Second dinner, enough for tomorrow too:
http://i49.tinypic.com/2lmvrzk.jpg

Looks mighty yummy to me. Just tune out the haters. Sure that pic give the munchies to normal folks.

On Feb 8, 7:17*pm, Brooklyn1 > wrote:
> Second dinner, enough for tomorrow too:http://i49.tinypic.com/2lmvrzk.jpg

I like your dinnerware. I've got a couple of chucks in the deep-
freeze in the basement, I might have to cook one up this weekend,
sounds good.

bigwheel wrote:
>Brooklyn1 wrote:
>> Second dinner, enough for tomorrow too:
>> http://i49.tinypic.com/2lmvrzk.jpg
>
>Looks mighty yummy to me.
>Just tune out the haters.

Nothing easier than tuning out the douchebags.

>Sure that pic give the munchies to normal folks.

Very yummy, delicious actually... perfect snowstorm food.

projectile vomit chick wrote:
>Brooklyn1 wrote:
>>
>> Second dinner, enough for tomorrow too:
>http://i49.tinypic.com/2lmvrzk.jpg
>
>I like your dinnerware. I've got a couple of chucks in the deep-
>freeze in the basement, I might have to cook one up this weekend,
>sounds good.

Don't over cook the meat. I pull it out soon as it's fork tender,
separate it into large chunks, and slice each chunk with a sharp
knife, then put back to reheat. I hate pot roast that has fallen into
strings... it's like it's already been eaten and passed through.

On 2/8/2013 9:37 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Feb 2013 20:17:14 -0500, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>
>> Second dinner, enough for tomorrow too:
>> http://i49.tinypic.com/2lmvrzk.jpg
>
> 5 days ago Sheldon said:
>
> "That's not pot roast... that's braised beef chuck. If it's not
> sliceable it's not pot roast."
>
> And:
>
> "Pot roast is best cooked in a pot on a cooktop. Choose a large
> (~5lb) top round (chuck becomes stringy). Tie the roast and check
> often with a fork so it's not over cooked... should be thinly
> sliceable without falling apart. For me pot roast is an excuse for
> making a large pot of vegetable soup."
>
> Another case of, "I'm just a crotchety old man who just like hear
> myself talk".
>
> And it's not even a serviceable pot roast. I see evidence of garlic,
> but no evidence of any onion. And a definite and severe lack of
> mushrooms. Looks way too muddy for my tastes.
>
> -sw
>
The chunks at 12 and 1 o'clock look to be freezer burned, too.

On Sat, 09 Feb 2013 22:50:51 -0500, Cheryl >
wrote:

> On 2/8/2013 9:37 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
> > On Fri, 08 Feb 2013 20:17:14 -0500, Brooklyn1 wrote:
> >
> >> Second dinner, enough for tomorrow too:
> >> http://i49.tinypic.com/2lmvrzk.jpg
> >
<snip>
> >
> The chunks at 12 and 1 o'clock look to be freezer burned, too.

How can you tell under all that gravy?

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On 2/10/2013 1:21 AM, sf wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Feb 2013 22:50:51 -0500, Cheryl >
> wrote:
>
>> On 2/8/2013 9:37 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
>>> On Fri, 08 Feb 2013 20:17:14 -0500, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>>>
>>>> Second dinner, enough for tomorrow too:
>>>> http://i49.tinypic.com/2lmvrzk.jpg
>>>
> <snip>
>>>
>> The chunks at 12 and 1 o'clock look to be freezer burned, too.
>
> How can you tell under all that gravy?
>
I sure can't tell. And Sheldon showed a photo of the chuck roast still
in the packaging in an earlier thread. It didn't appear to have been
frozen.

Jill

jmcquown wrote:
>
> sf wrote:
> > Cheryl wrote:
> >> The chunks at 12 and 1 o'clock look to be freezer burned, too.
> >
> > How can you tell under all that gravy?
> >
> I sure can't tell. And Sheldon showed a photo of the chuck roast still
> in the packaging in an earlier thread. It didn't appear to have been
> frozen.

That darker meat was probably just seared darker, imo.
The dish looked very tasty to me.

Gary

On 2/10/2013 9:19 AM, Gary wrote:
> jmcquown wrote:
>>
>> sf wrote:
>>> Cheryl wrote:
>>>> The chunks at 12 and 1 o'clock look to be freezer burned, too.
>>>
>>> How can you tell under all that gravy?
>>>
>> I sure can't tell. And Sheldon showed a photo of the chuck roast still
>> in the packaging in an earlier thread. It didn't appear to have been
>> frozen.
>
> That darker meat was probably just seared darker, imo.
> The dish looked very tasty to me.
>
> Gary
>
It probably was from the searing. I wouldn't turn that meal down.
However, I wouldn't spoon that much gravy over it (just my taste). The
gravy also seemed to be a little thick.

I like a nice smooth, glossy gravy. I'll admit to having a difficult
time consistently preparing really good flour-based gravy. The key-word
being "flour". If the ratio of flour to fat/drippings isn't just right,
or if the heat is too high, or if you don't stir (or whisk) constantly,
it can all go to hell very quickly. LOL

Jill

jmcquown wrote:
>
> On 2/10/2013 9:19 AM, Gary wrote:
> > That darker meat was probably just seared darker, imo.
> > The dish looked very tasty to me.

> It probably was from the searing. I wouldn't turn that meal down.
> However, I wouldn't spoon that much gravy over it (just my taste). The
> gravy also seemed to be a little thick.

I would have called that "beef stew" and not pot roast. Either way, looks
great to me and I like thick gravy. Sop it up with some fresh bread and
butter. oh yeah.

Gary

On 2/10/2013 9:57 AM, Gary wrote:
> jmcquown wrote:
>>
>> On 2/10/2013 9:19 AM, Gary wrote:
>>> That darker meat was probably just seared darker, imo.
>>> The dish looked very tasty to me.
>
>> It probably was from the searing. I wouldn't turn that meal down.
>> However, I wouldn't spoon that much gravy over it (just my taste). The
>> gravy also seemed to be a little thick.
>
> I would have called that "beef stew" and not pot roast. Either way, looks
> great to me and I like thick gravy. Sop it up with some fresh bread and
> butter. oh yeah.
>
> Gary
>
"Beef stew" except he sliced it. I'd have cut the chuck roast into
large cubes, floured and browned them and then made stew, yep.

Jill

On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 09:39:29 -0500, jmcquown >
wrote:



>I like a nice smooth, glossy gravy. I'll admit to having a difficult
>time consistently preparing really good flour-based gravy. The key-word
>being "flour". If the ratio of flour to fat/drippings isn't just right,
>or if the heat is too high, or if you don't stir (or whisk) constantly,
>it can all go to hell very quickly. LOL
>
>Jill

I use corn starch. Add water, make a slurry, then add that to the
drippings in the pot.

On Sat, 09 Feb 2013 22:50:51 -0500, Cheryl >
wrote:

>On 2/8/2013 9:37 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
>> On Fri, 08 Feb 2013 20:17:14 -0500, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>>
>>> Second dinner, enough for tomorrow too:
>>> http://i49.tinypic.com/2lmvrzk.jpg
>>
>> 5 days ago Sheldon said:
>>
>> "That's not pot roast... that's braised beef chuck. If it's not
>> sliceable it's not pot roast."
>>
>> And:
>>
>> "Pot roast is best cooked in a pot on a cooktop. Choose a large
>> (~5lb) top round (chuck becomes stringy). Tie the roast and check
>> often with a fork so it's not over cooked... should be thinly
>> sliceable without falling apart. For me pot roast is an excuse for
>> making a large pot of vegetable soup."
>>
>> Another case of, "I'm just a crotchety old man who just like hear
>> myself talk".
>>
>> And it's not even a serviceable pot roast. I see evidence of garlic,
>> but no evidence of any onion. And a definite and severe lack of
>> mushrooms. Looks way too muddy for my tastes.
>>
>> -sw
>>
>The chunks at 12 and 1 o'clock look to be freezer burned, too.

That roast was never frozen. Those darker parts are the exterior
slices and they're dark from the roast being well browned in the pan.
I didn't take a picture of the roast tied and browning, or even
cooking. For liquid I used two cans of beer, and what liquid came
from the veggies.

On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 08:12:58 -0500, jmcquown >
wrote:

>On 2/10/2013 1:21 AM, sf wrote:
>> On Sat, 09 Feb 2013 22:50:51 -0500, Cheryl >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/8/2013 9:37 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 08 Feb 2013 20:17:14 -0500, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Second dinner, enough for tomorrow too:
>>>>> http://i49.tinypic.com/2lmvrzk.jpg
>>>>
>> <snip>
>>>>
>>> The chunks at 12 and 1 o'clock look to be freezer burned, too.
>>
>> How can you tell under all that gravy?
>>
>I sure can't tell. And Sheldon showed a photo of the chuck roast still
>in the packaging in an earlier thread. It didn't appear to have been
>frozen.

Right, it was never frozen. Just gotta figure anyone who didn't think
those darker parts were the end slices from pan browning the roast
never really cooks anything other than reheat frozen entrees from the
stupidmarket. This chuck roast turned out especially scrumptious. It
lasted three days but then there was a small bowlful I reheated in the
nuker for my lunch today... it was so good I wish I had cooked another
one.

On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 09:19:22 -0500, Gary > wrote:

>jmcquown wrote:
>>
>> sf wrote:
>> > Cheryl wrote:
>> >> The chunks at 12 and 1 o'clock look to be freezer burned, too.
>> >
>> > How can you tell under all that gravy?
>> >
>> I sure can't tell. And Sheldon showed a photo of the chuck roast still
>> in the packaging in an earlier thread. It didn't appear to have been
>> frozen.
>
>That darker meat was probably just seared darker, imo.
>The dish looked very tasty to me.
>
>Gary

'Zactly!

On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 09:39:29 -0500, jmcquown >
wrote:

>On 2/10/2013 9:19 AM, Gary wrote:
>> jmcquown wrote:
>>>
>>> sf wrote:
>>>> Cheryl wrote:
>>>>> The chunks at 12 and 1 o'clock look to be freezer burned, too.
>>>>
>>>> How can you tell under all that gravy?
>>>>
>>> I sure can't tell. And Sheldon showed a photo of the chuck roast still
>>> in the packaging in an earlier thread. It didn't appear to have been
>>> frozen.
>>
>> That darker meat was probably just seared darker, imo.
>> The dish looked very tasty to me.
>>
>> Gary
>>
>It probably was from the searing. I wouldn't turn that meal down.
>However, I wouldn't spoon that much gravy over it (just my taste). The
>gravy also seemed to be a little thick.
>
>I like a nice smooth, glossy gravy. I'll admit to having a difficult
>time consistently preparing really good flour-based gravy. The key-word
>being "flour". If the ratio of flour to fat/drippings isn't just right,
>or if the heat is too high, or if you don't stir (or whisk) constantly,
>it can all go to hell very quickly. LOL

With my usual pot roast the liquid becomes a rich soup but this time I
used only two cans of beer for a liquid so there wasn't enough for
soup... if I do make gravy I don't like it runny, I prefer it well
thickened... thickened this with a cornstarch slurry.

On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 10:05:51 -0500, jmcquown >
wrote:

>On 2/10/2013 9:57 AM, Gary wrote:
>> jmcquown wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2/10/2013 9:19 AM, Gary wrote:
>>>> That darker meat was probably just seared darker, imo.
>>>> The dish looked very tasty to me.
>>
>>> It probably was from the searing. I wouldn't turn that meal down.
>>> However, I wouldn't spoon that much gravy over it (just my taste). The
>>> gravy also seemed to be a little thick.
>>
>> I would have called that "beef stew" and not pot roast. Either way, looks
>> great to me and I like thick gravy. Sop it up with some fresh bread and
>> butter. oh yeah.
>>
>> Gary
>>
>"Beef stew" except he sliced it. I'd have cut the chuck roast into
>large cubes, floured and browned them and then made stew, yep.

Maybe next time it'll be stew... diced small it could well be beef
barley mushroom soup. That roast was very lucky I didn't grind it for
burgers or meatloaf.

On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 10:43:38 -0500, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

>On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 09:39:29 -0500, jmcquown >
>wrote:
>
>
>
>>I like a nice smooth, glossy gravy. I'll admit to having a difficult
>>time consistently preparing really good flour-based gravy. The key-word
>>being "flour". If the ratio of flour to fat/drippings isn't just right,
>>or if the heat is too high, or if you don't stir (or whisk) constantly,
>>it can all go to hell very quickly. LOL
>>
>>Jill
>
>I use corn starch. Add water, make a slurry, then add that to the
>drippings in the pot.

Exactly what I did.

On 2/10/2013 3:58 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 10:05:51 -0500, jmcquown >
> wrote:
>
>> On 2/10/2013 9:57 AM, Gary wrote:
>>> jmcquown wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 2/10/2013 9:19 AM, Gary wrote:
>>>>> That darker meat was probably just seared darker, imo.
>>>>> The dish looked very tasty to me.
>>>
>>>> It probably was from the searing. I wouldn't turn that meal down.
>>>> However, I wouldn't spoon that much gravy over it (just my taste). The
>>>> gravy also seemed to be a little thick.
>>>
>>> I would have called that "beef stew" and not pot roast. Either way, looks
>>> great to me and I like thick gravy. Sop it up with some fresh bread and
>>> butter. oh yeah.
>>>
>>> Gary
>>>
>> "Beef stew" except he sliced it. I'd have cut the chuck roast into
>> large cubes, floured and browned them and then made stew, yep.
>
> Maybe next time it'll be stew... diced small it could well be beef
> barley mushroom soup. That roast was very lucky I didn't grind it for
> burgers or meatloaf.
>
I figured as much Stew would be good with the snow you've got. I do
eat soup year round but a nice hearty stew seems to require cold
weather. It got up to 70F here this afternoon. Not "stew weather"

Jill

On 2/10/2013 3:44 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Feb 2013 22:50:51 -0500, Cheryl >
> wrote:
>
>> On 2/8/2013 9:37 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
>>> On Fri, 08 Feb 2013 20:17:14 -0500, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>>>
>>>> Second dinner, enough for tomorrow too:
>>>> http://i49.tinypic.com/2lmvrzk.jpg
>>>
>>> 5 days ago Sheldon said:
>>>
>>> "That's not pot roast... that's braised beef chuck. If it's not
>>> sliceable it's not pot roast."
>>>
>>> And:
>>>
>>> "Pot roast is best cooked in a pot on a cooktop. Choose a large
>>> (~5lb) top round (chuck becomes stringy). Tie the roast and check
>>> often with a fork so it's not over cooked... should be thinly
>>> sliceable without falling apart. For me pot roast is an excuse for
>>> making a large pot of vegetable soup."
>>>
>>> Another case of, "I'm just a crotchety old man who just like hear
>>> myself talk".
>>>
>>> And it's not even a serviceable pot roast. I see evidence of garlic,
>>> but no evidence of any onion. And a definite and severe lack of
>>> mushrooms. Looks way too muddy for my tastes.
>>>
>>> -sw
>>>
>> The chunks at 12 and 1 o'clock look to be freezer burned, too.
>
> That roast was never frozen. Those darker parts are the exterior
> slices and they're dark from the roast being well browned in the pan.
> I didn't take a picture of the roast tied and browning, or even
> cooking. For liquid I used two cans of beer, and what liquid came
> from the veggies.
>
I know dear. Just had to find some fault like you always do with my
photos and everyone else's.

The blizzard looks mighty rough on TV. Glad yall seem to be surviving. My old storm trooper pal and the SBA lady just got back home from up there past Christmas from the Super Storm. If it wasn't for bad luck you poor folks just wouldnt have any..lol. We did say some powerful prayers on behalf or our Brothers and Sisters from up there..on both occasions. Musta worked.

I would forget the beer deal. This is why the Lord give us beef base. Beer makes stuff taste funny in cooked food applications..with the exception of sausage. Dont axe me how I know this. Thanks.