chopped v. sliced
Years ago I started ordering chopped BBQ sandwiches because, at that time, it seemed that I was getting a part of the brisket that you did not get on the sliced sandwiches, i.e., end pieces, charred pieces, etc, that to me made a more interesting sandwich than the slices of beef. But it seems that more so lately when I order "chopped" I get the sliced part just cut up into small portions, defeating the purpose. Now, has the world changed or is my concept of "chopped v. sliced" based on a few unusual experiences. Since there are so many BBQ experts no matter where you go, I ask " Should there be a difference in the meat used to make a sliced or chopped BBQ sandwich? Thank you.
If you watch them slice the brisket at any bbq joint, watch what they do with the debris that comes off of the meat. They scrape it into some sort of pot or receptacle. Yes, they'll add some actual slices of brisket to that pot, but you're also getting the scraps. Often that includes a lot of the fat and other less-than-desirable bits and pieces.
I'm not saying it's all bad. Sometimes, it's exactly what I'm in the mood for.
But mostly, if the barbecue is good, the slices are absolutely, most definitely superior.
Right. My dad calls it 'trash.' I wouldn't go so far as to say that, but it definitely isn't the primo cut.
Now, that said, there are places, most notably in Kansas City and points north, that you can ask for a 'chopped burnt end sandwich.' Then they actually do take the burnt ends and chop them specifically for the sandwich, and you can watch them do it. I don't see that in Texas. In Texas, when folks ask for their brisket 'off the high side' or 'the point' or 'the deckle' or 'wet' or 'the fat cap,' that basically includes what other locales call burnt ends.