I was just reading July 2007 issue of Food & Wine magazine (I’m a little behind).

I like F&W - it is probably my favorite wine magazine. For the most part, it is not pretentious, gives good honest reviews, and has some truly wonderful recipes. Still, F&W succumbs to the snobbery sometimes.

Take, for example, Lettie Teague’s tricks for finding good deals on restaurant wine lists.

I guess it just shows that I am not in the same league with much of their audience. Yes, I am well aware that bottles are marked up quite dramatically in restaurants. And I realize that the cheap bottles are marked up the most on a percentage basis. Consequently, it might make sense that the best “deals” are found at the upper end of the price spectrum.

But when I read an article entitled “A cheapskate’s critique of wine list prices” I don’t expect to hear about the $225 bottle of 2001 Araujo Eidele Cabernet Sauvignon. I don’t doubt that is a good deal. I just have a hard time accepting that you can be a cheapskate and pay $225 for wine.

I do understand the point - it seems intrinsically wrong to pay a 100% mark-up over retail. And yet, honestly, I’m fine with it. Restaurants have serious expenses both wine related - cellaring costs, glassware, staff education - not wine related - employees, insurance, rent. It is only fair to expect that they turn a profit. And if people will pay it, I have to ask - is it really over priced? Maybe, maybe not.

I was glad at least to see them mention coffee in the article. I would be willing to bet that on a cup for cup basis, the mark-up on coffee is competitive with that for wine. But then, they usually refill the coffee for free.