Should other parts of the beef filet/tenderloin be sold as "Filet Mignon"?
I have this ongoing debate with various local butchers. From what I understand "filet mignon" refers to only a certain small section of the filet, i.e. pieces that aren't more than about 1.5 inches wide. Yet at made local stores - Whole Foods, Gourmet Garage, they are selling other sections of the filet and even the whole tenderloin at "filet mignon" prices. Am I wrong about this?
TIA
MMRuth
Oct 15, 2007 06:20AM
Well, Lobel's sells "Filet Tails" - the thinner, triangular end of the whole tenderloin. So they're still tying it in with "filet mignon" in name, but the prices for the filet mignon cut and the filet tails at Lobel's are definitely different.
I agree with you that "filet mignon" is a small section cut from the middle of the whole tenderloin...I believe they are individual portions of the chateaubriand, which is also cut from the center of the tenderloin? I could be wrong with that, but based on what I've read about where both are cut from, I believe that's right.
Permalink | Reply
Yes - Lobel's (down the street from me) is one of the few places that has it right, but the prices!
Permalink | Reply
::::Thud::::: You live down the STREET from Lobel's? Oh, lucky you! LOL
Permalink | Reply
Up the street actually - about 12 blocks - but they are so expensive, I almost never buy meat there, wonderful as it is.
Permalink | Reply
Other than shape and size, is there a difference in the meat quality along the length of a tenderloin?
I don't buy expensive beef, but I don't detect any difference along the length of a pork tenderloin. My dad used to buy the beef tenderloin, cutting up the thinner ends for stroganoff, and reserving the larger slices for bacon wrapping and broiling.
paulj
Permalink | Reply
"Mignon" is French for small or dainty. It is difficult to visualize the entire tenderloin as being small or dainty; individual cuts, yes, hence the name "mignon" for a small, dainty cut of meat. My guess is that there is a monetary benefit to stores selling odd bits at "mignon" prices (she says w/ tongue planted firmly in cheek). Until the stores are called on their practice, I wager it will continue. If someone wanted to pay me extra for a product, I'd let them.
Permalink | Reply
In La Technique, Jacques Pepin gives instructions for trimming an entire tenderloin, which he refers to alternately as a fillet. The whole fillet, he says, weighs about 9 pounds. That gets trimmed down to about 3-1/2 pounds. If not roasted whole, it can be cut into a variety of steaks. Pepin says that 3-1/2 pounds of tenderloin or fillet will yield 8 ounces of tidbits for stew, 3 filet mignons, 2 tournedos, and 1 chateaubriand.
Permalink | Reply
So the chateaubriand is a separate cut from the filet mignons and they're not just small pieces from the chateaubriand?
Permalink | Reply
I think that is right. And what bothers me so much is butchers/stores selling all the pieces as filet mignon - but I guess I said that already!! From now on, I'm going to photocopy a diagram of this and bring it with me whenever I buy beef!
Permalink | Reply
the chateaubriand (named for the 19th century french politician and gourmand who allegedly consumed them by himself) is the large 'head' of the trimmed tenderloin muscle (also referred to as the filet) weighing about 700 grams/1 1/2 pounds whose other end is the tapering "tip" of about 200 grams/7 ounces which makes superb kabobs. the part of the roast between the tip and the head is a very regular cylinder which can be cut into steaks (about 100 grams/3 ounces) called "tournedoes" (meaning 'turn around' as they cook in the time it takes to turn around) or slightly smaller (60 grams or so/2 ounces) cuts called filet "mignon" (which should be in quotes as it refers to the opera 'mignon' - many foods of the belle epoque reference operas). therefore, it is legitimate to refer to the entire center of the muscle as "filet mignon"
Permalink | Reply
And what about charging the same price for the chateaubriand and the tournedos as the filet mignon?
Permalink | Reply
Actually the center of the whole tenderloind is where the chateaubriand comes from. The large end makes up the tournedos, the small end the filets mignon. The original recipe for chateaubriand sandwiched it between two lesser quality steaks, broiled them all together to desided doneness, then the outer steaks were tossed to the puppies. Nobody does that today.
Permalink | Reply
Chateaubriand is recipe, not a cut. Like the filet and tournedos, it comes from the tenderloin.
You are talking to retailers, not butchers. Meat retailers and many butchers have learned that the public will pay much more for things with fancy French names.
Sadly, there are very, very few actual butchers operating today.
Permalink | Reply
In Julia Child's MTFC, she has a diagram of the tenderloin, which breaks it up into the following cuts:
Bifteck (Tenderloin Butt)
Chateaubriand
Filet Steak
Tournedos
Filet Mignon
And I do agree with your point about retailers vs. butchers - I guess I just think that the "butcher" at the retailer ought to know something. I'm lucky that there actually are a couple of butchers in my neighborhood.
Permalink | Reply
Again, those are recipe cuts, not anatomical breakdowns. You can no more order a pound of chateaubriand than you can order a pound of lobster thermador.
This is the "classical" thinking and no longer seems to be in vouge.
I sort of mis-spoke on my earlier comment. What I was trying to convey is that terms, such as chateaubriand, are not actual muscles of sections of the cow. They are the names of popular cuts. In days not to distant past, you could ask a butcher for "a pound of filet for making chateaubriand" and they would know what part of the tenderlolin you needed. Now it's all about marketing.
Another very good example is the standing rib roast. Over the years, it has been bastardized into something called "Prime Rib". Unless the meat is USDA grade prime, there is no such piece of flesh with that name. It is, a marketing ploy invented by the restaurant industry.
In many states, beef must be labeled to acurately reflect the cut. It would be illegal to package something called Prime Rib. Instead, by law, it has to be labeled Rib Roast (unless you are fortunate to be able to find a standing rib that was graded prime).
But again, most people who schlep down to Outback, Western Sizzlin', or other low to middle level steak houses get a buzz on when they order "Prime Rib", even though it might be USDA select, low grade dog food. The ritzy name makes up for the poor quality.
Permalink | Reply
Thanks - I understand what you are saying now.
Permalink | Reply
Sorry, but you're incorrect about "prime rib." It can be any grade of beef, but it must be from the "prime" portion of the ribcage--the 6th to 12th ribs. Forward of the 6th rib is the chuck, and back of the 12th rib is the loin. USDA regulations specifically provide that prime rib "do[es] not have to be derived from USDA prime grade beef." (USDA Food Standards and Labeling Policy Book, p. 135.)
Permalink | Reply
I prefer to take the word of respected butchers (and chef's for that matter) over the word of some pencil neck buracrates in Washington with a liberal arts degree and a goverment issued clipboard and pen who have "adapted to the market".
By the way, there is no such thing as "the prime portion of the ribcage". Ribs 6-12 make up the rib primal, on of the primal cuts of the carcass. Primal and Prime ane mutually exclusive terms.
I can see why John Q. Public is confused; we've got marketing and regulatory personel throwing terms around that contradict each other as well as long standing tradition.
I'm pigheaded. What can I say. I also refuse to call something a Martini unless it's made with gin and vermouth.
Permalink | Reply
Believe your butcher if you want, but he's mistaken. The reason a USDA Choice standing rib roast can be called "prime rib" is that the term predates the existence of "prime" beef.
The USDA meat grading system was implemented in 1927; the tentative standards for grading were drafted in 1916. But in 1894, Charles Ranhofer's book "The Epicurean" had a diagram showing "six prime ribs, (A) first cut, (B) second cut, and (C) third cut." Each cut was two ribs, starting with 12 and working forward. He actually excluded the 6th rib, which is part of the rib primal today.
So "prime rib," as it was originally used, cannot possibly have had anything to do with the grade of meat, since there were no grades of meat at the time. And the USDA--which developed and implemented the grading system in the first place--has always recognized this historical fact. There's no market adaptation. Your butcher is feeding you beef with a side order of revisionist history.
Permalink | Reply
Amen to butchers being a vanishing breed! But chateubriand is a cut as well as a recipe. I am amused by most butcher shops that charge about two bucks a pound more for filet mignon and/or strip steak but you can buy a huge thick cut porterhouse and have both steaks and a great bone!
Permalink | Reply
jfood thinks it fine for them to have a broad label of filet mignon. how many of us actually look at the label when we purchase "some filets." more often than not we go to the meat section, see which packages have the filets and pcik. Jfood can;t remember the last time he needed a label to tell him which package was filets.
Permalink | Reply
I guess my point is, presumably, filet mignon, being limited to a v. small part of the tenderloin, should be more expensive than other parts of same. So, what irks me is being charged "filet mignon" prices for the rest of the tenderloin.
Permalink | Reply
jfood feels the same way when he looks at most of the beef offerings. The good ones go first and then later in the day the bad's are theonly ones left. Early bird sorta analysis.
Permalink | Reply
Cook's Illustrated did a piece on this very subject last year titled "Filet Fraud." They wrote that several grocers, restaurants and butchers were selling cheaper cuts masqueraded as more expensive filet mignon. A reputable butcher explained to them that the most likely imposters were chuck tender and top butt which typically sell for about 80% less than filet.
They did a blind tast test w/ the lesser cuts. Filet has a very fine grain & buttery texture and compared with the other two was far superior.
You shouldn't see any connective tissue & there should be very little marbling in the filet.
Permalink | Reply
I don't think what MMRuth brought up is quite the same thing because what the OP is saying is that some cuts from elsewhere in the tenderloin are being called filet mignon. In the Cook's Illustrated article, meat from entirely different muscles were being passed off as tenderloin meat.
Permalink | Reply
I gathered her point was the selling of cheaper cuts as filet. Although she was talking specificly about other parts of the tenderloin. My point was not only are they selling other parts of the tenderloin as filet mignon, even worse is they are passing off much cheaper cuts as filet mignon. Either way it's dishonest.
Permalink | Reply
Well, I had some time to kill in Chelsea while the dog's grooming was being finished up, and since the groomer had just talked to me about the butcher up the street that he's used for years, I thought I'd check it out. Great old fashioned simple family run butcher shop - all the meat in a walk in refrigerator that he cuts to order. So I thought I'd take the opportunity to ask him my burning question. His opinion was that although one might use different pieces of the tenderloin for different purposes, they are all of the "same" quality and should be priced at the same price. So, I've decided to stop harassing butchers about this, which will come as a great relief to my husband.
Permalink | Reply
LOL! Well, at least you have an answer from the butcher's mouth.
Permalink | Reply