Originally Posted by idfnl
If you have to think about this then no. If you can afford the Petrus, then yes, that bottle just cost you $1200 my man.
I'm kind of with you on everything you've said on this thread (I recommend a movie called "Waiting" which basically covers most of this from the servers' perspective), but I do have one question. If I buy a bottle of wine for $100 and I tip 20%, then I tip $20. If I buy a bottle of wine for $1,000 and tip 20% then I tip $200. On the assumption that when you tip you're really paying your server for the service he has provided, what additional service did I get that warrants the additional $180? Aside from the fact that if I'm throwing down a thousand dollars on wine then I can afford the 200 dollar tip that is.
Put another way, if you're working a table and that table orders three bottles of wine for $100 each and your buddy is working a table which orders one bottle of wine for $400, wouldn't it bug you that you did more work than he did, but he got $80 and you got $60 despite both tables being equally "generous" with their tip? The thing is with food, if you go to a restaurant where the food costs you $150 a head, then chances are the service you're getting will be excellent - like three people busing your table, a server, a sommelier and a maitre d', while if you go to a restaurant that costs $30 a head for food, then you get one server, it makes sense that you tip significantly more at the more expensive one because of that better quality of service. I don't see the same thing being true of wine though.
That said, if it was me, I most likely would tip the 20% on the full cost of the meal, wine included.