HOME > Chowhound > General Topics >

Bone-in Filet [split from Manhattan board]

s
small h Nov 14, 2007 05:18 PM

Aren't "bone-in" and "filet" opposites? So confused.

  1. Click to Upload a photo (10 MB limit)
Delete
  1. b
    Boswell RE: small h Nov 15, 2007 07:16 AM

    I thought so too, and then I did some googling.
    http://www.primechops.com/shopdisplay...

    2 Replies
    1. re: Boswell
      e
      ESNY RE: Boswell Nov 15, 2007 07:57 AM

      It is an oxymoron but people are used to calling it a filet mignon rather than a beef tenderloin. Not to mention, I'm not sure what good keeping it on the bone will do since it doesn't have much flavor to begin with. I'm sure its a marketing ploy to squeeze out a few more dollars.

      1. re: ESNY
        f
        fluffernutter RE: ESNY Nov 15, 2007 08:08 AM

        Wouldn't a bone-in fillet be the tenderloin side of a porterhouse or T-bone, plus a little of the bone that runs alone the top? I agree about the flavor -- I doubt it has more, and instead sounds like a boutique product. But maybe the bone controls the shrinkage (and if you got some of the tastier strip from the other side of the bone, that'd be a bonus)

    2. r
      ricepad RE: small h Nov 15, 2007 12:05 PM

      Yep...just like "boneless ribs". HUH??

      1. g
        gps_shag RE: small h Nov 19, 2007 05:51 PM

        I had the chance to have a bone-in filet in Dallas at Pappas Bros. Steakhouse. It was a great piece of meat, but probably the last time I would order it. It really was good, don't get me wrong, I just didn't find the extra cost worth a 2nd go.

        Show Hidden Posts