JeffB wrote:A large, shared steak is often pre-sliced these days. Sort of a "retro" approach that for a long time was kept alive by Peter Lugar and not many other places. I'm sure they'd be happy not to pre-slice if you ask. They should probably inquire as to how you'd like it. I'm generally a fan.
syncretism wrote:I returned to Chicago for the weekend for my yearly Julbord fix, and took a late dinner with my traveling companion at Boeufhaus on Friday. We shared some starters, sides and the 55-day ribeye steak. The steak, closer to rare than the medium rare we requested, was sliced before it arrived. We would have preferred to have cut our own meat, but I have eaten at very few steakhouses, and I wonder if there's a protocol I'm not aware of. Is it not preferable to serve the steak whole? Is a sliced steak an entailment of asking to share one, or are there other modern considerations to blame, like some need to serve an Instagram-ready plate? Lastly, the steak had that appealing funk we associate with long aging, but it wasn't as "beefy" as I expected; is the cut responsible for that? The extended age?
We also ordered a torchon of foie gras; salad; spaetzle; mushrooms and some roasted veg. These were terrific, and the wines selected were fantastic (the presumptive somm/beverage director knew my tastes because I've been going to his store, Red & White, for some years). I was super-impressed by the wines and really liked the food, though the steak's kiddie-table presentation was a surprise.
hoppy2468 wrote:What's the deal with this place?
One to three people may be seated at the bar.
No. My SO can't do it. That's why we ask for a table.
$50 charge to hold the reservation and "may" be nonrefundable if you cancel less than 24 hours before. Ok, I can sorta understand this. It's still B.S. though.
Table of two subject to 90 minute limit. Three or more gets two hours.
90 minutes? Really?
boudreaulicious wrote:hoppy2468 wrote:What's the deal with this place?
One to three people may be seated at the bar.
No. My SO can't do it. That's why we ask for a table.
$50 charge to hold the reservation and "may" be nonrefundable if you cancel less than 24 hours before. Ok, I can sorta understand this. It's still B.S. though.
Table of two subject to 90 minute limit. Three or more gets two hours.
90 minutes? Really?
Not understanding your complaint. You want a reservation and it's a tiny place --so to avoid getting screwed by holding a table that could go to someone waiting (guaranteed lost revenue for them), they ask for a deposit. or you can wait like everyone else. What would you have them do?
hoppy2468 wrote:What's the deal with this place?
One to three people may be seated at the bar.
No. My SO can't do it. That's why we ask for a table.
hoppy2468 wrote:$50 charge to hold the reservation and "may" be nonrefundable if you cancel less than 24 hours before. Ok, I can sorta understand this. It's still B.S. though.
hoppy2468 wrote:Table of two subject to 90 minute limit. Three or more gets two hours.
90 minutes? Really?
Kman wrote:For anyone interested in the food (advise if I should start a new thread, please) my friend and I popped in for lunch last Saturday...
[SNIP]
It's a very small place serving serious steakhouse food in a decidely non-steakhouse environment (had some great music playing while we were there). Everyone we interacted with there was friendly and professional and I look forward to my next visit.
riddlemay wrote:Kman wrote:For anyone interested in the food (advise if I should start a new thread, please) my friend and I popped in for lunch last Saturday...
[SNIP]
It's a very small place serving serious steakhouse food in a decidely non-steakhouse environment (had some great music playing while we were there). Everyone we interacted with there was friendly and professional and I look forward to my next visit.
Your last paragraph implicitly acknowledges that non-food commentary pertaining to a restaurant (environment, service, music, etc.) belongs in the discussion of a restaurant along with food-specific commentary. So no, no separate thread is necessary.
cilantro wrote:Guys, quit your boeufing.
ronnie_suburban wrote:riddlemay wrote:Kman wrote:For anyone interested in the food (advise if I should start a new thread, please) my friend and I popped in for lunch last Saturday...
[SNIP]
It's a very small place serving serious steakhouse food in a decidely non-steakhouse environment (had some great music playing while we were there). Everyone we interacted with there was friendly and professional and I look forward to my next visit.
Your last paragraph implicitly acknowledges that non-food commentary pertaining to a restaurant (environment, service, music, etc.) belongs in the discussion of a restaurant along with food-specific commentary. So no, no separate thread is necessary.
It was a joke!
=R=
AlekH wrote:Don't get out too much but wanted to bump Boefhaus for being my favorite spot in 2017. Need to get back soon.