Vent: The whole "let it rest" thing with dry-aged beef is taken too far

I overheard a guy at a shop last week telling a customer that 45 days is the minimum for any good dry-aged steak. That's just not true. I've been doing this 12 years and some of the best beef I've had was at 28 days. You lose too much yield past 35 days for no real flavor gain in my opinion. Anyone else think the long-age hype is just a way to charge more?

3 comments

3 Comments

the_jessica2mo ago

Is 45 days really a minimum or just what sells more beef?

hugo_robinson252mo ago

Haven't seen anyone mention the cut itself yet, which is what really matters. A leaner cut like a strip or filet doesn't benefit from long aging the same way a fatty ribeye does. @the_jessica is right to question the 45 day thing because it's become a marketing gimmick more than anything else. Some shops push those longer ages just to justify the higher price tag and make people feel like they're getting something special. The truth is that mold development and moisture loss past 35 days just hurts the texture on most cuts. A well-marbled steak at 28 days can outperform a dried out 60 day one every time if the butcher knows what they're doing.

eric_knight72mo ago

Yeah, but I used to be one of those people who thought you needed at least 45 days or it wasn't worth doing. I'd tell customers the same thing, just repeating what I heard from some big-name butchers. Then a buddy of mine who runs a smaller shop gave me a 28-day aged ribeye and it was one of the best steaks I've ever had. Totally changed my mind. All that extra time just dries it out and wastes money on trim, and you can't taste the difference once you get past a certain point.