Blue Hill (NYC)

[Bux]

One comment. Many people are afraid to speak up about a small deficiency in food or service. Those who do, serve us all. How is a restaurant to know when they are serving food that is not hot enough, or warm enough, unless they are told by the diner. Sometimes the difference between what you expect and get is not enough to interrupt your meal and you don't send it back. Even then, a polite word to your server at some point in the evening does everyone one a favor -- assuming that comment gets carried back to the kitchen. Those restaurants that do not encourage their staff to solicit complaints and take them back to the kitchen are not helping themselves.

[Stone]

One of the things I've noted in my limited experience with haute-y tasting menus is that the food is rarely if ever hot. I think because so many of the pieces of the dish are prepared separately to then be assembled and touched up.

[ahr]

I ate at Blue Hill last night, with a visiting cousin who wanted something that he “couldn’t get in Allentown.” Cheap regional potshots notwithstanding, I hadn’t been to Blue Hill for a little while, and our dinner reminded me just how much I like the place. I won't recap the entire tasting menu just now, but the butter-poached lobster – served with little snap peas, the peas themselves separated from their cut-up pods – exemplifies its spirit and imagination.

Simply a wonderful meal, the best I've had there.

Edited June 23, 2003 by ahr (log)

[phaelon56]

Sounds great and if my employer rebounds and brings us back to our original salary levels (at this point we're happy to still have jobs at a 40% pay cut).... I'll try it out.

I don't go in for upscale (i.e. pricey) dining all that often but isn't $14 sort of insanely expensive for a vegetable side dish, even at an upscale NYC restaurant? Am I missing something here? With the price of their entrees and tasting menu positioned where they are that asparagus price seems totally out of whack.

[ahr]

You're paying for the painting, not the paint; all things considered, a Blue Hill tasting dinner is a bargain. As others have said, ask that "the chefs just cook for you" whatever inspires them that day.

Edited June 25, 2003 by ahr (log)

[Ron Johnson]

$14 for asparagus is nothing compared to being charged $8.50 for a glass of wine that retails for $12.99 per bottle.

[Mrs. B]

$14 for asparagus is nothing compared to being charged $8.50 for a glass of wine that retails for $12.99 per bottle.

If you are going to compare the price of wine you purchase in a liquor store and what you pay in a restaurant, take in consideration the million of other costs that restaurant have, including the cost of the nice glass they serve it in which probably costs $15. If you break one, they do not add it to your individual food bill, they eat that cost.

[tommy]

If you break one, they do not add it to your individual food bill, they eat that cost.

and if you don't break one like 99.9% of customers, well then it's a one time cost which is most likely made up for with 2 pours.

this analysis is only helpful if we introduce breakage percentage into the discussion. are there numbers on that?

Edited June 26, 2003 by tommy (log)

[Ron Johnson]

If you are going to compare the price of wine you purchase in a liquor store and what you pay in a restaurant, take in consideration the million of other costs that restaurant have

I have. Its what I used to do for a living. Depending on their pour, there is between 4 to 5 glasses of wine per bottle, so lets say 4.5 in this case. If the wine retails for $12.99, that means Blue Hill probably got it for about 8 or 9 bucks, I will be generous and say $9. At $8.50 per glass they are earning $38.25 per bottle, which represents over a 400% mark up on the price of the wine.

I do not, have never, and will never expect a restaurant to charge retail for their wine. I understand the cost of stemware, storage, insurance, licensing, and all the rest, but I cannot approve of this level of mark-up. They are simply taking advantage of the fact that most people will be unfamiliar with this wine and not know its retail price.

[Bux]

Nothing would please me more than to be able to drink better wines with many of the restaurant meals I eat, but I'm seeing ten to fifteen dollar wines selling for Forty dollars or more all over Manhattan. I've always assumed there's some waste when wine is sold by the glass rather than by the bottle and that it's an additional service, so I expect to pay about one quarter of the bottle price, for the glass assuming it's not a tasting size glass. My guess is that that $8.50 a glass is not out of line with what other upscale restaurants are charging for that quality of wine. I'm perfectly willing to object and protest, but it's not fair to single out one restaurant.

At most restaurants of a certain quality, there are no bargains at the low end. The mark ups in terms of percentage are unconsionable. I understand there are minimum cost involved in serving any wine, but it penalizes the wine drinker with a budget and lets the teatotaler off. I've always felt cover charges are a reasonable way of sharing the overhead cost, but I wouldn't suggest a restauranteur try that no matter how much he lowered his wine prices. In the end, it's not about fairness, but about what the market will allow. As long as reviewers note the prices for the food and do not include the price of a reasonable bottle of wine in an average cost and as long as diners make decisions based on the menu prices, restaurants will cut food costs and gouge wine costs in response to what is really consumer demand.

Some of Danny Meyer's restaurants have exceptional bargains at the low end and it's been a factor in my enjoyment of meals at Union Square Cafe and Eleven Madison Park where the food prices are quite fair as well for food of high quality.

[Mrs. B]

When it comes down to it, $8.50 for a glass of wine for which the restaurant probably pays $8-9.00 is very reasonable. Consider also that if the restaurant opens the bottle of wine and serves you one glass, and you are the only one that night who has a glass from that bottle, they break even. That bottle is not good to serve the next evening. Not to mention when a diner returns a bottle of wine because it is "off" or corked, they take it back, no charge. Most restaurants in the Blue Hill caliber hardly make enough money on food, let them make some money somehow, they need to pay their bills.

Edited June 26, 2003 by Mrs. B (log)

[tommy]

That bottle is not good to serve the next evening.

sure it is. i would say that most restaurants serve wine by the glass from bottles that were open a day ago.

Not to mention when a diner returns a bottle of wine because it is "off" or corked, they take it back, no charge.

as well they should. should the patron be responsible for corked wine? of course not. most reputable distributors and wine stores will reimburse a customer for a corked bottle. my wine store does.

as far as restaurants paying their bills, well, that's hardly news, as we all have bills to pay, and i don't see why i should be expected to throw them some extra cash just because the electric bill is due. a big concern that i've seen is offering wines that are readily available, but at 400% markups. offer something unique that i may not know about, or that i can't easily get, and i won't have too much of a problem paying that markup. charge me 10 dollars for a glass of Santa Margherita, and i'll be a little miffed.

Edited June 26, 2003 by tommy (log)

[Mrs. B]

as far as restaurants paying their bills, well, that's hardly news, as we all have bills to pay, and i don't see why i should be expected to throw them some extra cash just because the electric bill is due.

Tommy, I think the sarcasm was hardly necessary. My point is that to pay $8.50 for a glass of wine at Blue Hill or any restaurant comparable to it, is pretty reasonable in NYC. Maybe in the burbs it is a different story

I find that usually it is cheaper to get a whole bottle of wine (that is if there are at least two people drinking and you are going to have three or more glasses of wine) than to pay for single glasses. These days a $25-30 for a bottle of wine at a nice restaurant a bargain.

[tommy]

as far as restaurants paying their bills, well, that's hardly news, as we all have bills to pay, and i don't see why i should be expected to throw them some extra cash just because the electric bill is due.

Tommy, I think the sarcasm was hardly necessary.

i wasn't being sarcastic.

you said

Most restaurants in the Blue Hill caliber hardly make enough money on food, let them make some money somehow, they need to pay their bills.

unless you weren't serious, i assumed you were appealing to peoples' sense of sympathy. i don't think sympathy has a place in wine pricing.

[Ron Johnson]

That bottle is not good to serve the next evening.

Actually, its probably better.

I do expect a higher mark-up from a restaurant in NYC than I do in my hometown or the "burbs" as you refer to it. Fortunately, I have found just the opposite is true in many of the restaurants in which I have dined in Manhattan, including Gramercy Tavern, Babbo, and Blue Hill. At Atelier, the champagne was very reasonably priced by the glass . . . it was free.

My purpose was not to single out Blue Hill, but to find fault with any restaurant that would mark-up wine in this manner.

[phaelon56]

I understand there are minimum cost involved in serving any wine, but it penalizes the wine drinker with a budget and lets the teatotaler off.

Please explain this to me. I'm a teetotaler (better described as a reformed but unrepentant party animal and wildman). If I eat in a restaurant like Blue Hill, Gramercy Tavern or others and order my usual digestif of tonic water with a splash of Rose's Lime Juice, I get charged $2.50 to $3.00 for a 10 oz glass that's packed full of ice and has no more than 5 oz of liquid. I haven't checked the price of a canister of tonic lately but I'm guessing that cost is less than 25 cents per glass - more like 10 cents. That is sure as heck an awfully high markup - perhaps even worse then the glass of wine under discussion. How do teetotaler's get "let off"?

Edited June 27, 2003 by phaelon56 (log)

[tommy]

all this talk of wine markups at 300-400%. what's the markup on a shot of tequila? somewhere around 1000%?

what's a shot, 1.5 ounces give or take? assuming that, there about 16 shots in a 750 ml bottle of tequila. the shot costs 10 and the bottle costs 30. so that's a 500% markup. or something like that.

somebody check that math. i got lost on the 2nd step.

Edited June 27, 2003 by tommy (log)

[Bux]

Right Phaelon, there's a great markup on tea, water and softdrinks. My range of liquids with food is pretty much limited to beer, wine and water -- usually tap water. What's the markup on a bottle of beer that doesn't warrant aging and far fewer overhead costs than wine? A "good" bottle of beer can had in the grocery store in NY for a buck and a half or less. $4.50 would be 300% and that's not considered a rip off. Wine, now that we examine the alternative, may be the bargain. Tip your sommelier.

[coughy]

no one mentioned the mark up on coffee. you can get around 60 cups from a pound of coffee. at $4 - $5 per cup that is $240 for a $5 pound of coffee.

[tommy]

no one mentioned the mark up on coffee.  you can get around 60 cups from a pound of coffee.  at $4 - $5 per cup that is $240 for a $5 pound of coffee.

but coffee takes a least a *little* time to make, and keep fresh. a bottle of wine, or tequila, or water for that matter, takes nothing more than the purchase and the resale. it's simply a product. (yes, i appreciate the cost of cellars and whatnot, but if we're talking wines by the glass, in my experience, they are young and flying off the shelf).

[phaelon56]

Right Phaelon, there's a great markup on tea, water and softdrinks........   

Wine, now that we examine the alternative, may be the bargain. Tip your sommelier.

Believe me.... I sometimes wish I could drink alcoholic beverages - I'd get so much more for my money.

Slightly off topic, as they don't usually serve much in the way of foods, but if, theoretically speaking, one was to visit a strip club, the horrendously over priced soft drinks would be the same price as the overpriced beer yet the beer represents a much better value.... uhhhhh.... theoretically speaking.

Don't get me started on coffee - I could easily live with paying $4 - $5 for a cup of coffee in a restaurant oif I got a small press pot with 2 or 3 cups and the quality of the coffee was top shelf. Unfortunately it's never even remotely close to as good as what I make at home.

I noticed recently that the Julius Meinl coffee that sells for $5 or $6 per cup at Cafe Sabarsky is now available for retail sale at Chef Central on Rte 17 N in Paramus. It's about $10 per pound - now THERE's a markup!

Edited June 28, 2003 by phaelon56 (log)

[Bux]

The problem with coffee is not that it's marked up so much, but that it's that it's rarely so well made. I really enjoy a good espresso after dinner and getting more of it is not my goal. As often as not, part of the problem is that whoever makes the coffee seems to believe a longer weaker coffee is better than an shorter better espresso.

[phaelon56]

In their defense from a teetotaler's standpoint, Gramercy Tacern is one of the few restaurants I've visited that not only brought my tonic in a large (16 oz) glass with the requested amount of ice (rather than jamming it full of ice), they also had fresh lime juice to add instead of the Rose's Lime Juice. They brought the lime juice in a separate small shot glass so I could adjust to taste - very thoughtful and typical of the high level of service they offer. I just wish more places could figure out how easy it is to please people and get good return trade.

[Msk]

All I am going to say is thank you. My wife and I just got back from an amazing experience at Blue Hill. Wonderful food and wonderful service. If it wasn't for the great discussion here we might never have gone.

Thanks,

Msk

[Rachel Perlow]

We went for the first time last week as well. My favorite dish of the evening (we had a tasting menu) was the lobster. The ingredients seemed to be treated with love and respect. The claw was cooked simply, but oh so perfectly. It was cooked until just done reminding me of a scallop. Meanwhile the tail meat was smoked, which lended new interest to an otherwise familiar food. The pieces of lobster were placed on a bed of diced golden beets. Beets are always welcome in my book and this was a delicious side with only a hint of vinegar. My only negative feeling about this dish was when eating the beets and lobster together. Seperately each was wonderful, but because of the subtlety of the lobster, when eaten together, all you could taste were the beets.