First Ribeye Roast!

humbleprisoner

Hey all, 

I just picked up a beautiful 6LB ribeye roast from my butcher, and am going to be cooking it tomorrow night for some friends to "show off" my egg and cooking. I want to make sure though I cook it right, so I am doing the reverse sear, I believe coined by nibble, but I wanted to see confirm that I will probably need about 5 hours indirect at 250? Or is it 350? I have the whole day, so indirect is the way I am wanting to go, but would love y'alls input to make sure I get this temp right. 

SenecaTheYounger

The reverse sear was developed long ago, not by any egger.

I personally prefer 250 throughout, no "sear".  Searing is more for steaks really.  I find searing a roast only burns the fat and any pepper or rub ingredients.

You would certainly not need 5 hours at 350. A few hours at 250 is more like it.

Feel free to sear at the end. You may want to rest the roast for a half hour before searing.

I would highly recommend (especially if you want to sear) to leave the roast uncovered overnight in your refrigerator, up on a drying rack over a sheet pan.  This will dry the fat, and it will brown beautifully.  Otherwise, raw fat (undried) has a tremendous amount of water in it and needs to steam off before it will truly sear. This is one benefit of searing at the end, because the roast will have had a chance to dry a bit in the hot draft.

grege345

http://www.nibblemethis.com/2011/12/reverse-seared-prime-rib-roast.html This help? No disrespect to @SenecaTheYounger‌

humbleprisoner

Awesome, thanks for the clarification. I love that I learn something new every time I post on here, never knew that trick about leaving uncovered overnight. Would it be too soon to go ahead and put on my olive oil, salt and pepper on the meat at this point? Or should I wait a bit before applying the good stuff? @Grege345, thanks for the link, I had forgotten to save it in my bookmarks tab. 

fishlessman

when people say sear with a ribeye roast, they should really say high roasting temps, 475 is good, 750 is no good with a fatty roast. thats why alot of oven recipes start at 450 and drop the oven temps part way thru the cook

lousubcap

When you have time, here's a good read on cooking rib roasts-

http://playingwithfireandsmoke.blogspot.com/1996/03/beef-standing-rib-roast-prime-rib.html .FWIW-  Gonna be great eats!

SenecaTheYounger

There's no disrespect taken, no problem.

The write-up you linked to is certainly by nibblemethis. But (and no disrespect to him/her), he/she did not coin the term, or invent the method.

There have long been debates about: roasting only; searing then roasting; and roasting then searing.

Serious Eats did an article on this back in 2009, although Alton Brown made perhaps the first 'internet age' shot across the bow to traditionalists, in 2001, when he advocated the reverse sear

In opposition is Harold McGee, who has always advocated and promoted (in print, hard to find web-wise) that high heat at the beginning meant less carryover than at the end.  His findings being that searing at the end means risking overshooting and driving higher heat toward the center at a time when it should have been pretty close to 'done' internally.  And I believe escoffier and Child and most of the traditionally trained French chefs advocate high temperatures first, or one uniform cook.  Although tradition can be problematic, as much of the advice is not based in logic or science (e.g. searing locks in juices), and is often apochryphal (bad) or empirical (better, but not always reliable) .

But it's a personal preference.

The reverse-sear method is fairly 'modern', as result of gas and (especially post-war) electric ovens coming into widespread use, and the rise of the concept of "Food Science"

My point wasn't that nibblemethis didn't hav a fine wrtie up.  Just that giving credit to something like this is difficult.  It's something that's been done for quite some time.

SenecaTheYounger

@humbleprisoner

If you oil now, the water will not evaporate from the fat.

Little Steven

FWIW I usually average 25 - 30 minutes a pound at 250* unless the meat is longer than it is across.

SenecaTheYounger

Do you mean "Until the roast is longer than it is across", after which point it takes no longer?

Your point, which never occurred to me until you said it, being that a roast, once it gets longer than it is wide, will not need any more time to cook ?

Excellent observation, and probably why my bigger roasts seem to be done earlier than I plan.

Little Steven

I think unless was in context. Until works as well. Yes if you have a whole primal it will cook at the same time as the thickest part's diameter and the equivilent length. You need to approximate that weight from the total.

SenecaTheYounger

Thanks.

I wasn't correcting you.  I honestly didn't pick up the meaning. 

Little Steven

I didn't think you were. Briskets and butts are the same. If you do a whole shoulder or a long brisket the same is true.