In article >,
"Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote:

> "cybercat" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Smithfield hams, too. Shanks (1.19 a lb) and butts (1.29 a lb). No idea
> > what the difference is.
>
> Opposite ends of a ham cut in half. The butt tends to be a bit meatier.


That's quite an understatement, in my opinion. If cyberthing is looking
for a big bone, the shank is the way to go. I will never buy a shank
half again. The bone tends to burn when roasting, and the meat on the
thin end gets overcooked. Give me a butt any day!