Can Masa Really Be Worth THAT Much $?

[docsconz]

Too bad they had eGullet.com rather than eGullet.org. Nevertheless, a nice mention. Good plug for the book too.

[porkpa]

I see that all three letters to the editor in today's NY Times food section are critical of the appropriateness of Bruni reviewing and/or granting four star status to Masa a restaurant with a minimum price of $350 per person. Its kind of rare to see a food topic gathering that much mail in that section.

Porkpa

[docsconz]

Whether or not one agrees with the review and its conclusions is one thing, but how can it not be appropriate for him to review it or give it four stars if that is his conclusion? Should the price exclude it from 4-star consideration? At that price it better be 4-stars!

[oakapple]

Whether or not one agrees with the review and its conclusions is one thing, but how can it not be appropriate for him to review it or give it four stars if that is his conclusion? Should the price exclude it from 4-star consideration? At that price it better be 4-stars!

←

The writers are proposing a jury nullification. In their view, Bruni should dock a star because the price is so outrageous. The Times's rating system seems to allow this. The official blurb that accompanies every review tells us that the rating takes price into account. Many reviews have given the distinct impression that stars were taken away because the prices were too high, or bonus stars awarded for offering great food at better prices than one would normally expect.

But Masa's price takes on a fresh perspective, when you consider that the face value of regular-season courtside tickets to the New York Knicks cost $330. This assumes you pay face value, and we know that people often pay a lot more, through ticket brokers. Many of those Knicks games are on TV, so you could see the same thing for a lot less money by staying home, but you can only get the Masa experience by eating at Masa. I would guess, too, that Masa's performance is a lot more dependable than that of the Knicks (who are 16-15 so far this season). There are some fans in those Knicks courtside seats who visit many times per season, whereas I doubt there's anyone going to Masa quite so often.

Some of the other comments are just strange. One letter said:

The paper's timing of Frank Bruni's review of Masa was, to say the least, in poor judgment. People should give pause on how to better spend $350: on an ornate piece of sushi or supplies to Southeast Asia, where a loaf of bread may save someone's life.

Why isn't the same writer complaining that the Times has continued to cover Knicks games?

Another said:

I suspect that most dining at Masa is related to business entertainment, but if I was invited as a client to dine at Masa, my only conclusion would be that my host has been gouging me for years.

The writer's premise is suspect. To the contrary, I would guess that most diners at Masa are tourists and other well-heeled types with money to burn. Masa has only 26 seats, and it isn't all that hard in Manhattan to find 26 people a night who are willing to spend $500 each for a luxury experience.

But even if it's true, who do you think is buying all of those courtside tickets to the Knicks? You guessed it: many of them are bought up by corporations for entertaining key clients.

Edited January 5, 2005 by oakapple (log)

[docsconz]

I am no more keen on overspending than the next guy, but I don't mind spending for something that I consider worth it. I found Per Se "worth it", not so for Ducasse. Ducasse was still overall a superb meal, but I wouldn't spend the amount of money there that I did spend again.

As far as having a meal at Masa vs. donating to relief efforts. These are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Whether someone who dines at Masa also is philanthropic is probably not subject to generalization, although I suspect most are.

[jogoode]

Some of the other comments are just strange. One letter said:

The paper's timing of Frank Bruni's review of Masa was, to say the least, in poor judgment. People should give pause on how to better spend $350: on an ornate piece of sushi or supplies to Southeast Asia, where a loaf of bread may save someone's life.

Why isn't the same writer complaining that the Times has continued to cover Knicks games?

←

What a slippery slope the reader has undertaken to climb. His or her logic can be used to criticize any purchase, from an expensive car to a Christmas tree. No one needs either. To write something like this is inherently judgmental and invites criticism of the author's every purchase. The reality is that everyone buys more than they need, and everyone should do more to help others. The only reason food purchases are frequently taken to task is that the connection between luxury food and hunger is so apparent.

Though in many ways I sympathize with the author's sentiment, his or her criticism of the paper's timing is naive: there are always terrible things going on in the world; there are always people who could benefit from donation. To expect that the world will stop, that Ford will stop turning out SUVs, that Marc Jacobs will stop producing $500 shoes, is just unrealistic.

As for Masa, it's not really that much more expensive than other 3- and 4-star restaurants. I hope he or she wrote the same letter when the Ducasse review came out. Every 2-, 3-, and 4-star New York restaurant gets people spending $300+ per person with wine. If his or her letter came because it's sushi that people are spending so much on, then it demonstrates a nasty cultural bias.

[johnnyd]

Those letters were irritating. Bruni mentions at the beginning of his review that if you are only casually interested in sushi and don't have the bucks, Masa is not for you. So why print these rants? Probably because they wanted to show they were conscious of current events and got more than the usual flak from Franks piece.

Oakapple's point about the Knicks tickets is dead-on. I am not a fan of Basketball, therefore I consider such a price for courtside seats as ridiculous. I would kill, on the otherhand, to drop big bucks at Masa, something a BBall fan would consider me crazy for. It's all relative.

The guy who thinks he's being gouged is clearly not really interested in food.

[SobaAddict70]

Does anyone remember Craig Claiborne's dinner in 1975, with Pierre Franey, which took place in a Parisian bistro to the tune of $4000, 31 courses and untold bottles of truly expensive wine? An article appeared in the New York Times shortly thereafter and

The paper received thousands of letters of protest including one from the Vatican describing the meal as 'scandalous'.

Critical letters such as these are not new. There will always be people who think, for one reason or another, that vast amounts of money spent on something like food could be better spent on endeavors of a more tangible nature.

It's a rather sad commentary on the extent that people will go to deny themselves the vicarious pleasure of experiencing fine dining, either in person or through someone else's own experiences.

Soba

[docsconz]

It is also true that unless one is living under an autocratic regime that people will continue to spend "scandalous" amounts of money on luxuries when they can.

[Fat Guy]

Forget $350 sports tickets. What about $10,000 diamonds that nobody without a microscope can tell from $100 pieces of cubic zirconia and that lose half their value after being worn for one day? The sobering part of these reactions is that this "how could you spend so much on food when there are people starving in Africa" lunacy represents the neo-Puritanical thinking of most people when it comes to cuisine. Luckily, there are enough people out there who don't think this way to support a few four-star restaurants. Think how many more such restaurants there would be if, as in France, it was as respectable in the US to spend as much on dinner as on completely worthless things like diamonds, which by the way are mined by slaves etc.

[Pan]

JJ, you probably remember that Ducasse also got a lot of harsh criticism for its prices, too, so this controversy is not unique to Japanese restaurants. I don't know if everybody buys more than they need, but when we consider that absolute necessities don't include a TV or even electricity and tap water, I'm sure we could all agree at any rate that an overwhelming majority of Americans have certain things considered luxuries in some parts of the world.

I guess my feeling is that it's fine for people to consider the prices at Masa obscene, but it would be silly for the Times to refuse to review the restaurant fairly on that basis. If a restaurant charges a lot of money and don't deliver, they should be slammed hard. But if all that money pays for greatness, that's all a potential customer needs to know. And remember, this is a few hundred dollars. What does all that art the Times reviews go for, and how many meals for the hungry could those tens of thousands of dollars pay for?

Edited January 5, 2005 by Pan (log)

[jogoode]

JJ, you probably remember that Ducasse also got a lot of harsh criticism for its prices, too, so this controversy is not unique to Japanese restaurants.

Yes, but when it came out no one was writing, "$300 for French food?!" They were simply picking about the perceived pretentiousness and value questions. But the premise of every article about Masa in the mainstream food media is "That much for sushi?" Reread the title of this thread.

I don't know if everybody buys more than they need...

Sorry. Everyone with disposable income.

[robyn]

I think the one valid point in the NYT letters was made by the person who didn't approve of all the business people who paid huge sums of money for meals (and presumably other things) as a way of impressing clients. He (or she) figured that if someone was spending $500 on dinner to impress him - it would wind up in his bill one way or the other.

I agree with this point. When I buy services from professionals (other people buy both goods and services) - I don't want to pay for expensive dinners - or wenge wood paneling on the walls - or Superbowl tickets - or free trips that the person who's selling something earns for selling it to me. I want to pay for the best services money can buy without that garbage. And I'll go one step further. If a professional - like a broker - ever gave me anything that expensive - I'd figure that I was paying at least 5 times that amount in markups that I wouldn't be paying if I were diligent in monitoring things. One year - a broker sent me a bottle of "Champagne" - and I started to worry. But I was relieved when I looked up the wholesale price and found out it was about $15.

There's a point that's related to this. If most of the people who buy something (like a dinner at Masa) can deduct it on their tax returns - and they are in high tax brackets - they're willing to pay more for it - and people who can't deduct the cost are probably overpaying. Robyn

[DonRocks]

And I've got to agree that what Per Se gives you for $150 -- all the premium ingredients, all the great preparations, all that service in those luxurious surroundings, not to mention the generous avalanche of extras before, during and after the main meal -- makes a lot of $85 meals look like total ripoffs.

←

Yeah, but it's funny how that $150 turns into $550 in a matter of several hours.

Masa: what would a block of ice have cost in 19th-century Mali?

About the price of a meal being all relative: in terms of affordability, yes, but even if I were Bill Gates, I still wouldn't be guzzling 47 Cheval Blanc every night [*], because (here it comes) at some point, after the 5th, or 10th, or 500th bottle, you have to look at larger issues and examine your own downward spiral into glutonny accompanying your ever-diminishing child-like appreciation for the finer things in life.

Cheers,

Rocks.

[*] I'd switch to Petrus every other Tuesday.

[Suzanne F]

How many of the letter-writers -- and there were undoubtedly many more than just those three -- actually know what it costs to purchase, store, and prep the ingredients; to provide the staff to serve; to pay all the other bills; and to amortize the cost of years of training, of the building of the restaurant, etc. etc.? While I might agree with their righteous indignation at the willingness of some people to spend that much on a meal rather than use the money in ways that match the letter-writers' (or my) priorities, I cannot say that they are right in assuming that the price is "outrageous" or "obscene" in relation to the actual cost, all things considered. Two completely different issues: personal morality versus the realities of the economics of such a business.

And regarding the letter suggesting that the Times showed poor judgment in timing: I believe quite the opposite. If anything, reading that review should indeed make people consider how to spend their money. But nothing can make everyone reach the same conclusion -- at least, not the one the letter-writers seem to want.

[Pan]

I just heard Bruni on WQXR, explaining why he held back on writing that Masa was the "most expensive restaurant in New York." He said that first of all, the price of the meal could change there; secondly, it's easy to spend more than that at Ducasse, especially if you spend a lot on wine (the sake is on the whole less expensive at Masa than the wine at Ducasse et al.); and thirdly, there are seasonal truffle specials and so forth.

[DanaT]

Hmm, interesting comparison between eating out and other luxuries.

I met a woman awhile back whose husband insists on tickets to the World Series every year. In return she insists on going out to eat out twice a year in a top NY restaurant. She told me, he's considered a good old guy in the family; she's considered high-maintenance but just the logistics of going wherever the World Series is playing requires a lot of high maintenance in her opinion.

"Baseball is so American" she said. "Any amount of money for the all-American pasttime is not only alright, its a solemn patriotic duty. But being particular about the quality of food is a bit foreign so its suspect."

She may have overstated the case but I think she has a point.

Diamonds have a resell value so I don't know if they can compare to an experience.

Edited January 6, 2005 by DanaT (log)

[bloviatrix]

Most of what I've been thinking has been said, but I want to add this: if this review had appeared in the Wall Street Journal, instead of the Times, would it have caused as much of an uproar? Obviously not, because the Journal generally doesn't attract that strain of liberals who can't stand that good money is being spent and people are enjoying themselves, while somewhere there are people in the world suffering. It takes letters like these to remind me that the right wing doesn't have a monopoly on no-fun scolds.

I'll put this as delicately as possible. My theory is that these people have a strong reaction against the idea of spending money on a restaurant meal, not just because it's a transitory experience but because it's something that passes through the body. These same people don't seem to get nearly as offended about other sky-high entertainment diversions like sports, operas, spa treatments, casino gambling and hotels.

Oh, and the complaint about the timing of the review? Besides the fact that the publication of the review likely was planned well in advance of the tsunami, the very idea that a restaurant review should be pulled in the event of bad world news is ludicrous. With that writer's line of thinking, perhaps other "frivolities" like the sports section and the society/gossip column should have been pulled, too.

What if this had been a review of a French restaurant? Maybe this objector reasoned that the disaster in Asia somehow made the review of an "Asian" restaurant in bad taste. Perhaps this is a lefty who is betraying a racial bias in lumping Asians together?

~Bloviator

[oakapple]

Most of what I've been thinking has been said, but I want to add this: if this review had appeared in the Wall Street Journal, instead of the Times, would it have caused as much of an uproar?  Obviously not, because the Journal generally doesn't attract that strain of liberals who can't stand that good money is being spent and people are enjoying themselves, while somewhere there are people in the world suffering.

←

I think there's a far better explanation. Everybody knows that the NYT stars are the ones that really count, and furthermore, additions to the four-star pantheon are rare. A four-star restaurant that's Japanese comes around only slightly more often than Halley's Comet. Bruni's award of four stars vaulted the Masa review into a prominence it wouldn't otherwise have, and that's the reason for all of the letters.

Depending on your view of the star system (see the Bruni and Beyond thread), this either demonstrates that stars are serving a valuable function (which is my view), or that they are sowing the seeds of our destruction.

Edited January 6, 2005 by oakapple (log)

[oakapple]

I think the one valid point in the NYT letters was made by the person who didn't approve of all the business people who paid huge sums of money for meals (and presumably other things) as a way of impressing clients.  He (or she) figured that if someone was spending $500 on dinner to impress him - it would wind up in his bill one way or the other.

I agree with this point.  When I buy services from professionals (other people buy both goods and services) - I don't want to pay for expensive dinners - or wenge wood paneling on the walls - or Superbowl tickets - or free trips that the person who's selling something earns for selling it to me.  I want to pay for the best services money can buy without that garbage.  And I'll go one step further.  If a professional - like a broker - ever gave me anything that expensive - I'd figure that I was paying at least 5 times that amount in markups that I wouldn't be paying if I were diligent in monitoring things.

←

Robyn, I don't know what business you're in. In some fields, an expensive dinner would be unseemly; in many other fields, it's de rigeur. I don't want to put out personal info on the Internet, but quite a few of my colleagues have received Super Bowl tickets from vendors we do business with. I haven't been that lucky, but I did go to the U.S. Open Tennis men's semi-final one year. I can tell you that we are very tough on price with our vendors. We negotiate them way down, and they take us out to dinner anyway. If you want to indict Corporate America for this, eGullet is probably not the place to do it, but the fact that you take your customer out to an expensive dinner doesn't necessarily mean that you're price gouging. Obviously you're making a profit overall, but not per se an unreasonable one.

To take this conversation back to food, one of my vendors is taking me out to dinner at Chanterelle next week. It's not Masa, but Chanterelle's prix fixe is $95. There are but a handful of NYC restaurants with a higher base price, so his choice is nearly the most expensive he could have made. And it was his choice. I would have happily accepted the invitation to just about any restaurant. It is not the first time this vendor has bought me dinner at this level, and he isn't the first vendor who has done that. I can tell you that all of these jobs are competitively bid. One of them bought dinner for 8 at Montrachet a few months ago, and then we fired them the next morning. (I felt bad about that one, but it wasn't my decision.)

I will also reiterate that, contrary to the NYT letter, I tend to doubt that a majority of the diners at Masa are on corporate expense accounts.

[tommy]

Forget $350 sports tickets. What about $10,000 diamonds that nobody without a microscope can tell from $100 pieces of cubic zirconia and that lose half their value after being worn for one day?

i don't think diamonds lose half their value, or much value at all, after being bought/worn.

. Luckily, there are enough people out there who don't think this way to support a few four-star restaurants.

amen.

[DanaT]

I tend to doubt that a majority of the diners at Masa are on corporate expense accounts.

←

I doubt it too. Businesses are productivity conscious and are starting to expect a tangible result from almost everything. Our vendors sponsor events on their site so they can freely talk business with a customer when the opportunity arises. That's not always possible in an open restaurant setting. I found out when I scheduled a sales dinner in an open restaurant. The guys started to talk business and our legal expert was horrified that they were divulging confidential matter in a public setting.

Also a lot of companies get the Super Bowl boxes, tickets, etc. thrown in the deal when they purchase a sponsorship or they negotiate long term deals with hotels who throw in some meals at the hotel restaurant.

I don't think that model fits well with standalone stellar restaurants like Masa.

Edited January 6, 2005 by DanaT (log)

[Dryden]

I think that most people who do have expense accounts probably would go to a place like Masa, if they thought they could get away with it. But most companies won't go for something like that - there are limits, no matter who you are, for precisely the price-gouging and bad impression reasons given by others. Of course, if a managing partner comes up to me and says - "Eat dinner on the company wherever you want, price not a concern" and means it, I'll be heading straight there.

[Mulcahy]

Robyn, I don't know what business you're in. In some fields, an expensive dinner would be unseemly; in many other fields, it's de rigeur. I don't want to put out personal info on the Internet, but quite a few of my colleagues have received Super Bowl tickets from vendors we do business with. I haven't been that lucky, but I did go to the U.S. Open Tennis men's semi-final one year. I can tell you that we are very tough on price with our vendors. We negotiate them way down, and they take us out to dinner anyway. If you want to indict Corporate America for this, eGullet is probably not the place to do it, but the fact that you take your customer out to an expensive dinner doesn't necessarily mean that you're price gouging. Obviously you're making a profit overall, but not per se an unreasonable one.

To take this conversation back to food, one of my vendors is taking me out to dinner at Chanterelle next week. It's not Masa, but Chanterelle's prix fixe is $95. There are but a handful of NYC restaurants with a higher base price, so his choice is nearly the most expensive he could have made. And it was his choice. I would have happily accepted the invitation to just about any restaurant. It is not the first time this vendor has bought me dinner at this level, and he isn't the first vendor who has done that. I can tell you that all of these jobs are competitively bid. One of them bought dinner for 8 at Montrachet a few months ago, and then we fired them the next morning. (I felt bad about that one, but it wasn't my decision.)

I will also reiterate that, contrary to the NYT letter, I tend to doubt that a majority of the diners at Masa are on corporate expense accounts.

←

I agree with Oakapple. I do not presume to know what field Oakapple is in, but I do know (from my own experiences) that the amount of money spent by Wall Street and big New York law firms on entertaining clients is simply unimaginable in many parts of the country. I know of traders who have taken four or five clients (with spouses) away for two or three days for golf and gambling. A $350 per person tab at Masa just isn't a lot of money to these folks when we are talking about profits and revenue in the millions, and sometimes billions of dollars.

I tend to doubt that a majority of the diners at Masa are on corporate expense accounts.

←

I doubt it too, but not for the reasons that DanaT does. At any major New York restaurant on any given night you can overhear snippets of siginificant corporate conversations. Particularly at the steakhouses, which are still a bastion of legal and stockmarket clientele.

I doubt it because the Masa experience is so unique that there are, presumably, a limited number of people who will appreciate the experience. Going to Masa is an intimate experience. If you don't know your client well there is no way to know whether he or she will appreciate the delicacy of Uni or Toro and so this is not a place that you would invite them.

[Dryden]

To put a little more of this discussion in perspective, many people who would never pay $1000 for dinner would buy a $1 lottery ticket. For the NY State Mega Millions lottery, the odds of winning are 135,145,920:1. If you spent $1000 on lottery tickets, which would give you 2,000 chances to win, you would have a 0.0015% chance of winning. If you spent this at Masa, I would say your odds of "winning", or at least of having a phenomenal meal, would be somewhat higher.

Different strokes, as they say.