Steer me towards a steakhouse, please!

May 1, 2006 2:23 PM

What is the best steakhouse?

I'm taking my boyfriend out to dinner for his birthday, and he wants steak. Unfortunately, neither of us know which steakhouse to choose, since we don't have enough money to have ever visited one before. So, of Ruth's Chris, Morton's, Capital Grille, Fleming's, Smith & Wollensky, and The Palm, which is the best? My criteria for best is the quality/taste of the steak, followed by the quality of sides, dessert, price, and anything else that is small but relevant.

The boyfriend's favorite cut is filet (I prefer fish or lobster, so great seafood is a bonus, but is completely secondary to the steak, since it is his birthday).

posted by gatorae to food & drink (36 comments total)

In which city?
posted by Thorzdad at 2:26 PM on May 1, 2006

My vote is: 'Smith & Wollensky.'
posted by ericb at 2:27 PM on May 1, 2006

Location?
posted by k8t at 2:29 PM on May 1, 2006

The city is Miami, but since they are national chains I'm interested in everyone's experiences.
posted by gatorae at 2:31 PM on May 1, 2006

Morton's is quite good, as is Smith & Wollensky. I have been to Ruth's Chris but I haven't been incredibly impressed. Capital Grille is phenomenal, but seriously pricey.

I think the meat at Morton's is the best, but the accompaniments at Capital Grille are better. Does that help? Probably not.
posted by MeetMegan at 2:31 PM on May 1, 2006

I'd have to say Fleming's. Having eaten at most of the ones you mention, Fleming's is the one I keep going back to. With Morton's a close second.

All of the ones you mention will serve you a great steak. But for me Fleming's just has a better ambiance. And better sides. And better desserts.
posted by y6y6y6 at 2:31 PM on May 1, 2006

In Miami, I had a fantastic steak at Barton G. But that's just me.
posted by MeetMegan at 2:31 PM on May 1, 2006

Out of Ruth's Chris, Morton's, or Fleming's, I would vote for Fleming's hands down, based on my experiences at the Seattle locations.

The Ruth's Chris chefs undercooked our filets. They took it back to cook it a little more, and it took forever, and they overcooked it. The salads were rather sad piles of iceberg lettuce. The appetizers were unmemorable.

The Morton's experience begins with the waiter wheeling out a cart covered with cuts of raw meat, and a live lobster that crawls around (even onto the table) while the waiter's talking to you. The steak was pretty good. I don't remember much else, but the meat cart kind of turned us off. Some people think it's fun.

Fleming's had great service and great food. We loved their salads, soups, and desserts. The filet was fantastic, especially with the peppercorn sauce. The only complaint I had about Fleming's: Sometimes they'd give us an end cut, which did not please us. Just remember to specify that you want a center cut filet.

Are the other two you listed chains? I don't know them. You might consult citysearch for your city and read the reviews of steakhouses. It's quite likely that the best steakhouse in your city is not a chain. If your city happens to be Seattle, specify that and I'll give you more possibilities.
posted by agropyron at 2:32 PM on May 1, 2006

If he likes steak, what about one of the relatively newer (at least in my area) Brazilian meat-buffet places, such as Fire of Brazil (there are others, but I can't think of their names)? I've never been to one of these, but I've heard the steak's pretty frickin' good and it's all you can eat.

Anywho, I've also had the luxury of eating at some of the classier steak shops, and I would check to make sure they cook the steak the way you boyfriend likes it. For example, in Atlanta, one of the classier steak places is called Chops, where their specialty is char-grilling their steak. Only problem is I hate char-grilled steaks the way they do them so I would never go back there again.
posted by jmd82 at 2:37 PM on May 1, 2006

I've been uniformly unimpressed with chain steak houses. Is there a reason you are limiting yourselves to giant chains rather than the several independent places in Miami that are substantially better?

Ruth's Chris I thought was very, very mediocre. Palms is decent, but not as good as some others; Smith & Wollensky had good meat but poor service; and I've been to two Morton's, and was very much unimpressed with the overall experience, although the quality of the meat was good.

Capital Grille is a chain but better than the others you mention; the room is certainly prettier, and the meat as good as Morton's. Better value, too.

Grazianos is probably one of the better Argentinian steak places in the country. I don't know if it's owned by the same folks as the Chicago location, though.

I've heard Prime 112 is excellent, but haven't been. Tuscan Steak is also supposed to be quite fine.
posted by luriete at 2:40 PM on May 1, 2006

Morton's is very, very good, but I haven't always received the fancy service (cuts of steak wheeled out to you, etc), which isn't a big deal once you've seen it once. However, I personally prefer Ruth's Chris. Morton's serves a great pure steak, but Ruth's Chris does this buttery thing that tastes incredible. If I was going to eat one every week, I'd prefer Morton's because I'd get sick of the Ruth's Chris flavor. But if I'm only gonna do it once or twice a year I'll indulge in the Ruth's Chris steak.

I've only been to one Flemings, but it was obviously inferior to Morton's and Ruth's Chris. Same with Capital Grille. My all-time favorite is Mastro's in Scottsdale, but I haven't been to Peter Luger's in Brooklyn yet.

Also, if you want to consume a flagrant amount of meat but don't want the traditional steakhouse thing, try a charrascuria, a Brazilian steakhouse. Very awesome.
posted by mullacc at 2:41 PM on May 1, 2006

If I might, I'd like to piggyback and ask if anyone knows a good steak house in San Diego. I haven't had a good steak since I moved here.
posted by zabuni at 2:42 PM on May 1, 2006

I, too, would recommend Fleming's, for the quality of the steak + sides + general ambiance.
posted by hsoltz at 2:48 PM on May 1, 2006

I can't imagine any of those choices being anything but very expensive with an appetizer, 2 steaks, 2 sides and 1 dessert running about $80+ without drinks.

I've eaten at a few different Ruth's Chris and Morton's (but none of the others) and had some good and some mediocre meals. I have *never* spent my own money in a steakhouse (expensed business meals only). My impression is that the chain steakhouses are overpriced, manly-clubby-cocktails-and-cigars-themed restaurants that may or not give you a great steak. They're "about" steak like Starbucks is "about" coffee (i.e., not so much).

My recommendation would be to find either a well-regarded local steak house or a really great restaurant (French perhaps?) that will be serving steak on his birthday.

on preview: a Brazilian churrascaria *would* be an interesting alternative. The only one I've ever been to was in Miami and it was an awesome meat-o-rama.
posted by turbodog at 2:50 PM on May 1, 2006

We really want a traditional steakhouse - we have done the Brazilian all-you-can-eat thing, and while fun, it isn't what we are looking for. We want the classic out-on-the-town kind of place.

Also, he likes the idea of going to a chain that he has heard of that has a great national reputation. I guess it is a little shallow, but I think he likes the idea of being able to say "I ate there!"

A local place like Prime 112 would be nice, except we are going to have to go on a Saturday night, and neither of us can tolorate waiting. Prime 112 is supposed to have hours-long wait, even WITH a reservation.

Great comments, keep them coming!
posted by gatorae at 2:50 PM on May 1, 2006

I've had good food and good service at Christy's Restaurant in Coral Gables. National chains generally aren't a great value-for-money proposition; they mainly bring some standardization to the business diner's planning and pricing, and they make a good buck serving the expense account crowd. Knowing a good local joint, that cares about their meat, and knows their suppliers will probably give you a better experience, and a place to which you can confidently take yourselves and guests memorably on future occasions.

I'd go to any Outback before I went to any Ruth's Chris. I've had some truly awful meals and terrible service in Atlanta, Tampa, Nashville, and St. Louis, and wild horses couldn't drag me there again.

Morton's is OK, pretty predictable, but the meat is nothing extraordinary. Not bad, just not memorable. Lots of corporate traffic.

My son works at the Palms in Nashville, so I'll recuse myself on direct comments about them. (But my kid's no dope.)
posted by paulsc at 2:55 PM on May 1, 2006

This is going to be heresy in some circles, but here goes:

My theory on big-name steakhouses is that there isn't a terrific difference as far as the food. They all serve excellent cuts of meat, and in many cases they get it from exactly the same suppliers. As long as the kitchen doesn't screw it up, it's hard to go wrong. If you're paying $60 (or more) for a steak at a top-notch steakhouse, it's going to be pretty damn good no matter where you go.

Where you'll see more difference is with the service, wine list, variety on the menu, etc. I've been to both Smith & Wollensky's and Ruth's Chris. Both were excellent. The service at Ruth's seemed more attentive, but that's probably because we were eating on a company card and our boss was buying expensive bottles of wine.
posted by Brian James at 2:58 PM on May 1, 2006

If you're in Miami, why not Shula's?

Of the ones you listed, though, Smith & Wollensky's is my favorite and the one I would recommend.
posted by pdb at 3:00 PM on May 1, 2006

My vote is for Morton's -- though I haven't been to all of the chains mentioned, Morton's has been the best that I've been to. (I've been to Morton's in Chicago, and both Denver locations...) I like the "meet the meat" presentation, but you can skip it if you don't want to have the lobster oogling you before making your selection.
posted by jzb at 3:03 PM on May 1, 2006

(I love your title pun...har har har).
posted by MeetMegan at 3:06 PM on May 1, 2006

I'm partial to Ruth's Chris m'self but I seem to be in the minority here. I always had good experiences at the location just off Miracle Mile.

You might consider posting this question over on the Chowhound forums. There's a lot more noise with the signal over there but the readers are very... enthusiastic.
posted by phearlez at 3:19 PM on May 1, 2006

I went to nearly all the steakhouses in Manhattan. One of the surprises was the steak at Ruth's Chris - it was much tastier than I was expecting it to be. Smith and Wollensky, for ambience, was my all-around #2 favorite place, and the one I ended up going to out of my own wallet the most (my budget couldn't handle Delfrisco's.)

These things vary from city to city, though; I wouldn't put much stock in non-Miami recommendations. I can't quite remember where I went for steak in Miami Beach but it wasn't part of a chain. (on preview, it was Shula's. Lots of footballs kicking around.)

I doubt that any restaurant in a major city could stay in business if it kept its reservation-holding diners waiting for "hours." If you read that on some kind of citysearch-style review website, you can discard it as the writings of a competitor
posted by ikkyu2 at 3:57 PM on May 1, 2006

Oh, and to answer your original question:

The best steakhouse is Harris'. I just ate there last night - fabulous, as usual.
posted by ikkyu2 at 3:59 PM on May 1, 2006

I've eaten at Ruth's Chris, Mortons and Flemings, all in Baltimore. Ruth's Chris had the least-good steak (but it was still pretty good). Mortons was a little.... businessmen (seriously - nearly all men) out on their expense accounts for us, (early 30s) but the steak was really good. Flemings had equally good meat and the ambience was by far the best of the three.
posted by gaspode at 4:00 PM on May 1, 2006

I think what you're going to find is that there is no clear cut winner. People's tastes and experiences vary greatly, and I would think, taken in aggregate, all the above responders would rank each of the steakhouses about equally because each of these chains makes a great steak. There's a reason each one has expanded nationwide!

Anyway, for what it's worth, I've been to all the steak houses you mention except Ruth's Chris. My rankings:

#1 - Flemings: My wife and I love this place. The steak is always very tender and cooked to perfection but even better are the sides. They are a full step above the side dishes we've had at any other steakhouse. The desserts are also very good - the chocolate souffle is very very good (and comes with Bluebell ice cream - simply the best). Another plus is that all Flemings have a very large wine list, most of which are available by the glass, so you can try different wines throughout the evening. One con - the menu selection is kind of small. All the steakhouse basics are there, but if you like something fancy, they may not have it.

#2 - Morton's: Steak almost as good as Flemings, but with a wider variety of choices on the menu. The sides are somewhat of a dissapointment, but they are still good. The one area that Morton's stands above Flemings is in deserts - they use Godiva chocolate, and you can taste the difference. One other negative - I've been to Morton's in both Washington DC and Denver, and in both places, I've found the restaurants to be much noisier than other steakhouses. I don't know why, but both me and my wife noticed it.

#3 - Smith & Wollensky: I have to say I was dissapointed by the steak here. It was OK, but nothing special and definitely not worth the price. Also, I thought the service at S&W's left a little to be desired. The sides, however, were very good - on par with Flemings. The dessert was also very good. One other positive - S&W has an extensive seafood menu, if that's your thing.

#4 - The Palm: Average in every category: steak, service, sides and dessert. Nothing to complain about, but I wouldn't go there to spend any serious money. The Palm in DC, at least, has a much more laid atmosphere than the other steakhouses, so if you hate stuffy - this might be the place for you.

#5 - Capital Grille: Just plain bad. I've only been to this restaurant once, in Boston, but I'll never go again. The steak came out very overcooked - it looked and tasted like a shingle. The sides were blah and because the wait staff was so rude and/or absent, we didn't stick around for dessert.
posted by thewittyname at 4:16 PM on May 1, 2006

zabuni: For steaks in SD try Donovan's in La Jolla. And no matter what anyone tells you, stay away from Rainwater's Downtown.
posted by plexiwatt at 4:27 PM on May 1, 2006

I haven't been to any of the other chains, but I've been to Morton's in San Francisco twice and was vastly unimpressed with nearly every aspect of the meal. All of the food was good, but nothing was outstanding. Particularly the steaks, which were way too charred for my tastes. Service was horrible both times (though one was valentine's day, so it was understandable) and the cart thing is a cute gimmick, but on a busy night it's too loud to hear half of it, and the waitress is like an auctioneer trying to fly through the script. The live lobster grossed out my girlfriend a bit, but whatever. Ultimately, both times I left feeling like I had paid dearly for a sub par experience.
posted by rorycberger at 4:27 PM on May 1, 2006

If you can make a day of it instead of just a dinner, drive to Tampa and take him to Bern's.

Hands down, the best all around steak house experience I've ever had.

Really, really big wine cellar - over 90k bottles on property, with the other 90% across the street in their warehouse. Ask to do the kitchen tour where you will learn that they grow all of their own vegetables, and have been buying from the same cattle supplier for 50 years. When you are done eating the steak that they have expertly butchered (upon order), you can then spend some time in their desert room upstairs.

The times I've been, it's been a marathon though, so be prepared to spend several hours there.
posted by tomierna at 5:20 PM on May 1, 2006

Peter Luger. Obviously. The meat-eater's multiple orgasm.
posted by Decani at 5:20 PM on May 1, 2006

I have a theory that Ruth's Chris is the second or third best steakhouse in every American city. There's usually a local favorite that's better, but they're pretty consistent (or were a couple years ago when I travelled to all 64 locations on a company card.)
In Baltimore some post-frat yahoo's at the table behind us ordered their filet's well done. They were served before us, complained at the rareness of their steaks, sent them back a couple times, an hour later we got our steaks. I think they mixed up the orders, because I was served a burnt chunk of carbon. eh, i was pissed.
posted by muddylemon at 6:14 PM on May 1, 2006

The meat-eater's multiple orgasm.

I guess that means the obnoxious waitstaff are the equivalent of being forcibly exposed to some unpleasant fetish before you can get to the good stuff.
posted by rxrfrx at 7:45 PM on May 1, 2006

The Morton's in Cleveland is far better than the Fleming's or the Ruth's Chris in Colubus, OH. I've only been to Fleming's once but that was enough. No flavor. The sides, the bread, the steak, the dessert. Feh! all the way through. Hardly any better than you'd expect from far less expensive chains. I don't remember Ruth's Chris being quite that bad but I'll have to be dragged kicking and screaming if I ever go back there either. There's just no point gorging on beef if it's mediocre.

Fleming's wet ages their steaks which doesn't develop the flavor as well as dry aging. The Ruth's Chris website is a little unclear. They promise prime beef for specific cuts but neglect to specify it for other cuts. They don't mention anything about aging. Dry aging is a very expensive process and I'm pretty sure they would mention it. I went to Morton's website to confirm that they dry age their steak. They do. They also select only prime beef.

Count me as one more vote for reconsidering your chain criteria. But two votes each against Fleming's and Ruth's Chris.
posted by stuart_s at 10:49 PM on May 1, 2006

You absolutely will never get a better bacon-wrapped filet with a parmesan crust than at Wildfire. They have locations around Chicago and one in Atlanta.
posted by orangemiles at 10:18 AM on May 2, 2006

When I was young my family stumbled upon a place in Bozeman, MT called Ponderosa (obviously not that one). The steak was incredible, and just as we were finishing up they started playing bingo. Years later when I took my dad to Peter Luger's he was thoroughly impressed, but refused to concede it was better than what lingered in his mind's tongue.
posted by minkll at 10:40 AM on May 2, 2006

Of those on your list, I've been to Flemmings several times but none of the others. Flemmings never disappoints.

My wife, on the other hand, gets wined and dined regularly and has been to all of those that you listed. Her opinion is Flemmings or Capital Grille.

Sounds like you can't really make a mistake here. Enjoy!
posted by 27 at 12:19 PM on May 2, 2006

the obnoxious waitstaff

Myeh, I think they're fun. Unless you do something that deserves abuse, like asking for your steak well-done.
posted by Decani at 6:32 PM on May 7, 2006