Interesting Article on Corkage
Interesting Article on Corkage in ths SF Chron today. My favorite quotes:
"If corkage was illegal...18 months from now, the Bay Area would have the most rocking wine scene on the planet."
-Bobby Stuckey, a master sommelier and former wine director at French Laundry in Yountville
"When you write a budget, you think wine is going to represent a big chunk of your revenue. When it doesn't, the numbers don't make sense. I had no idea when I was putting the restaurant together that the amount of wine brought in would be this out of hand."
-Richard Reddington chef/owner of the newly opened Redd restaurant in Yountville
Curious to hear what the hounds think. How do hounds who live in a state where corkage is banned feel about it? How do hounds who work in the industry feel about patrons bringing in bottles? Do people really feel that it is their "right" to bring in a bottle?
By Morton the Mousse
on Apr 6, 2006 03:15 PM
View »
Video
If a restaurant's markup is the standard 3X wholesale / 2X undiscounted retail, I would never bring my own wine just to save money. I don't know why people feel entitled to do that.
There was a previous article and followup letters in the Chron in January:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/01/25/FDGOSGQ21C1.DTL
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/01/25/FDGUBGRDAO1.DTL
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi...
Permalink | Reply
When I was in high school and started paying for my own meals out with friends, Coke was a treat because the $1-4 a restaurant charges for Coke would add a significant percentage to the price of a hamburger meal. But I would never have dreamed of sneaking in my own can of 25 cent Coke to enjoy with my fries and chicken wings. I would, if in a pinch, just not buy a coke. Or share some with my friend. And yes, a lot of restaurants give free refills, but let's assume I'm talking about places that don't.
Just because we're older now and talking about $10-40 instead of $1-4 doesn't mean the rules should change. If in a pinch, exercise self control and share a glass, or skip wine, or wait until you can afford the full experience. And if the restaurant does allow paid or free BYOB, consider it a bonus that will encourage you to go back (like a free Coke with meal).
Permalink | Reply
When it comes to affording it, though, I think my attitude depends on whether I think the restaurant is trying to gouge me on the wine, either by marking up the wines past what is reasonable (as Robert delineated) or by simply not having any reasonably priced wines on the list. There are lots of decent wines that a restaurant could price under $40, so I get annoyed when everything on the list is $40 and up. It tells me the restaurant doesn't really want my business unless I want to spring for a bottle of wine that costs more than the rest of the meal (or that if I can't spend a lot of money on wine, I shouldn't be drinking it at all!).
Permalink | Reply
So true. Especially in SF, where a lovely bottle under $40 should be easy for any restaurant to offer.
I get similarly upset when a restaurant charges $5 for a glass of Coke, no refills.
Permalink | Reply
When it comes to bringing a bottle of wine to a restaurant, my rule of thumb is 1) confirm that the restaurant does not carry the bottle I'm bringing on their list 2)confirm that the restaurant would allow me to bring my own bottle 3)confirm what the corkage fee is in advance - no surprises 4)offer chef, manager and server a taste from bottle I've brought 5) order an additional bottle of wine from the restaurant list 6) tip appropriately
Permalink | Reply
As a server I never had a problem with people bringing in their own bottles as long as it wasn't done to be cheap. As the article suggested, it was better if they tipped on the value of the bottle and offered a taste to me and/or the chef.
The worst was when someone brought in a bottle if wine they had corked at home and thus thought they should not be charged a corkage. Talk about a cheap a@@.
Permalink | Reply
I thought the article was pretty balanced and presented all sides of the issue. I don't feel it's a "right" to bring a bottle to a restaurant. Had to smile when I reached the suggestions at the end and read:
"Even Richard Reddington says that if bringing in wine was banned, he wouldn't get to taste the great things he can't carry, like an '82 Bordeaux."
When I tried his restaurant, Redd, in February, I brought two wines from my cellar and we purchased one bottle from the list. At the end of the evening, there was about a half glass left of the 1982 Chateau Dominique St. Emilion Grand Cru Classe left in the bottle. I had already poured a glass earlier on for our server. It had been the wine of the night and as lovely as anything I've had the chance to taste in the last year. My friends were surprised that I didn't want to take it with me to finish off myself. I explained to them that the rest of the bottle was for the staff to enjoy and to have a chance to enjoy a mature wine in all its glory.
I hope Reddington enjoyed it as much as we did. (vbg)
Permalink | Reply
99% of the time when I go out, I order a bottle of wine from the list. There is always at least one iteresting bottle within a price range I'm willing to spend on that bottle on every wine list of every restaurant I go to in the SF Bay Area. On occasion, I have brought a very special bottle of wine (Bordeaux, Burgundy or Barolo or the like that is over 10 years old) to a restaurant on a special occasion (birthday, anniversary, promotion). I never bring more than one bottle from my cellar and if there more then just 2 of us at the table, we always order a bottle from the list in addition to the one I bring.
The only reason I have brought a bottle from my cellar was because I have some wonderful aged wines in my cellar (and will have more in the future as I accelerate my accumulation of wine) and most restaurants don't have a huge selection of aged bottles (or if they do, they are not within my budget). I don't bring the wine in strictly because I am being cheap, but I guess if I have a 1990 bordeaux in my cellar and there's one on the list, I'm going to bring the one from my cellar. Does that make me cheap? I certainly wasn't doing it strictly to save money, but I guess if I look at it more closely, if it's the exact same bottle I guess I am being cheap. But I don't look at it as a *right* to bring in wine. If any restauranteur, including Craig Stoll, wants to ban me from bringing in my own wine, I do not have a problem with that at all. It's *their* restaurant, not mine. In fact the wines at Delfina Pizzeria are perfectly selected for the food; I would never bring in a 90 bordeaux there.
If I were broke but wanted to go to dinner I'd never think it was acceptable to buy a $10 wine at Safeway and bring it in to a restaurant. I'd either order a glass at the restaurant, or suck it up and get an entire bottle, or just not drink wine.
Permalink | Reply
If everyone was like you restauranteurs would not gripe. I believe that was how corkage was 10 years ago. It used to be unusual, maybe 1 out of 25-35 bottles was brought in. Now more and more are bringing in whatever, mainly to save a buck. As someone in the article stated, "Half the people dont even open the wine list." That is very true in the restaurants I have worked at. I have accepted the corkage situation and now almost prefer when people bring in the 2004 Beringer Chard over the 1966 Lafite. At least I dont have to decant it and deal with crumbly corks, etc. It is the same fee either way. I agree with all those who hold the restaurant responsible to offer wines at all price ranges.
Permalink | Reply
So are we to believe that the prices that we pay for the food are actually "subsidized" prices? That we aren't paying as much as we should for the food, but making up the difference by being gouged on the wine?
How do restaurants that don't reply on highly marked up wine stay in business? Or is there just a greater expected margin of profit when one opens up a wine-oriented(?) restaurant?
It seems to me to be a poor (for the consumer) but profitable (for the business) to organize a business plan that relys on selling wine at expensive mark-ups. But it works for ballparks, nightclubs, and restaurants who rely on booze to make a lot their money. But who is this benefitting?
Ryan P
Permalink | Reply
According to the article, the markup on food and wine is usually about the same. The food isn't a loss leader for the wine.
Permalink | Reply
That's my point. If the food isn't a loss leader for the wine, then its simply greedy to mark wine up that high. Because people can afford to go to a more expensive restaurant, they should be gouged when they buy wine? People can't recreate the food that is being served, thus there is some sort of justification for marking it up. However, its easier to buy a wine. I don;t want to undermine the hard work that goes into making good wine programs at restaurants. But basically, i don't have much sympathy for the restauranteurs who complain about people bringing in their own wine because it hurts their business.
Of coarse, there is an economic impact on the waiter. If someone brings their own wine to be "cheap", they probably arent the best tippers eaither! And their bill is much smaller when that 15-20% is calculated.
Ryan P
Permalink | Reply
Because to have even a moderate sized wine list you need lots of space and the proper environment to store the wine. Then it takes a while for you to get your money back on the wine you purchased. Imagine what food would cost if a restaurant spent $20 wholesale to buy a lobster but didn't sell it for a year. That situation affects the price of the wine but not the food.
Now I'm not justifying the places that truely gouge a customer or refuse to put a moderately priced bottle on the list. All I'm saying is you have to look at it a little more deeply than what it costs the restaurant to buy the bottle versus how much they sell it for.
Permalink | Reply
Exactly why do you feel that taking the same % markup on wine as on food is gouging for the wine but NOT for the food??
I've always felt that the reason this subject gets so much negativity is that wine is something you can compare prices on rather easily. You can't go into your local retail shop and price a specific brand of bacon-wrapped scallops, served with sauteed asparagus, prepared by Chef Joe......but you CAN use your Blackberry to find out what the wine shop down the street is getting for that bottle of Caymus Cab.
Permalink | Reply
I think another aspect is that wine can cost as much as the rest of your meals put together. Since it adds such a large cost to a meal, folks tend to focus on it. Of course, if they thought about it, the markup on a cup of coffee is much higher.
Permalink | Reply
The article says that, but it's not really true. Food costs are indeed usually somewhere around a third of the price of a dish on a menu, but that dish requires not only the food, but all the kitchen staff behind it to prepare it. So in the end, wine ends up being more profitable to a restaurant than food, because it's much less labor intensive.
In fact, the most profitable part of a restaurant is usually liquor sales, where the cost of goods is negligible (always under 20%, sometimes only 10%), and the labor overhead small (one bartender can service a lot of customers at a restaurant). Which is why a lot of high end restaurants will direct you to the bar while you wait for your table to be ready.
Permalink | Reply
A good wine list is fairly labor-intensive. How many hours a week do chefs spend selecting ingredients? How many hours a week do sommeliers spend tasting wine?
Permalink | Reply
How many restaurants even -have- sommeliers? Rather than, say,
serving whatever the distributor tricked a busboy into signing for
when the chef stepped out?
Permalink | Reply
That is ridiculous. Any decent restaurant is not allowing uninformed personnel to sign for and sell undesired products. Even if someone unknowingly signs for wine that was not ordered, someone has to put it on a list, enter and pay the invoice, and input into a POS system if there is one before it is sold. It is much easier for a restaurant to have it picked up.
Permalink | Reply
If you say so, eddie.
But ask the owner of your local upscale restaurant what little tricks
their wine distributor has pulled.
[I wasn't suggesting that "uninformed personnel" were "sell[ing]" the
undesired product; just being coerced into signing for it. I'm not sure how
you read that into what I wrote.]
Yeah, at the high end this doesn't happen. Mid level?
Permalink | Reply
What you said was that product that someone was tricked into signing for was served. That is what I dispute at quality restaurants. I do know from first-hand experience that certain larger and less reputable companies have many tricks, including buying a competitors product and removing it and replacing it with its own.
Permalink | Reply
In San Francisco, most Cal / French / Italian / fusion restaurants either have a sommelier on staff or contract with one to run the wine program, or one of the owners spends a significant amount of time managing the wine list.
Anyplace that doesn't invest in its wine program is at a competitive disadvantage.
Permalink | Reply
Not to mention that liquor doesn't require cellaring, keeping as much inventory, or developing, maintaining, printing and updating a wine list.
Permalink | Reply
Very few restaurants do much cellaring of wine these days.
Permalink | Reply
Where they were cellared I don't know, but my favorite higher-priced restaurants all have good selections of older wines. Again, in San Francisco, a place that doesn't is at a competitive disadvantage.
Permalink | Reply
Are you seriously arguing that restaurants are actually cellaring wines in order to put them on the list when they are mature? In 2006 the vast majority of the time this is a myth repeated by restaurants as one justification for jacking prices on wine to the moon. To the contrary, most restaurants are selling bottles as soon as they can get them off the truck. Older bottles that are on the list usually get there because either a) they haven't sold well and have aged unintentionally (see for example scores of 98 and 2000 Napa Cabs still cluttering lists) or b) the restaurant bought them in the secondary market already aged. Sadly under option B usually such wines are priced egregiously.
Permalink | Reply
I don't really care where the 1999 Chave estate St. Joseph I bought recently at Chez Panisse was cellared. I care that it was in excellent condition, ready to drink, delicious, and a good value.
Obviously Pizzaiolo hadn't cellared the 1996 Gigondas I had there, but same deal.
Permalink | Reply
I can't speak for Robert (even if we do have the same initials), but by "cellaring" I didn't mean long term for aging purposes. But restaurants do have to dedicate space (and squarefootage = money) to storing their wine inventory properly -- possibly for weeks or months -- whereas a bottle of booze can be kept just about anywhere and with a minimal amount of backstock, since it can be replaced quickly and readily with the identical product.
Permalink | Reply
Where do you get your information? There are many ways restaurants have access to older bottles. Many times they are purchased for storing purposes, this allows the restaurant to pay less for a wine and eventually charge more as the value increases. Restaurants also buy from auction, from sellers who have stored the wines properly. Also, many many estates keep a back inventory on past vintages and release those as library wines, which have been stored properly. Also, some wines which don't sell well are exactly the same wines that you would want to age. I just sold the last bottle of Altesino Brunello 1997, which I have had on my wine list for several years. I also still have some 1999 red burgundy, even though the 2003s are being released.
Permalink | Reply
It sounds like this boils down to the usual "few bad apples" thing. In Oregon, where I live, you can bring a bottle to most restaurants but it's not something I do. Partly because I don't have anything so exciting in my cellar that I need to bring it anywhere. The idea for corkage is to allow someone to bring in a special bottle as the article stated. Unfortunately, it sounds like the bad apples have decided to use this opportunity to save a few bucks and bring in any old thing. I don't think this has become quite as rampant in OR as it seems to be in CA, but I'd be too embarassed to bring in some grocery store wine and ask my server to open for me. If it's that much of an issue, why not go to a restaurant that you know offers a good selection of inexpensive wines? Surely these exist in california? They certainly do here.
Permalink | Reply
I have no problems with corkage.
The only issue I have with corkage is the amount some restaurants set it at.
Permalink | Reply
ipse, Amazingly, I live in a city where one of our fine dining restaurants only charges a $10.00 corkage fee. To keep from feeling guilty, I always tip the wait staff the same percentage as I would have had I ordered wine from the restaurant. So when I bring a great bottle, I'm really way ahead in the game.
Permalink | Reply
Lucky you.
To me the corkage should be commensurate with the wine selection and wine service (e.g. sommelier, wine glasses, availability of half-bottles or by the glass, etc.) that the restaurant offers.
If the wine list is a 5-inch thick photo album spanning some 5 different continents, then by all means the corkage can be anything from $60 or more.
On the other hand, if the wine list reads like the selection that your neighborhood 7-Eleven would offer, then anything more than "None" or $10 would be outrageous.
When you BYOB, you're essentially displacing an order from the restaurant's cellar. This should be fine both for the diner and the restaurant as long as the price for the option (or privilege) to do so is appropriately priced.
Permalink | Reply
I've never heard of anyone bringing a bottle of wine to a restaurant that serves wine. The price of steak is so high that I'd love to bring my own steak to a restaurant and tell them to please serve the apps and veggies, but I never do.
Permalink | Reply
Brian, what state do you live in? In California, corkage is very common. It's extremely rare when a restaurant doesn't offer corkage in SF Bay Area.
I often bring a bottle from my cellar, but that's usually when an offline is organized around a wine theme. The restaurants for those offlines are chosen based on how amenable they are to corkage.
Permalink | Reply
after living in CA for 5 years, and using corkage many times, when i came home to MA i found that it was against the law here ( till last summer i believe ) and VERY frowned upon.
Permalink | Reply
....charging a corkage fee, or BYOB'ing? Please clarify.
Permalink | Reply
In some states, it's illegal to bring your own wine to a restaurant.
Permalink | Reply
....in BYOB restaurants in Chicago, it's illegal to charge corkage. (This applies only to BYOB's, meaning places without a liquor licence.)
You didn't answer my question about Massachusetts, but then, I didn't ask you in the first place.
Permalink | Reply
Bringing wine onto a licensed premise in Mass is illegal.
Permalink | Reply
Thanks. I remember from prior visits there that Massachusetts in general made sober, sombre Evanston, IL (home of the Womens' Chistian Temperance Union) look like Vegas. Yikes!
Permalink | Reply
what part of MA did you visit? people around here pretty much have nothing to do but drink, ski, and golf.
Permalink | Reply
In Massachusetts, it is illegal to bring a bottle of wine into any restaurant that also has a license to sell wine. If the restaurant does not have a license, the individual cities and towns determine if the restaurant is allowed to offer BYOB service. Most dry towns (towns that do not allow ANY sales of alcohol) allow for BYOB.
Permalink | Reply
im not exactley sure WHICH was illegal...my cousin who works in a pretty nice place here told me it had been illegal until just a few months ago. but now that i think of it, a thai place opened a few years ago here and they didnt have a liquor license for the longest time and you could bring your wine/beer. so maybe it was the corking fee? either way- people around here ( the berkshires ) dont really do it and dont like it!
Permalink | Reply
seriously Brian, it's a very common practice, and one you might find it interesting to read up on. I've never done it either, but only because my wine collection is not at that level of sophistication. One does not bring bottles that would be available in the restaurant in question, but rare and/or old, very nice wines instead.
Permalink | Reply
I have not read this entire thread, so please forgive me if this has been addressed elsewhere. Corkage laws vary from state to state. As such, while it may be very common where you live, it is not common, indeed, it is not permitted in other places. For example, in Arizona, where I live, if a restaurant is licensed to serve alcoholic beverages, a patron may not legally bring his own wine to the restaurant. Conversely, if the restaurant does not have a liquor or beer/wine license, patrons may bring their own wine or beer. In Phoenix, there are just a few restaurants that choose the second option. Those that do generally charge a modest corkage or per/glass fee.
Permalink | Reply
For the record, in California it is somewhat the opposite. Restaurants that hold a license to sell and serve wine can allow customers to bring their own wines. The restaurant can certainly refuse to allow it, or set whatever fee they desire if they do allow it. However, it is illegal for restaurants that do not hold a license to allow customers to bring their own alcohol and consume it in the restaurant.
-n
Permalink | Reply
Illegal, perhaps, but some (mostly ethnic) restaurants without liquor licenses (for example, Indian restaurants that don't serve alcohol for religious reasons or restaurants whose license application is pending) will allow you to bring alcohol in to drink with your meal.
I think one difference is that in California -- unlike many other states with stricter alcohol control policies -- licenses to sell wine and beer are pretty easy to get (although licenses to sell hard liquor can be tougher), so there's no reason for a restaurant *not* to have a license unless the owners choose not to serve alcohol for a specific reason.
Permalink | Reply
Yup, happens all the time with no negative results. But it is against the law and the restaurant owners could get fined if the regulators saw it happening. The reality is that this is far off the ABC's radar as they are too busy making sure licensed establishments aren't serving to minors or violating other laws. But it's important to know that the owners are taking a (perhaps infinitesimal) risk by allowing someone to drink in their restaurant, and that any request from them to not drink in their restaurant should be respected without argument.
-Nick
Permalink | Reply
Go to page 6 of 25 at and look at "Corkage Fees."
Link: http://www.abc.ca.gov/BP/BP_Enforceme...
Permalink | Reply
YOU do not bring you own fish, steak, vegtables, beerm vodka, why is wine ok?
Permalink | Reply
That's easy: it's legal to do so in CA. There are a very few restaurants that don't allow corkage and that's certainly their right. However, I can't imagine it's more than 5% in the Bay Area.
Permalink | Reply
why bring wine, but nothing else to a restaurant?
Well, because i have a nice wine collection but can't cook a good meal if my life depended on it. Simple enough. It would be an injustice to my wines if i ate them with my own home cooking. Besides, waiters are always stoked when i bring my own wine because they always get to try it out.
and remember when Seinfeld brought his own maple syrup into the diner?
Ryan P
Permalink | Reply
Don't forget, he (or his "wife") got in trouble for bringing in their own syrup...
Permalink | Reply
But that was a big point of the article, it's okay when the person brings in something special from their cellar (even better when they give a taste to the server) but a lot of people are bringing in average wines from the local Safeway. Last week I had five tables, three of which brought in wine and didn't order anything else to drink. Two of the bottles were on our list. I understand bringing in wine, I do it myself, but I make a point to buy a bottle or get a round of drinks beforehand.
Permalink | Reply
Nice job Liz. Buy a round of drinks, bottled water, a half-bottle, port, etc. Something, anything is apprecitated as you know. Then tip generously and everyone is happy. The Safeway wines brought in, often with 8.99 price tag still attached are a joke.
Permalink | Reply
Or how about when they bring in three or more different average wines and you get to bring different glasses for the half glass they are each having. I just don't understand it.
Permalink | Reply
Waiters may be or act stoked (dont forget how many waiters are aspiring actors), but the owners are not. The waiters have a narrow view of the exchange. That is why so often waiters want to comp corkage it they can get a taste of something.
Permalink | Reply
This was talked about on a previous corkage thread. Sometimes people do bring in a fish that they caught. I could even imagine bringing in a a chunk of that 500# of elk from your last hunting trip. One would also bring a large party with you. Would depend on the closeness of your relationship with the owner. And would not expect to pay half the price of a regular entree, because hey I suppled half the food!
Have been charged corkage for bringing in a liqueur with a screwtop, but understandable, glasses and server pouring required.
The ultimate in boorishness would be bringing in a TJs wine, bringing your own corkscrew and paper cups and demanding corkage be waived.
Permalink | Reply
Stuckey is a good guy but that comment is flat out nuts. Eliminating corkage would do no such thing.
Reddington has no excuse for being so clueless.
I regularly bring wine from my cellar in to restaurants. A corkage charge equal to the lowest priced red on your list is the absolute maximum a restaurant should charge. Anything more than that is excessive (current record holder of excessive corkage is Per Se at $90 a bottle). If a restaurant is concerned about "excessive corkage" then there is a simple solution - price your list reasonably. If you have interesting selections and are not marking up wines excessively other than some flagrant cheapskates you will not have a problem.
Tipping on the worth of the wine brought into the restaurant is lunacy.
Permalink | Reply
I wish that were true, but a reasonably priced winelist does not deter corkage, at all. Ask Craig Stoll, Delfina has many wines in the $30s. I have worked in restaurants who have 30 wines under $30 and have 50% of the wines opened on Friday night be bottles brought by guests.
Permalink | Reply
A reasonably priced wine list does deter corkage. The reason why you think it doesn't is because you don't understand the definition of "reasonably priced wine list". Having a bunch of under $30 bottles of cheapies does not equate to "reasonably priced" (in fact often times bottom of the barrel bottles like what you are referring to on a percentage basis are marked up the most egregiously). A reasonably priced wine list is one which has interesting, reasonably priced wine across the entire pricing spectrum (see for example A16 in San Francisco)
Permalink | Reply
Yeah, to me, reasonable prices on a wine list means both a good selection under $25-30, and good values at all price points.
Good values are actually more common at the high end. As noted in the article, the higher dollar amount can allow a ower markup. Plus the restaurant has an incentive to sell wines before they're past their peak.
Permalink | Reply
It is absolutely true that the best values are more commonly found at the high end.
Permalink | Reply
Wow! What an assumption you've made about where I have worked. I have been in the wine business as a sommelier and in sales for about 10 years and am a certified sommelier. I consider Albarino, Gruner Veltliner, Alto Adige Pinot Blanc, Alsatian and German Rieslings, Falanghina, Muscadet sur Lie, Rioja, Priorat, Negro Amaro, Barbera d'Alba, Nebbiolo all to be interesting wines and all and more were available at the restaurant. All the wines were also crafter by artisan producers, none were corporately operated. I have been to A16, if anything there list is not as thorough. You may be speaking for yourself that reasonably priced wines deter you from bringing corkage (it does for me as well) but MANY people bring corkage regardless, some are special bottles, most are current vintages.
Permalink | Reply
Give me a break, the wines people bring in are most likely KJ Chardonnay, Veuve Clicquot, Moet, BV Cabernet. By the time they buy it retail and pay corkage, they could have a premier cru white Burgundy or a boutique California producer, such as Muir-Hanna, Jean Vesselle or Le Noble Grand Cru Champagne or a Garagiste Bordeaux or even the number of small, crafter Napa Cabernets that spend their money on the wine and not the marketing. You give restaurants too little credit and the public too much credit!!!
Permalink | Reply
All I can add to the subject is an observation that restaurants that complain publicly about corkage on the grounds that it's a threat to their viability are sending a loud and clear message to people who don't drink wine, or don't drink alcohol at all, that their patronage is NOT appreciated.
Link: http://eatingchinese.org
Permalink | Reply
That's true.
Frankly, Reddington looks like an idiot for making the comments he did. To be in Yountville and complaining that vintners and the wine trade are bringing bottles in to his restaurant is ludicrous.
Permalink | Reply
That does not seem to me like an accurate summary of Reddington's remarks as quoted in the article:
"This is a huge, huge issue for me. I love being a local hangout; these are my friends.
"In an average night, I'll do 150 covers, which means I'm opening about 70 bottles of wine. Thirty to 35 of those are corkage. Sometimes we'll open 20 bottles with corkage before 6:30 p.m.
"When you write a budget, you think wine is going to represent a big chunk of your revenue. When it doesn't, the numbers don't make sense. I had no idea when I was putting the restaurant together that the amount of wine brought in would be this out of hand.
"I have investors that I need and want to pay back. How do I make up the profit?
"I'll get someone in here who says, 'I waived your tasting fee when you came into the tasting room.' But if I waive corkage for a table of vintners, it's like giving them 50 percent off their meal.
"All that corkage really covers is the 12 glasses that get ruined every night. We broke a $100 decanter the other night, and there's your corkage.
"Half the time people come in, they don't even open the wine list.
"The last thing I want to do is piss off my customers. The wine and food pairing clientele is my customer base. I just want them to understand that a beverage program is a big part of a restaurant."
Permalink | Reply
He's obviously complaining about having an "excessive" amount of wines being brought into his restaurant and the resulting shortfall in budgeted (emphasis budgeted) revenue. There is nothing whatsoever inaccurate with my prior comment.
Permalink | Reply
Maybe he should have paid the tasting fee. That would take care of that one issue.
Permalink | Reply
I had a similar reaction to the article at first but I don't know if it's so clear cut. When you drink no alcohol that means you are not using the restaurant's nice stemware and decanters and you are not asking your server to keep your glass full. Folks who drink wine are more likely to linger over dinner and lower table turnovers. They also get more filled up from the wine and thus order less food. For all of these reasons, "corkers" cut into a restaurant's bottom line in a way that non-drinkers don't.
I don't order wine at restaurants but I always order a lot of food, and I usually am drawn to the more expensive menu items. I may not be the "ideal" patron but I definitely think that my patronage is appreciated.
Of course, as I don't work in "the business" this is all speculation based on observation.
Permalink | Reply
Yes, I agree with you that those who order wine may linger at the table longer, ordering that extra cheese course to polish off the rest of the bottle. But I don't think you can generalize that those who drink wine order less food. Two studies were cited in a recent lecture on wine and health I attended that touched on wine as an appetite stimulant. In the Kaiser study of anorexics, a half glass of wine increased food intake at lunch and dinner with a resultant weight gain. A second study of alcohol with a meal, prior to or with, increased food consumption in that meal, and increased calorie intake over next 24 hours as well. Both of these studies show that wine drinkers eat MORE.
Permalink | Reply
You are right that it is an unfair generalization. Apart from the study, most people order their food at or slightly after and in some cases before their wine has arrived, and they are not anticipating filling up from their wine. Another flaw in the argument is that 1) not all restaurants are so booked they need to turn every table a maximum # of times and 2) they are anticipating a certain length of time, say 1 1/2 hours for a deuce and 2 for a 4-top. If the deuce eats in 1 hour because of no wine, the table may sit open for awhile unless there are walkins at that time. However, ordering a lot of food helps to make up for the lack of beverage, and in most cases, servers are anywhere from slightly dissappointed---pissed if no beverage is ordered. That is just the way it is, just like anywhere else where a "sale" is not made. Ordering a large amount of food goes a long way to pleasing the server, however.
Permalink | Reply
Interesting points.
Half a glass may act as an appetite stimulant, but half a bottle? In my experience: a little alcohol makes you hungry but a lot of alcohol makes you full. There's only so much room in there. Did the study address the relationship between the quantity of alcohol drunk and the quantity of food consumed?
Any generalizations about wine drinkers are bound to be inaccurate. The point I was really trying to make is that it is possible to go to a restaurant, not order wine, and still have your patronage appreciated. In some situations (not all), "corkers" are cutting in to a restaurant's bottom line in a way that non drinkers don't. And just because you don't order wine doesn't mean you don't order a beverage. The mark ups on bottled water are worse than those of most wines.
Ultimately, what will please a server is a gracious patron who racks up a large bill and tips generously, wine or no wine.
Permalink | Reply
Agreed Morton. You are obviously very thoughtful about the subject, and I am sure your patronage is always appreciated.
Permalink | Reply
Half a bottle of wine or more before dinner has never spoiled my appetite.
I think wine continues to stimulate my appetite even five or ten courses into a meal. Though I'm not sure I've ever attempted such a meal without wine.
Permalink | Reply
A lot of wine helps move everything through, if you know what I mean.
French paradox: solved!
Permalink | Reply
morton,
you say "there's only so much room in there"
you can't be serious.
how much 'room' do you think wine takes up? really?
Permalink | Reply
Morton's still around, but this topic is more than three years old. I'd be interested in knowing how you found it........ given the recurring debate here about whether it's helpful or not to re-open long-dormant topics.
As to your question: Google says that the average stomach holds one liter (about 34 ounces) before it starts to stretch. Half a bottle of wine is 375ml, which is 37.5% of the capacity of that stomach............. so there really IS only so much room in there. How you use it is up to you.
Permalink | Reply
Here there are a few places that use no corkage fee's as a weekday promo. Actually encouraging people to bring your own, mostly on Tuesdays, is proving quite popular.
Permalink | Reply
To an outsider like me ... don't drink much wine ... this seems to be a classic free market question.
Restaurants set there own policy regarding corkage. They decide how much to charge for how many bottles. Or they decide not to allow outside bottles of wine at all.
Then the wine-drinking consumer decides which restaurants to frequent. If enough wine-drinking customers decide to avoid the restaurants that don't allow outside wine, then those restaurants will either change their policy of go out of business.
I don't drink enough wine for it to matter to me. I'm fine with whatever is available in the restaurant. The only time I bring my own is in lower-end restaurants with no liquor license. In those establishments, the allure of bringing in wine to eat with big plates of shared pasta is part of the charm.
What I'm getting at is, I don't see the need for uniformity. I don't see why each restaurant shouldn't just set their own policy based on both their menu and their business model and then the customers will decide where to eat.
"I'd like to make a reservation."
"Okay."
"Oh, do you allow patrons to bring in their own wine."
"no."
"Not even for a corkage fee."
"Nope."
"Then I guess I don't need a reservation."
Click.
Permalink | Reply
Unfortunately, due to pressure from customers and media alike, certain expectations are arising in customers' minds, such as the comped corkage if a bottle is purchased policy, which to me is unfair. It should be to the owner/manager's dicretion, such as if the bottle purchased is a nice bottle, say 75 bucks, or if the people order a lot of food, or are simply gracious. But what happens when people order the $22 dollar bottle, or say a $15 half bottle, then get corkage comped. People do not want to be told that comping corkage is discretionary, they want a firm policy going in.
Permalink | Reply
Another factor. In New York, where nobody brings their own wine, quite a few very good restaurants have $20 or $25 prix fixe lunches, and some have it year round. They know that they don't make much profit on the lunch, but they will make it up since most lunchers order wine. (Some restos have special inexpensive wine deals too, but they still make a big profit.) If people bring in their own wine, food prices will go up.
Permalink | Reply
So you feel it's the responsibility of wine drinkers to cross-subsidize food costs for the benefit of those who don't drink wine?
Permalink | Reply
It is not anyone's responsibility to "cross-subsidize", it is just a fact, if a restaurant didn't have beverage sales, they would have to raise food prices. Food and beverage are the only money makers for restaurants to pay for rent, labor, insurance, marketing, product,utilities,plates, utinsils, stemware, not to mention making a living.
Permalink | Reply
Go to most Chinese restaurants and they hardly sell any beverages except for a few beers and sodas, yet the food is cheap. Most of the time, all they serve is free hot tea and water.
Permalink | Reply
That's because of their food-cost
Permalink | Reply
Melanie, While I generally find you to be very well informed, you are way off base here. YES wine/ beverage does in fact underwrite food cost to a certain extent. Just as in the hotel business it is the ancillary outlets ( Room service, golf, spa et al) that keep prices from being even more astronomical that they are. Eric is correct responding to the poster regarding Chinese food. It is the food cost ( primarily rice as a base, that allows them to make money even if they sell a small amount of beverage)
Permalink | Reply
You're just plain wrong on people not bringing wine to NY restaurants. Check out Wine Therapy, eRobertParker or any of the other major wine boards. There are wine offlines organized in NYC on a regular basis.
Permalink | Reply
True---here is a short list of NYC restaurants.
Link: http://www.tastersguildny.com/byob.shtml
Permalink | Reply
Sorry to resurrect an old thread, but "where nobody brings their own wine"??? Hmmmm, what was I doing at all those places in Manhattan?
Permalink | Reply
I think restaurants should learn to embrace the corkage fee. When someone brings in a bottle of wine then maybe they would be more compelled to buy an appetizer, or stick around for dessert. Check out http://www.sanfranciscocorkagefees.com for more information on corkage.
Permalink | Reply
Last night a group of us met up at one of our favorite restaurants (which shall remain nameless since my last post about it got deleted because I am friends with the owner) to have a dinner with lots of wine from our cellars. We were one of four groups at the restaurant that night doing so.
The owner was floating between the different groups (in fact there was a lot of floating between groups going on with bottles and glasses in hand, offering and accepting tastes of some seriously good juice) and during our conversation he noted that having expanded the days that he offers free corkage has really increased his business on traditionally slow days (especially on Wednesdays). In this current environment, offering free corkage brings folks into the restaurant, and a coustomer who brings in his own bottle, is better than an empty table. Besides, all of us, being serious wine geeks, are also serious food geeks and dropped a healthy chunk of change for dinner and tip.
To go off topic a little, I often avail myself of the privilage of corkage, not to save money, but to be able to drink my wine with a great meal. However, I recognize that a server would receive a lower tip than if I had purchased a bottle or two from the list, so I always make sure that I add a fairly healthy increase to my tip to make up for it. The server appreciates it, and to be sure, we get great service every time we show up.
BTW, the '99 Barone Ricasoli Casalferro Toscana was killer, but the '97 Avignonesi Vino Nobile di Montepulciano Riserva Grandi Annate had a nose that had to be experienced to believed, and once it opened up, was just as sublime as I remembered. However, I certainly wish I had been able to spend more time with the guys that were doing the line up of Barolos.
Permalink | Reply