The culinary world is up in arms about the biggest controversy that has hit since... Well, I don't know since when or what, but this is big. No pun intended with that actually, which leads me to my point: Burger King -- affectionally referred to as BK among friends -- has ripped off the Big Mac down to the name. That's right, the Big King has hit, and it has hit hard-ish.
And this was naturally something I'd have to compare in a taste test, to ask the question: Should this exist?
The answer is no, but you already knew that. Neither of these should exist. But, how similar are they really? For my blind test I had to pick out which was which based on their looks, then see if my mind was changed after tasting. As you can see, marketing once again trumps real world as far as the presentations are concerned.
Shared ugliness aside, I will say I was a bit surprised about which was which. I got it wrong, and the Big Mac on the right does, in my mind, look more like a real, non-processed burger than the Big King. Wasn't there a time where BK produced something that looked more like real burgers?
Taste wise? They were identical. I mean, literally identical, with only difference I could pick up on, and I'm near 100% certain was a mistake on McDonald's side. The Big Mac lacked that patented McDonald's sauce, which BK now has replicated perfectly. Or “perfectly”. You know what I mean.
If you haven't had a Big Mac in a while (or indeed a Big King) let me just remind you that these burgers really do not taste like anything. They can call it a stack bread and meat and lettuce and cheese as much as they want, but that's not really what they are. They're like some mysterious look-alikes from another dimension where things look like their earthly equivalents, just without any flavor.
Both burgers cost $2.79, and the conspiracy theorist in me can't help but think that they are made in the same kitchen as some grand joke on us all.
And again, if there was any doubt: Neither of these should exist.