We've gleefully chronicled such gilded age menu items as the $25,000 dessert and the $81 hamburger, but former NY Mag dining critic Gael Greene is reporting what may be the most hubristic example of restaurant chicanery yet. She has it that Morton's The Steakhouse recently tried to charge financial columnist Dan Dorfman $2.50 extra for ordering a cocktail on the rocks. His beverage was served with five of the sublime little frozen delicacies, translating to 50 cents per ice cube. He objected after noticing the charge on his bill, and Greene writes, "If you know Dorfman you know his protest was not pretty." Morton's ultimately waived the fee, but Dorfman says, "I bet they get away with it more often than not since that's a place that attracts a fair-sized Wall Street crowd and I'm sure many of them say nothing.
...
My understanding is that the restaurant response for charging for ice is that you get a larger pour on the rocks than you do "up." Something about bartenders at least partially covering the ice cubes with alcohol or something?
Thoughts?
__________________
Bringing cogent analysis, a strong intellect, and respect for others to FT since 2003.
If the amount poured is greater than the amount poured for a neat drink, then the restaurant has every right to charge more. If it isn't, that's just stupid.
__________________
BoyAreMyArmsTired:
My favourite saying is "Beauty fades, but stupid lasts forever"
If the amount poured is greater than the amount poured for a neat drink, then the restaurant has every right to charge more. If it isn't, that's just stupid.
why not.... is it because a bartender can give a more generous pour to a regular patron in exchange for higher tips...???
at a high class establishment it's classier to have a real live, experienced bartender than a machine. a trusted bartender won't pour more for extra money. maybe it's different down there versus up here.
__________________
BoyAreMyArmsTired:
My favourite saying is "Beauty fades, but stupid lasts forever"
Programs: UA 1K, QR Gold, EK Gold, AF Plat, SPG Plat, IC Plat/RA, Hyatt Diam, Shangri-La Jade
Posts: 2,531
This is silly, but sounds a little less silly when you ask it the other way: why should product A (a drink with no ice) cost the same as product B (a drink with ice) when product B costs more to make?
Ice is pretty cheap, but there is the capital cost for the freezer -- which is probably an insidious electricity-sucking, chemical-coolant-filled, carbon-belching monstronsity that occupies a couple of square feet of pricey Manhattan floor space -- and I wouldn't be surprised if the ice is made from bottled, or at least filtered, water.
at a high class establishment it's classier to have a real live, experienced bartender than a machine. a trusted bartender won't pour more for extra money. maybe it's different down there versus up here.
..........??????
__________________ Come to Argentina & try the Wines from the RIGHT side of the Andes... Visit Terroir Fine Wines - www.terroir.com.ar
don't be so sensitive, it was merely meant to highlight what could be a difference in customs between argentina (to the SOUTH of Morton's) and the USA (where Morton's is).
__________________
BoyAreMyArmsTired:
My favourite saying is "Beauty fades, but stupid lasts forever"
Just Thursday night at a hotel bar in Houston, two of the people I was with ordered a shot of Jack at the end of the night and got two shot glasses worth in a little glass (sorry, don't know the names)
Somebody else came in and ordered a Jack on the Rocks. He got four shots of Jack to cover the ice.
Not a clue if Mortons is doing that or not (and in the Houston case, all three drinks were the same price even though on the rocks had twice as much Jack), but if they are it makes perfect sense.
I would be annoyed not by the $2.50 itself, but by the feeling of being nickel and dimed. I know a restaurant is a business, but it should strive not to give its guests the impression that they only exist to be separated from their money.
Just Thursday night at a hotel bar in Houston, two of the people I was with ordered a shot of Jack at the end of the night and got two shot glasses worth in a little glass (sorry, don't know the names)
Somebody else came in and ordered a Jack on the Rocks. He got four shots of Jack to cover the ice.
Not a clue if Mortons is doing that or not (and in the Houston case, all three drinks were the same price even though on the rocks had twice as much Jack), but if they are it makes perfect sense.
Shouldn't the charge really be for the extra Jack, though? If you order on the rocks, you get more alcohol, so why not charge more for the alcohol?
Also, what if someone doesn't want 4 shots but just likes the taste of the ice in their drink? Should they have to pay the $2.50 as well?
__________________
Bringing cogent analysis, a strong intellect, and respect for others to FT since 2003.
