3 ms·
Why does the article open with speculating that it might be the most expensive lunch ever. It even ends the first paragraph making it clear that it means expens
by wodenokoto 4y ago
Why does the article open with speculating that it might be the most expensive lunch ever. It even ends the first paragraph making it clear that it means expensive as in "final bill to the restaurant" and not a broader "loss to humanity". And what does the fact that menus weren't printed until 2003 have to do with discerning if this was an expensive bill or not?
- cpcallen 4y agoI'm guessing that the FT has a long standing regular lunch interview column, which has included for the last two decades (but not previously) a record of what was consumed during said lunch.
- pja 4y ago"Lunch with the FT" is exactly this.
- eduction 4y agoContemporary "Lunch with the FT" columns show exactly what items were ordered and the total cost in a little summary box (including cost of the various items, like a restaurant bill). This format did not take hold until 2003, according to the linked Twitter posts, so there is no way to discern from the 1995 column how much was spent. The linked posts indicate that the FT recently checked with the its accounting department but could not quickly find the record for a lunch more than 25 years ago. It would have been clearer if the posts/FT said "menus and prices were not printed until 2003" instead of "menus were not printed until 2003", but perhaps this was seen as redundant as most menus include prices. (Updated and corrected once I re-read the original thread. This is much simpler to answer than I first thought!)