ham Ham HAM

On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 11:57:27 -0700, "<RJ>" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

My local grocery is haveing a sale on ham.

Butt, or Shank... same price per pound.

I'm looking to get a few sandwiches,
but then mostly soups, casseroles, etc.

Any advantage of one cut over the other ?

For sandwiches, I would get the butt. I find that it's got a lot more
large sections of meat. Others maintain that the shank is tastier. I
always but the butt.

I cook the ham and we have a few slices. After the initial dinner,
when the ham has cooled, I pull the separate sections apart. Much
easier to slice that way.

Carol
--

http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/head_trollop/my_photos

In article <[email hidden]>,

RJ said:

My local grocery is haveing a sale on ham.

Butt, or Shank... same price per pound.

I'm looking to get a few sandwiches,
but then mostly soups, casseroles, etc.

Any advantage of one cut over the other ?

<rj>

Less bone in one of them, shank I think???
--
Om.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-[censored]." -Jack Nicholson

RJ said:

My local grocery is haveing a sale on ham.

Butt, or Shank... same price per pound.

I'm looking to get a few sandwiches,
but then mostly soups, casseroles, etc.

Any advantage of one cut over the other ?

<rj>

I'd go bone out if wanting nice slices for sandwiches. OTOH, I went for
bone in that will give us nice pieces for dinner plus sandwiches and the
bone left over for soup. So I guess it really depends on how you want
to use it for the main meal then for leftovers.

OmManiPadmeOmelet said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

RJ said:

My local grocery is haveing a sale on ham.

Butt, or Shank... same price per pound.

I'm looking to get a few sandwiches,
but then mostly soups, casseroles, etc.

Any advantage of one cut over the other ?

<rj>

Less bone in one of them, shank I think???

And only two choices... wrong!

~patches~ said:

RJ said:

My local grocery is haveing a sale on ham.

Butt, or Shank... same price per pound.

I'm looking to get a few sandwiches,
but then mostly soups, casseroles, etc.

Any advantage of one cut over the other ?

<rj>

I'd go bone out if wanting nice slices for sandwiches. OTOH, I went for
bone in that will give us nice pieces for dinner plus sandwiches and the
bone left over for soup. So I guess it really depends on how you want
to use it for the main meal then for leftovers.

Didn't ask about bone.

Damsel in dis Dress <[email hidden]> looking for trouble wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 11:57:27 -0700, "<RJ>" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

My local grocery is haveing a sale on ham.

Butt, or Shank... same price per pound.

I'm looking to get a few sandwiches,
but then mostly soups, casseroles, etc.

Any advantage of one cut over the other ?

For sandwiches, I would get the butt. I find that it's got a lot more
large sections of meat. Others maintain that the shank is tastier. I
always but the butt.

I cook the ham and we have a few slices. After the initial dinner,
when the ham has cooled, I pull the separate sections apart. Much
easier to slice that way.

Carol

I usually buy the butt but I'll buy the shank and use the leftover shank
for recipes. Ham and bean soup etc. The butt is easier to slice IMO but
that is just me. Carol is right, the shank I find to be the tastier of the
2 cuts.

Michael

--
....Bacteria: The rear entrance to a cafeteria.

All gramatical errors and misspellings due to Ramsey the cyber kitten. He
now owns all keyboards and computing devices in the household and has the
final say on what is, or is not, posted.
Send email to dog30 at charter dot net

OmManiPadmeOmelet said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

RJ said:

My local grocery is haveing a sale on ham.

Butt, or Shank... same price per pound.

I'm looking to get a few sandwiches,
but then mostly soups, casseroles, etc.

Any advantage of one cut over the other ?

<rj>

Less bone in one of them, shank I think???

I think butt actually has more meat. Alton Brown recommended shank
because it's easier to carve. The bones in the butt portion are hard to
work around.

Brian

--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

In article <[email hidden]>,

Sheldon said:

OmManiPadmeOmelet said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

RJ said:

My local grocery is haveing a sale on ham.

Butt, or Shank... same price per pound.

I'm looking to get a few sandwiches,
but then mostly soups, casseroles, etc.

Any advantage of one cut over the other ?

<rj>

Less bone in one of them, shank I think???

And only two choices... wrong!

<shrugs> I had a 50/50 chance. ;-)

I seldom purchase whole hams, bone in, so was not 100% sure.

Cheers and thanks for the correction!
--
Om.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-[censored]." -Jack Nicholson

On 14 Dec 2005 20:10:31 GMT, "Default User" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I think butt actually has more meat. Alton Brown recommended shank
because it's easier to carve. The bones in the butt portion are hard to
work around.

That's why you pull each section apart from the others. Makes it
really east to slice. Then you can make soup with that pesky bone.

Carol
--

http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/head_trollop/my_photos

RJ said:

My local grocery is haveing a sale on ham.

Butt, or Shank... same price per pound.

I'm looking to get a few sandwiches,
but then mostly soups, casseroles, etc.

Any advantage of one cut over the other ?

I guess there's no point in my asking whether fresh ham or cured... the
kitchen idiots will claim cured is the default (WRONG), show me a cured
pig walking around then I'll believe. With cured it really makes no
difference so far as flavor, all cured the same will taste the same.
The butt half contains slightly more meat per pound and typically costs
a few pennies more, but when both halves are priced the same you can be
pretty certain that the center cut(s) were removed. All things being
equal I'd go with the butt half, much easier to slice.

RJ said:

My local grocery is haveing a sale on ham.

Butt, or Shank... same price per pound.

I'm looking to get a few sandwiches,
but then mostly soups, casseroles, etc.

Any advantage of one cut over the other ?

<rj>

I think the shank makes a prettier portion and it's easier to carve.
But...what the hell...buy one of each!!!

Bubba

--
You wanna measure or you wanna cook?

In article <[email hidden]>,

RJ said:

My local grocery is haveing a sale on ham.

Butt, or Shank... same price per pound.

I'm looking to get a few sandwiches,
but then mostly soups, casseroles, etc.

Any advantage of one cut over the other ?

The butt wins hands down. I like a butt.

Around here, the butt is usually more expensive.

Of course, are you buying meat or bone? If you want bone, then the
shank wins.

--
Dan Abel
[email hidden]
Petaluma, California, USA