[webber]

I was having dinner at Fandango's in Pacific Grove last night and stumbled upon a drank wine bottle that happened to be signed by Tiger himself. The owner had a picture of he and Tiger when he was there the last time he played in the At&T. Nice bottle Tiger.....1973 Chateau Margaux!

[attachment=280766:Tiger1.jpg]
[attachment=280767:Tiger2.jpg]

[ELEME1210]

Nice Taste.

Its not like he can't afford it.

I don't remember off hand if 73 was a good year..... but Probably a $1,000+ bottle at a restaurant.

[tourblade]

shesh Tiger, dont you know that the 82' is a much much better year.

[DemolitionMan]

tourblade, on Jul 27 2008, 11:41 PM, said:

shesh Tiger, dont you know that the 82' is a much much better year.

LOL. Don't know if you picked that year at random or what, but you are right, 1982 was a far superior year than 1973. Not that TW should know that, but someone around him (especially the restaurant) should have known that 1973 and any of the early 1970s Bordeaux from just about any producer is quite risky. Particularly Margaux, they made some of the worse Bordeaux in the early 1970s in over 100 years.

Shame on the sommelier for even letting Tiger drink that. Any Cab from Napa, or just pick a local from Bernadus, would have been much better than a 73 Margaux which the restaurant probably charged $600+ and it can be had for $100 if you were fool enough to buy it. I would be flat out embarrassed to pass of a 73 Margaux as if it was something special.

(Hey Webber, don't mean to muck up your post, it was a cool find overall thanks for the pic, just a shame the restaurant served junk like that).

[webber]

It could of been a 1978 but he signed right over the 3 or 8 so I did the best I could.

[inthecup]

My guess is the wine was on the house and that's why he signed the bottle. Tiger is no fool and he is known for being a little tight with "all that money." IMO if he had paid $600 for that bottle and then was asked to sign it he would have declined. However, as a gratis bottle he probably was much more willing.

Everything I have heard says that Tiger will almost always pick up the tab but is always looking for a friendly jesture for a big tag exactly like a free bottle or two.

It is surely worth more than $600 now signed as long as you find the right buyer. What do you guys think?

Thanks
Bill

[EasyDDI]

Hi guys!

If it is a 1973, this is a piece of crap, de la piquette as we say in French. From 1963 to 1977, Chateau Margaux knew the worst years of its history and was far below the expected level of a 1er Cru Classé. But if we are talking about a 1978, this is an entirely different story. This is an excellent wine which is only surpassed by best years of Chateau Margaux. I hope Tiger got a sip of that one, as it must be an absolute beauty.
Remember what Sophie says in Sophie's Choice: "This must be the wine they offer you when you arrive in heaven" (approximate quote from memory).
Still can't beat the best Pauillac though

[littlepingman]

DemolitionMan, on Jul 28 2008, 01:34 PM, said:

tourblade, on Jul 27 2008, 11:41 PM, said:

shesh Tiger, dont you know that the 82' is a much much better year.

LOL. Don't know if you picked that year at random or what, but you are right, 1982 was a far superior year than 1973. Not that TW should know that, but someone around him (especially the restaurant) should have known that 1973 and any of the early 1970s Bordeaux from just about any producer is quite risky. Particularly Margaux, they made some of the worse Bordeaux in the early 1970s in over 100 years.

Shame on the sommelier for even letting Tiger drink that. Any Cab from Napa, or just pick a local from Bernadus, would have been much better than a 73 Margaux which the restaurant probably charged $600+ and it can be had for $100 if you were fool enough to buy it. I would be flat out embarrassed to pass of a 73 Margaux as if it was something special.

(Hey Webber, don't mean to muck up your post, it was a cool find overall thanks for the pic, just a shame the restaurant served junk like that).

To quote Jack from Sideways: "I don't know, it tastes pretty good to me."

[webber]

[/quote]

To quote Jack from Sideways: "I don't know, it tastes pretty good to me."
[/quote]


Did anyone find it ironic that Miles won't drink Merlot but his prized bottle is a 1961 Chateau Cheval Blanc, a right bank Merlot based Bordeaux?

[littlepingman]

webber, on Jul 28 2008, 06:16 PM, said:

Quote

To quote Jack from Sideways: "I don't know, it tastes pretty good to me."

Did anyone find it ironic that Miles won't drink Merlot but his prized bottle is a 1961 Chateau Cheval Blanc, a right bank Merlot based Bordeaux?

I'm sure it was perfect for washing down that cheeseburger...

[bulldog8b]

inthecup, on Jul 28 2008, 11:58 AM, said:

My guess is the wine was on the house and that's why he signed the bottle. Tiger is no fool and he is known for being a little tight with "all that money." IMO if he had paid $600 for that bottle and then was asked to sign it he would have declined. However, as a gratis bottle he probably was much more willing.

Everything I have heard says that Tiger will almost always pick up the tab but is always looking for a friendly jesture for a big tag exactly like a free bottle or two.

It is surely worth more than $600 now signed as long as you find the right buyer. What do you guys think?

Thanks
Bill

He got that rep when he was new on tour. Remember, Tiger did not grow up w/ very much money, so naturally that teaches you to be thrifty. But things have changed nowadays. Granted, he isn't makin' it rain at nudie bars, but he has grown out of that cheap thing.


BTW, I have a 2006 Coors Light signed by John Daly. That was pretty good year for Coors Light, you could really taste the Rocky Mountain refreshment in it that year.

[502 to Right]

I have thoroughly enjoyed this thread. Although I have the means, I have always avoided the finest wines because I don't want to develop a taste for something so (potentially) expensive.

[worst_shot_ever]

Like golf?