Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Sneakeater

Noreetuh

Recommended Posts

 

If I'm forced to choose, I'll the old skool list at the new geek prices. :D

That's what Noreetuh gives you.

 

Responding to Joe's comment, I think that explains what's happening now. It's not like you now get lists like you used to get at three-star restaurants at mid-priced restaurants. You wouldn't want to: the wines would be too grand and expensive for the food (the Apiary problem).

 

What you now get at mid-priced places are extensive, well-curated (heh) geeky lists, with wines at prices more appropriate to the food. Which I agree is a great thing.

 

 

Coming back from Madrid and Rome recently (and dining with Aroma Cucina who only comes back from Italy when dragged), I think to myself: "We sure drank a lot of good wine in various restaurants and wine bars for $5. $6 , $7 a glass or $20 - $25 a bottle." In Rome especially, focusing on wines from Lazio and Campagna was enlightening. They were very good with the food we were eating.

 

And then I think - "Oh, if that were only the case in NYC." Yet at this point in NYC, $50, $60 or $70 for a bottle of good wine is actually pretty fucking reasonable. To say nothing of wines with age at $100.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right. It's another way of masking the true cost of preparing and serving, isn't it?

I think it's more about paying the rent.

 

A thoughtful discussion going on here. There seem to be two threads: price and appropriateness of the wine list.

 

Wine should be enjoyed with the food being served. A thoughtful wine list would recognize that.

If the object is to feature some great wine purchases/values, then perhaps a dedicated wine bar would be a more appropriate venue. I don't see it as particularly 'geeky' to have a list that's curated to play nicely with the food. We tasted quite a few dishes last night, and there wasn't anything that 'needed' a big, old, wine. I'm not saying we tasted everything (ask JoetheFoodie about sharing...)

 

Europe has a different relationship with wine (and with food, but that's fodder for another forum). Wine is a core element of the dinner, it isn't fetishized like it here.

You'd be singing a solo if you tried these kind of prices in a local (i.e. not focused on tourist/international trade) restaurant.

 

NYC restaurants have incredible obstacles to remain in business and make some sort of profit. I may not like it, but I understand the wine pricing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Right. It's another way of masking the true cost of preparing and serving the food, isn't it?

I think it's more about paying the rent.

 

 

 

Sorry, I dropped a couple of words. Yes, of course you're right. I had in mind what a New York restaurant would have to charge for food in order to cover overheads and realize at least some profit margin if it wasn't marking up wine--and liquor even more--so extravagantly, but I didn't spell that out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Curious about the consumer psychology. As Joe says, a $60/$70 bottle of wine now looks reasonable on a New York list, but a $46 entree upsets us. Medium restaurants have held entree prices in the 30s for many years now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Curious about the consumer psychology. As Joe says, a $60/$70 bottle of wine now looks reasonable on a New York list, but a $46 entree upsets us. Medium restaurants have held entree prices in the 30s for many years now.

Yep - I totally look at that bottle as my 4 $15 - $16 glasses of wine, or 2 $15 cocktails and 2 $15 glasses of wine.

 

To be sure, there are places where some decent wines may be had at $10 - $12, but they are getting fewer and farther between.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep - I totally look at that bottle as my 4 $15 - $16 glasses of wine, or 2 $15 cocktails and 2 $15 glasses of wine.

That is EXACTLY how I analyze it. (Not that I don't have a cocktail, too.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yep - I totally look at that bottle as my 4 $15 - $16 glasses of wine, or 2 $15 cocktails and 2 $15 glasses of wine.

That is EXACTLY how I analyze it. (Not that I don't have a cocktail, too.)

 

 

That indeed is the issue. The other night the 4 of us spent just about $100 per, all in.

 

When you consider that the food is $38, and if one only drank water it would be $50 pp all in, that's the NY restaurant scene kind of in a nutshell. Half or more of your money is gonna be spent on some sort of booze.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yep - I totally look at that bottle as my 4 $15 - $16 glasses of wine, or 2 $15 cocktails and 2 $15 glasses of wine.

That is EXACTLY how I analyze it. (Not that I don't have a cocktail, too.)

Me too. And I always end up ordering both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, but my question was: why don't people look at a $50 entree and say, okay that's three cocktails or three glasses of wine, fair enough?

 

The general reaction to a $46 share of duck at Vaucluse was very negative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be interesting to go back and look, but I'm sure I was paying $30 plus for entrees at quite fancy places back in 2000. Entrees should be much more expensive now--yet restaurateurs, I'm sure wisely, try to find the money by raising drink prices or switching out the rack of lamb for lamb's neck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...