Fatwallet and Dating

EvilCapitalist said:   Hello, have you been to Chinatown? Let me guess, it is way too close to Brooklyn and those Asians just smell funny.

I've been to Chinatown many times and generally like going there, but most of the grocery stores in that part of town don't strike me as upholding the highest standards in food safety.

EvilCapitalist said:   That's the thinking that makes food-service establishment the on3es that fail spectacularly the most often. None of the other things matter if the food tastes like crap.

Hooters begs to differ.

svr411 said:   EvilCapitalist said:   That's the thinking that makes food-service establishment the on3es that fail spectacularly the most often. None of the other things matter if the food tastes like crap.

Hooters begs to differ.That's another example of a non-restaurant that sells food. Want to have the one that pushes that envelope a little further ? Here's one. It is a chain of gentlemen's clubs called "Cheerleaders". Here's one in Pitts and man it has jumbo shrimp cocktails and even filet tips! People definitely go there for food, and not the dancers, right? http://pitts.cheerleadersweb.com/menu.aspx

In regards to the wine:

I drink a decent amount and I can tell you that price does matter, but not a ton. Knowing what to buy is much, much more important than buying off of price.

The key price points from a good picker that I've noticed are:
Red: Below $9/10=crap. $10-15=decent. $15+=very good. $30+=better $50+=better yet.
White: Below $7=crap. $7+=good. $20+=slightly better.
(obviously if you have your heart set on a particular type like a Bordeaux or Burgundy the price levels are a little different, but that's what happens when you narrow it down)

As someone who has had many bottles that cost over $1k(like a Lafite Rothschild--which were real) I will tell you first hand they are not worth the money. You would be better off buying them first year out when they only cost a couple hundred dollars, obtaining provenance(which is what removes the risk of fraud so that the price down the road is higher), hold them in a cellar, and then sell to some stupid newly rich people in some foreign country(right now the Chinese). If you don't obtain provenance then prices of these types of bottles is significantly less in the resale market because the risk of it being a fraud is higher. Let me tell you that a good $60 Bordeaux could easily trick me if it was substituted for a Lafite.

If you look over at my avatar I would rather have that bottle($50-100 depending on year) any day over a $1k bottle of Lafite or a Richebourg.

In reality an analogy of comparing *good* wines in each of those price ranges is like the $15+ reds are like having the best steak an Outback steakhouse ever made, the $30+ ones are like having a steak at very nice local steakhouse, and the $50+ ones are like eating at a Ruth's Chris. The difference between the first and the last is definitely noticeable, but it isn't huge by any means.

At the same time if you don't know what your doing you could easily drop $40 on a bottle and it tastes like $hit.

TooManyCards said:   EvilCapitalist said:   Hello, have you been to Chinatown? Let me guess, it is way too close to Brooklyn and those Asians just smell funny.

I've been to Chinatown many times and generally like going there, but most of the grocery stores in that part of town don't strike me as upholding the highest standards in food safety.
The poultry is fresher because of the high volume. They are all from the same chicken "factories" .

I've never dropped $100 a person on a fancy meal but I'm a little skeptical that the actual food is that much better than a significantly cheaper establishment. With most products & services the mid-grade variety is significantly better than the cheap, bottom-rung stuff but as prices get higher and higher you get less and less for your money. Computer parts are probably the most extreme example of this but it applies to everything from scotch to car tires.

EvilCapitalist said:   
Coffee/espresso - 1.5-3
Deserts - 9-17

Maybe it's just me but I usually don't have room for desserts after a nice dinner.

If you are spending ~150 on a nice dinner you are doing it wrong. I took my dates out to Brazilian steakhouses before and the bill was only about ~100 including tip. I think it included a bottle of wine too.

mikef07 said:   subieaggie said:   EvilCapitalist said:   
Coffee/espresso - 1.5-3
Deserts - 9-17



Maybe it's just me but I usually don't have room for desserts after a nice dinner.

If you are spending ~150 on a nice dinner you are doing it wrong. I took my dates out to Brazilian steakhouses before and the bill was only about ~100 including tip. I think it included a bottle of wine too.

Brazilian steakhouses (and I have eaten at some of the top ones) are about quantity, not quality. They aren't bad quality, but they would go out of business if they were using the highest grade beef.

Fair enough.

ppatin said:   I've never dropped $100 a person on a fancy meal but I'm a little skeptical that the actual food is that much better than a significantly cheaper establishment. With most products & services the mid-grade variety is significantly better than the cheap, bottom-rung stuff but as prices get higher and higher you get less and less for your money. Computer parts are probably the most extreme example of this but it applies to everything from scotch to car tires.

You're right (and has been illustrated many times here) that there is a point of diminishing returns, but over $100/meal ain't it. I've spent over $200 (in the midwest) on some very nice dinners and it's been worth every penny for the experience, the service and the caliber of food that you simply can't get for $19.99 with two sides.

Scotch is an even more extreme example, if you're buying it in a plastic bottle, just...no. Your normal bar call scotches (Dewars White/Johnnie Black) are acceptable but once you're willing to pay ten times the price for something like Johnnie Blue or Glenlivet 25 year it's a completely different animal. Moving much beyond that price, sure you're past the point of diminishing returns....

svr411 said:   EvilCapitalist said:   That's another example of a non-restaurant that sells food. Want to have the one that pushes that envelope a little further ? Here's one. It is a chain of gentlemen's clubs called "Cheerleaders". Here's one in Pitts and man it has jumbo shrimp cocktails and even filet tips! People definitely go there for food, and not the dancers, right? http://pitts.cheerleadersweb.com/menu.aspx

A restaurant is a place where people go to purchase prepared food by the meal. The definition has nothing to do with your upscale tastes.

What about a place like Rachel's, which is a high end steakhouse with a dress code, oh, and nude strippers in a different portion of the establishment?You really need to make up your mind about the position that you have.

I'm asserting that any well ran restaurant is going to have tasty food. You are bringing up establishment that happen to sell food, which you say is not tasty, that they prepare there but clearly peddle something else to demonstrate that my assertion is incorrect. Now you are bringing up a high-end steakhouse, which is arguably ran well, that has tasty food and strippers to demonstrate that I'm wrong. The common thread among all of the examples of a well-ran restaurant where the food is tasty. Here's an example of a stripclub that has/used to have steakhouse like food: Delilah's in Philadelphia. People go there for strippers and only while there remember that their steaks got some pretty mind blowing reviews from food critics before.

EvilCapitalist said:   You really need to make up your mind about the position that you have.

I'm asserting that any well ran restaurant is going to have tasty food. You are bringing up establishment that happen to sell food, which you say is not tasty, that they prepare there but clearly peddle something else to demonstrate that my assertion is incorrect. Now you are bringing up a high-end steakhouse, which is arguably ran well, that has tasty food and strippers to demonstrate that I'm wrong. The common thread among all of the examples of a well-ran restaurant where the food is tasty. Here's an example of a stripclub that has/used to have steakhouse like food: Delilah's in Philadelphia. People go there for strippers and only while there remember that their steaks got some pretty mind blowing reviews from food critics before.

My position is consistent. An establishment which sells prepared food for prompt consumption is a restaurant, even if the food it serves is bad and it has another draw, or the food is good and it has another draw.

Chuck E Cheese is a restaurant, Hooters is a restaurant, and Rachel's is a restaurant.

If strip clubs which serve prepared food weren't restaurants, then the health inspectors wouldn't be getting their panties in a bunch about the servers not wearing any.

D.E.N.N.I.S System

mikef07 said:   ppatin said:   I've never dropped $100 a person on a fancy meal but I'm a little skeptical that the actual food is that much better than a significantly cheaper establishment. With most products & services the mid-grade variety is significantly better than the cheap, bottom-rung stuff but as prices get higher and higher you get less and less for your money. Computer parts are probably the most extreme example of this but it applies to everything from scotch to car tires.

To each his own. IMO the food is significantly better. It isn't good because it is $100. It is $100 because it is good. It is not that they have access to better ingredients than the public. It is that they can use all the various ingredients to put together a dish that just works well. Last night one of my consultants and I went to Stella Osteria in Burlingame. We only drank water, but had dinner, salad, and dessert and the bill was $125. Was it worth it? Nope. Highly overrated. Waste of money. This was a situation where the food was just not that good. Main course was good, but too small and everything else was average to below average. The point? You are correct there are time when meals run $100 or so and they are not worth it, but I agree with EC that almost every meal I have ever had that is highly memorable and one of the best it has always been over $150 for two people.
I think what's being missed is that a memorable dining experience consists of more than just the food. I'd say tasty food or whatever adjective or adjectives you wish to use is a necessary but not sufficient component to a memorable dining experience. There's also atmosphere, presentation, service, setting, and last, but not least, your dining companion(s).

Now, one could argue that it's possible that a particular dish that's consistently well-made would require expertise that only a highly-paid chef at an expensive restaurant could provide, but for those who can truly appreciate fine dining experiences, it's exciting to discover a "rising star" chef at a restaurant that isn't yet that well-known or expensive. And, believe it or not, fine food isn't generally restricted to expensive restaurants.

Really, though, what's more important for the early stages in dating, trying to impress your date by the choice of a restaurant, or spending the time getting to know each other, perhaps having a good meal at a place where the dining experience doesn't threaten to interfere with that process? As I said previously, if it's the norm for you (and ideally your date as well) to eat at expensive, upscale restaurants, then this is much different than trying to impress the heck out of them with a restaurant that you wouldn't normally visit.

Personally, one of the most memorable dining experiences and dates that I had was the first date with my future wife: dinner, movie, and an after-movie dessert. While the food and movie were good, they were just part of the overall experience.

glxpass said:   Now, one could argue that it's possible that a particular dish that's consistently well-made would require expertise that only a highly-paid chef at an expensive restaurant could provide, but for those who can truly appreciate fine dining experiences, it's exciting to discover a "rising star" chef at a restaurant that isn't yet that well-known or expensive. And, believe it or not, fine food isn't generally restricted to expensive restaurants.One of gigantic misconceptions that exists is that excellent chefs make lots of money. Nope, not the case. $90k a year in a major metros would get one a world class chef ( at least on par with the finalists of any of the Bravo's Top Chef ) that will be in a restaurant 6 days a week for 8-11 hours a day.

The point that is being made is that $150 for a full (i.e. 3 courses or more ) meal with wine in a restaurant is not expensive unless one's idea of a three course meal is to go to Golden Coral, Olive Garden or TGI Fridays-type places. Presuming 10% tax and 20% tip, the cost of meal itself was $115.38, which is slightly less than $60 per person which included the wine/alcohol. Whoever says that the foods is the same in a place that successfully averages 70/person on an average check and 7/person for an average check does not know what they are talking about. You know how much a dinner like that would run you at Balthazar or Cipriani's? Over $300, probably closer to $350. La Croix? Over 350 ( that is, unless you know that they will pair down the courses to the number you actually want so you get charged $12/course and on Sunday and Monday you can get any bottle of wine be is $30 or $3000 for 50% off, which suddenly makes going to La Croix equivalent to going to a mass marketed pizza place known as Pietros a block away )


Really, though, what's more important for the early stages in dating, trying to impress your date by the choice of a restaurant, or spending the time getting to know each other, perhaps having a good meal at a place where the dining experience doesn't threaten to interfere with that process? As I said previously, if it's the norm for you (and ideally your date as well) to eat at expensive, upscale restaurants, then this is much different than trying to impress the heck out of them with a restaurant that you wouldn't normally visit.

The obsession with spending the least at any cost keeps demonstrating that frugality is not a substitute for a brain when dating. Good "dates" have options and they are auditioning you as much as you are auditioning them. That extra $20 that one did not spend just may end up being the $20 that cost you a -partner- instead of someone that would never come through for you.

glxpass said:   In short, I'm unlikely to enthuse about a dining experience in those places. If you've kids or are just looking for a meal to get out of the house, the equation changes. In any event, there's room between your $7/person and $60/person thresholds.Theoretically, yes. In practice outside the chains that you agree are bad date places the price window shrinks to about $35 + 10% tax + 20% tip ( which means that you are spending 45.50 per person and at which point you are going to be quite limited to the number of places you can go to that do not match the "corporate" chains) to $57.69 which after taxes and tips ends up at $75 per person ( at which point you can go to pretty much every place with the exception of the top tier upscale places ). The difference between the two numbers is $30 per person.


You and I will have to disagree about whether that makes the dining experience equivalent to a "mass marketed pizza place." BTW, good Italian food that's relatively inexpensive isn't difficult to find, along with good pizzerias that use fresh ingredients. I can't speak to NYC, but San Francisco and its environs contains quite a few such restaurants. Been there, done that. You won't get out of those places sub $30/head ( which would also probably be a BOYB ) unless it is serving the kind of food that at home can be cooked for $10 in a larger quantity.

Finally, the notion that one must spend "the least at any cost" is not what FWF is about -- at least for me. Believe it or not, one can look for value without being a cheapskate. OTOH, if I were on a date where the person's judgment of me would totally change based on whether I spend $20 more on a meal, that's the not the kind of "audition" I'm looking for.
Naturally, it makes sense for one to present themselves in the best light possible, but if one presents themselves in a false light, sooner or later, the truth will come out.You certainly are not claiming that a 99c moonpie and Gatorade is amount one should spend on a date. It started by me pointing out that spending $150 including tip and tax for two people in a nice restaurant with alcoholic beverages is nothing super-special. In major metros you are still going to pay nearly $10 for an app in such a place or a place that pretends to be "nice" ( just watch any episode of Kitchen Nightmares ). Places that are two to three tiers down will cost you seven even though it theoretically should be priced at about $3 on that level. So you may as well spend that money or a little bit more in a restaurant where you are getting something for that money.

Did this thread take a hard left turn or what?

What size girls are you guys talking about here? Who can gulp drink after drink, shovel down an appetizer, salad, entree, and dessert AND still be willing to have sex afterwards? That doesn't sound like a pretty picture to me.

EC, I think the point glxpass was trying to make is that he wouldn't want to be with the kind of girl who would look down on him for failing to spend an extra $20. You say that good dates are auditioning you as much as you're auditioning them. True, but remember that YOU are also auditioning them as much as they're auditioning you. Have a little more confidence in your personality. If the cost of dinner (and the dining experience that money buys you) is the only thing that makes you stand out among her options, you're already playing a losing game.

Crazytree said:   svr411 said:   The only way I'm leaving a 20% tip is if the Hooters girl goes the extra mile.I know a dude who dated some Hooters hoo-er who became a primetime tv star.

His 20% may pay off if he decides to sell off the nudie pics.

Most of the hooters chicks I know go out with old men who buy them stuff at the mall and then sleep with them. I know a couple who had an NBA player buy them some crap and slept with him. The stories I've heard from many of them sort of ruins any interest I might have had.

johnstarks13 said:   mikef07 said:   
To each his own. IMO the food is significantly better. It isn't good because it is $100. It is $100 because it is good. It is not that they have access to better ingredients than the public. It is that they can use all the various ingredients to put together a dish that just works well. Last night one of my consultants and I went to Stella Osteria in Burlingame. We only drank water, but had dinner, salad, and dessert and the bill was $125. Was it worth it? Nope. Highly overrated. Waste of money. This was a situation where the food was just not that good. Main course was good, but too small and everything else was average to below average. The point? You are correct there are time when meals run $100 or so and they are not worth it, but I agree with EC that almost every meal I have ever had that is highly memorable and one of the best it has always been over $150 for two people.

Just because something is expensive, it doesn't mean it tastes good. Just because something is cheap, it doesn't mean it tastes bad.

I've gone to restaurants where entrees started at $30 and I couldn't even finish the small portion because it was cooked so poorly. I've eaten at expensive restaurants that were predictably awesome, and have eaten at cheap establishments that were predictably disgusting.

I'll say that some of the best food I've ever eaten was not at a "fine dining" establishment. A pastrami sandwich at Katz's deli in NYC costs $14 - the first time I ate it I was floored. You don't have to take it from me, either. Read Anthony Bourdain's article "13 Places to Eat Before You Die".

I guess what I'm trying to say is - you don't need to spend a ton of dough to have deliciously prepared food.

Isn't that the guy who will eat ANYTHING, quite literally ANYTHING? If its the one I am thinking of, I don't think I would take his recommendations very seriously, even if it was a place I knew well.

Another thing I'll say is IMO the type of dinner experience you plan for a first date will have an effect in categorizing you in the woman's eyes given how first impressions matter so much.

In my book 2 impressions that I don't want to give off right away are 1) I'm too cheap, but also 2) I'm a boring 'provider' type. The former goes without saying, but the latter is also an issue because that formal guy who's primary selling point is nice things is the same guy that gets strung along not getting laid while the girl is sleeping with random players at the bar. So I just like to avoid both of these things.

Instead I fit most comfortably in the creative, adventurous, and mysterious category so that is what I'll play towards at the beginning(picking dates that allow me to sort of demonstrate that). So my goals in a dinner establishment are to:
1) Be outside of the ordinary
2) Be a little bit more fun or interesting than your typical restaurant
3) Not to be too formal
4) Have a more laid back feel
5) Still have high quality food

It allows me to split the difference between coming off as too much of a player and too much of a boring provider sugar daddy. Today I think its the ability to have a little bit of each of these things, but not be too much of one or the other that a woman is looking for in finding someone to date.

NM