What does this statement about steak mean to you?

It was a success of a steak and wasn’t tough.

It wasn’t stringy. No muscles to cut through.

My complaint about eating kangaroo, (and for that matter, venison) is that it was too stringy – there were too many ligaments to cut through and chew to make the dining experience enjoyable.

Cutting through the steak with a knife was like cutting through butter with a knife. It was tender.

I have no idea why 1964 should be relevant to this question. The technology of both knives and steak has not significantly changed in the intervening years.

It means the person believes butter has an extraterrestrial origin, and that his particular steak was also extraterrestrial—just like butter, which he believes to be extraterrestrial.

It means it was probably a tenderloin cut.
Melting like butter indicates a Chateaubriand
Yummy good.

I don’t understand the 1964 part.

It is like what my dear ex FIL said at a steak restaurant: “no; I guess you can’t get a good steak anymore.” Because I have never in all these decades since 1964 had a steak you could easily cut with a fork I imagine meat has changed which was what my FIL was referring to in his remark. It makes me suspicious that the powers that be have done something to beef since ‘64 that has made it tougher.

@Aster The chemicals, steroids, antibiotics, growth stimulants and a multitude of other chemicals whose names I can barely pronounce, let alone spell, have caused our food animals (chicken, pigs etc….) to grow to weight exceptionally fast. Unfortunately this incredibly speedy growth cycle seems to toughen the meat and also tends to make it taseless ( or at least a lot less tasty than it was before we began drugging our herds.
So it is not the powers who be, per se, who have done this to our beef (although they condone it), it is the farmers and ranchers themselves who poison our food.