Grain-fed vs. grass-fed

During the power outage, we went with some family refugees for a nice dinner out at Ray's the Classics, where the waiter made a big point of telling us that some of the steaks on special were dry-aged and grass-fed, as opposed to the regular menu steaks, which were wet-aged and grain-fed.

So three of us ordered the "specials" -- two Delmonicos and one Porterhouse, all bone-in -- and one ordered the ordinary, a "cowboy" bone-in ribeye. It would be interesting, we decided, to compare.

So we sampled each other's steaks (I had a Delmonico). First of all, they were all delicious! The other three people all thought the ordinary wet-aged, grain-fed steak tasted better. I thought all of them tasted good, equally good, but were different. Philosophically, I think grass-fed is better. I suspect that the others -- all great steak eaters -- preferred the grain-fed because that's what we are more used to. Does it have more flavor, less flavor? Who knows? De gustibus non disputandum!

Dry-aging is generally considered superior because it concentrates flavor and creates a natural crust. Also, it usually involves superior cuts of meat. I think it may be an acquired taste in the sense you have to be willing to let go of your previous experiences.

This Silver Spring offshoot of the Virginia Ray's has never quite matched the original. The steaks are good, though in the meantime there are other places which have very good steaks at the same moderate prices. It was not a great atmosphere and the waiter, while not exactly surly, was terse and cold. The cap came when we ordered coffee and he came back to inform us they had no coffee, so sorry, their shipment didn't come in. There was the power outage and things in general were disrupted, but there were supermarkets within walking distance and there's no excuse for such a lame explanation. The desserts were also lackluster.