•
Mosu Seoul Issues Official Apology After Serving Cheaper Wine Vintage to Customer
13 hours ago•James Shin
14
0
Chef Ahn Sung-jae’s three-Michelin-star restaurant, Mosu Seoul, has issued a formal apology following a "wine swapping" incident involving a substituted vintage. The establishment acknowledged its initial response was insufficient and pledged to review service protocols to prevent a recurrence.
Key Facts
- On April 18, a customer at Mosu Seoul was served a 2005 vintage of Château Léoville Barton during a wine pairing instead of the 2000 vintage listed on the menu.
- The 2000 vintage is valued at approximately 800,000 KRW ($615 USD), while the 2005 vintage provided was reportedly 100,000 KRW ($77 USD) cheaper.
- After the customer questioned the wine, the sommelier presented a bottle of the 2000 vintage for a photo, even though the 2005 vintage had already been poured.
- Upon verification, the sommelier admitted the error, claiming the 2000 vintage was "ordered as a full bottle" and located on a different floor.
- No apology was offered on the day of the incident; the customer received a private apology only after contacting the restaurant on April 21.
- Mosu Seoul offered a complimentary meal, which the customer refused, stating their goal was to prevent future occurrences.
- Criticism persists as the official apology lacked details regarding staff disciplinary actions or clarification on whether the substitution was intentional.
Key Terms
- Vintage: The harvest year of the grapes, significantly impacting a wine's quality and market value.
- Wine Pairing: A service where specific wines are selected to complement the flavors of a tasting menu.
Key Quote
"We separately delivered an apology to the customer after the incident occurred, and they generously accepted it; however, looking back at the expectations sent to our restaurant, we acknowledge that the process was not sufficient." — Mosu Seoul
Next
- Mosu Seoul plans to review internal service protocols and training to prevent future discrepancies.
- Public attention remains on whether the restaurant will clarify if the substitution was intentional.