Had dinner at Morton's last night, and were reminded of why we like Ruth's Chris so much better. My bone-in ribeye was tasty, but tougher then even that cut usually is. The plates were not at all hot - evidentally Ruth's Chris is one of the few steakhouses that seems to think this is important, and Chicago Magazine went so far as to mention, in their review of another local steakhouse, that it would be nice if the plates were hot.
We also like the ambience better at Ruth's Chris than at Morton's. The sides and appetizers are more to our liking (we like the occasional Cajun item on the Ruth's Chris menu), and the drinks are better. One thing we noticed that Mortons had that we liked - the chance to choose a fine cigar from a cigar menu, and enjoy it in the bar (haven't noticed if Ruth's Chris has jumped on that particular bandwagon).
Of course, all this commentary applies only to our local (Chicago) Ruth's Chris, and the original Morton's on Rush Street in Chicago - we have never eaten at any of these chains' other locations. So I'm wondering - how many others feel this way? Any opinions on these two chains?
Updated 1 year ago | 35
Updated 4 months ago | 2
Updated 1 year ago | 43
Updated 8 months ago | 9
Updated 5 months ago | 31