I'm new to this group and I've been looking at some electric smokers such as
the Bradley, the Cookshack and the SmokinTex. Is electric O.K.? Or would I
be disappointed in them?

Any other brands or preferences?

If you want less hassle and are just starting out trying to smoke foods
- an electric is probably the easiest to venture into.

Some enthusiasts will probably swear against them - but this is
probably a product of the level of use you/they look to get out of it
and how much time you want to invest in smoking.

I think Cookshack has some of the best brands available.
BP
www.outdoorculinary.com

KK wrote:
> I'm new to this group and I've been looking at some electric
> smokers such as the Bradley, the Cookshack and the SmokinTex. Is
> electric O.K.? Or would I be disappointed in them?
>
> Any other brands or preferences?

If I had to go electric because of some sort of zoning restrictions (an
apartment, etc.) I'd be more likely to look at the Fast Eddy by Cookshack
because the heat and smoke are actually wood (pellets) and in my
estimation, produce a better product.

Personally, I'd much prefer a wood/lump charcoal fire to cook on.

Why are you considering electric?

BOB

" BOB" > wrote in message
...
> KK wrote:
> > I'm new to this group and I've been looking at some electric
> > smokers such as the Bradley, the Cookshack and the SmokinTex. Is
> > electric O.K.? Or would I be disappointed in them?
> >
> > Any other brands or preferences?
>
> If I had to go electric because of some sort of zoning restrictions (an
> apartment, etc.) I'd be more likely to look at the Fast Eddy by Cookshack
> because the heat and smoke are actually wood (pellets) and in my
> estimation, produce a better product.
>
> Personally, I'd much prefer a wood/lump charcoal fire to cook on.
>
> Why are you considering electric?
>
> BOB
>
>

I'm looking electric mainly because in a few years I hope to build a pit in
my backyard and I need something smaller to get by until that happens. The
Fast Eddy is actually bigger than what I need right now and when I'm ready
for that size It'll be wood/charcoal. For know all I need is something that
will handle several rack of ribs and possibly a whole turkey, prime rib,
etc. Zoning restrictions could play a part in the future but not right
now... so far I'm out of city limits!

"KK" > wrote in message
...
| I'm new to this group and I've been looking at some electric smokers
such as
| the Bradley, the Cookshack and the SmokinTex. Is electric O.K.? Or
would I
| be disappointed in them?
|
| Any other brands or preferences?
|
|

I have been using an "Old Smokey" for almost a year now and it is great
for hot smoking IMO. It has a thermostat and seals up tighter than the
Brinkman type. It doesn't need any water in the drip pan as very little
moisture is lost becauseof the way it is designed. Go here for their
factory site: http://www.oldsmokey.com/0220ES.html

You can buy it from the manufacturer direct or find it on special at
Northern tool he
http://www.northerntool.com/webapp/w...&R= 200152274

I also drilled a couple of holes in the side in order to use the
Maverick temperature probes. I made a slide cover to cover the holes
when it isn't needed.

Everyone who has seen mine and bought one is happy with theirs.

Jarhead

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain
the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the
government." ---Patrick Henry

"KK" > wrote in message
...
| I'm new to this group and I've been looking at some electric smokers
such as
| the Bradley, the Cookshack and the SmokinTex. Is electric O.K.? Or
would I
| be disappointed in them?
|
| Any other brands or preferences?
|
|

I have been using an "Old Smokey" for almost a year now and it is great
for hot smoking IMO. It has a thermostat and seals up tighter than the
Brinkman type. It doesn't need any water in the drip pan as very little
moisture is lost becauseof the way it is designed. Go here for their
factory site: http://www.oldsmokey.com/0220ES.html

You can buy it from the manufacturer direct or find it on special at
Northern tool he
http://www.northerntool.com/webapp/w...&R= 200152274

I also drilled a couple of holes in the side in order to use the
Maverick temperature probes. I made a slide cover to cover the holes
when it isn't needed.

Everyone who has seen mine and bought one is happy with theirs.

Jarhead

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain
the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the
government." ---Patrick Henry

KK wrote:
> I'm new to this group and I've been looking at some electric smokers such as
> the Bradley, the Cookshack and the SmokinTex. Is electric O.K.? Or would I
> be disappointed in them?
>
> Any other brands or preferences?
>
>
The ECB electric version is cheap but will work, as long as teh weather
isn't too cold. And don't plug it in to the same circuit as the clothes
dryer.

--

================================================== =============
Regards

Louis Cohen

"Yes, yes, I will desalinate you, you grande morue!"

Émile Zola, Assommoir 1877

KK wrote:
> I'm new to this group and I've been looking at some electric smokers such as
> the Bradley, the Cookshack and the SmokinTex. Is electric O.K.? Or would I
> be disappointed in them?
>
> Any other brands or preferences?
>
>
The ECB electric version is cheap but will work, as long as teh weather
isn't too cold. And don't plug it in to the same circuit as the clothes
dryer.

--

================================================== =============
Regards

Louis Cohen

"Yes, yes, I will desalinate you, you grande morue!"

Émile Zola, Assommoir 1877

Cook's Illustrated gave the MECO top grates. I bought one.
It isn't a good product. It is poorly made. The heating element quickly
self destructed[a risk, I am sure, with all the electric smokers].
Don't buy that one. I wouldn't buy any electric smoker, having had my
experience. I would buy the WSM, as many others on this NG have
suggested, and live with the charcoal. That's what it's about anyway.
Kent

KK wrote:
>
> I'm new to this group and I've been looking at some electric smokers such as
> the Bradley, the Cookshack and the SmokinTex. Is electric O.K.? Or would I
> be disappointed in them?
>
> Any other brands or preferences?

Cook's Illustrated gave the MECO top grates. I bought one.
It isn't a good product. It is poorly made. The heating element quickly
self destructed[a risk, I am sure, with all the electric smokers].
Don't buy that one. I wouldn't buy any electric smoker, having had my
experience. I would buy the WSM, as many others on this NG have
suggested, and live with the charcoal. That's what it's about anyway.
Kent

KK wrote:
>
> I'm new to this group and I've been looking at some electric smokers such as
> the Bradley, the Cookshack and the SmokinTex. Is electric O.K.? Or would I
> be disappointed in them?
>
> Any other brands or preferences?

Louis Cohen wrote:
>
> KK wrote:
> > I'm new to this group and I've been looking at some electric smokers such as
> > the Bradley, the Cookshack and the SmokinTex. Is electric O.K.? Or would I
> > be disappointed in them?
> >
> > Any other brands or preferences?
> >
> >
> The ECB electric version is cheap but will work, as long as teh weather
> isn't too cold. And don't plug it in to the same circuit as the clothes
> dryer.
>

Is your clothes dryer only on a 220v circuit?

-CAL

Louis Cohen wrote:
>
> KK wrote:
> > I'm new to this group and I've been looking at some electric smokers such as
> > the Bradley, the Cookshack and the SmokinTex. Is electric O.K.? Or would I
> > be disappointed in them?
> >
> > Any other brands or preferences?
> >
> >
> The ECB electric version is cheap but will work, as long as teh weather
> isn't too cold. And don't plug it in to the same circuit as the clothes
> dryer.
>

Is your clothes dryer only on a 220v circuit?

-CAL

cl wrote:
> Louis Cohen wrote:
>>
>> KK wrote:
>>> I'm new to this group and I've been looking at some
>>> electric smokers such as the Bradley, the Cookshack and
>>> the SmokinTex. Is electric O.K.? Or would I be
>>> disappointed in them?
>>>
>>> Any other brands or preferences?
>>>
>>>
>> The ECB electric version is cheap but will work, as long
>> as teh weather isn't too cold. And don't plug it in to
>> the same circuit as the clothes dryer.
>>
>
> Is your clothes dryer only on a 220v circuit?
>
> -CAL

Mine is not.

cl wrote:
> Louis Cohen wrote:
>>
>> KK wrote:
>>> I'm new to this group and I've been looking at some
>>> electric smokers such as the Bradley, the Cookshack and
>>> the SmokinTex. Is electric O.K.? Or would I be
>>> disappointed in them?
>>>
>>> Any other brands or preferences?
>>>
>>>
>> The ECB electric version is cheap but will work, as long
>> as teh weather isn't too cold. And don't plug it in to
>> the same circuit as the clothes dryer.
>>
>
> Is your clothes dryer only on a 220v circuit?
>
> -CAL

Mine is not.

It's gotten a bad rap here, but I've been very happy with my Brinkman
electric.
Maybe I just don't know any better.... ; )


"KK" > wrote in message ...
> I'm new to this group and I've been looking at some electric smokers such
> as
> the Bradley, the Cookshack and the SmokinTex. Is electric O.K.? Or would I
> be disappointed in them?
>
> Any other brands or preferences?
>
>

It's gotten a bad rap here, but I've been very happy with my Brinkman
electric.
Maybe I just don't know any better.... ; )


"KK" > wrote in message ...
> I'm new to this group and I've been looking at some electric smokers such
> as
> the Bradley, the Cookshack and the SmokinTex. Is electric O.K.? Or would I
> be disappointed in them?
>
> Any other brands or preferences?
>
>

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 22:17:33 -0700, "Joshua" >
wrote:

>It's gotten a bad rap here, but I've been very happy with my Brinkman
>electric.
>Maybe I just don't know any better.... ; )
>
That could be. You are top-posting and full-quoting, after all.

Of course I'm top-posting! It makes it so much easier to read the thread
without having to scroll through the entire message just to get to the "new"
part.

Now go be a good little usenet nazi someplace else.


"Kevin S. Wilson" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 22:17:33 -0700, "Joshua" >
> wrote:
>
>>It's gotten a bad rap here, but I've been very happy with my Brinkman
>>electric.
>>Maybe I just don't know any better.... ; )
>>
> That could be. You are top-posting and full-quoting, after all.
>

Joshua wrote:

> Of course I'm top-posting! It makes it so much easier to read the thread
> without having to scroll through the entire message just to get to the "new"
> part.
>
> Now go be a good little usenet nazi someplace else.

Please don't top post.

No. I'm not singling you out.

>Dave: Oh! Now it makes sense to me. Okay! No more top-posting for me!
> Bob: It's annoying because it reverses the normal order of
> conversation. In fact, many people ignore top-posted articles.
>> Dave: What's so wrong with that?
>>> Bob: That's posting your response *before* the article you're
>>> quoting.
>>>> Dave: People keep bugging me about "top-posting." What does that
>>>> mean?
>>>>> A: Top posters.
>>>>>> Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

Matthew

--
Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
You can't win
You can't break even
You can't get out of the game

Joshua wrote:

> Of course I'm top-posting! It makes it so much easier to read the thread
> without having to scroll through the entire message just to get to the "new"
> part.
>
> Now go be a good little usenet nazi someplace else.

Please don't top post.

No. I'm not singling you out.

>Dave: Oh! Now it makes sense to me. Okay! No more top-posting for me!
> Bob: It's annoying because it reverses the normal order of
> conversation. In fact, many people ignore top-posted articles.
>> Dave: What's so wrong with that?
>>> Bob: That's posting your response *before* the article you're
>>> quoting.
>>>> Dave: People keep bugging me about "top-posting." What does that
>>>> mean?
>>>>> A: Top posters.
>>>>>> Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

Matthew

--
Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
You can't win
You can't break even
You can't get out of the game

Joshua wrote:
> Of course I'm top-posting! It makes it so much easier to read the thread
> without having to scroll through the entire message just to get to the "new"
> part.

But one doesn't have to "scroll through the entire message" if the
poster has exhibited some common sense and good manners by only
including the pertient sections of the original post -- just enough to
establish the context of poster's reply.

After 15+ years, Emily Postnews still makes sense, in a pervese sort of
way: http://www.templetons.com/brad/emily.html

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 18:52:20 -0700, "Joshua" >
wrote:

>Of course I'm top-posting! It makes it so much easier to read the thread
>without having to scroll through the entire message just to get to the "new"
>part.
>
>Now go be a good little usenet nazi someplace else.

[Post moved to the Bottom where it belongs].

>Of course I'm top-posting! It makes it so much easier to read the thread
>without having to scroll through the entire message just to get to the "new" part.

>Now go be a good little usenet nazi someplace else.

Joshua - please learn to play nice in this pool or **** off to crawl
under a different bridge.

Harry

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 18:52:20 -0700, "Joshua" >
wrote:

>Of course I'm top-posting! It makes it so much easier to read the thread
>without having to scroll through the entire message just to get to the "new"
>part.
>
>Now go be a good little usenet nazi someplace else.

[Post moved to the Bottom where it belongs].

>Of course I'm top-posting! It makes it so much easier to read the thread
>without having to scroll through the entire message just to get to the "new" part.

>Now go be a good little usenet nazi someplace else.

Joshua - please learn to play nice in this pool or **** off to crawl
under a different bridge.

Harry

Harry Demidavicius > wrote:
> []
> Joshua - please learn to play nice in this pool or **** off to crawl
> under a different bridge.
>
You do have a way with words, Harry! He's just earned himself a place next
to Kevvie in my kf.

--
Nick. To help with tsunami relief, go to: http://usafreedomcorps.gov/
To help support Our Troops & their Families, go to: http://uso.org/

Thank a Veteran and Support Our Troops! You are not forgotten. Thanks.

"David Higgins" > wrote in message
...
> Joshua wrote:
> After 15+ years, Emily Postnews still makes sense, in a pervese sort of
> way: http://www.templetons.com/brad/emily.html

Thank you, I'd lost this over time and forgotten it. Still funny and
pertinant to the now more common board.

"David Higgins" > wrote in message
...
> Joshua wrote:
> After 15+ years, Emily Postnews still makes sense, in a pervese sort of
> way: http://www.templetons.com/brad/emily.html

Thank you, I'd lost this over time and forgotten it. Still funny and
pertinant to the now more common board.

Joshua wrote:
> Of course I'm top-posting! It makes it so much easier to read the thread
> without having to scroll through the entire message just to get to the "new"
> part.

<bottom posting per usenet etiquette for YEARS>

top posting = killfile


--
Steve

Every job is a self-portrait of the person who did it.
Autograph your work with excellence.

Joshua wrote:
> Of course I'm top-posting! It makes it so much easier to read the thread
> without having to scroll through the entire message just to get to the "new"
> part.

<bottom posting per usenet etiquette for YEARS>

top posting = killfile


--
Steve

Every job is a self-portrait of the person who did it.
Autograph your work with excellence.

Joshua wrote:
> Of course I'm top-posting! It makes it so much easier to read the thread
> without having to scroll through the entire message just to get to the "new"
> part.

<bottom posting per usenet etiquette for YEARS>

top posting = killfile


--
Steve

Every job is a self-portrait of the person who did it.
Autograph your work with excellence.

"Jack Curry" > wrote in message
...
>> I suggest you reconsider your top-posting insistence. Many readers here
> find top-posting both rude and stoopid.

....and you ass munches are not 'rude and stoopid'

Once again Matthew and Jack jump on the Kevie bandwagon.

-CAL

"Jack Curry" > wrote in message
...
>> I suggest you reconsider your top-posting insistence. Many readers here
> find top-posting both rude and stoopid.

....and you ass munches are not 'rude and stoopid'

Once again Matthew and Jack jump on the Kevie bandwagon.

-CAL

"Jack Curry" > wrote in message
...
>> I suggest you reconsider your top-posting insistence. Many readers here
> find top-posting both rude and stoopid.

....and you ass munches are not 'rude and stoopid'

Once again Matthew and Jack jump on the Kevie bandwagon.

-CAL

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 14:50:24 GMT, "cl" > wrote:

>
>"Jack Curry" > wrote in message
...
>>> I suggest you reconsider your top-posting insistence. Many readers here
>> find top-posting both rude and stoopid.
>
>...and you ass munches are not 'rude and stoopid'
>
>Once again Matthew and Jack jump on the Kevie bandwagon.
>
Are you still here? And still begging for more mockery, taunting, and
abuse?

<sigh>

I'd begun to think that you'd finally figured out that you're the butt
of the joke, and slunk off.

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 14:50:24 GMT, "cl" > wrote:

>
>"Jack Curry" > wrote in message
...
>>> I suggest you reconsider your top-posting insistence. Many readers here
>> find top-posting both rude and stoopid.
>
>...and you ass munches are not 'rude and stoopid'
>
>Once again Matthew and Jack jump on the Kevie bandwagon.
>
Are you still here? And still begging for more mockery, taunting, and
abuse?

<sigh>

I'd begun to think that you'd finally figured out that you're the butt
of the joke, and slunk off.

Good Lord, guys! I thought this NG was about BBQ, not petty bullshit
about where one places one's comments within a post! Give it a rest and
grow up!

"Joshua" > wrote in message
...
> Good Lord, guys! I thought this NG was about BBQ, not petty bullshit
> about where one places one's comments within a post! Give it a rest and
> grow up!
>

It's all about communicating though isnt it? You don't talk to people with a
sneer on your face do you, because to do so would irritate them needlessly
and interfere with your message. It's not much different with this really.
Sure some here might be a bit sensitive to it, but *shrug*, it is what it
is.

I hit <enter> before I remembered to add:

.... and let's get back to what's REALLY important: to brine or not to
brine, dry rubbed ribs or wet ribs, which wood is best for BBQ'd kangaroo
tail (actually quite good)....

Joshua wrote:
> Good Lord, guys! I thought this NG was about BBQ, not petty
> bullshit about where one places one's comments within a post! Give
> it a rest and grow up!

If you'd like to participate and be welcomed, please just bottom post.
We've had this discussion and argument dozens of times over the course of
years and it's the preferred method here. It's not much to ask and there's
lots to be gained, so why not just go with the flow?

Jack Curry
-Lots of us are OLD and many never grow up-

Joshua wrote:
> Good Lord, guys! I thought this NG was about BBQ, not petty
> bullshit about where one places one's comments within a post! Give
> it a rest and grow up!

If you'd like to participate and be welcomed, please just bottom post.
We've had this discussion and argument dozens of times over the course of
years and it's the preferred method here. It's not much to ask and there's
lots to be gained, so why not just go with the flow?

Jack Curry
-Lots of us are OLD and many never grow up-

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 20:15:11 -0500, "Jack Curry"
> wrote:

>Joshua wrote:
>> Good Lord, guys! I thought this NG was about BBQ, not petty
>> bullshit about where one places one's comments within a post! Give
>> it a rest and grow up!
>
>If you'd like to participate and be welcomed, please just bottom post.
>We've had this discussion and argument dozens of times over the course of
>years and it's the preferred method here. It's not much to ask and there's
>lots to be gained, so why not just go with the flow?
>
>Jack Curry
>-Lots of us are OLD and many never grow up-
>
This troll is posting under peculiar headers - Joshua row your ****ing
boat ashore - you're done here.

Harry

PlonK!!!