I don’t feel any obligation to equalize what I spend on each person at a dinner party. Is the vegetarian going to get upset that their marinaded portobello mushroom cap cost less than the meat eater’s rib eye? Is the teetotaller going to be upset if the soda I buy costs less than the wine? If I invite someone over who does not eat fish, does it matter that the chicken breast I cook them costs significantly less than the wild salmon and shrimp that I cook for everyone else?
If I am marinading a steak for people who eat their steak rare, I probably won’t buy the expensive stuff either. But marinaded and cooked to well done, I don’t believe a person can tell the difference, or if they can, they certainly can’t tell the difference enough to justify a difference between $32 a lb and $8 a lb.
This is generally what I’ve encountered, which makes little sense to me. Assuming the chef knows what he’s doing I would think they would err on the rare side, as a piece of meat can always be cooked more but can never be uncooked to any degree.
In most cases however I’m guessing it’s merely low-skilled cookery.
Same here, except for high-end steak places, where medium rare comes medium rare. This is even more pronounced when ordering hamburgers. Very few places will give me a medium rare (I understand the difficulty with 1/4 pounders, but I’m talking about 1/2 pub burgers and the such here), usually being closer to medium well. I generally order “on the rare side of medium rare” or simply “rare” at these places, and, even then, they often come closer to medium.
I was in Jimmy Buffet’s restaurant in Honolulu (not my fault, it was a rehearsal dinner). I ordered a steak, and asked for it rare. They told me it was policy not to cook any meat below medium. I rolled my eyes, and asked for it medium, as by this stage I was hungry enough to eat the table, or even McDonalds. An hour later when it came out it had sat udner the heat lamps for so long it was pure shoe leather. I ate two mouthfuls, and was about to send it back when the bride’s mother announced she was paying for everyone for dinner. So I felt guilty and just got paralytically drunk instead.
It may be that the skills or techniques involved in doing a good job with a rare steak are different from those involved in a good well-done steak. I wouldn’t know; I don’t claim to have any particular skill at either. But I’ve had acquaintances who did (the husband of one of the other grad students was an absolute grill god), and the proof is in the eating.
None of this is an equivalent comparison. This would be like you serving salmon and finding someone who wanted you to broil it instead of grilling it so you served them white fish instead because you think broiling ruins fish. You are giving them a completely different product than you are giving everyone else because you don’t like the way they want it cooked.
But I’m not trying to cause a problem or make you feel bad or anything, I just thought it was an odd thing for someone to do. Obviously the people who come to your place don’t mind and that is perfectly fine.
Marinated, well done steak is a totally different product to rare or medium rare unmarinated steak. And you started the comparisons with Shiraz and water.
Not really, it’s more like serving a $7 or $8/lb tuna steak that’s cooked through instead of a $20/lb tuna steak that’s meant to be eaten raw or seared. Same cut, same fish, different quality of meat. I personally choose the meat and the price I pay for it depending on the application. If I’m making something where the tuna is going to be cooked through, I sure as hell ain’t paying $20+/lb for it. If I’m eating something that is just going to be seared, as in tuna steaks, then I spring for the better stuff. There is one exception I could think of: I’ve never found prime-grade filet to be worth the price premium. Choice filet tastes just as tender to me. It’s not a cut that needs a lot of intramuscular marbling to begin with.
I’m sure the trick is a marinade. But, to me, as villa stated, that’s a different product than a great cut of beef with just some salt and pepper on it (perhaps accompanied with a pan sauce, perhaps not. I find only filet really needs a pan sauce. The others I like straight up.)
Actually, a better comparison for you would be serving wild salmon to those who liked it cooked only lightly, and farmed salmon for those who want it cooked through.
My bottom line is that if I marinade a steak, and cook it to well done, you cannot tell the difference between the $30 and the $8 a lb steaks in a blind test taste. I am not disputing people think they can tell the difference, just disputing whether they could in a blind test. And if they can’t, there doesn’t seem a hell of a lot of point in paying the extra money for it.
I also think Bouradain’s statement about using the “worst cut” for those who order well done a bit misleading. If the menu is advertising a “USDA Prime ribeye,” I’m fairly sure you’re going to get a USDA prime ribeye, unless the restaurant wants to get itself in trouble. I doubt they’re storing choice ribeyes back their for people who want it at higher levels of doneness. That said, there is various in the marbling levels of steaks. What is “choice” is a range of values–some choice is closer to select, some is closer to prime. When picking out steaks for normal consumption, I usually stick to choice, but examine each piece until I find one that looks especially well marbled for the grade. I swear, some of the Costco choice steaks look more like prime.
When you’re in the kitchen, and have a selection of prime cuts, it would make sense to me to prioritize their use based on how the customer orders their steak. The well-done order will still get the prime steak, but it may be not quite as heavily marbled as other grades of prime available, or it may be slightly older, etc. The difference is not going to be as noticeable as someone who orders it, say, Pittsburgh rare.
I seem to recall it just being a dry rub, but you might be right. In any event, I don’t think anyone would dispute that it’s a different product: The objection is just that it’s not necessarily an inferior product.
Over 50% of the respondents have indicated “medium rare” as their favorite. Based on my experience, I’d bet over half of those people actually like it medium or medium well. “Medium rare” has become a catch-all term for “the way I like it”.
Medium rare means it is 50% red (not pink) on the inside. It is very juicy. If you like it pink, that’s medium. A hint of pink is medium well. I once served a friends husband a perfect medium-rare steak as he requested it, and he was just shocked when he cut into it. “That’s raw!” His “medium rare” was just under well done.
No way. Your anecdote is nice, but I’ve cooked thousands of steaks in professional kitchens, and the numbers here are in line with my experience. We didn’t get any more med rare returned to the kitchen than any other temp. Fewer, if anything.
Well done, always. I might go for medium-well (called tres cuartos here in Perú) if they might overcook it.
No pink for me if I can avoid it.
Roast beef is the only “red” meat I eat and the only I’d eat cold aside from carpaccio.
Thinking about this post, it reminded me of a blog or magazine article or something I read a couple years ago (can’t remember where), which talked about cooking steak by sous vide. They cooked a very thick steak to a perfect medium rare throughout. It looked a little funny from the outside because there was no browning, but in cross-section it looked really neat and the writer raved about how good it was.
Has anyone here tried that? It seems like the perfect way to get exactly the level of doneness you want, since it’s basically impossible to overcook when you set it to the temperature you want the finished steak to be.