Restaurant.com Code (Extra 70% Off)

Just type in the word "Seventy" in the code box at checkout, and you'll get the additional savings.

$12 for $100 of gift cards to Vincenzo's.

...and a $100 gift certificate to The Oak Room for $12



You're welcome!

Great deal...I would just urge everyone to check out the minimum purchase required for each place. FOr example, the Oakroom requires a $200 purchase to use the certificate. Looking at the menu there is no way my wife and I could spend $200 there. Maybe if we brought along another couple we could do it. Its still a fantastic deal! Just wanted to be sure everyone was aware of the minimums!
Kris

PS When I looked the Oakroom cert. actually only cost $12 and there was no $100 option for Vincenzo's

Yeah, I bought 4 $25 GC to Vincenzos.........for $12.

Probably give a few away, since you can't use them at once.

Regardless, with that code you're getting about 90% off on most of them...

Great deal any way you spin it.

i was wondering about the minimum purchases as well. Some places say you can use more than one certificate at a time. So i wonder if you use two $25 certificates with a $35 minimum purchase, then you need to spend over $70. Would these have to be on separate tickets? Has anyone run into this before?

Also pay close attention - there is a listing for the Old Seelbach Bar AND the Oakroom. I would hate for someone buy a $100 certificate to the bar and figure out how to spend $200 on food (alcohol not included). Alcohol is also not included in Oakroom certificate minimums either.

These are tricky, though, and people should be aware.

Let's say you buy the $50 certificate, and therefore have to spend $100 on food only to use it. Let's assume two diners. $100 would get you roughly two appetizers, two entrees, and a shared dessert. You share a bottle of medium priced wine at around $40. Now your total is $140. Add in around $8.40 in tax and a 20% tip ($28.00), and your total is now $176.40. Now subtract your $50.00 in savings, and you're still spending $126.40 (plus the $6.00 you paid for the certificate, so $132.40). Obviously, that's a pretty good deal for a good sized meal and wine (with tax and tip) at the Oakroom, but I just want to make sure that nobody gets one of these thinking they can get in and out of the Oakroom for under $100. It's virtually impossible if you're drinking.

They're really very smart to exlcude alcohol and have the "double the value" food minimum. You're still going to pay.

[Robin Garr]

They're really very smart to exckude alcohol

Not just smart, Brad. I'm pretty sure those wacky alcohol laws forbid it. (With the very limited exception of tasting events, Kentucky law forbids "treating," i.e., offering alcoholic beverages free or below cost.)

Not just smart, Brad. I'm pretty sure those wacky alcohol laws forbid it. (With the very limited exception of tasting events, Kentucky law forbids "treating," i.e., offering alcoholic beverages free or below cost.)

Very good point. Since restaurant.com is applicable in other states, I wonder if they face the same restrictions. I'll check it out and report back.

[Robin Garr]

Very good point. Since restaurant.com is applicable in other states, I wonder if they face the same restrictions. I'll check it out and report back.

That's a fairly common (but not universal) aspect of state liquor law around the nation, I believe. Too bad!

Awesome TIP!
Kashmir, River Bend, RAW & Vincenzos here I come!

I know, right? It IS an awesome tip. If you're reading this and not following through, major loss. I followed this last year and saved over $100 dining dollars. Funny enough, I heard an interview on NPR by a man who's name I can't recall that authored a book called "Free", detailing the informational services provided by web sites that solicit advertisers, and how it all breaks down. I felt guilty for cashing in on these deals until now. Weeellll, I still feel a little guilty, but not as much. Thanks, Brad, for the mathematical breakdown. I've done the same math for selfish reasons, but I wasn't convinced previously that there was much of a benefit to the restauarant if you are a repeat diner. But it's just a coupon, right? Better to have the seats filled and cast the image of being a popular spot and turn the product / break even, than the alternative? Just thinkin out loud here...

They're really very smart to exclude alcohol

Not just smart, Brad. I'm pretty sure those wacky alcohol laws forbid it. (With the very limited exception of tasting events, Kentucky law forbids "treating," i.e., offering alcoholic beverages free or below cost.)

Well, that may very well be true, but this isn't what I meant. What I meant is that the Oakroom says the following:
To use a $50 certificate you must SPEND $100, EXCLUSIVE OF ALCOHOL. That's how they do it, and what my example was based on.

That's different than, say, here's a $50 certificate, but the certificate can't be used on alcohol.

That was my point. The Oakroom could certainly legally require that you spend $100, inclusive of alcohol, to be eligible to use the certificate, but only the non-alcohol portion of the bill can be discounted. That's different, and more affordable for the diner.

Under this example, two diners go to the Oakroom. They spend $60 on food and $40 on alcohol. Now, they have spent $100, so are eligble to use it (under this example). Now, discount the $50 from the $60 spent on food, and the total now is $10 for food and $40 on alcohol. Add in $20 tip and $6 in tax, for a total of $76.00.

The way it's set up now, you have to spend $100 on non-alocholic items. Therefore, if you drink, you spend $100 on non-alcoholic items, plus $40 on alcohol, leaving a total of $140. Discount brings you to $110, plus $28 tip and $8.40 tax, and your total is $146.40.

The Oakroom (and any other restaurants operating under a similar theory) aren't doing this because of any law, they're doing it for $$$.

Again, this is no criticism, I just want to make sure people don't roll in and find themselves quickly over their heads, and fully understand what this particular certificate's requirements are, as it is a little confusing (at least to me until I thought it through).

If you're going to Raw, you better hurry...

If you're going to Raw, you better hurry...

? Closing?

I know a lease has already been signed by the new tentant...

I know a lease has already been signed by the new tentant...

Interesting. Any clues about the new tenant?