General Discussion

Bones: a rant, sort of


General Discussion 25

Bones: a rant, sort of

Will Owen | Sep 21, 2005 08:57 PM

There it was again on a menu: "Filet on the bone." And there, in the supermarket ad. And, just a couple of days ago, in a Chowhound posting: "...and their on-the-bone filet is simply...".

Is this some kind of regional idiocy, like rural Tennesseans referring to daffodils as "buttercups"? Does no one understand that a "filet" is called that precisely because it has been REMOVED from any attached bones? If it's got a bone on it, it might be a porterhouse, it might be an entrecote, it might be the King of bloody Siam, but it canNOT be a filet! My father-in-law, the de facto family chef and a gourmand of the (very) old French school, saw the impossible cut in an ad for what had been his favorite meat store. Took the offending ad down, demanded to be shown this wonder, was shown SOMETHING that was not, of course, a filet, and has gone elsewhere since. I wouldn't take it to such extremes, but I do tend to think much less of any establishment that claims to offer such a thing.

Okay, now: how about them "boneless ribs"?

Want to stay up to date with this post?

Recommended From Chowhound