apple pie. That shit's been around since well before your grandfather was spitting mad game at your grandma. That doesn't make it any less delicious (apple pies, not your grandmother). I realize that fried eggs on burgers probably isn't anything innovative, but a yolk soaked sweet brioche bun paired with the sharp contrast of gruyere and the subtle flavor of beef? It's a sexy party in your mouth. An instant tongue boner. It's like a Kevin Durant 3-point shot from the top of the arc. It's just... right.



Regarding how burgers should be cooked? That's personal man. Too personal. You can't just come all up in my post and tell me how I should like my meat. I like it soft and pink, is that such a crime? In all seriousness, this is the danger of sweeping generalizations. If you want your burgers charred and blackened, that's fine. I respect that. Do your thing. But if I specifically request that my burger be cooked medium-rare, I feel like the restaurant (and the reader) should respect and deliver on that premise. The moment you start making decisions and speaking for other people... well, then you just sound like silly. Sorry.