- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Ruth's Chris... worth the higher prices? really?
Posted on 6/27/10 at 5:51 pm
Posted on 6/27/10 at 5:51 pm
I dunno... when you pay $60 or so for an entree and a couple of sides, and when the same bottle of wine you paid $65 for at another place is $105 here you REALLY shouldn't have to wait so long for your meal. And then the fish was swimming in butter.
But, hey, it's a steakhouse and I don't eat beef so maybe that's a whole different story.
But, hey, it's a steakhouse and I don't eat beef so maybe that's a whole different story.
15
Posted on 6/27/10 at 5:55 pm to Rex
quote:
it's a steakhouse and I don't eat beef
I've identified your problem.
Posted on 6/27/10 at 5:57 pm to Rex
quote:maybe go somewhere else, or pull Mrs. Pauls out of the freezer...
it's a steakhouse and I don't eat beef so
Posted on 6/27/10 at 6:00 pm to Rex
quote:
But, hey, it's a steakhouse and I don't eat beef so maybe that's a whole different story.
maybe so dummy
Posted on 6/27/10 at 6:10 pm to Deactived
Their steaks are damn good, if u don't eat beef, prolly don't want to go there
Posted on 6/27/10 at 7:00 pm to Rex
quote:
But, hey, it's a steakhouse and I don't eat beef
rex has outdone himself on stupidity.
fwiw you dont NEED sides at ruths. the steak is the point and you can get a decent one for $30.
the only side i ask for is a huge container of butter to go with my bloody hunk of ribeye.
Posted on 6/27/10 at 7:05 pm to Rex
quote:
But, hey, it's a steakhouse and I don't eat beef so maybe that's a whole different story.
maybe it's the reason your input here doesn't count, at all
Posted on 6/27/10 at 7:30 pm to Rex
quote:
Ruth's Chris... worth the higher prices? really?
Yes. Now STFU and GTFO ..
Posted on 6/27/10 at 7:51 pm to Rex
In BR, I would say its worth the money. In new orleans I would go to crescent city. You are a moron. Oh, and aside from being a moron in general (mostly on the poli board) you are a moron for complaining about the fish at a STEAK house. There are better chain restaurants for fish.
Posted on 6/27/10 at 7:51 pm to Rex
no.
but why pay to eat there if you don't eat beef?
but why pay to eat there if you don't eat beef?
Posted on 6/27/10 at 8:16 pm to CAD703X
quote:naw, I'm betting he can even top that..
rex has outdone himself on stupidity.
Posted on 6/27/10 at 9:23 pm to layingpipelikeDB50
I asked the QUESTION, given that I don't eat steaks, if it's worth the higher price. I've stated my opinion that for fish it was not.
You and anybody else in this thread who attacked me are the morons. Worse than morons, actually.
You and anybody else in this thread who attacked me are the morons. Worse than morons, actually.
Posted on 6/27/10 at 9:24 pm to el tigre
quote:
but why pay to eat there if you don't eat beef?
I was with friends and that's where they voted to go.
Posted on 6/27/10 at 10:44 pm to Rex
quote:
You and anybody else in this thread who attacked me are the morons. Worse than morons, actually
Damn son. You come on here asking if Ruth's Chris is worth the higher price and you are calling others out???
Ruth's Chris is not the best steak in the world but definitely worth the price. It is not that expensive at all.
Now GTFO.
Posted on 6/27/10 at 11:12 pm to threeputt
Sorry Ruths is overpriced. The old location in New Orleans was great. Baton Rouge however I just dont like. Stale atmosphere and the steak just isnt as good as other Ruths.
Flemmings is much better and I still would eat 10/10 at Little Village and save 20 dollars on the Ribeye there. That said Ruths is no where near the rippoff Sullivans is.
Flemmings is much better and I still would eat 10/10 at Little Village and save 20 dollars on the Ribeye there. That said Ruths is no where near the rippoff Sullivans is.
Posted on 6/27/10 at 11:59 pm to Catman88
I went to the one in Houston years ago, it was okay nothing great. My Dad bought so I didn't look at the bill, when I was at the Hard Rock a few weeks ago I looked at the prices and thought they were pretty reasonable.
Posted on 6/28/10 at 5:50 am to Rex
You are going to pay 30 to 40 dollars for a prime ribeye at any high end steak house...the price is not out of line....The steak is seared in a 1200 degree oven(which is made only for Ruth Chris)giving the steak a great crust and a jucy center. It is what it is and has stood the test of time. Some like to be fashionable and say they can get a steak just as good at The Iron pot or The Old Horns but no one says better...because you won't get a better steak anywhere....JMHO.
Posted on 6/28/10 at 6:01 am to tavolatim
quote:
.because you won't get a better steak anywhere..
That is a pretty strong statement right there. I had steak at two places just last week and it was better than Ruth's both times - a lot better.. Of course, the price was almost double of what one would pay at Ruth's.
This post was edited on 6/28/10 at 6:05 am
Posted on 6/28/10 at 6:11 am to threeputt
Now we get into why you thought it was better...because of a topping? maybe what they cooked it in? Maybe a different cut? What I am saying is the aged prime ribeye cooked in the high temp vulcan oven at Ruth Chris is what every steak house tries to copy. They can't top it so they have to try other things to improve on it...and the meat no longer stands on it's own.
Posted on 6/28/10 at 6:42 am to tavolatim
When I get steak - I always get a ribeye. I very rarely get a topping. These two places that I mentioned last week both served a ribeye with no topping (Well the second place had a cabernet franc reduction sauce on the bottom of the plate).
Both steaks were way better that Ruth's. No contest. But as I said both were in the $120 - $150 range. Which brings me to my original point - For the price - it is hard to beat Ruth's but it is in no way the best steak ANYWHERE.
Both steaks were way better that Ruth's. No contest. But as I said both were in the $120 - $150 range. Which brings me to my original point - For the price - it is hard to beat Ruth's but it is in no way the best steak ANYWHERE.
This post was edited on 6/28/10 at 6:53 am
Page 1 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News