Don't know if this had been noted someplace on CH before or not? In any case I always read the WSJ, and especially enjoy the pieces by Tunku Varadarajan.
In Friday's weekend journal he has a column about an incident first reported in the Financial Times of London. It seems five banker types from Barclays lost their jobs as a consequence of spending $62,000 on dinner.
How you may ask? Well the food portion of the meal came to $360 of the total. They made up for it however with the wine, including a bottle each of Chateau Petrus, vintage years 1945, '46 and '47. Evidently the '47 is the year to order as it ran $17,500. The '46 was only $13,400 and the '45 a measely $16,500.
The also ordered and consumed a 100 year old Chateau d'Yquem at $13,100 and a $2000 bottle of Montrachet, (no vintage noted in the column).
You may wonder why they were fired when this ode to "conspicuous consumption" came to light. That is not entirely clear. They may or may not have tried to pass along some of the cost to some of their clients in the form of expense reports. Or they may have been axed simply for that wonderful "PC" reason, it didn't look good in print.
In any case the most humorous kicker to the story is that one of the group was of the Muslim faith, and did not drink any of the grape, (the bill included 10 bottles of of water at $5 per and one glass of juice for $4, which was undoubtedly for this gentleman). Yet this guy picked up one fifth of the total check.
First I want to start dining with the non-drinking guy from this group instead of the slugs I go out with who are always cheating me out of some part of what they ate or drank.
And finally I wondered if they tipped on only the food related cost of the meal, or if they included the wine too? :-)