🚀 go-pugleaf

"Ciccio" <francescod@comcast.net> wrote:
>>"Steve Wertz" <swertz@cluemail.com.invalid.gov> wrote in message
>>news:FKSdnY2eTrvT_N_dRVn-gw@io.com...
>>
>> I can't see getting a steak to go, unless you're gonna eat it in
>> the parking lot.  A blooming onion wouldn't travel well either.
>
>
>We're not talking a great steak, we're talking an *Outback* steak. I've
>eaten them in their restaurant in that past and there's no diff than when I
>bring 'em home.  As for the "blooming onion,"  I shared one in their
>restaurant years ago and it ain't my thang.

Well, I can see Ciccio's perspective now....

I went to Outback a couple nights ago. I had not been there for a few
months and immediately noticed my item there was altered. The Prime
Filet was down and ounce and up a buck. I pointed it out to my friend
who then pointed out to me that it was now within one ounce of the
$7-8. less expensive "Victoria's Filet". He went off about how there
probably was no difference and that I'd be a sucker to get the Prime
cut. I had never eaten the "Victoria" one, so I took him up on his
challenge of sorts. Deciding to take the plunge with me, he ordered it
too (he always gets the N.Y. strip). Well, I can say there really _is_
a difference between the two cuts beside the one ounce of weight.

I ordered it medium just like I do the Prime and while it was cooked
properly if not a shade towards the medium-rare side, it was not as
tender. The first thing I noticed was the increased downward force
I had to apply to cut the knife into it...and I actually had to make
a "sawing" motion rather than the butter-knifeable Prime cut. Also,
and quite obviously at this point, it was chewy instead of "melting".

So yeah Ciccio, anything less than the Prime and "We're not talking
a great steak" that will probably transport home with little impact.

Now....I hope the *new* slightly smaller and more expensive Prime
Filet is as good as it used to be...otherwise Outback is off my list.