LPShanet

All good ideas. I think kinkistyle is right about the location, though. Without being in a better place (either midtown's "Little Tokyo" or somewhere where their potential clients would find them), it's going to be a tough road. Personally, I think Japanese culinary interpretations of almost any cuisine can have a lot of merit, but the market will decide. (Speaking of which, I'm off to Sugiyama tonight. Couldn't find anyone who had been in the last couple of years, so decided it was time for me to go back!)

While I usually am saddened by the closing of notable restaurants, I'm actually glad that this one didn't make it...it's a triumph for reason and taste over flash. The problem wasn't the wafu-chuuka genre, which I think can be really great at its best; it was the fact that it wasn't well executed, the service was awful, and the prices and value outrageous. Given the fact that New Yorkers might see wafu-chuuka simply as bad value, and look past its very real benefits (after all, 66 closed, and was serving food in this general category if not in name), I do think it might be tough for a wafu chuuka place to make in in Manhattan, but I'd definitely go to one if the food were really good. As for your friends, my personal preference is for whatever they think they can make really well. There are a number of ramen spots in town, and they'd be a little late to that trend, so that may be tough. Any area they are particularly good at is the way to go...NY always has room for a place that does something very well.

How could I forget to add Moto to this list? There are probably others I've missed as well, but that was a glaring omission. ← Great list, Doc. Now I'm really going to put you on the spot and ask you to rank them. Or at least list your top 10. I've been to about half of your list, and am curious to compare.

This is very surprising to me. On my two trips to Blue Hill at Stone Barns, I was amazed by the high level of service. On both occasions the plates were put down by the runners in perfect unison and they were watched over by our waiter who explained the dishes. The waiter was also always close by throughout the course of the meal. On the second dinner, the waiter would often come over before a course was served with a tray of one of its ingredients, such as heirloom soy beans, talk about the ingredient, pass it around, and explain its role in the upcoming dish. ← Wow, sounds like a whole different restaurant. Seriously, though, based on writeups of recent visits here, it sounds like there are two totally different ways the meal seems to go down, depending maybe on how crowded it is, and how they are staffed that day.

Not to take anything away from Keller or Kinch, but I don't think either belong on this list. Not because they are not great chefs nor because their restaurants aren't great either, but because they are not "molecular", at least not in the sense I believe the question of this topic asked. I believe that this topic is beginning to see encroachment of restaurants that don't really belong to the category, even though they may be great in their own rights. There certainly are many more Spanish restaurants that can find their ways to this list, though. The surface has only been scratched there. ← I completely agree with what Doc has written. I really want to keep the list on-message. There are too many great restaurants in the world, and this topic was intended to have a specific focus. Another one that might belong, though I haven't been, is Aronia de Takazawa. Anyone here managed to get there?

Has anyone been to Sugiyama lately? (As in within the last year) Was thinking of doing kaiseki, but hadn't been here in the last 3-4 years, and wasn't sure if this was still a great option. Was going to do Kyo-Ya, but they stopped doing kaiseki in July, at least temporarily.

We're getting a little OT here, but I definitely had the salmon collar (they were out of the hamachi kama) and the octopus rice off the specials menu. I'll list more if I think of them.

Mostly to compare notes, but also to plot a trip and see if there are major spots I've overlooked. And, as usual, to provoke discussion. ← An upscale Super Size Me, perhaps, to determine if one can live on chemistry alone for a month? ← That would be a dream vacation. Spherificate Me. Might have to be a series of journeys, though.

LOL Sakagura's coat check gal just left my place early morning... we're friends and I was helping her drink her way through her jetlag.... good job on the BETSU-BARA (2nd stomach) What's new at AK? I owe them a visit, haven't been there in a minute... ← Luckily, it's not cold out yet, so the coat check gal doesn't have to be on the top of her game. I love the term BETSU-BARA...will be using it a lot now. Didn't note a lot new (other than a big shipment of Yebisu beer) at AK...went to revisit the "best of", such as two kinds of tsukune, octopus rice, various pork bits, etc.

Mostly to compare notes, but also to plot a trip and see if there are major spots I've overlooked. And, as usual, to provoke discussion.

I did the very same thing last night. In that case it was Japanese. I also did a bit of this in Spain, though in some cases the first dinner was a tapas crawl. I'd say the main factor is trying to get enough time between the two so that you can digest, and not doing the tasting menu at the first one. Also, meal pacing plays a big part...if the courses come too far apart, you get full quicker.

This isn't really a New York-specific topic, but wasn't sure where to put it. I was hoping to compile a list (Top 10, Top 40, whatever) of the best molecular/modern style restaurants in the world. The first trick is, of course, deciding how to describe the places, as almost all of the chefs in the category hate the "molecular gastronomy" term. Still, we don't really have an adequate replacement. Anyway....on to the list. Submissions should be only places that you really think should be on a list of the world's best or most important. I'll start with a few obvious ones, and we can go from there. In no particular order: El Bulli Mugaritz Alinea Moto WD-50 The Fat Duck Pierre Gagnaire Arzak Alkimia Martin Berasategui Akelarre La Broche and/or any other Sergi Arola restaurant (he recently left) Others to consider: Bras (I think this falls in the category) maybe L'Arpege and/or L'Astrance? Cinq Centits Hissop Commerc 24 Minibar

Great info, Raji...thanks! Although I couldn't make it out to NJ tonight, I did do our fellow Nipponophiles proud by eating not one, but TWO Japanese dinners back to back. First Aburiya Kinnosuke, then immediately off to Sakagura. Very full now...

Oooh, need a new rice cooker. Must consult on what to get first, though.

I'm not going to outright agree or disagree with the remark here, but want to throw a couple of thoughts out there. First of all, if we were reading a review of a serious "Carolina-style" barbecue place that was written by a Japanese (or Russian, or Australian) guy whose experience with the form had been primarily whatever imitation renditions he'd had in Tokyo, chances are that we'd be skeptical about his ability to really provide an insightful review, when compared with someone who grew up eating the stuff. That's not necessarily xenophobic. And it doesn't mean that every local is an expert, nor that every foreigner is clueless. But I think it's fair for them to be skeptical, considering non-Japanese palates, especially if the results are questionable. And the serious barbecue folks even feel that way about people who aren't from their particular region of the country! Much as the barbecue aficionados of each region have definite opinions about what's "right" in terms of barbecue, I think it's well within the rights of Japanese (or any other country with a distinctive cuisine) to voice that same stance on their food. And this doesn't even take into account cultural factors. After all, there are plenty of places in various categories that would lose their "cred" if they were embraced by the mainstream media...so renouncing one's Michelin stars in Japan may not be such a crazy move, if authenticity is a concern. Secondly, although versions of Japanese food are available now throughout the world, its incorporation into other world cuisines has come at a much later time in history than, say, French or Italian, and there's much less worldwide expertise in the form. More than almost any other cuisine, foreigners have interpreted and bastardized Japanese food (think mall sushi, e.g.). Finally, I've personally found most Japanese happy to recognize it when specific non-Japanese individuals DO get it, even if they're not Japanese...as Raji alluded to upthread. Before we accuse the Japanese of food xenophobia, let's first think about how we would swallow the barbecue example above, a Latvian critique of southern fried chicken joints, or even a Belgian analysis of our burgers.

This is also a VERY important point. Many have been fooled and made that mistake. Good catch, Nathan!

...or Ushi Wakamaru, or 15 East, or Shimizu, or Soto, or...

If your argument were, “Michelin doesn’t get Japanese cuisine,” I might be in your corner. Frankly, if I were looking for Japanese cuisine anywhere, a guide published by Frenchmen isn’t the first place I would look.But you are making a much broader-based argument—suggesting, in effect, that their whole operation is a fraud, and that they really do not make the visits they claim they are making. That is where I disagree with you. I agree with the specific complaint that the inclusion of JB over Sushi Yasuda is incomprehensible. ← Actually, I think the way Jewel Bako made it onto their star list is not a factor of Michelin's knowing or not knowing Japanese cuisine...although clearly they seem not to be very well versed in that area. The relative paucity of representation for high level Japanese cooking in the survey is a separate (and surely very worthy) topic, but not what I was getting at here. Nor do I think it's some kind of major secret conspiracy or fraud, although I do believe rules may have been bent slightly in a few cases. My personal guess/belief is that Jewel Bako's inclusion was the result of their tendency to go out of their way to pick a few places they think are unexpected/undiscovered, and to include those on the one-star list as a way of upping their "street cred" or hipness factor. This is the same factor that I think led to the inclusion of Spotted Pig, Etats Unis, Dressler and Public, none of which are of the style typical of Michelin's selections in Europe. Certainly none of them are bad...but at the same time, it would be very tough for anyone to argue that they really stand above (on any grounds) dozens of other places that weren't starred. If you were to be put in a room with the Michelin inspectors involved, I suspect they'd have a pretty tough time defending these specific choices themselves in any objective terms. I think a little thought to the backstory is needed. Naret is obviously a smart guy, and he and his employees obviously have their ears to the ground. When they were planning the guide, they were well aware that there was a strong opinion among New Yorker eaters that Michelin's usual style of selection might not be as relevant in the U.S. due to its focus on formal dining, and that their traditional methods might not appropriately note of some of the less formal venues that NYers considered very highly. This was a major marketing challenge for them, and it was discussed at length in MANY interviews with Naret prior to the release of the first NY survey (and probably also discussed at length in every Michelin marketing department meeting). It was clear in the first NY survey that Naret & Co. wanted everyone to know that they had made concessions to these factors and that they therefore should be taken seriously as an authority on NY dining. The problem with this was that it introduced a certain degree of arbitrariness to the proceedings, as almost every restaurant in town was a potential inclusion in the survey. If they'd come to town doing their usual thing, the one star category would have looked very different, and would probably have caused much less controversy in its individual picks. But at the same time, it would have validated the advance criticism that Michelin wasn't relevant to NY diners. Back to the case of Jewel Bako. Prior to the first survey, when the Michelin folks were doing their research on the NY market, Jewel Bako was a hidden gem in the sushi world, and a fairly hip place as well. I feel they were included on this basis, not on the basis of Michelin thinking of it as the best Japanese retaurant in NY besides Masa. Still, this strikes me as unfair because of its randomness. It becomes further unfair when the original reasons for its selection no longer apply. Same goes for Public, which I feel had more consistent food when it first opened, but the case of Public is harder to prove, because (as previously stated) its category is harder to analyze objectively. (Also, as Nathan noted, The Monday Room, if it was considered in the ratings, would certainly help their cause.) It's also worth noting that none of their "hip picks" have been demoted.

That is a very fair point, and I suspect they'd probably be in great shape in they simply switched the lunch and dinner setups. However, if you wanted to change things at lunch in terms of booze, you don't have to get a pairing. You could definitely order a bottle or other form of booze. In a sense, it's unfair to compare the lunch pairing with the lowest level of dinner pairing, as the wines are much more similar to the $85 pairing. Still, I see your point that they only offer one level of pairing at lunch, which doesn't seem to make much sense on any level. N.B.: On an only slightly related note, I tried the top flight paring at dinner ($150), and found that while it was very good, it was relatively poor value compared to the other two when you consider the incremental increase in quality versus price.

I totally concur, and welcome you as well! If you're only going to do one lunch, JG is the no-brainer.

The problem is that the Michelin NYC guide's ratings are irreconcilable with the Michelin criteria used elsewhere. That's a big problem with the book. I can't help but think that a European tourist used to the European Michelin guides would find their NYC ratings very puzzling. ← I agree with that statement, based on my pretty thorough use of their guides in Spain, Italy and France, among other places. There's much more homogeneity to the restaurants in their guides in Europe.

Statistical arguments can be both helpful and distracting in support of this type of point. Certainly your point about the subjectivity of the food criticism field is well taken. In addition, each experience at a given restaurant is different, both for different diners and for the same diner on different nights. For that reason, it's pretty tough to make a unanimous case for the incorrect omission of a particular restaurant. Incorrect inclusions might be slightly more arguable, but still very subjective. However, I would venture to say that in the case of the various Japanese cuisines, if you had a group of people who were truly Japanese food mavens (whether they were from NY or from Tokyo or from Des Moines), you would find that having them review the same group of 20 restaurants would result in a surprisingly homogeneous list, when compared to other cuisines. I think the "Nipponophiles" on this list will probably support that assertion. It's simply the nature of the form. I don't have statistical support for this, but I have many friends from various walks of life, who are Japanese food aficionados, and I can tell you that there are almost none who would disagree with each others overall lists of the best sushi, kaiseki, robata and ramen joints. Sure, one might swap their number two and three picks let's say, but the basic construction of their lists would be close to identical. You wouldn't find nearly the variation that you do with other cuisines. However, if you asked the most respected Western food experts to pick their favorite five French or "New American" restaurants in NYC, you would get a series of widely varying lists. This is not only because of the numbers of restaurants involved, but because the standards and qualities considered desirable in Japanese cuisine are much more uniform. With respect to sushi, there are really only betwen 4 and 6 top level places in the city, and there would be a HUGE amount of overlap on a list of those places. (For the record, Jewel Bako would not be on it...although that specific choice isn't the point.) Then there is a second tier that might overlap slightly with the top ones. And then there are all the rest. The same would be true for ramen. (While there are dozens of places in town serving ramen, there are only about 4-5 that would be considered the best, and everyone's list would be 90% similar.) Check the threads on these topics not only on these boards, but on Chowhound and any other similar sites, and you'll find the same names over and over. The only times there are great variation is when some of the people involved haven't been to some of the places in question. It is assumed that if Michelin is going to include Japanese food at all in their surveys, they would employ the same level of expertise as they do for other food. It is for that reason that one has to assume that something is strange in their reviews, when half of the Japanese places they include in their star ratings wouldn't even make that consensus list at all, and none of the others on it do make it. Further, it would seem that the obvious reason for their having made the strange choice in the first place is no longer valid (the presence of the original acclaimed chef). I would offer that since it's much more of a statement to remove a star than to offer it in the first place, that it's possible they simply haven't brought themselves to "correct" a mistake they made in a category they aren't experts in.

So you're saying that you think they've been to Etats Unis, Del Posto, Jewel Bako, Aureole, Public and JoJo multiple times each in the last year and still found them all to be deserving of at least one star? If so, I think it speaks more to their wanting to cover for (or at least not admit to) past mistakes thank it does to their actual beliefs about those restaurants.

By my count, there are at most 2 or 3 ratings in the book that the "entire world food community" thinks are incorrect. There may not even by that many. It certainly is not enough to justify the accusation that their entire process is corrupt, given the scale of the book. ← Totally agreed. I simply think they cut corners in some cases, not that they are a categorically corrupt operation.

Oops...duh. There goes my credibility:) Sorry, guys. Apologies to both of you for my sloppy reporting...there seems to be a theme going on here.