It does sound like something that might compete with Thunderbird…
8 Likes
Thirty-seven fifty can certainly mean $3750. For instance, if someone said they had a used car for thirty-seven fifty, there would be no confusion at all. Also, the customer had the price right in from of him in the menu (regardless of his nearsightedness claim, which the waitress could claim not to be aware of). I don’t think breach of contract would fly here.
Not that I don’t think the restaurant should be ashamed. They should be. That’s the most expensive wine by far on the menu–ordering would not be that common, and any waitress not out to trick a customer would surely have discussed it with him–especially if he just asked her for a recommendation and obviously knew nothing about wines.
(Of course, any entity capable of selling 25 ounces of old grape juice for a month’s salary of a working class family probably has no capacity for shame anyway.)
5 Likes
That’s a fair price. And it can be excellent as tartare or carpaccio. Best way to try it, IMO.
1/2 a glass each? Nah. I mean, it’s on the limit of possibility for splitting a bottle but this restaurant knew exactly what they were doing.
1 Like
Not the most expensive wine on the menu, actually. There are a few that are more expensive, like the Y’quem and the Mouton Rothchild. Even if you were to buy “in bulk” the 6-liter bottle of Petrus is still more than $4000 per 750ml…
But yeah, you’re probably right otherwise. I’ve seen that happen a lot in restaurants where servers take advantage of people and push them to order the most expensive thing on the menu, being vague about the pricing. Shameful, really.
My redneck uncle once trolled a sommelier at an expensive restaurant by asking them if they had boones farm. He also asked was a “somalia” was.
3 Likes
Yeah, that’s the cows race, but calling it “American Kobe” is totally misleading. It’s like saying “Spanish Tennessee Whiskey” or “American Champagne”. It’s sparkling wine, not Champagne if it’s not made on the Champagne region.
Sheesh, you’re right–didn’t scroll down to those pricier one’s. The guy got off lucky! $30,000 for 6 liters. Nice.
Can we has our revolution yet?
2 Likes
So the guy doesn’t know anything about wine and asks for a recommendation and the waitress recommends a $3700 bottle? That’s some pretty shabby service regardless of whether she was deliberately misleading him.
15 Likes
It actually goes a bit further than that. For it to be Kobe Beef it must be Wagyu raised in Kobe according to certain methods. And Kobe isn’t the only Japanese super premium wagyu.
But yeah if it aint from Japan its wagyu.
2 Likes
Plus, if it were a real Kobe steak, there’s no way in fuck I’m going to have that served on a “surf and turf” plate with lobster tail.
3 Likes
A Bud Light. Sure, its not real beer but that’s not a real taco anyway. 
2 Likes
The US does not regulate that, which is why sparkling wine in the US is often labeled “methode champenoise”
2 Likes
Labeling things “Methode Champenoise” is actually totally kosher (in concept, not necessarily by EU regs). Its just French for “Champagne Method” which is the standard term for sparkling wine that’s been bottle conditioned rather than conditioned/carbonated in steel vats prior to bottling or other methods. “Methode Traditionnelle” is the more usual EU approved version of the term. But provided the product doesn’t try to use the specific protected appellations, use the specific term “Champagne” as its main identifier, or feature the Champenoise/Champagne part of the term in an overly prominent way its difficult to argue its deliberately misleading. When a label has an English winery name most prominently, followed by “sparkling wine” or a style identifier like “Brut”, and a prominent name of a protected American appellation (like Napa, or North Fork), and in small text at the bottom it says “Methode Champenoise”. I think its pretty clear the goal, and the use of the term in general, isn’t intended to mislead people as to the origins of the wine.
EDIT: Oh and the US does regulate that sort of thing. They just don’t necessarily always play along with other countries or EU regs (unfortunately). And as stupid as it can be the EU system makes more sense, and is much more inclusive than ours. But we’ve got protected, formal wine appellations, and legally defined standards for distinctive alcohols. But like I said it doesn’t work too well. I think legally you can’t label your whiskey as whiskey unless its aged in new, charred oak barrels. Which is ridiculous, but its a carry over from the bourbon regs, every standard we have to define various types of whiskey is based on that. So new charred oak it is or we’re making grain spirits.
3 Likes
Isn’t that one of those Australian Table Wines for laying down and avoiding?
6 Likes
Hmmphh.
I’ll have you know Grange is a fine fighting wine, heavy, and best used in hand-to-hand combat.
10 Likes
Fripple. That’s Ripple, gone flat, from Chez Sanford et Fils.
2 Likes
Champagne (and other high-pressure wines) comes in heavier bottles, more suitable as ad-hoc weaponry.
Or do you mean using it as a poison to spit into the adversary’s eyes?
1 Like
Such as the famous Perth Pink?
I don’t want to concern trolley here, but suppose some of it went in their mouth by mistake? I wouldn’t want that on my conscience.
4 Likes
I’ve never heard anyone ever read numbers that way and it is incorrect to do so. I have on the other hand bought a used car for $5.00 (minimum amount transaction for legally changing registration at the time).
The restaurant should have had to eat the cost for misquoting it.
4 Likes
