No guarantee no purchase.

If they don't have faith in their stock, why should take all the risk?

quote:

No guarantee no purchase.

If they don't have faith in their stock, why should take all the risk?

I was at a restaurant in the Milwaukee area recently that had a disclaimer on their wine list regarding older bottles. This is a place that I had not been to in about a year and the disclaimer was new to the list.

I had a couple glasses of house Cab. with my steak. First time I didn’t buy a bottle of wine with dinner at this high end steakhouse. If the restaurant has little confidence in their wines why should I ?

How about a 50% refund? You're sharing the risk with the restaurant and you wouldn't need a nod from a sommelier to get the refund. It would also stop some so-called wine experts from popping bottle after bottle.

quote:

I do make the trip a couple of times a year, but with wine friends from Texas.

What I NEED to do is make the trip and meet up with local wine friends!

Is Toronto considered local enough?

quote:

If the waiter told me the restaurant policy was that for most of their wines, they would guarantee the condition of the wine and replace any faulty bottles, but with their vintages older than 20 years, they would not be able to make this guarantee and it's a final sale, I would actually be okay with that

I wouldn't. If the restaurant has questions about the provenance of the bottles, they shouldn't buy them. Or they should call Broadbent and ask for his expert opinion that worked for the Rodenstock bottles.

And why would anyone ever order an older bottle under those circumstances anyway? Moreover, what is the restaurant's incentive to store its wine properly? They can stack it in the boiler room and save thousands of dollars that would otherwise have been spent on storage and cooling. Pop it in the freezer for a minute before bringing it to the table and giving it to the customer. And giving it to him good and hard too.

I would think that the restaurant would have kept all the receipts from their stock, including purchases made many years ago. In that case, wouldn't they return any corked or bad wines and get their refund from the vender?
Anytime I've had a bad wine, my server simply removed the bottle and replaced it with another similar wine, or asked if I'd like something different.Of course in Ontario, there's only one source and they take returns on anything deemed corked or "off".

quote:

Originally posted by yhn:
I've certainly heard the restaurant stories of people ordering expensive wines and sending them back to show off. Or sending something back because they don't like it, but it's not flawed and is true to type.

I've seen it. We were sitting at the bar at Peter Luger's about 15 years ago, awaiting our table, when a waiter brought back a bottle of 1979 Gruaud Larose that a patron had said was "bad." The manager tasted it and I asked for a taste. There was nothing at all wrong with the wine. The manager told me that's the reason wine prices are as high as they are in restaurants- people sending back good wine.

It's interesting; we all lament the high cost of restaurant wine, but then argue that the high cost shifts the risk to the restaurant. If the restaurant offered the older wines at near retail price, would you be willing to shift the risk back to the customer?

I've been to restaurants that have had disclaimers in their wine list that they won't guarantee a wine which is more than 20 years old. It doesn't really bother me; I just don't order the older wines at that establishment.

We could all come up with interesting hypotheticals: what should the restaurant do if a man comes in, orders the 1900 Margaux, drinks the first pour, pronounces it spoiled, and then orders a 2007 Kendall Jackson cabernet? Cheerfully take back the Margaux? What happens if the restaurant tastes the bottle and pronounces it good and insists that the customer pay for the wine?

quote:

What happens if the restaurant tastes the bottle and pronounces it good and insists that the customer pay for the wine?

In Tulum a few years ago, had a bottle that was warm to touch, under foil was mold, and cork was dry and broke upon extraction.

Wine tasted like warm vinegar. MD or Somm [not quailifed for either title] claimed it was okay. He took the bottle away though, and I saw him poring it for Vino Blanco at a few other tables. Needless to say we refused to pay for it, and after a lot of words, they acquiesed. Ordered another bottle, of something different, and was in similar condition, but drinkable to a degree.

I think if a restaurant has such a disclaimer there's nothing wrong with it, but they should be prepared for the natural reduction in sales. I would think a disclaimer like that is less of an attempt to 'stick it to the consumer' as it is to protect them from people ordering the wines (to show off perhaps) then disliking and falsely or erroneously claiming spoilage, like others have stated.

However, just because the disclaimer is there doesn't mean they'll always enforce it. If a customer truly gets a bad bottle, the restaurant could still graciously take it back at their discretion. Then if someone does cry foul on a clearly good bottle, the policy is in writing where the staff can refer to it for their protection.

It's interesting some of the commentary here.

A few thoughts:

1. I do believe that a restaurant's minimum responsibility is to provide the customer with palatable food, drink, and service. If they cannot meet this obligation, the customer is not responsible to pay for the part that isn't met (heaven forbid it's all not met!).

2. If the restaurant wants to play in the big leagues and have fancy wines like 1900 Margaux to serve to their clientele (at substantial prices), then they should be willing to cover the risk of serving it. Otherwise...send it to auction and make the money off of it that way, rather than by ripping off customers and degrading the experience they are trusting the restaurant to provide.

3. If they cannot stand behind the products they serve...they should find a suitable alternative to provide that they are able to stand behind. Nobody HAS to serve 1900 Margaux, or 1929 Latour.

4. If they want to try something "new" by putting the responsibility on the customer, and break with tradtion they certainly can. It's their right. But they should have disclaimers on the menus, and mandatory verbal warnings before opening any bottles. And in turn...plan on not selling many of those bottles, as well as not seeing return business! They should also have generous corkage policies so that if someone did want to have a "mature wine" they could do so without having to rely on the house to provide it.

A restaurant -- or a winery -- should always be willing to stand behind the product they sell.

quote:

Originally posted by latour67:

However, the following is a larger problem which occurs everywhere and every year: you order a 1997 Caymus SS and they deliver a 1998....simply put, you order a good vintage and the restaurant tries to substitute a lesser vintage.

I've had a very similar thing happen. Maker and vintage correct, but sub in an inferior vineyard vs. the superior one on the wine list. I busted a well known place here doing that. The waiter and Som were exceedingly surprised I both noticed and said something about it.

As to the "no return." Bad business plan. Exactly how big do they think the market for high end, restaurant wine buyers are, and how much is it in flux in their city/locale? It's like being in a medium size city and owning a Mercedes dealership. You don't piss people off, as your market is only so big and probably fairly static.

If a restaurant wants to reserve its judgment as to what is and isn't flawed, I'm fine with that. If I disagree with their assessment, I'm not likely to come back again, but I don't have a problem with that approach. If I ordered a lot of expensive wine at restaurants, I might feel differently.

But refusing to guarantee old wines, even those with 20+ years on them, while it's well within their rights, it's not cool. I agree with others re: the risks of provenance and storage, not to mention cork taint or failure. Still, what really sticks out is that, if you can't stomach the risks and effectively deal with customers, stick to recent vintages of Stags Leap and Silver Oak.

As an aside, the 1998 Caymus SS – my employers ordered the 2002 regular bottling for our 2006 Holiday Party. The second bottle, however, was actually the 1998 SS. First, while it might not be on par with the '97, it was pretty friggin' good. I think it got like 94 or 95 points from WS, I'm not sure if it was that good, but it was nummy for sure.

Second, the youngin (me) noticed the error, but after it was too late to undo. After it was brought to their attention, the restaurant charged the regular bottling's price. The owner's a wine guy, and thought that the wrapping paper, different bottle and decanter should have caught someone's attention (earlier), but made the right call as his staff brought the wrong wine.

quote:

Originally posted by Wayfarer:

quote:

Originally posted by latour67:

However, the following is a larger problem which occurs everywhere and every year: you order a 1997 Caymus SS and they deliver a 1998....simply put, you order a good vintage and the restaurant tries to substitute a lesser vintage.

I've had a very similar thing happen. Maker and vintage correct, but sub in an inferior vineyard vs. the superior one on the wine list. I busted a well known place here doing that. The waiter and Som were exceedingly surprised I both noticed and said something about it.

As to the "no return." Bad business plan. Exactly how big do they think the market for high end, restaurant wine buyers are, and how much is it in flux in their city/locale? It's like being in a medium size city and owning a Mercedes dealership. You don't piss people off, as your market is only so big and probably fairly static.

Exactly. And most customers don't say anything. They just don't come back. And they other people not to go there. So, it's easy for the restaurants to fool themselves, seeing some immediate gains while they miss the long-term costs of bad policies.

I would not go to a restaurant with that policy. Period. Life is too short to worry about s*&% like that.

quote:

And I had the impeccable wine service on my birthday at Cafe Rabelais.

Having been a regular there at one time I'm not surprised. They have a good wine list and very good food. We try to go there when visiting H-town.

quote:

Originally posted by Winetex:
I would not go to a restaurant with that policy. Period. Life is too short to worry about s*&% like that.

quote:

And I had the impeccable wine service on my birthday at Cafe Rabelais.

Having been a regular there at one time I'm not surprised. They have a good wine list and very good food. We try to go there when visiting H-town.

Always on my short list as well.

I frequent a very nice restaurant that has that policy. In today's fruit bomb world, many people, (especially younger drinkers to wine) do not have a taste for mature wine. To them, if it's not a fruit bomb, or nearly so, the wine is obviously flawed. WRONG!!!

If the somm or the manager taste the wine(policy is for wines over 10 years old) and do not find it flawed or expired, the patron has bought the wine. If the wine is less than 10 years old the patron can reject it for any reason.

The policy is published in the front of the wine list and also again on the "Reserve Wine" List. I believe the policy to be fair. The restaurant should not have to eat a wine because someone doesn't like or is put off by mature, secondary flavors often prevalent in older wines.

quote:

If the somm or the manager taste the wine(policy is for wines over 10 years old) and do not find it flawed or expired, the patron has bought the wine. If the wine is less than 10 years old the patron can reject it for any reason.

I think we would all agree this is actually more than a fair policy. This is the policy most are used to in a restaurant, however I've never had a restaurant let me send a wine back just because I didn't like it?

The policy we are arguing is the concept of flawed (oxidized or corked) and they still want you to buy it! Even if they agree it is flawed. It's a "your on your own" mentality with whatever you buy that's over 5 years.

Drab;

My person belief is that they are fairly loose with what they consider flawed with older wines. If the wine is badly corked, they'll take it back, but if it's a conversation of whether it's corked down at the > 10-20ppt level, they don't go there. It's the patrons wine.

I've never sent back a wine because I didn't like it, not knowing if a wine suits my taste or not is usually worth the risk to me.

But if it's restaurant policy that the sommelier and/or manager also have to agree that the wine is off, I can deal with that. But a black and white guarantee policy seems kind of foolish. People don't need to try to impress people by ordering old wine and not having any idea what to expect.

quote:

Originally posted by NolanE:
I've never sent back a wine because I didn't like it, not knowing if a wine suits my taste or not is usually worth the risk to me.

But if it's restaurant policy that the sommelier and/or manager also have to agree that the wine is off, I can deal with that. But a black and white guarantee policy seems kind of foolish. People don't need to try to impress people by ordering old wine and not having any idea what to expect.

like a certain rhone that smelt like mcdonalds bbq sauce? =)

quote:

Originally posted by Sandy Fitzgerald:
Drab;

My person belief is that they are fairly loose with what they consider flawed with older wines. If the wine is badly corked, they'll take it back, but if it's a conversation of whether it's corked down at the > 10-20ppt level, they don't go there. It's the patrons wine.

If its corked, its corked. I have heard a hell of a lot more stories of idiot 'sommeliers' or managers denying that a wine is flawed than I have heard stories of people sending back wines that are not in fact flawed, but are simply mature wines. What incentive does a customer have to send back a non-flawed wine? Zero. However, a restaurant has a huge incentive to refuse to take back a flawed wine. I would not order a wine without a guarantee, and would not accept a wine that was cooked, tasted like vinegar, showed secondary fermentation, or was corked to any noticeable degree (which are the flaws I most often find) or any other obvious flaw (and when I say obvious I mean detectable by anyone with any sort of a palate).

quote:

If its corked, its corked. I have heard a hell of a lot more stories of idiot 'sommeliers' or managers denying that a wine is flawed than I have heard stories of people sending back wines that are not in fact flawed, but are simply mature wines. What incentive does a customer have to send back a non-flawed wine? Zero. However, a restaurant has a huge incentive to refuse to take back a flawed wine. I would not order a wine without a guarantee, and would not accept a wine that was cooked, tasted like vinegar, showed secondary fermentation, or was corked to any noticeable degree (which are the flaws I most often find) or any other obvious flaw (and when I say obvious I mean detectable by anyone with any sort of a palate).

GREAT point. I agree 100%.

quote:

Originally posted by g-man:

quote:

Originally posted by NolanE:
I've never sent back a wine because I didn't like it, not knowing if a wine suits my taste or not is usually worth the risk to me.

But if it's restaurant policy that the sommelier and/or manager also have to agree that the wine is off, I can deal with that. But a black and white guarantee policy seems kind of foolish. People don't need to try to impress people by ordering old wine and not having any idea what to expect.

like a certain rhone that smelt like mcdonalds bbq sauce? =)

Would you have sent that one back? I mean it was probably the most modern styled wine of the group, I think it stuck out like a sore thumb. I thought it was a good wine, but the two you ordered were much better and dominated the evening.