A Fine Cut Above: Is the Tomahawk Worth the Extra $$$

[SNJCruisers]

1 hour ago, markeb said:

 

I guess I'd never heard of one until this thread! A lot of gimmick and marketing. Like a bone in filet (a filet is a boneless cut of meat by definition, so a bone in boneless cut...), which I consider an oxymoron, but I understand why they'd come up with that name.

 

And we're like you. We very rarely have steak when we eat out, unless I'm somewhere like Brussels where filet au poivre is delicious and much more work than I'd usually do at home! And so much steak at nicer places, at least in the US, are just huge cuts of meat that I never finish, and we really have a hard time splitting.

 

But if you're actually buying a tomahawk cut steak you're paying for that huge piece of rib that you're not eating!

Guess you never heard that meat on the bone is more flavorful.  Have had bone in filets before, usually about 12-16 oz.  The one on the Apex is only 9 oz.  Had a tomahawk for the first time on NCL about 5 years ago.  Don't care if it was a gimmick or not, I enjoyed it. And I would never buy one at a butcher to cook at home, but since it was the same price as the 6 ounce filet on NCL, I obviously did not pay a dime more for the extended bone.

 

[markeb]

11 minutes ago, SNJCruisers said:

Guess you never heard that meat on the bone is more flavorful.  Have had bone in filets before, usually about 12-16 oz.  The one on the Apex is only 9 oz.  Had a tomahawk for the first time on NCL about 5 years ago.  Don't care if it was a gimmick or not, I enjoyed it. And I would never buy one at a butcher to cook at home, but since it was the same price as the 6 ounce filet on NCL, I obviously did not pay a dime more for the extended bone.

 

I don’t know why I’m bothering. I didn’t say a bone in cut isn’t generally more flavorful than a boneless cut. They are. A filet by definition (Webster, OED, etc.) is boneless. A bone in filet is therefore an oxymoron. Which I find humorous, and a marketing gimmick. Which has nothing to do with the flavor of the cut. 

[JL87]

4 minutes ago, markeb said:

I don’t know why I’m bothering. I didn’t say a bone in cut isn’t generally more flavorful than a boneless cut. They are. A filet by definition (Webster, OED, etc.) is boneless. A bone in filet is therefore an oxymoron. Which I find humorous, and a marketing gimmick. Which has nothing to do with the flavor of the cut. 

Should be a bone in tenderloin but I guess that doesn't sound as fancy.

[SNJCruisers]

27 minutes ago, markeb said:

I don’t know why I’m bothering. I didn’t say a bone in cut isn’t generally more flavorful than a boneless cut. They are. A filet by definition (Webster, OED, etc.) is boneless. A bone in filet is therefore an oxymoron. Which I find humorous, and a marketing gimmick. Which has nothing to do with the flavor of the cut. 

So what is the small portion of a porterhouse or T Bone if it's not a filet still on the bone?  Or is this just another marketing gimmick in your opinion?

[markeb]

14 minutes ago, SNJCruisers said:

So what is the small portion of a porterhouse or T Bone if it's not a filet still on the bone?  Or is this just another marketing gimmick in your opinion?

 

Seriously? Are you really asking that question?

 

The difference between a Porterhouse and a T-Bone is defined by where the steak is cut and the amount of tenderloin present on cross section.. A Porterhouse is towards the rear of the animal. It includes a greater percentage of the psoas muscle, i.e., the tenderloin, than a T-Bone. 

 

From barbecuebible.com

 

Note I said tenderloin and psoas muscle. A filet is a boneless cut of the tenderloin. To make a filet, you use a tenderloin as a wholesale cut (or possibly a short loin, but you'd probably cut T-bones and Porterhouses out of a short loin.). That's what you see on the left of the "T" in the Porterhouse. It's the psoas muscle, or tenderloin. By definition it's not a filet. If you rotated those two steaks 90 degrees, you'd be looking at the spine of a bovine and the muscles would run down the back, and if you cut out the muscle on the left, you'd have a tenderloin. Which is boneless. And if you then cut it, you have filets. Which is boneless. See Merriam-Webster online: Fillet: b: a piece or slice of boneless meat or fish, especially : the tenderloin of beef.

 

T-Bone versus Porterhouse really isn't a marketing gimmick, IMHO, as there's a very real difference in the steaks. And they've been defined for decades. The marketing gimmick is a bone-in boneless cut. But that actually seems to work, and I simply find it ironic. Calling it a marketing gimmick doesn't make it bad.

 

I've now spent far more clock cycles on this than it deserves.

[SNJCruisers]

2 hours ago, markeb said:

 

Seriously? Are you really asking that question?

 

The difference between a Porterhouse and a T-Bone is defined by where the steak is cut and the amount of tenderloin present on cross section.. A Porterhouse is towards the rear of the animal. It includes a greater percentage of the psoas muscle, i.e., the tenderloin, than a T-Bone. 

 

From barbecuebible.com

 

Note I said tenderloin and psoas muscle. A filet is a boneless cut of the tenderloin. To make a filet, you use a tenderloin as a wholesale cut (or possibly a short loin, but you'd probably cut T-bones and Porterhouses out of a short loin.). That's what you see on the left of the "T" in the Porterhouse. It's the psoas muscle, or tenderloin. By definition it's not a filet. If you rotated those two steaks 90 degrees, you'd be looking at the spine of a bovine and the muscles would run down the back, and if you cut out the muscle on the left, you'd have a tenderloin. Which is boneless. And if you then cut it, you have filets. Which is boneless. See Merriam-Webster online: Fillet: b: a piece or slice of boneless meat or fish, especially : the tenderloin of beef.

 

T-Bone versus Porterhouse really isn't a marketing gimmick, IMHO, as there's a very real difference in the steaks. And they've been defined for decades. The marketing gimmick is a bone-in boneless cut. But that actually seems to work, and I simply find it ironic. Calling it a marketing gimmick doesn't make it bad.

 

I've now spent far more clock cycles on this than it deserves.

And if you trim the Strip and part of the bone away from the Porterhouse, what's left?  A bone in filet.  Not a gimmick to me.

[mfs2k]

10 hours ago, markeb said:

I don’t know why I’m bothering. I didn’t say a bone in cut isn’t generally more flavorful than a boneless cut. They are. A filet by definition (Webster, OED, etc.) is boneless. A bone in filet is therefore an oxymoron. Which I find humorous, and a marketing gimmick. Which has nothing to do with the flavor of the cut. 

Why do you think this is any different than a bone in strip steak or a boneless strip steak?  The same rib bone separates the striploin from the tenderloin? 

[mfs2k]

9 hours ago, markeb said:

Seriously? Are you really asking that question?

Not everyone possesses the knowledge of a professional meat buyer or butcher.  It’s ok for people to ask questions. That’s how they learn. 

[mfs2k]

6 hours ago, SNJCruisers said:

And if you trim the Strip and part of the bone away from the Porterhouse, what's left?  A bone in filet.  Not a gimmick to me.

The “gimmick”  is this is a relatively new cut for wholesale meat sales. Traditionally a cow was broken down and sold by wholesale meat markets per specific cuts identified by number in the North American Meat Buyers Guide (I have a copy from the 70’s I used in college.). The bone in filet isn’t in the book. 

[TeeRick]

Is the Tomahawk Steak the same cut as the Tomahawk Chop in Atlanta ??  (US baseball reference😀).

[Cruise a holic]

On 11/19/2021 at 8:59 PM, Jim_Iain said:

Yes upper suites are also charged an upcharge for it.  

I personally can imagine anyone eating that large of a steak but Florentine Steaks are about the same size and I watch a 100 pound lady devour one and then order desert.

A Tomahawk steak is "supposed to be" a better cut of meat- I  personally enjoy a thick cut  ribeye.  But on the ships the steak is a joke and more like roast beef.  If you order a better  thicker, more flavorful steak, you surely do not have to finish it!  

[Pinboy]

On 11/19/2021 at 5:14 PM, peanut head said:

Do you think it's worth the price and if you are in a high end suite with unlimited specialty dining are you still charged extra?

This thread should be titled " Butcher for Dummies " ---- ( No reference to any poster-- just a title of a book ).

Question : If you are in a " high end " suite what are you worried about if there is a few $$ more to enjoy " whatever " the hell they call the steak ??? 

 

 

[TeeRick]

3 minutes ago, Pinboy said:

This thread should be titled " Butcher for Dummies " ---- ( No reference to any poster-- just a title of a book ).

Question : If you are in a " high end " suite what are you worried about if there is a few $$ more to enjoy " whatever " the hell they call the steak ??? 

 

 

Pinboy thanks for bringing us back to the original question.  

[mfs2k]

2 hours ago, Cruise a holic said:

A Tomahawk steak is "supposed to be" a better cut of meat- I  personally enjoy a thick cut  ribeye.  But on the ships the steak is a joke and more like roast beef.  If you order a better  thicker, more flavorful steak, you surely do not have to finish it!  

I'm not sure why a Tomahawk would be a better cut of meat than a Cowboy steak (bone in rib-eye)  It's the exact same cut.  What differentiates the two is the thickness of the steak, and the quality of the beef, as well as any aging. 

 

I seriously doubt Celebrity is aging beef on board, and I also doubt they're buying prime beef. 

 

I'm guessing they are buying choice unaged pre-cut steaks from their wholesaler.  If it's sold as Tomahawk for 2,  I''d assume it's about 1.5" thick (any thicker would have 2 bones).  No clue how much it would weigh. It's kind of irrelevant because the bone probably weighs 12-16 oz. 

[mfs2k]

2 hours ago, TeeRick said:

Pinboy thanks for bringing us back to the original question.  

 

sorry for taking it back to the steak. 

[mfs2k]

2 hours ago, Pinboy said:

If you are in a " high end " suite what are you worried about if there is a few $$ more to enjoy " whatever " the hell they call the steak ??? 

 

Not caring about the cost.  Not counting pennies.  It's my vacation.  Just want a good meal in the Steakhouse. And I'm using up that OBC they throw at me. Give me that bone in ribeye, whatever size bone is attached. 

[PTC DAWG]

I like steaks ( as long as they aren't cooked past medium rare), arguing about them, not so much.

 

Back to the OP's question, it's one only they can answer.  Like most food questions on here.  

[LGW59]

13 hours ago, markeb said:

 

Seriously? Are you really asking that question?

 

The difference between a Porterhouse and a T-Bone is defined by where the steak is cut and the amount of tenderloin present on cross section.. A Porterhouse is towards the rear of the animal. It includes a greater percentage of the psoas muscle, i.e., the tenderloin, than a T-Bone. 

 

From barbecuebible.com

 

Note I said tenderloin and psoas muscle. A filet is a boneless cut of the tenderloin. To make a filet, you use a tenderloin as a wholesale cut (or possibly a short loin, but you'd probably cut T-bones and Porterhouses out of a short loin.). That's what you see on the left of the "T" in the Porterhouse. It's the psoas muscle, or tenderloin. By definition it's not a filet. If you rotated those two steaks 90 degrees, you'd be looking at the spine of a bovine and the muscles would run down the back, and if you cut out the muscle on the left, you'd have a tenderloin. Which is boneless. And if you then cut it, you have filets. Which is boneless. See Merriam-Webster online: Fillet: b: a piece or slice of boneless meat or fish, especially : the tenderloin of beef.

 

T-Bone versus Porterhouse really isn't a marketing gimmick, IMHO, as there's a very real difference in the steaks. And they've been defined for decades. The marketing gimmick is a bone-in boneless cut. But that actually seems to work, and I simply find it ironic. Calling it a marketing gimmick doesn't make it bad.

 

I've now spent far more clock cycles on this than it deserves.

Seriously???

[chrismakris]

Depending on how you like your steak cooked I would avoid this. 
 

Because this will be a thicker cut of meat any cooked temperature above med rare risks drying out the meat.

 

Also, if they do not bring the steak up to temperature before placing it on the grill then you really run the risk of having a steak that is cooked on the outside but rare in the middle(unless you like your steak cooked that way)

 

This has happened to me a few times including at fancy steakhouses

[mfs2k]

32 minutes ago, chrismakris said:

Also, if they do not bring the steak up to temperature before placing it on the grill then you really run the risk of having a steak that is cooked on the outside but rare in the middle(unless you like your steak cooked that way)

 

Actually I love it that way.  Pittsburgh style. 

[CalTexCruiser]

I'm afraid we have veered way off the original topic

 

the original questions were:

 

1) is a tomahawk in Fine Cut worth the extra charge, if there is one? (ie. it doesn't matter whether it's a marketing gimmick or not, but is this specific piece of steak from Fine Cut worth it to those who have tried)

 

2) if staying in an upper level suite, are the extra charge items included in unlimited specialty dining?

[mfs2k]

1 hour ago, CalTexCruiser said:

I'm afraid we have veered way off the original topic

 

Welcome to Cruise Critic

[peanut head]

thank goodness I didn't post a really confrontational question(s)😆

[SNJCruisers]

10 hours ago, mfs2k said:

No clue how much it would weigh. It's kind of irrelevant because the bone probably weighs 12-16 oz. 

It's on the menu as a 30 oz cut for two.  Doubt that the bone would be 12-16, which means it would be a 14-18 oz cut shared by two people.

[mfs2k]

21 minutes ago, SNJCruisers said:

It's on the menu as a 30 oz cut for two.  Doubt that the bone would be 12-16, which means it would be a 14-18 oz cut shared by two people.

Guess it depends how long the Bone is. What do you think it weighs?