It’s in a casino. Everything is on camera.
It’s in a casino; they video everything.
Well, yes, refusing to pay afterwards is a long shot. But telling them you’re not going to pay before they bring out the wine never works.
Every business wants cameras now. Besides robberies they’re worried about liability scams. And any place that serves liquor wants proof that the staff didn’t start the fight with the drunk guy they had to toss out.
He didn’t order “Cab.” It was something called Screaming Eagle, which does not sound to me like a three thousand dollar wine.
Cab = cabernet, a type of wine. specifically a burgundy a little “woodier” than the “fruitier” pinot noir.
Maybe he wanted them to call a cab. $37.50 would be a reasonable fare.
Cabernet Sauvignon (what most people mean when they say Cab or Cabernet) isn’t a burgundy wine - in France it’s associated with Bordeaux, not Burgundy.
Screaming Eagle is a boutique, small winery in Napa. It makes Bordeaux style wines, with Cabernet Sauvignon as the main grape. I’d be mildly surprised to find it as the most expensive wine on a good wine list, but not shocked. I’ve never had it, but I’ve certainly heard of it.
So I’m supposed to believe what? That this guy knew the real price but figured he could scam a $3750 bottle of wine by claiming ignorance afterwards? Seriously?
Why would you risk that unless you’re wealthy enough that you’re okay with paying if the ruse fails? And if you’re that wealthy, then why attempt the scam and end up looking either foolish or dishonest?
I find it much easier to believe that it was a misunderstanding, perhaps aided by some disingenuous behavior on the part of the waitress.
Let’s not argue the merits of the wine too much. It does seem to be worth a lot, and that wine list is damned good. I’ve had several things and they’re not terribly overpriced. In line with what I’d expect at a Bobby Flay restaurant.
Yeah, i agree. The diner’s explanation here is far more plausible than the restaurant’s in my opinion.
Most plausible of all is that the communication was bad, that nobody was trying to trick anybody. I think the restaurant’s explanation is plausible for certain values of “verify.”
Thing is, when a customer and a professional suffer a communication problem, and it results in a charge to the customer, in general I think it’s the professional’s responsibility. The waitress deals with people ordering wines many times every day. This is part of her expertise. She needs to be precise and clear in her communications around wine orders. The customer probably doesn’t order wine every week, much less multiple times a day. The customer should be able to rely on the precision and clarity of the waitress’s language.
“Verify” in this case might mean, “You want the screaming eagle, right? The 3750 bottle? This one here?” All of that would be verifying the order, but none of that would clarify the price.
Does have a Thunderbird ring to it, doesn’t it.
Yes, the “restaurant’s story” isn’t that the customer was a scammer. All they’re saying is that “proper procedures” were followed, and both the server and the sommelier verified the order. Of course, too much verification could be seen as insulting to certain high-end customers, so they very well may have felt that they were covered just by confirming the bottle, stating the price, and pointing to the wine list. “Yes I mean the $3,750 bottle of wine, quit fucking asking, I make that in hour!” and so forth.
What the restaurant hasn’t commented on, according to that Bamboozled article, is whether the server did in fact recommend the 2nd most expensive bottle like the customer claims. If that’s the case, then verifying the order isn’t good enough, because that’s sleazy.
On the other hand, the article says that the host of the dinner asked about the price of the bottle before they were finished eating, was told, and decided not to speak up. I can understand not speaking up at that point, but why would he ask? That seems odd behavior for a host. Unless… he’d heard some rumbling from the other end of the table about the price of the bottle that had prompted him to ask. That detail is a point against the customer, I think.
I may have misread it, but I’m pretty sure the guy who ordered it was not the one that would be paying. If he could order it, claim ignorance somehow, and have someone else pay for it, that is a little different than just ordering it and trying to get out of paying yourself. If you wanted to get something more expensive out of a host, claiming ignorance is one way to do it.
[QUOTE=steronz]
On the other hand, the article says that the host of the dinner asked about the price of the bottle before they were finished eating, was told, and decided not to speak up. I can understand not speaking up at that point, but why would he ask? That seems odd behavior for a host. Unless… he’d heard some rumbling from the other end of the table about the price of the bottle that had prompted him to ask. That detail is a point against the customer, I think.
[/QUOTE]
I missed that the first time, but it does seem really odd.
Which is sort of what resulted. They got about $1500 knocked off the price then spread the hat amongst themselves to make up the difference.
then the restaurant owner is smoking crack and would probably charge $300 to his customers for it.
According to this site the average price of a bottle of Screaming Eagle Cabernet is $2749. This site has lower prices in the $1700 to $1900 range.
I can see a restaurant easily paying $1000 for that bottle, and high mark-ups on wine should be expected at restaurants whether you know anything about wine or not. So it looks like the restaurant cut it’s profit in half for that bottle.
I don’t know what would happen if there was a lawsuit about this, but I do know I’m looking carefully at the price the next time I order a bottle of wine at a restaurant.
I dunno…you ever tried it???
I too think it was probably a misunderstanding. But if you think wealthy people are above that, you’re sorely mistaken. Some people are always on the lookout to get something for free, be it by deception, scam or outright theft. And the only difference wealth make is that wealthier people will try to get more costly items (because that’s what they consume).
If anything, it’s more likely to be consequence-free too. High-end restaurants, shops, etc… are bad publicity adverse and are more likely to resolve the dispute amicably and pretend that nothing happened than to call the police to pick you up.