Do gentlemen prefer...

[Independent Gal]

... beef? Err... and ladies too. What I mean is: when you are a guest at a wedding or other event, would you much rather have a choice between say beef tenderloin and, say, blackened cod, or are you ok with a choice between chicken and say, gingered salmon? Does chicken scream ''CHEAP!''?

I''d been planning to offer a ''chicken or beef'' choice, and guests get to choose on teh spot. But the venue charges a per head price for the higher priced dish, regardless of who orders what (as in, say the beef is $60 and the chicken is $50... and I have 100 guests, I pay $6000 regardless of how many people choose chicken).

So, I can either not offer beef at all, and save what will work out to about $800, or offer a choice of the two nicer dishes and suck it up.

My brother was alll "AAARGH! NO WEDDING CHICKEN! I HATE WEDDING CHICKEN!" and although we''ve hired one of the best chefs in the city (this won''t be no ordinary wedding chicken!) I''m now wondering if it''s worth the $800 (which is still within budget...but barely) to offer the ''classier'' alternative of beef.

What do you think? Are you a happier guest when served a ''classier'' beef meal? Or does it not really make a difference?

 

[Miranda]

Well, I always choose beef, but, I''m a shameless beef eater. That said, I don''t think chicken screams cheap. It is liked by most everyone. Besides, your guests are coming to celebrate with you...Not eat wedding food. I think it would be lovely to have a salmon choice on the menu. I don''t think you can go wrong with either of your choices!

 

[chrono]

I think my hubby''s preference would be beef, then fish then chicken. I usually prefer fish over chicken; not for cost, but because I like the taste and texture of fish much better. However, I also know some people just don''t like seafood. This is a tough call but I''m sure everyone will enjoy whatever is served, if it is well cooked (and it sounds like you''ve picked the best chefs).

 

[diamondfan]

I eat it all, but tend to dislike chicken at events because I never find it that compelling and it is something I can do at home more easily. It may or not seem cheap, but it just does not excite me, unless it is pounded thin into medallions and has great accompaniments/sauce etc. That has as much to do with presentation as with content! (I just dislike a huge hunk of chicken on my plate)...but that is totally me. I also dislike really fishy fish, and prefer something in the fish category that is less likely to be smelly when prepared. I always appreciate nice food at events like this, but do not expect anything too different since you are dealing with not only costs but the tastes of so many people and that is a tough call.

 

[angel_nieves]

I don’t think chicken screams cheap, but honestly in the past every wedding I have been at I chose the beef. Also most of the men in my family would chose beef. However if it is in budget I would offer beef and chicken most of the women I know would chose the chicken. It’s your wedding and what ever you chose it will be perfect.

 

[Kaleigh]

I always choose the beef!!

 

[angel_nieves]

All though I love fish any type I think it would be risky to serve it at a wedding unless you know most people there would like it. My husband family at our first wedding didn’t touch any of the salmon

.

 

[Independent Gal]

Yeah, I guess I wanna knwo whether, when offered the choice between beef and chicken, most people would choose beef. If that''s the case, we want to offer our guests what they would most like to eat! That is worth $800 to me. And come to think of it, if you''re going to hire one of the best chefs in town, you may as well showcase his talent in the absolute best way you can.

The chef can also do a dish of our choice. My FI loves duck and venison, but I think that most people would probably be all ''huh''? Plus I bet venison is pretty pricey. And cute. Ducks are pretty cute too, come to think of it. Too cute to serve.

I could still offer chicken or beef, but it occured to me that I have a lot of relatives who eat fish, but no other meat. They are going to do an extra dish for the strict vegetarians (something involving braised fennel that made me drool...), but I think offering a fish option will cut down the complications

 

[angel_nieves]

I love venison (use to) however if some one is not use to it they might find the meat too gamey. I love the braised Fennel

ideal, I might just crash you wedding for the food.
Just kidding

 

[chrono]

ID,
That''s very thoughful of you to consider those who don''t eat meat at your wedding.

 

[WorkingHardforSmallRewards]

unless you are getting saga or kobe beef or some other particularly special type of beef, I don''t think that beef is really particularly special in itself. And believe me, you would be hard pressed to find someone who loves beef more than me. Sure, he will cook delicious beef, but it will all be in the preparation, marinating, and cooking of the beef, all of which a good home chef can probably match on his own when compared to the mass production in this type of situation. So while it would be good, I bet I and many people there can make better than you would have if you had him serve beef there, and I guarantee I have had better beef, simply because much better beef exist independent of preparation.

But chicken--well, how many guys have really mastered the art of fine chicken cooking? Not many I think. I know I haven''t, yet when I go somewhere really nice and I am served excellent chicken, it is AMAZING, so much better than what I can produce at home. so sure, beef is safe, but there is really not much chance too many people are going to go home remembering it. But the chicken, if he is really a great chef, people may well remember it for months and years afterward, wanting to eat it again. But I really don''t think anybody is going to say--"oh, chicken and salmon, how cheap." So honestly I say the risk are minimum to nil, and the potential benefits are large. I would thus pick chicken and salmon even if it were more expensive, but maybe I am crazy (unless you can get some very rare or truly incredible beef wherein the mass production of it exceeds what could easily be done at home.)

 

[Independent Gal]

Well, Chrono, I can't claim too much credit since those who don't eat meat (strictly speaking) include my dad, his wife, my step-sister and... ME! (though I eat fish and chicken) I'd have been in big trouble otherwise!

But I did try to make sure we went with a chef who took vegetarianism seriously. Nothing worse than being served some rice and soggy vegetables... or worse... PASTA! As though there was no such thing as vegetarian CUISINE! With protein!

 

[sumbride]

I always choose beef! But if it was chicken vs. fish, I''d go with the chicken. I really have a severe dislike for cooked salmon these days. Don''t know why, as I loved it when I was a kid, but it just doesn''t appeal to me anymore and the smell makes me gag. If it were halibut, I may pick the fish, but "blackened cod" just doesn''t sound appealing to me.

 

[chiefneil]

A lot of people seem to like beef at events, which puzzles me because it tends to be poorly done, IMHO. It''s just hard to cook beef for 100 people in any way that approaches decent quality. I usually go with the chicken or fish for that reason.

That said, it would seem odd if the choices were "chicken or salmon". I think the "beef or chicken" choice is a little more traditional. But then it depends on where you are, too. In California, I think "chicken or salmon" would be fine. In the midwest, you probably need the beef option.

Personally I''ll take an order of just the blackened cod, please, with a side of creamy polenta and grilled asparagus!

 

[Aloros]

All these wedding things strike me as weird sometimes. Chicken = cheap? Never heard of it! I don''t eat red meat very often, so I''d personally prefer a chicken vs. fish menu. I find chicken delightful, and when done right, divine!

I think chicken is classy enough by itself! You''ll be giving your guests healthier alternatives anywho.

 

[jcrow]

fish. well over beef or chicken. always.
but that''s me

hubby would either do beef or fish but chicken would be his last choice.
my best friend would choose chicken without even glancing at the menu!
i think it just varies.

 

[Independent Gal]

Hey Aloros: I think the association of chicken with ''cheap'' is that chicken usually IS the least expensive option, sometimes by a mile. So the whole ''wedding chicken'' thing, that one so often is served chicken at a wedding, is partly because people choose this option as a means of keeping costs down.

It sounds like, although there''s variation, most people would choose the beef option over the chicken option. Shame we can''t offer all three! But that would get REALLY expensive (there''s a surcharge for a third option...except vegetarion).

Any more votes?

 

[Independent Gal]

Hey! What about ostrich?

Anyone ever tried it?

We''re actually going to have a lot of ostrich feathers in lieu of bouquets in certain spots. Pluck ''em and eat ''em!

 

[ephemery1]

Date: 8/9/2007 1:54:57 PM
Author: Independent Gal
Hey! What about ostrich?

Anyone ever tried it?

Mmmmmm.... I love ostrich! But I'm a weird eater...

When given a choice, I almost always pick beef... but we've been to a zillion weddings this summer and I've found myself starting to go with the fish option instead (most seem to be offering beef or fish... haven't seen much chicken this summer, possibly due to the "wedding chicken" stigma). I even got vegeterian recently to mix it up a bit, and it was gooooood... all the meat-eaters were jealous.

I'm not a big fan of chicken in general, so I'd never voluntarily order that at a restaurant either... I don't even cook it at home.

I love salmon, but I think if you're going to do a fish, it might be "safer" to stick with something white and simple like sea bass or halibut.... and then maybe you could do something more adventurous like duck in place of chicken? Although that could end up pricey too....

What about a less expensive cut of beef with a fish option? Is that a possibility?

 

[strmrdr]

Beef!
Chicken is ok, am picky about fish and most of it is pretty nasty.

 

[iheartscience]

I hate chicken, especially wedding chicken, although your chicken sounds better than typical wedding fare! I would definitely go with beef if given the choice of chicken or beef. However, if I was offered beef or fish, I''m not sure what I would choose...I like both!

It sounds like, based on your guests, a choice of beef or fish might be a good idea. Is that a possibility?

 

[rainbowtrout]

IMO mass cooked beef is usually much better than mass cooked chicken, the extra fat makes it tastier.


Chicken doesn't scream cheap, no, but to me it does scream "Rubbery!" at large events, even with a good chef you have to have a careful preperation.


So if you have a fab caterer, I think you could do no beef option, otherwise go with one.


ETA: re-read about your fancy chef! Okay...I think if it were me, I might do a turkey option and a vegetarian option (I'm guessing you can only have 2?). IMO for your poultry option go with something gauranteed tender, like a Moroccan tagine style dish, or chicken under a brick, etc.

ETA 2: I said turkey because to me it is a little more distinctive than chicken, and more interesting with things like sundried tomatoes,etc.

 

[phoenixgirl]

I would offer beef and fish based on what you''ve described . . . you''re willing to pay the $800 extra if that''s what people would prefer, and you know some people who eat fish but not poultry or red meat. It seems like your menu shouldn''t suffer just because the venue has what I think is a stupid rule.

At our wedding, we offered beef, lamb, salmon, or vegetarian. A lot of choices, I know. We were paying per dish, and the beef was much more reasonably priced than the lamb, but the lamb was so good! So we decided just to offer them all, figuring that if there was no beef more people would choose the lamb. But then we kept telling everyone how good the lamb was so we sort of defeated the purpose.

Oops.

In the end, though, everything is a balance. If you can''t afford the $800, get the chicken. I wouldn''t think, "Oh, what a horribly cheap wedding," but I also don''t like chicken and never order it in restaurants, so I''d go for the fish if I were invited to your wedding (I am, right? . . . Just kidding!).

 

[AsscherGirl]

We did pre-choices for our wedding & were actually able to offer beef, chicken & a fish. I specified that it was Filet & Salmon since I know as a guest I would not want a Prime Rib, and I dislike salmon so I would want to know what the fish is!

It was interesting to see them come back. We got 2x as many orders for beef, but the Fish & chicken are pretty much tied at this point.

I would definitely do beef/fish/vegetarian. I think you''ll cover most people by that!

 

[zoebartlett]

My FI would probably order (or choose) beef, while I prefer chicken or fish. I''ve had too many stuffed chicken dishes that were very much "wedding chicken," yet I never learn my lesson. I don''t think chicken is cheap, but it might depend on how its made. What type of beef, chicken, and/or fish are you considering?

 

[Stone Hunter]

I would pick the beef. Chicken I eat alot of -- having it for dinner tonight. Fish I don''t really do. So as long as it wasn''t prime rib I would select the beef.

HTH

 

[Pandora II]

Whenever I do events at work, I never choose chicken. Even if it''s really nice, people just assume that you are going for the cheapest option. I know that sounds awful - and I''ll often do chicken if I''m cooking for people at home. I guess it would depend on the sort of people coming as to whether I''d serve it at a big event like a wedding - if they go to lots of corporate events I probably wouldn''t.

Beef tends to be very popular with men. I often have a problem with a very mixed guest list - lots of hindus, muslims, jewish etc which can make beef a bad option.

I got fed up with endlessly choosing lamb and have been using venison a lot - which has gone down a storm. It also tastes amazing. It''s very easy to get hold of here and costs about the same or slightly less than beef.

 

[gwendolyn]

I''d go for the fish, but my man would definitely choose the beef. He''s a red meat whore.

 

[Independent Gal]

What about offering a choice between Giraffe Steak and, say, Seared Penguin?

Hahaaa. I don''t know why, but I suddenly find the image of the slick, professional, black tied waiter offering this choice in my lavish venue to my formally kitted out guests hysterical.

I''m suddenly tempted to print up completely ridiculous funny menu cards that have nothing to do with the actual meal.

Come on! That would be funny, right? right? ... ?

I might do it anywayyyyyy.

 

[gwendolyn]

Date: 8/9/2007 8:14:41 PM
Author: Independent Gal
What about offering a choice between Giraffe Steak and, say, Seared Penguin?


Hahaaa. I don''t know why, but I suddenly find the image of the slick, professional, black tied waiter offering this choice in my lavish venue to my formally kitted out guests hysterical.


I''m suddenly tempted to print up completely ridiculous funny menu cards that have nothing to do with the actual meal.


Come on! That would be funny, right? right? ... ?

I might do it anywayyyyyy.

That''d be AWESOME. Reminds me of Jeremy Clarkson talking about having some whale dish and the waiters coming around to ask if he wanted grated puffin on it. He was like, "It was so unreal, how could I say no?"