dagordon

I've had the entrecote at Pif. It's perfectly good. I think that the time I had it, I was really in the mood for something meaty, and it fit the bill. But to my taste, it's not as good as some of their other dishes. Melograno... no. But it would be interesting to try. The steaks I've enjoyed the most have been fiorentinas. But not having done any sort of rigorous testing, I don't know whether my enjoyment of them was because of the chianina beef, the Tuscan style of grilling, or other, less tangible factors (dinner under an arbor in the Roman springtime, etc.) But I haven't been to Melograno in ages, so I'd be up for giving their steak a go. If you're interested in a taste-test, let's do it one of these days... ← I haven't had the steak at Melograno, I have several times had the one at Pif, with truffle coulis or anchovy butter. I like it a whole lot. But it falls into a certain category of steak. The raw product is perfectly good, I think. But what makes the dish successful is the additional stuff they do to it. It's completely different from what you might call the steakhouse steak category, where it's all about (or should be about!) doing as little as possible to the finest possible piece of meat. I'm thinking more and more that I should order a giant Lobel's porterhouse, a bunch of us should get together, each person chips in $10 or something, and everyone gets a bite of perfection. If you don't like it, or don't like it enough that you'd buy a whole steak, you won't have wasted much.

Interesting... I sent a strongly worded email to whole foods expressing my disappointment over no more eberly and berating the whole foods branded chickens, and i just got an email from the manager of the meat dept at the 9th st whole foods saying that they'll continue supplying whole eberly birds.

because if you reverse the argument here, the statement is still plausible--some people might also discern differences where none exist, though that's much less likely. Yes, some individuals may detect a difference where none exists. But I was talking about the overall results of a tasting. If the methodology of a Cook's test is any good, then the fact that A is put in a different quality category than B should mean that there were statistically significant differences in the taster's respones to A and B. My point was precisely that it's not plausible that there's a statistically significant difference in people's respones to A and B despite there being no relevant difference between A and B. Incidentally, I picked up two prime dry aged strips from Wegman's last night that look pretty darn good. $30/pound. Though I had to do some digging to find ones worthy of purchase. Maybe it's true that a place w/ Lobel's prices needs nyc to survive. But as I've said, there still seems to be an area b/w what's available in Philly and Lobel's that should be represented. I'm pretty sure I know how the Wegmans steaks are going to taste. I think it would be great if stuff like that were more widely available. To connect this w/ larger issues that have been surfacing on this board lately about the quality of Philly restaurants: it seems to me that one thing that will push restaurants toward putting out better food is if very high quality ingredients become more widely available to consumers. Consumers will demand more from restaurants if the stuff that they can easily make at home for the same price is as good as, or, as is often the case, better than what many restaurants are serving. I repeat that I am not very talented in the kitchen. My girlfriend has potential, but, with due respect to her, we really don't know what we are doing. Yet more and more we find ourselves searching out really top quality ingredients (often travelling a bit to get them, or buying online) and coming to the conclusion that what we've made is better than what we could get at a restaurant around here for the same price. So it's harder and harder to motivate ourselves to dine out.

I like to do it Luger's style. Make a series of cuts perpendicular to the (longer) bone, keeping the slices thick. Cutting it all (after letting the steak rest) at once also ensures that it doesn't continue to cook.

The ranking I emphasized is conceptually identical to a "CR Best Buy" rating in Consumer Reports, which the Stop & Shop steak would doubtless have earned were it Consumers Union conducting this test. If all it takes for the relationsihp between price and quality to be nonlinear for a particular type of product is that some expensive product of that type is not any better than one costing much less, then yes, the relationship between price and quality is nonlinear. But then the thesis has lost any interest. You can always find something expensive and mediocre. The more interesting construal of the question whether price vs. quality is linear within a certain range is: does there exist any product at the top of the price range that is as much better as it is more expensive than something at the low end of the range? The Cook's Illustrated test does not at all suggest that price vs. quality is nonlinear in this sense. It is perfectly consistent with it being linear. As far as how the lobel's non-wagyu strip did in particular, I obviously don't agree with the results. (It wouldn't be the first time I've strongly disagreed with the reults of a Cook's Illustrated test. They rated Chicken of the Sea canned tuna the top canned tuna recently, and I think it tastes like cat throw up.) What something like a Cook's Illustrated tasting can establish is that a difference exists. If in a blind tasting environment tasters determine that item A is substantially different from item B, that seems to be really good evidence that there's a substantial difference. On the other hand, if they can't find a difference, it doesn't establish much. Perhaps they simply couldn't tell the difference, and others could. The quality rankings are of course less meaningful. Tastes obviously differ hugely. To repeat, I was citing the Cook's Illustrated tasting not because I think that the quality rankings are completely accurate, but simply because they proved a difference. A super expensive, "high-end" steak was noticeably different than the others.

I'm not familiar with the site... Beware, though, (bigboss, you may already know this) that Snake River Farms beef comes in several different grades. There's Platinum, which is actually available only through Snake River Ranch in Australia, a sister company of Snake River Farms, then there's Gold, Black, and Silver. My understanding is that only the Silver is available retail to consumers. I got some strips, Silver grade, from Uptown Prime probably a year and a half ago. IMHO, very much not worth it. But just my opinion.

Agreed, the ultimate is clearly a steakhouse broiler. But that searing a Lobel's steak in an extremely hot cast iron pan and then throwing it in the oven at home can be so phenomenally good is a testament to the quality of the product. Let me put it another way. That $50/person that I was mentioning will get you a Lobel's porterhouse for 2 will result in, I think, a better steak -- even cooked at home -- than can be had at any steakhouse in Philadelphia, regardless of the price. Part of what inspired my original post is that there isn't a truly fantastic steakhouse around here, as I see it. So I've got to do it at home.

My beef (sorry, I really couldn't resist) is that some of those for whom it's apparently not worth it haven't tried it. Now, it may be that, for these people, there is a certain dollar amount after which no steak costing that much could possibly be worth it. But even if it's reasonable for such a dollar amount to exist for most people, it doesn't seem reasonable, as I see it, for it to be below what Lobel's charges. And that's because the amount of money that one would spend on a Lobel's steak is comparable that the amount of money that, I suspect, may people on this board occasionally spend going out to dinner. It's not out of the question, it seems to me, to spend $50/person going out for dinner from time to time. For this amount of money two people can split a 36 oz Lobel's porterhouse. And the reason why we do this from time to time is that the meal that results is often better and more enjoyable than what we would have had if we had decided to spend $50/person going out to dinner in Philly. That's fine. I really don't care how some people use the term. It should have been fairly obvious from the circumstances that this was not how I was using the term, however. I was not asking where I can purchase beef that will make me feel high-class. In fact, I listed specific properties relating to taste that the beef I'm looking for should have. Omaha steaks are notoriously overpriced/mediocre. Listen, no one is claiming that expensive steak is always better, or that expensive mail-order steak is always better, or whatever. I am claiming merely that some particular expensive steaks are phenomenally good, much better than what most of us are used to. The purpose of mentioning the Cook's Illustrated survey was not to convince people that everyone everywhere agrees that a particular Lobel's steak is the best ever, but rather to refute the claim that there will be "no appreciable difference", to use one poster's phrase, between a "high-end" steak and an ordinary one. Blind tasters have confirmed that, in certain cases, there are such differences.

This thread is getting very odd. It seems that some people are somehow offended by the suggestion that there might exist beef in particular (has it simply been conceded that the fish offerings around here are pretty lousy?) of a level substantially better than what is available around here. The suggestion is that anyone who might from time to time prefer something better, and, yes, more expensive (even significantly) than what is available here must be simply be deluding himself into believing that it's better, or buying merely for status... (The last suggestion being particularly amusing; after all, when you're eating a steak for dinner in the privacy of your home, so many people are watching you, observing the brand steak that you purchased with jealousy. Sorry, the buying for "status" explanation isn't even remotely psychologically plausible when it comes to purchasing beef to be consumed at home for dinner.) What is particularly odd is that certain people seemed to have ruled out a priori, as it were, that there could be a steak better than such-and-such particular steak that they've had, or better enough to warrant the price difference. This is really weird. I mean, is there anything about the experience of eating and discovering new food that would lead one to think that one could form reliable beliefs about how an unfamiliar ingredient will taste without actually tasting it? I guess I may approach food differently from some others, with a bit more of an open mind. This thread began as a serious inquiry into why there is not truly high-end fish and meat available around here, and to a certain extent I suppose I've found an answer: not enough people around here have actually had the truly high-end stuff that there's enough demand for it. That's fine. Though if Lobel's were to open in Center City I suspect news would travel fairly quickly... Listen, folks, it's too bad that the beef that's available and affordable at RTM isn't the finest beef in the world, or even the finest beef that some of us might from time to time want to splurge on. Sorry. Deal with it. I'd really love it to be the case that $20 could provide the sort of experience that I'm looking for. Sadly, it can't. Lobel's in particular consistently comes out on top in various blind tastings, Cooks Illustrated did one, for example. I suppose it's possible that all of these people are part of the high-end beef conspiracy? Sometimes the more expensive stuff really is that much better. Sorry.

Any particular farms you recommend? I'm there. I do love my Meadow Run Farm eggs...

Assuming the things in question are comparable in the first place, who doesn't?

Well, I was using it to describe how things taste. In the context of beef, I suppose I was using it to describe something rather specific: the luxurious taste of very highly marbed, corn-fed beef dry-aged for at least a month. (When the marbling gets insanely high, such as in Wagyu with marbling grades, say, 8 or above, the dry-aged thing doesn't matter as much -- and, indeed, most Wagyu isn't dry-aged. But I was taking it for granted that I wouldn't be able to get this sort of thing around here. Also, the experience of eating a super marbled Wagyu steak really is a different one from that of eating, say, a Luger's steak.) There's a lot of delicious beef out there. I like hangar steak as much as the next guy. One of the best briskets I've had was at Memphis in May last year, and I can't imagine that most any decent brisket cooked they way that they cooked it wouldn't have tasted nearly as good. It was delicious. Was it as enjoyable as a Peter Luger's steak? I dunno. The comparison is plainly silly. All I'm saying is that there's a kind of beef eating experience that is occasionally (sometimes more than occasionally) what you want, and it requires, in my experience, an expensive piece of highly marbled beef dry-aged for a long time from the short loin. This is the sort of experience that a lot of people crave when they go out to steakhouses.

An update: the cornish hens and chicken parts sold at Giunta's Prime Shop are Bell & Evans. Eberly whole chickens are available, both in small and roaster sizes. Eberly capons were available before the holidays; check with Charlie Giunta if you want them, they can probably be special ordered. ← According to Charlie the loose chicken wings at Giunta's are Eberly too...

So, we made the Whole Foods chicken pictured above over the weekend. Honestly, it wasn't bad. But it wasn't very good either. It didn't have a whole lot of flavor. More importantly, though, the texture was quite strange -- mushy, almost. My girlfriend claimed that it released an unusually large amount of liquid during cooking and when cut. I don't know if this somehow explains the texture issue.

Thank you for your post! This is, of course, very interesting.

After receiving the latest issue of Vogue and going through our monthly procedure of determining whether Jeffrey Steingarten has an article and, if so, locating it, surgically removing it from the magazine, and disposing of the rest of the magazine, the result was an article by Steingarten on chocolate bonbons. Eclat is mentioned as having the "world's greatest caramel". This is true, but my girlfriend and I came to that determination months ago...

Not that it really matters, but parker gave this particular one a 90. To the extent that I have a grip on what his numbers mean, this sounds about right. I liked it very much.

Brought a botlte of the Modus to Pif recently, turns out it was pretty badly corked. Does anyone know the PLCB's policy about this? Can one get at least a partial refund? Unfortunately I forgot to bring the bottle with us when we left, but it'd be good to know for future reference. I guess I'll have to start bringing a backup bottle, in case this should happen. I have to say I'm a big fan of the screw tops. Nearly pulled a muscle last night trying to remove a synthetic cork. ← My third and last bottle of the Modus was very badly corked too! Particularly distressing because the first was so good. Thankfully, I now always bring a backup. This time I did save the bottle, I'm off to see what the store will do... Beware: if you're bringing a bottle of Modus somewhere, bring a backup.

I don't know that for a fact. I do know that when I asked (admittedly, about a year ago) whose chicken it was unmarked in the butcher case, they said it was Bell & Evans. That was at the Callowhill & 20th store. ← I think there's some confusion. Whole Foods has always sold whole chickens that are more or less unmarked, just with a Whole Foods price label (the white label in the picture below). These are Bell & Evans. They sometimes have a very small Bell & Evans sticker slapped on saying, I think, "air chilled". There are now whole chickens at Whole Foods in addition to these that are prominently branded "Whole Foods". According to the meat people at the 9th St location this is a new product entirely; my impression is that Whole Foods is to some extent involved in their production. These, according to the meat people, are what has replaced the Eberly chickens. Here is a picture: Pontormo, you have reason to believe that these too are Bell & Evans?

Are the blue foot chickens available through D'Artagnan for a reasonable $21 for a 3.25-4 lb chicken the ones you're talking about (are they from California)?

Yes, I've been meaning to try these, I've heard about them. I need one. OK, I need one of these too. It sounds like they're an attempt to reproduce the poulet de Bresse, which is (at least sometimes) what's served at L'Ami Louis, which serves the greatest chicken in the universe. We just stopped by RTM and Giunta's does indeed have a steady supply of Eberly birds (in fact, it sounds like he gets them in significantly more frequently than Whole Foods). We're quite happy about that. Charles was very nice and even said that we could have him special order various goodies from Eberly as long as we give him enough notice.

Agreed, this is certainly a consideration. For this reason, and also because of how truly amazing very top quality beef can be, I'll take a top quality steak every, say, 2 months over a merely ok to good one every two weeks. (And cost wise this works out as well. Replace the meals where you would have had steak with something cheap and in not too long you'll have enough for Lobel's.) I do think that there is a fair amount of room in between what's available around Philly now and Lobel's. (That's what motivated my original qualifiaction that I'd like to see something lof quality comparable to Lobels "or even slightly below".) The very best that a dry aged NY strip can be at Whole Foods when it's properly cut is actually quite good, but the steaks there are rarely of this quality. If a place could regularly supply steak of this quality or even slightly better for, say, $25/pound, would that not be desirable to many people?

Your comment about the size of the Eberly birds is a good point. There were always Eberly chickens available that were the perfect size for 2 people. Ah, memories of chicken at Zuni Cafe... we thought that we had been exaggerating how good the chicken there was in our memories of our first time there, but we were back two months ago and had our minds blown yet again. rlibkind, are you saying that the new Whole Foods branded birds are just Bell & Evans?

Awesome! Thank you! As far as an explanation from Whole Foods, they said that it's cheaper for them to be supplying the Whole Foods branded chickens. And the Whole Foods branded chicken are slightly cheaper to consumers as a result.

That's weird... when you actually do a search for Philadelphia retailers, only Whole Foods and Haltemann are listed, but, yes, those others are listed right there on the site. Thanks. Good to know. A couple of months ago we decided to see if there was anything to the "air chilled" chicken fad, so we got a Bell & Evans air chilled chicken from Whole Foods and roasted it as usual. There was absolutely no comparison with the Eberly birds we were used to. The texture was actually pretty good but in the taste department not satisfying at all. Of course, this was hardly scientific.