Richmond Business & Commercial News

How to decipher the wine markups when dining out

The Wall Street Journal had a very thorough article on the intricate nature of restaurant wine pricing this past Friday, 8/15/08.  ("Cracking the Code Of Restaurant Wine Pricing")

While I appreciate a good wine, but I have never felt terribly inclined to order the most expensive wine on the list so the advice of ordering the more expensive wines in order to get the best value (i.e., smallest markup) doesn't really work for me.  That's not to say that the advice isn't sound, only that it doesn't fit my tastes -- or budget.

My usual strategy is to either find a wine that I know and like, or experiment with a wine from a region that has won me over with good but moderately priced wines.

That being said, it is very interesting to read about the pricing strategies and some of the reasoning behind the seemingly arbitrary pricing structures of wine lists.

If any of the information from the article rings particularly true, or you have additional advice to share – please do!

(The article was found through a series of posts on other blogs: “Restaurant Wine Pricing” by pjpink at River City Food and Wine pointed to “Figuring Out Restaurant Wine Pricing” by vcuspoon at Anything Wine, who pointed to the original article.  Visit these posts to find their perspectives on the article, as well as other comments from their readers.  Thanks to both for highlighting the WSJ article!)

A note on political mud-slinging

I found this post at Seth's Blog this morning to be particularly interesting.  All of his posts are compelling -- I encourage you to check out his blog if you don't already follow it yourself.  This one about negative campaigning by politicians is an insightful look at whether or not it is effective, and what makes a negative campaign more effective than another.

My favorite quote from the post resonates with my own view of the unfortunate situation:

The reliance on negative stories in politics makes me sick. I think we should be above that. The fact that negative stories have influenced every election of my lifetime, though, means that I'm wrong, we're not above it. If politicians are going to tell negative stories, they might as well pick useful ones. [my emphasis]

I try not to pay attention to the negative campaigning in general, but I wonder if the same reasoning that Seth uses in his article can be applied to Richmond politics.  Are there negative statements that are being made about any of the candidates that, regardless of the truth of the statement, may shake up that candidate's base?  I hesitate to ask for fear of drawing out the political negativity that may come with the answers...