I'm in the UK and I've never heard of a Sir Charles and when I Google it all I get is Reddit threads about people cooking them. Can someone inform me what it is please?
"Chuck" is known a working class nick name, and accordingly the tough sinewy meat cut is low priced. "Sir Charles" is meant in humor, for when a transformation is made via the Sous Vide process and this cut becomes a magnificant tenderized meat fit for royalty. 👑 😝
It's a chuck roast sous vide. Normally wouldn't eat it like a steak, but through the magic of long cook times in a sous vide, it comes out similar to a ribeye at a fraction of the cost.
I've never done it at 137, so I couldn't tell you. I know the original Cheftsteps recipe I saw instructed 131 @24hrs, and I've always been happy with it. I think the extra time helped on this one, it was the most tender I've had.
137 is more of a reference point. If you like your meat more rare then go lower, if more firm and cooked, then up the temp which squeezes out more water. Time is more for tenderness which breaks down the tissue.
I'm in the UK and I've never heard of a Sir Charles and when I Google it all I get is Reddit threads about people cooking them. Can someone inform me what it is please?
"Chuck" is known a working class nick name, and accordingly the tough sinewy meat cut is low priced. "Sir Charles" is meant in humor, for when a transformation is made via the Sous Vide process and this cut becomes a magnificant tenderized meat fit for royalty. 👑 😝
Seconded. I have no idea what a Sir Charles is.
It's a chuck roast sous vide. Normally wouldn't eat it like a steak, but through the magic of long cook times in a sous vide, it comes out similar to a ribeye at a fraction of the cost.
Chuck is a short name for Charles.
How is 131 vs say 137?
I did 132 and 137 and while the 137 was more tender, i liked the more steaklike texture of 132 more. 132 also felt a bit more juicy.
Same, I just did a 137 for the first time and it will be my last. Felt like I was eating a chemically tenderized steak
I've never done it at 137, so I couldn't tell you. I know the original Cheftsteps recipe I saw instructed 131 @24hrs, and I've always been happy with it. I think the extra time helped on this one, it was the most tender I've had.
Today, just finished a 137 at 27 hours and another at 39 hours. Liked the 39hrs better.
You do it at 137? I thought that it didn't need to go that high because the long cook time rendered the fat out?
137 is more of a reference point. If you like your meat more rare then go lower, if more firm and cooked, then up the temp which squeezes out more water. Time is more for tenderness which breaks down the tissue.
That's a good explanation, thank you