glenn

Eisenberg's Sandwich Shop (not Shoppe!) between 22nd and 23rd St. on 5th Ave -- this place rarely gets a mention, and maybe that's a good thing cuz it's usually too crowded as it is. The place must be 75 years old. It's cramped and LOUD, especially during lunch. Its unique New Yawkish character is derived not only from the food, but by its antiquated lunch counter as well as ancient short order cooks who speak the cryptic language of soda jerks. The attraction is the sandwiches - egg, tuna and chicken salads washed down with an authentic egg cream. Sandwich, fries and egg cream = about $10.

So that would make it about $90 with tax and tip? Whatever is decided on is ok by me. Just so long as Rosie pays for her own fries.

Scott, tosh you. :-)) Seriously, this discussion is degenerating and I'm backing off. I qualified my comments several times by saying I was speaking generally, i.e., not necessarily about the UK. And the proof of your argument is that I can't disprove it? Yikes. [it so happens I intuitively agree with your last statement, but I highly doubt it can be proven one way or the other.]

Nope, I realized it was a general statement. I'm just amazed that you have taken it upon yourself to be the all-knowing spokesperson on this issue and anyone with a different opinion is speaking "tosh". You've made several statements and assertions which you deem to be factual. Can you offer proof or some sort of validation of your latest statement?

I'm humbled by your perceptive insight.

Again, speaking strictly in the hypothetical and not your situation -- it's not practical for a restaurant to have a sliding scale of charges for non-compliance with their policy. I go back to a previous example I used, but let me extend it -- if there were 10 no shows/late cancellations, and the restaurant was not able to fill any of them, from what I gather, you say it's ok to charge the custoemrs. But what if there were 10 no shows and the restaurant filled 8 of them, which customers should get charged for not showing and which ones shouldn't? I suppose there's a formula that can be arrived at, but that is adding a rather large burden on the restaurant. And if the restaurant was booked regardless of no shows, you say there should be no fee or a very minor one. But it's not that simple. For example, many restaurants turn tables more than once per evening. If a table sat empty for 20 minutes because it was being held for a reservation, and then it was filled by a walk-in, perhaps that table was only turned 2 times instead of 3. So "booked" is a relative term. In a nutshell, it is an undue burden and unfair to ask that a restaurant vary their policy for every situation. While I think common sense should prevail, as long as the restaurant's policy is clear cut, then it should be accepted. Again, I am not talking about your situation where you say the policy was not explained properly.

For the zillionth time: I was perfectly willing to pay the charge if the restaurant lost money as a result of my cancellation. But if every table was full that evening (as was most likely the case) it suffered little or no loss and it is not fair or justifiable for me to pay £40. Thus my indignant spluttering. That has always been my understanding of how cancellation charges work, and most people here seem to agree. It works both ways: if the restaurant had cancelled on me, but I found an equally good table elsewhere for minimum hassle/expense, then I don't think it would be right for me to claim any recompense from the restaurant. Everybody is entitled to be treated fairly and not to lose out as a result of somebody else's breach of contract, but no-one is entitled to a windfall at another's expense. This seems me both moral and sensible. The fact the law works the same way is a happy accident. Clerkenwellian, with all due respect -- I disagree with the general assumption that the restaurant does not lose money from a cancelled reservation (or one that is not cancelled in compliance with the restaurant's policy) if in the end the restaurant is filled. The various charges that are associated with cancelled reservations, aside from lost revenue, have been discussed. How do you respond to that? This is more an academic exercise. From the details you have provided, I lean towrards taking your side and think it's just plain bad business on the restaurant's part to enforce their policy no matter what. As another restaurauteur mentioned (basildog?), his restaurant doesn't take credit card guarantees because the public is antsy about giving out this info for a restaurant reservation. That is true in NYC also, at least to the best of my knowledge. Only the higher end restaurants can get away with it easily. This only hurts everyone. The restaurant will suffer because of no shows or late cancellations and the public will suffer because the restaurant has to overbook in order to account for no shows.

Oh, here! I'm there. Just 1 for now. And thx for treating, next day's my 76th birthday, or thereabouts.

In what? where?

There seems to be some skirting around the definition of a wine bar. Is there a universal definition? And I wonder, why does the difficulty in obtaining a liquor license necessarily limit the presence of so-called wine bars?

Restaurant, a little-known film from 1998 that takes place in Hoboken, NJ.

I was speaking generally and not referring to the incident here, which was clearly not a no show.

Does anyone really not believe that no shows are a huge cost to restaurants? Some restaurants in NY average as high as a 30% or more as a no show rate. I don't know about the situation anywhere but NYC and this may not be applicable to London/England (though I suspect it is), but the no show rate in NYC is alarming and out of control. There is only so much a restaurateur can do, i.e., call to confirm reservations, without taking harsh measures. I really don't get any argument that does not support no show charges, and many here seem to support that side. To make a general statement that a no show charge is equivalent to a penalty is ridiculous. [i'm not talking about this individual case.] I don't get it. The argument that hotels or airlines are a different animal than restaurants, particularly hotels, makes no sense to me. What's the difference how far in advance a booking is made? Besides, there are numerous restaurants that must be booked far in advance. What about special events, like New Years Eve or Valentines Day? Some restaurants book months in advance and will suffer a considerable loss from a no show. As I stated earlier (and Scottf I think), just because a restaurant is able to fill a table despite a no show is irrelevant to the no show charge. And it is not a penalty. Scottf described some of the charges that a restaurant incurs as a result of a no show, even if the table is filled. I'll add to that the burden put on a restaurant to prove that it suffered a loss --- if a restauarant is booked on a particular evening and has 10 no show tables and ends up filling up 8 of them, how is the restaurant supposed to allocate which customers' tables were able to be filled despite the no show? Even a charge of $25 per person mostly won't make up for the lost revenue.

The moral argument should not get mixed up with the legalities. Just because it may be legal to charge a no show charge, it doesn't mean the restaurant has to do so. In principle, I agree with Clerkenwellian when he states that it's not fair for him to get charged if the restaurant is able to fill the reservation. In reality though, it might mean an extra expense or hassle on the restaurant's part to fill that reservation and keep track of every customer that did such a thing. If the reservation is cancelled within a reasonable time for the restaurant to fill the table without undue burden -- whch is subjective -- from a moral standpoint, then no, the customer should not be charged no matter what the policy or law. It's just bad business.

Scott, I should point out that I emphatically do not agree with the policy of the credit card companies, or lack of. I don't understand why restaurants reservations should be considered any different than hotel reservations, etc. However, I think Amex has developed a fair and equitable policy for both the customer and the establishment. The maximum no show charge is $25 pp. [either side can make an argument for it being too much or too little.] The policy must be clearly stated to the customer and he/she must be told up until what time he/she has to cancel the reservation. The program must be submitted by the establishment to Amex and approved by them. My guess is that this is not much different than other service industries, like hotels. As for the other card companies not honoring no show charges, our credit card processor (for MC and Visa) has told me that it is virtually impossible for MC and Visa to come up with a policy because the individual banks have their own policies. These policies are generally geared in favor of the consumer. Pissing off the consumer would be bad business, while they couldn't care less if they piss off the establishment.

Does anyone know what the credit card rules are in the UK and outside the US? Will the card companies honor no show charges? As I stated, in the US this is not the case except in limited circumstances.

I'd check with the credit card company to see what their position is. In the US, even though some restaurants require a credit card to guarantee a reservation, only under certain circumstances will the credit card company honor the charge if it is disputed. Only American Express has a guaranteed reservation program, and they have very specific requirements that a restaurant must abide by in order for a cancellation charge to be allowed. The maxomum is $25 per person. The other credit card companies will not honor such a charge if there's a dispute.

We (wife and 2 friends) had a wonderful experience NYE, the early sitting. I think I had exactly the same thing as last NYE; I'm so adventurous. Kim's post as well as others make me realize why I'll never be a restaurant critic. I don't mean this in an offensive way and hope no offense is taken, but I just like to enjoy the food without analyzing. Therefore, don't expect me to justify why I love this place except to say all five (?) courses were extraordinary, particularly the braised roasted pig and the best chocolate mousse I ever had. When I asked for a wine recommendation, the waiter said he'd have Nicholas come over since he designed the wine list. Perhaps this was in response to Kim's complaint about the lack of a sommelier? To my surprise, a pretty youngish blonde came over and I thought they sent over some floozy waitress! But she knew her shit and came up with a great Bordeaux recommendation (which I forget), and one of the least expensive choices. And then I realized that this was Mrs. H. Thank you thank you, Melissa. My friends commented after we left that they didn't think it was filled up, but the layout is deceiving. It's so spacious and conducive to conversation, that you almost think there's no one else there. Btw, it was filled. The service was excellent and not stuffy at all. I wasn't even intimidated by the waiter and busser, a nice change of pace :-)).

You better book now if you wanna get in this year.

Yeah, that's the seltzer man's brother and the milk man's cousin. :-)) I'm with you Tommy. I go to Korin Knives on Warren St. or have one of the cooks do the deed for the 6 times a year I actually use a knife.

I say we all knock on Rosie's door and help her open the good wine. Except for tommy, who should be sent to Nantucket with his weirdo sig.

I'm gonna harp on this some more as it was my most favoritest book in the genre of B's Kitchen Confidential. Cosmopolitan: A Bartender's Life by Toby Cecchini is discussed a bit over here.. This is required reading for anyone that remotely liked KC. My only criticism is that there were too many 7+ letter words. Jeez, a bartender with a brain.

Has anyone read this?? It totally knocked my socks off. It's the equivalent of Bourdain's Kitchen Confidential, and just as enjoyable and funny and witty, no offense Mr. B. Has anyone been to the author's bar, the Passerby on W. 15th St? I must've passed it in my car and on foot dozens of times and never noticed it (it's opposite Chelsea Market) near 10th Ave.

The restaurants I'm a regular at probably have trouble paying the rent, let alone sending out gifts. Seriously, I never heard of restaurants sending gifts. Certainly none of the places I've worked for ever did so. Maybe that's why most of them are out of business. :-)) But then again, I was never a regular patron of or worked for a **** restaurant. On the other side of the coin, I haven't gotten one gift this year from vendors except for a friggin' diary from the insurance agent. Just lots of generic cards. In the past, I used to get a bunch of fruit baskets, candy and other stuff. And the chef hasn't gotten a dime from anyone. In the past, some of the more unscrupulous vendors would give the chef a substantial amount of cash ($500) to ostensibly bribe him and win his loyalty. This must be the year of the scrooge.

Yeah, but what type? Bordeaux, zinfandel? Which one for white? Do you get the impression I'm clueless?