Can Masa Really Be Worth THAT Much $?

[Kim WB]

Weighing in with my two cents:

A meal can certainly be worth $1000 per couple. Sushi, however, would not be a cuisine of which I would choose to spend that amount. It incorporates things I really, really like...but not things that I love. And becasue I have had these ingredients before, albiet most likely not at the quality level served at Masa, I can't imagine the better quality would increase my pleaseure expotentially...I really LIKE salmon, have had it at Jewel Bako, Morimotoa, Nobu...but would I LOVE it at Masa? don't think so...and I want to LOVE my meal at the 1k mark.

Edited January 6, 2005 by Kim WB (log)

[zeitoun]

This interesting debate raises another interesting observation. A $350 dinner seems outrageous to some of us because we are accustomed to the $80 to $150 range (pp for a tasting menu) we would normally pay at high end establishments. This kind of debate should be a reminder of how lucky we are in the US to have the opportunity to eat great food prepared by great chefs at such affordable prices.

This is all relative of course but take France for instance where the norm at high end restaurants for a tasting menu falls in the 200 to 300 euro range (with the current exchange rate that would be $280 to $400!). If you order a la carte you will easily spend 50 euros for a salad and 90 euros for an entree. I would not even venture into mentioning Japan where a high end dinner outing will cost you at least $500 a head.

Masa’s prices, even for sushi, would have been considered the norm had it been located in Paris or Tokyo, where average salaries by the way are not necessarily any higher than the average New Yorker’s salary.

At least here, we have the luxury of expressing outrage over a $350 dinner!

[slkinsey]

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.

I think there is something to this... people assign certain values to certain things in life and balk at the idea of paying more. Clearly there are people who are personally offended at the idea of spending 350 to 500 dollars per person on a meal. To them it is an offensively frivolous expenditure of money.

I have always found it amusing that people who think nothing of spending 2500 bucks on a laptop that will be obsolete in 3-4 years can't wrap their minds around the idea of spending 250 bucks on a copper saute pan that will last a lifetime.

I also think a lot of people have a hard time even enjoying something if it costs more than the value they have assigned to that category of expenditure. I had an interesting experience with some relatives just before Xmas. We went to Da Marco, a nice Italian place in Houston, and I ended up picking a very nice bottle of wine for the three of us. It cost something like 50 dollars, and we all remarked that it was very good. At the end of the meal we were discussing what a good value the restaurant is, and I mentioned how much the wine had cost. One of them blanched said a very curious thing: "I wouldn't have had any of the wine if I had known it cost that much." This is a person who could never enjoy a 350 dollar restaurant dinner, no matter who was paying the bill, if she knew how much it cost.

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.

I don't think it's necessarily the diamonds that lose value, but rather the piece of jewlery -- which probably costs considerably more than the value of the stones -- loses value. It's like a car that loses value the minute you drive it off the lot. I'm sure it's not half their value, but I don't have a hard time believing that a brand new $10k diamond necklace has a resale value of substantially less than $10k the day after everyone has seen it around someone's neck at the annual Rich People Society Ball.

[robyn]

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.

←

These days I'm in the business of being a client. I retain brokers - lawyers - accountants - people like that. But I've been in and seen other businesses as well. And - although I know that what you describe goes on a lot of the time - it goes on less and less. E.g., my father-in-law used to be in sales for a company (long since gone) - selling fiber drums. It was normal for him to take his clients and prospective clients out to play golf - for steaks at the country club - etc. - etc. That's how he got business. His son is now in chemical sales (in the midwest). The company the son works for not only won't do things like this - the companies he deals with wouldn't accept them if it did.

When I represented insurance companies (I'm a lawyer) - it wasn't unusual for lawyers trying to drum up business to arrange for meals - with female escorts - at conventions - for people from the insurance companies who were in a position to hand out business. These lawyers tended to charge rock bottom hourly rates. Of course - they billed 2 or 3 times the reasonable number of hours on any particular case. And where did these entertainment charges and inflated bills wind up? In your auto insurance premium - that's where.

Of course - old habits die hard. Even a discount brokerage firm like X gives out freebies to people like me (box seat tickets to the Nasdaq 100 when I used to live in Miami). And my broker at Y gets free trips all the time for selling certain things to clients (sell a certain number of shares of this new closed end fund - get a free trip to Hawaii). And then there are the dozens of "hospitality tents" at the The Players Championship (down the block from where I live) every year. But these things aren't free. They're built into the cost of goods and services. I find it refreshing that a lot of these practices are now being dragged out from under rocks into the light of day by people like Spitzer so people can ask - how much are these "freebies" actually costing us?

By the way - in terms of my high end dining in the last year - I saw relatively few tables in London occupied by obvious expense account parties. But in New York - I'd estimate that at least half the tables were in that category. Can't be sure (although many times the tables in New York are so close together that you can be sure - because you can hear the conversation!) - but when it's a table of 4 to 10 middle-aged guys - or 3-5 couples drinking $200 bottles of wine - particularly if at least some of the people are from one country - and the others aren't - well I think it's a reasonable guess on my part. As for Masa - don't know. Have never been there. Robyn

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...

It's not that they lose value after being worn - it's that the wholesale/retail spread is very significant - perhaps 25% to 50% depending on circumstances. Ditto with things like works of art. Robyn

...I also think a lot of people have a hard time even enjoying something if it costs more than the value they have assigned to that category of expenditure.  I had an interesting experience with some relatives just before Xmas.  We went to Da Marco, a nice Italian place in Houston, and I ended up picking a very nice bottle of wine for the three of us.  It cost something like 50 dollars, and we all remarked that it was very good.  At the end of the meal we were discussing what a good value the restaurant is, and I mentioned how much the wine had cost.  One of them blanched said a very curious thing: "I wouldn't have had any of the wine if I had known it cost that much."  This is a person who could never enjoy a 350 dollar restaurant dinner, no matter who was paying the bill, if she knew how much it cost...

←

I'm curious how old these people were? There is certainly a definite "depression mentality" among people of a certain age (my parents' age). Apart from understanding it (which I do) - I also find it kind of difficult to fault. When someone like my father-in-law - who never earned more than $25,000/year in his whole life - could afford at the end of his life to spend almost $7,000/month for a skilled nursing facility for 3 years and never dip into capital - well I find that kind of admirable. More admirable than the 40 year old people who don't have a dime saved for their kid's college educations or their retirement. It's nice to be in the middle - but - over the years - I haven't met too many people in the middle. People who've found the proper balance. Robyn

[Todd36]

Had a snack at Bar Masa tonight (it's now the fourth time I've eaten there). The sake as usual was first class. The ala carte sushi was good, but expensive. It's priced somewhat higher than say Sushi Seki (my current high end place) and it's not as good. One of these days, I'll do the $500 thing at Masa. Still, I've got to wonder why the $10 piece of ala carte toro they have in the bar is good, but not that good and I've had better for the money in NYC. Is the fish in the $500 deal that much better?

[jogoode]

Is the fish in the $500 deal that much better?

←

Remember, the high price of dinner is not just due to the fish. The menu at Masa includes foie gras and plenty of caviar, both items that incur massive supplements on most NY menus.

[Todd36]

Is the fish in the $500 deal that much better?

←

Remember, the high price of dinner is not just due to the fish. The menu at Masa includes foie gras and plenty of caviar, both items that incur massive supplements on most NY menus.

←

But at least based on the NYT review, it's 75% sushi in the meal. And in any case, caviar is nice and all, but I can walk into the cafe at Petrossian and get very good cavier without a reservation. Masa can't make a reputation based on cavier service.

[jogoode]

But at least based on the NYT review, it's 75% sushi in the meal.  And in any case, caviar is nice and all, but I can walk into the cafe at Petrossian and get very good cavier without a reservation.  Masa can't make a reputation based on cavier service.

←

Still, the two ounces or whatever of caviar adds significantly to the high price. That's one of the reasons I'm not that interested in Masa. With my budget, I can't swallow the cost of the foie gras, fugu and caviar just to get to the sushi. I'd be more willing to pay $150-$200 for the last two-thirds.

[Todd36]

Still, the two ounces or whatever of caviar adds significantly to the high price. That's one of the reasons I'm not that interested in Masa. With my budget, I can't swallow the cost of the foie gras, fugu and caviar just to get to the sushi. I'd be more willing to pay $150-$200 for the last two-thirds.

←

I've never had Fugu, but my Japanese friends tell me it doesn't really have much flavor and is more of a texture experience. Other places in Manhattan serve it, and my guess is that none of us can distinguish the fugu at say Sugiyama from Masa. The foie gras can be obtained at other Manhattan restaurants as well, and we've already covered cavier. If all Masa is offering for $350 is a package deal of fugu, foie gras, cavier, some mixed cooked food and good sushi, I'm not sure why it gets four stars. For four stars, the sushi must be significantly better than what they serve at a high price in Bar Masa. I really have to try the place. BTW, at 8:00 on a Thursday night Bar Masa and its tables was about 50% full, which I do not take as a good sign for something directly connected to a four star place. For example, I bet Nougatine at Jen-George was 100% booked during the same time period. My regular Japanese food dining friend is coming back from a three week stay in Tokyo and she has been eating up a storm---she owes me a high end dinner in Manhattan. BTW, she thinks the sushi fish in better places in Tokyo is better than anything she has had in Manhattan. As a reference point, she is Japanese, born and raised in Tokyo and attended Waseda.

[oakapple]

If all Masa is offering for $350 is a package deal of fugu, foie gras, cavier, some mixed cooked food and good sushi, I'm not sure why it gets four stars.  For four stars, the sushi must be significantly better than what they serve at a high price in Bar Masa.  I really have to try the place. 

←

But practically no one who's dined there has said that "all Masa is offering for $350 is a package deal of fugu, foie gras, cavier [sic], some mixed cooked food and good sushi." To the contrary, the overwhelming consensus is that you're getting these things—and more—meticulously prepared to an extraordinary quality standard. If that's not four stars, then what would be?

You can probably have a bad night at Masa, because you can have a bad night anywhere, but there's enough informed critical opinion out there that we can draw some conclusions. And one clear conclusion is that Masa is a lot more than just just good sushi, with caviar and foie gras thrown in to bump up the price.

BTW, at 8:00 on a Thursday night Bar Masa and its tables was about 50% full, which I do not take as a good sign for something directly connected to a four star place.  For example, I bet Nougatine at Jean Georges was 100% booked during the same time period.

Masa has been a four-star restaurant for all of nine days now, so it's probably a little soon to be drawing such comparisons. That said, it appears to me that the drop-off from Masa to Bar Masa is much steeper than the drop-off from JG to Nougatine. You could say that diners who haven't the time or the budget for JG can catch a bit of JG's reflected glow by sitting at Nougatine. I've seen no evidence that the same is true of Bar Masa. Indeed, most people who've gone there seem to be underwhelmed.

[Todd36]

Masa has been a four-star restaurant for all of nine days now, so it's probably a little soon to be drawing such comparisons. That said, it appears to me that the drop-off from Masa to Bar Masa is much steeper than the drop-off from JG to Nougatine. You could say that diners who haven't the time or the budget for JG can catch a bit of JG's reflected glow by sitting at Nougatine. I've seen no evidence that the same is true of Bar Masa. Indeed, most people who've gone there seem to be underwhelmed.

←

The prices that Bar Masa is charging for Sushi are high enough so that there shouldn't be much of a drop off in qualtity from Masa. The bar charges $10 for decent but not great Toro and $18 for a good, regular sized tuna avacado roll. You order 15 pieces ala carte at Bar Masa, you hit $100+, that puts you in a more expensive catagory than a place like Sushi Seki which has better sushi (but less decor). More to the point, there is a budget problem with Masa. Assume they are charging $350 these days. At least $150 has to be allocated to the caviar, truffles and foie gras. That leaves at most $200 for sushi and fugu. That really isn't very much. The fugu alone is going to run $50. So, Masa has at most $150 to work with on the sushi. That's not a big budget. It's probably about $7 a piece, perhaps $10 at most. Several high end sushi places in Manhattan, and Bar Masa as well, charge those sorts of prices in their chef's selections. The budget Masa has to work with in Masa for sushi is only slightly larger than what they charge for sushi in Bar Masa, that means either the sushi in Masa is pretty similar to what they serve in Bar Masa or Bar Masa is overpriced. More to the point, no one Japanese I know thinks Masa is a four star restaurant. I think Masa is a package deal place designed to impress people who like labels, my guess is that while the components of that package may be good, they are not the best, at least not when it comes to the sushi. If it were the best sushi, than Masa has been able to figure out how to deliver better sushi than say Kuruma for less money, doubtful given the kind of operating costs Masa seems to have.

I've eaten four times at Bar Masa, this Thursday was the best of the lot. They once served me plain bad tempura, I make better at home! I like the sake at Bar Masa, and feel it is fairly priced and well selected. I live near Time Warner, that is why I keep going back.

I think I will go to Masa for my birthday, so stay tuned!

[oakapple]

More to the point, there is a budget problem with Masa.  Assume they are charging $350 these days.  At least $150 has to be allocated to the caviar, truffles and foie gras.

←

The whole argument breaks down right there. The foie gras supplement at Per Se is $25, and we've no reason to think Masa is allocating more money to the foie gras than Keller does; indeed, he is probably allocating a lot less, given the relative emphasis of the two restaurants.

Here's one site that shows you can get an ounce of black truffles for $26. You can also spend more or less than that, depending on the source. I suspect Masa is serving each customer less than a full ounce, and he surely gets his truffles more cheaply than I could find in a quickie google search.

That leaves the caviar. At Petrossian, a single serving of Sevruga is $60, but that's the retail price for a dish where the caviar is central to the presentation. I don't think anyone has said which species of caviar Masa is serving, but even if it's Sevruga, his cost is probably a whole lot less than $60. (He could be serving American caviar, which costs a fraction of Sevruga.)

Mind you, it's mathematically possible to spend $150 per customer on caviar, truffles, and foie gras. Heck, you could spend hundreds on the caviar all by itself. But nothing stated in any of the available reviews suggests Masa is doing this, and I think it's highly unlikely.

Edited January 7, 2005 by oakapple (log)

[slkinsey]

. . . This is a person who could never enjoy a 350 dollar restaurant dinner, no matter who was paying the bill, if she knew how much it cost. . .

I'm curious how old these people were? There is certainly a definite "depression mentality" among people of a certain age (my parents' age). Apart from understanding it (which I do) - I also find it kind of difficult to fault. When someone like my father-in-law - who never earned more than $25,000/year in his whole life - could afford at the end of his life to spend almost $7,000/month for a skilled nursing facility for 3 years and never dip into capital - well I find that kind of admirable. More admirable than the 40 year old people who don't have a dime saved for their kid's college educations or their retirement. It's nice to be in the middle - but - over the years - I haven't met too many people in the middle. People who've found the proper balance. Robyn

←

Without revealing too much about these relatives, I'll say this: they're both around 70 years old, and have to be considered "wealthy" rather than "upper middle class" at this point. Of the two of them, one grew up affluent enough to have servants until leaving for college, and one of them grew up in a family that had to scrape to get by in the Depression. The one who wouldn't drink a $60 botle of wine is the former, not the latter. So, I don't know if it's a depression mentality thing, per se. Rather, I just think 60 dollars is simply more than she thinks any bottle of wine could be worth to her.

More to the point, people I know with this view will often decide beforehand that they aren't going to like or appreciate something if the cost exceeds their paradigm of how much is reasonable. For example, I have a friend who likes steak. He buys regular supermarket steak at regular supermarket prices. When his brother and I took him to a good butcher in his neighborhood, he was aghast at the idea of paying 25 dollars a pound for a steak (nevermind $45/pound for a top prime porterhouse or $100/pound for American Waygu from some place like Lobel's) and more or less decided before tasting it that he wasn't going to be able to tell the difference. The result was, of course, that he declared that he preferred the less expensive steak. If someone went into Masa with the idea that $350 sushi can't possibly be that much better than $100 sushi, and a little offended at the price, I can well imagine that such a person would determine in the end that the $100 sushi is "better."

[jogoode]

That leaves the caviar. At Petrossian, a single serving of Sevruga is $60, but that's the retail price for a dish where the caviar is central to the presentation. I don't think anyone has said which species of caviar Masa is serving, but even if it's Sevruga, his cost is probably a whole lot less than $60. (He could be serving American caviar, which costs a fraction of Sevruga.)

Mind you, it's mathematically possible to spend $150 per customer on caviar, truffles, and foie gras. Heck, you could spend hundreds on the caviar all by itself. But nothing stated in any of the available reviews suggests Masa is doing this, and I think it's highly unlikely.

←

Masa serve Osetra with the tuna tartare, according to New York Magazine.

And it's not that Masa is spending $150 on the foie and caviar he serves you -- perhaps the word "budget" in Todd's post was misleading. It's that a large part of the money you pay for the meal goes to your buying these ingredients. This is not to say Masa is overcharging or anything. It may have been silly for me to bring it up because it expresses only my preference, but I was trying to say that I'd sooner go to a Masa where I could lay down $200 for the reportedly amazing sushi than a Masa where I get sushi plus enough caviar and foie to push the meal's price to $300.

The whole argument breaks down right there. The foie gras supplement at Per Se is $25, and we've no reason to think Masa is allocating more money to the foie gras than Keller does; indeed, he is probably allocating a lot less, given the relative emphasis of the two restaurants.

Actually if Keller uses more foie gras then he'll be paying less per pound -- as well as making more on each $25 supplemental charge, which might necessitate Masa's foie gras constituting a higher percentage of the cost of the set menu than at Per Se. Either way, it's hard to argue that the mass of caviar on Masa's tartare doesn't account for some of Masa's high price. Again, not that I'm saying this is wrong or over the top. It's just one reason I'm not itching to go. (Unless you're willing to take me .)

[Todd36]

More to the point, there is a budget problem with Masa.  Assume they are charging $350 these days.  At least $150 has to be allocated to the caviar, truffles and foie gras.

←

The whole argument breaks down right there. The foie gras supplement at Per Se is $25, and we've no reason to think Masa is allocating more money to the foie gras than Keller does; indeed, he is probably allocating a lot less, given the relative emphasis of the two restaurants.

Here's one site that shows you can get an ounce of black truffles for $26. You can also spend more or less than that, depending on the source. I suspect Masa is serving each customer less than a full ounce, and he surely gets his truffles more cheaply than I could find in a quickie google search.

That leaves the caviar. At Petrossian, a single serving of Sevruga is $60, but that's the retail price for a dish where the caviar is central to the presentation. I don't think anyone has said which species of caviar Masa is serving, but even if it's Sevruga, his cost is probably a whole lot less than $60. (He could be serving American caviar, which costs a fraction of Sevruga.)

Mind you, it's mathematically possible to spend $150 per customer on caviar, truffles, and foie gras. Heck, you could spend hundreds on the caviar all by itself. But nothing stated in any of the available reviews suggests Masa is doing this, and I think it's highly unlikely.

←

I had dinner fairly recently at ADNY, they get much more than $26 as a supplement per dish for the truffles. If you want more info, I put a number of postings on the ADNY thread. Since ADNY and Masa are both NYT Four Stars, I assume they use similar quality truffles.

Saying that Keller charges only $25 as a supplement for foie gras is not useful information unless you know what the substution is for: a $25 extra fee for foie gras as a substitute for a $3 bowl of rice means you really have a $28 foie gras dish. My guess is that Keller already allocated something like $25 of your money to whatever the foie gras is substuting for, that means you are really paying more like $50 for the foie gras.

With respect to the cavier, again, ADNY charges very, very high prices for cavier and since Masa is a competing restaurant in price and rating and cavier is a featured part of the menu, I assume what Masa has is similar to ADNY: it had better be!

Retail prices charged by a restaurant are what is on point because Masa charges retail and not wholesale prices. Every restauant has to allocate the diner's dollars to the various dishes. If we allocate $50 to the Fugu (which seems quite reasonable), and $150 to caviar, foie gras and a number of complex and expensive cooked dishes (including things like uni), that leaves only $150 for the sushi. Even if you say the Fugu costs $25 (in the form of what a restautant serves you) and the caviar/foie gras/truffles and complex cooked dishes cost only $100 (which seems much too low), that would leave only $225 for sushi and $225 is not alot for sushi. I can walk into a place like Sushi Seki and spend $225 no problem, I could probably hit $400 at Kuruma if I were hungry and crazy.

There is a problem at Masa: the price isn't high enough to cover both a sizable high quality sushi meal AND high quality fugu/caviar/ foie gras/truffles. Either Masa is a great bargin compared to ADNY and Kuruma or the components Masa serves are not as good as what places like ADNY and Kuruma serve.

[oakapple]

Masa serve Osetra with the tuna tartare, according to New York Magazine.

And it's not that Masa is spending $150 on the foie and caviar he serves you -- perhaps the word "budget" in Todd's post was misleading. It's that a large part of the money you pay for the meal goes to your buying these ingredients.

I still think you can't look at it that way. Probably half of Masa's costs, and perhaps as much as 2/3rds, go towards rent, depreciation, utilities, labor, and insurance. He incurs those costs no matter what he serves, and no matter whether he's full or empty. He's open for dinner six nights a week, and for lunch just four days a week. The lunches are very sparsely attended; some days, there's no takers for lunch. He has just 26 seats, and even at night he isn't filling all of them. I'm pretty sure he doesn't turn tables. And this is in a very high-rent building.

Now, you turn to ingredients. Every article I've read focuses on the rare species of fish that are flown in daily just for Masa, and how selective he is about what he will serve. I suppose it's possible the media have been duped, and the fish is just ordinary stuff that many sushi restaurants are serving. That deception would be quite a scoop, if any of us could verify it. But for now, I assume Masa's doing what he says he's doing. Any other ingredients are just marginal increases over what is already a high level of luxury, for those rare people with the money and taste to appreciate it.

At that point, even if he dropped the foie, caviar, and truffles, Masa would still be priced in the stratosphere. People willing to pay that much generally aren't the types who would say, "I wish they'd drop the foie gras, so I can pay 2% less." If that's your line of thinking, you're probably more comfortable at a place where you can order a la carte.

[jogoode]

Masa serve Osetra with the tuna tartare, according to New York Magazine.

And it's not that Masa is spending $150 on the foie and caviar he serves you -- perhaps the word "budget" in Todd's post was misleading. It's that a large part of the money you pay for the meal goes to your buying these ingredients.

I still think you can't look at it that way. Probably half of Masa's costs, and perhaps as much as 2/3rds, go towards rent, depreciation, utilities, labor, and insurance. He incurs those costs no matter what he serves, and no matter whether he's full or empty. He's open for dinner six nights a week, and for lunch just four days a week. The lunches are very sparsely attended; some days, there's no takers for lunch. He has just 26 seats, and even at night he isn't filling all of them. I'm pretty sure he doesn't turn tables. And this is in a very high-rent building.

OK, then a large part goes toward renting the luxurious setting and buying the expensive ingredients, just like any other restaurant. All I'm saying is that I (me, just me) would rather not pay for those luxuries because I don't feel they're worth it. I've never felt rushed at my favorite sushi bar, so I don't have no desire to pay a premium to eat at a place that doesn't turn tables. I think the setting of my favorite sushi bar is beautiful, so I'm not interested in paying a premium to eat in proximity to The Shops at Time Warner. I would love to try Masa's sushi, but I'm not willing to pay for the caviar and foie gras, which I still think bump the price up, at a restaurant at which I mean to eat sushi.

Now, you turn to ingredients. Every article I've read focuses on the rare species of fish that are flown in daily just for Masa, and how selective he is about what he will serve. I suppose it's possible the media have been duped, and the fish is just ordinary stuff that many sushi restaurants are serving. That deception would be quite a scoop, if any of us could verify it. But for now, I assume Masa's doing what he says he's doing. Any other ingredients are just marginal increases over what is already a high level of luxury, for those rare people with the money and taste to appreciate it.

At that point, even if he dropped the foie, caviar, and truffles, Masa would still be priced in the stratosphere.

No way am I suggesting that Masa's duping anyone or serving ordinary fish. But you can't suggest that because he spends a tremendous amount on fish for sushi and sashimi and doesn't also spend a tremendous amount on his foie gras and caviar. If only the highest quality fish is served, it's likely that the quality and price point extends across the menu. If you want to argue that the price of the fish is the same or higher per pound than that of the caviar and foie, then you still must accept that without the first 1/3 of the meal you'll be paying closer to $200.

People willing to pay that much generally aren't the types who would say, "I wish they'd drop the foie gras, so I can pay 2% less." If that's your line of thinking, you're probably more comfortable at a place where you can order a la carte.

←

That's all I'm saying. Somehow, I can find a way to be cheap even at an expensive restaurant.

Edited January 7, 2005 by jogoode (log)

[Pan]

[...]

Now, you turn to ingredients. Every article I've read focuses on the rare species of fish that are flown in daily just for Masa[...]

←

At the risk of going on a tangent, does that bother any of you? In the PETA thread, Menton accused most of us of not being bothered by eating endangered fish. I think that really rare species of fish should not be caught. And that goes for caviar, too.

[docsconz]

Rare does not necessarily mean endangered. Rare may simply mean hard to come by and therefore expensive for any number of reasons. I will not knowingly eat an endangereed species.

[milla]

[...]

Now, you turn to ingredients. Every article I've read focuses on the rare species of fish that are flown in daily just for Masa[...]

←

At the risk of going on a tangent, does that bother any of you? In the PETA thread, Menton accused most of us of not being bothered by eating endangered fish. I think that really rare species of fish should not be caught. And that goes for caviar, too.

←

Especially caviar. Caspian sturgeon will probably extinct winthin our lifetimes at the current rate of poaching and mismanagement.

[mjs]

Masa’s prices, even for sushi, would have been considered the norm had it been located in Paris or Tokyo, where average salaries by the way are not necessarily any higher than the average New Yorker’s salary.

At least here, we have the luxury of expressing outrage over a $350 dinner!

←

I assure you Masa's prices are not the norm for high end sushi in Tokyo. It's hard to eat at Masa for less than $450 all in. Probably the most expensive sushi restaurant in Tokyo is Kyubei which will typically run $300-350 including sake & tax (no tipping in Tokyo) in a similarly refined atmosphere. There are many other high end places in Tokyo where one will pay $250-300 per person. It is easy to find extremely good sushi in Tokyo (i.e. better than Kurumasushi) for $200.

The many Japanese I've told about Masa have all expressed astonishment that one woul pay those kind of prices for sushi. A traditional ryotei restaurant in Japan can cost upwards of $500 per person. However, there are very few of these restaurants and it is an entirely different experience from Masa.

Edited January 9, 2005 by mjs (log)

[ChefGEB]

I have nothing but the greatest respect for this great chef and his wonderful restaurant, but it seems that for the same price, one can fly to Tokyo and have an amazing sushi experience for close to the same price. I am not trying to take anything away from what Masa is trying to do, but at what point does value come into the equation?

ChefGEB

www.gebowles.com

[docsconz]

i would think the flight to Tokyo makes that a little more expensive

[oakapple]

I have nothing but the greatest respect for this great chef and his wonderful restaurant, but it seems that for the same price, one can fly to Tokyo and have an amazing sushi experience for close to the same price.  I am not trying to take anything away from what Masa is trying to do, but at what point does value come into the equation?

←

Value comes into the equation at all levels of the dining pyramid. I had a rather empty feeling after spending $225 for two at Café Gray, not because it was bad, but because it felt like a $150 experience. I'm not planning to rush back.

Most of the people posting on this thread, including me, haven't actually tried Masa. We must therefore rely on critical consensus, and just about everyone who's written about it says that Masa is mind-blowingly good. This presumes you've eaten enough Japanese food to know the difference, and that you can afford to make this kind of investment in one meal. There are probably very few of us for whom that's true.

FYI, the lowest round-trip airfare to Tokyo right now is $2,870 on expedia.com. That's a coach fare. You'll also need a hotel. Based on that, if the one thing you're after is an amazing sushi experience, Masa looks like a bargain.

[milla]

I have nothing but the greatest respect for this great chef and his wonderful restaurant, but it seems that for the same price, one can fly to Tokyo and have an amazing sushi experience for close to the same price.  I am not trying to take anything away from what Masa is trying to do, but at what point does value come into the equation?

ChefGEB

www.gebowles.com

←

for that price i am on the next plane!