Restaurants & Bars

Los Angeles Area

Someone explain The Fascination with Tommy's and Pinks?


Restaurants & Bars 146

Someone explain The Fascination with Tommy's and Pinks?

crap | Dec 8, 2005 12:18 PM

Be warned this is a mild rant.

I think they're both horrible excuses for a chili burger and dog.

I'll start with Tommy's first. First of all the meat patties are thin, completely void of any real meaty substance. This is clearly an issue with Tommy's as a In N Out burger does not have this problem. Secondly and most puzzling to me is the (in) famous chili. To me, it tastes much like mashed up Dennison's with added lard so it tastes less like chili and more like... I don't even know what to compare it to. It's horrible.

Pinks. I don't even know why Tony Bourdain bothered to eat one. If it doesn't look like a dog it probably doesn't taste like one either. Why can't there just be a Top Dog or a Papaya King? Why Pinks? Why defile the hot dog with such appalling toppings and combinations? I'll tell you why. It's because the dog itself sucks. It's a way to mask the cheap disgusting quality of the star ingredient itself. I've had 100x better luck with the Hotdog carts outside of the Staples Center after a game.

I don't get these two very famous and saught out Los Angeles traditions...

Want to stay up to date with this post?

Recommended From Chowhound