5 ms·

> Any trained Sushi chef knows how to cut the fish properly, all they need is access to a good wholesale fish market like Tsukiji This isn't a convincing argum

by consz 9y ago

> Any trained Sushi chef knows how to cut the fish properly, all they need is access to a good wholesale fish market like Tsukiji This isn't a convincing argument at all, I could just as easily say "any trained sushi chef knows how to cook rice properly, all they need is Amazon and access to a good rice cooker like Zojirushi". For what it's worth, I don't believe the idea that rice is the main focus -- it just sounds like the sushi chefs are fucking with people when they say something like that.

m_mueller 9y ago
There's an easy Test you can do: Go to Japan and do a few taste tests. Try 7-11 sushi, kaiten-sushi (big chains that serve on turnstiles), a small neighborhood sushi restaurant that serves lunch for 1000 yen and a master's sushi restaurant (usually 10000 yen up to 25000 yen, but you may be able to get a better deal through a Japanese contact). Then report back on what you find. All I can tell you is from my experience, and that is, for most fish the difference starts diminishing at the 1000 yen mark, but the texture of the rice and the care going into the condiments is what you pay for when going to a master. I'm not trying to have a debate, just sharing my experience from living in Japan for years.
- sooheon 9y ago
  I guess that makes sense. The value-add of a sushi chef to good fish is almost nothing, they just have to cut it and make sure to serve it fresh. The variability the chef introduces to rice is a lot bigger (i.e. rice can be really shit if you cook it wrong), so in order for sushi to rise from its piece-of-fish-on-rice street food beginnings to cult cuisine status of today, they had to pick some part to idolize and ritualize (in typical Japanese style), and rice was it.
  - m_mueller 9y ago
    You could at it this way, yes - Sushi is a bit like Pizza in that a) it was born a few hundred years ago (Edo period) as a take-away food / fast food b) some forms of it have become a high craft or even art that you can spend a lot of money on (compare to high status Pizzerias in Napoli) Now whether that's legitimate or not is of course up for discussion - in my opinion it's a legitimate and fulfilling experience that you can have by going to a Sushi master if you can appreciate this kind of craft.
    - sooheon 9y ago
      Good comparison. They both are delicious, simple, affordable foods widely enjoyed by the "peasant" class, which nonetheless have a rarified purist/snobbish following as well. I enjoy both, hope I can one day afford to judge for myself whether the high falutin varieties are worth it :)
- consz 9y ago
  I've done all this, I felt there was a (marginally decreasing) increase in quality at all levels of that chain you described. Maybe the marginal increase in quality of the fish was less than that of the rice; I don't know. I certainly couldn't tell -- they both seemed to taste better and better to me.

by consz 9y ago

m_mueller 9y ago

There's an easy Test you can do: Go to Japan and do a few taste tests. Try 7-11 sushi, kaiten-sushi (big chains that serve on turnstiles), a small neighborhood sushi restaurant that serves lunch for 1000 yen and a master's sushi restaurant (usually 10000 yen up to 25000 yen, but you may be able to get a better deal through a Japanese contact). Then report back on what you find. All I can tell you is from my experience, and that is, for most fish the difference starts diminishing at the 1000 yen mark, but the texture of the rice and the care going into the condiments is what you pay for when going to a master. I'm not trying to have a debate, just sharing my experience from living in Japan for years.

sooheon 9y ago
I guess that makes sense. The value-add of a sushi chef to good fish is almost nothing, they just have to cut it and make sure to serve it fresh. The variability the chef introduces to rice is a lot bigger (i.e. rice can be really shit if you cook it wrong), so in order for sushi to rise from its piece-of-fish-on-rice street food beginnings to cult cuisine status of today, they had to pick some part to idolize and ritualize (in typical Japanese style), and rice was it.
- m_mueller 9y ago
  You could at it this way, yes - Sushi is a bit like Pizza in that a) it was born a few hundred years ago (Edo period) as a take-away food / fast food b) some forms of it have become a high craft or even art that you can spend a lot of money on (compare to high status Pizzerias in Napoli) Now whether that's legitimate or not is of course up for discussion - in my opinion it's a legitimate and fulfilling experience that you can have by going to a Sushi master if you can appreciate this kind of craft.
  - sooheon 9y ago
    Good comparison. They both are delicious, simple, affordable foods widely enjoyed by the "peasant" class, which nonetheless have a rarified purist/snobbish following as well. I enjoy both, hope I can one day afford to judge for myself whether the high falutin varieties are worth it :)
consz 9y ago
I've done all this, I felt there was a (marginally decreasing) increase in quality at all levels of that chain you described. Maybe the marginal increase in quality of the fish was less than that of the rice; I don't know. I certainly couldn't tell -- they both seemed to taste better and better to me.