As Sarah knows, I was at Shuko as well last night with a group of NY wine folks. There is a very small private room downstairs that barely fits 8 of us although as the night got longer and I got looser, there seemed to be more room. Our group really enjoyed the food but next time I go I would opt to sit at the counter. My favorite dish was the veal breast with butternut squash and sunchoke. I thought the sushi had highs and not so highs so I understand what Sarah is saying. And thank you Sarah for sharing that wonderful Sake.
Iâm very surprised to hear that both you and Sarah were underwhelmed. However, sitting in the downstairs room and dining with seven others is never going to be the same experience as sitting with one or two others at the bar.
Sarah, do you know who you sat in front of at the bar? Was it Jimmy or someone else?
We did not sit in front of Jimmy. Nick did some of our sushi, prepared down the bar a bit and then delivered, not right in front of us, and some was done by a young kid who, as Jonathan put it, âwas probably not senior enough to have a first name.â The sushi was well assembled, carefully sauced (when appropriate) and a few pieces were excellent, but the quality overall just wasnât there. The tuna was the worst culprit, and the caviar wasâŚletâs just say that, while Iâm not going to claim it wasnât Osetra caviar like they said, I have never had osetra of that texture and taste. The rice should also have been better for sure - the rice is, both literally and figuratively, the foundation of sushi. It should frame the fish and, when you turn your attention to it, it should be delicious.
Again, I am really not saying âwell, it wasnât as good as in Japan,â nor am I knocking it for being quite westernized. There are places I can go for traditional here in NY that will satisfy the urge until the next trip to Japan. I just thought that a place that goes to the trouble of pounding their own rice for mochi shouldnât be (Iâm sorry) phoning it in on their sushi rice and tuna.
All that said, I totally respect your palate and your understanding of all things pescatarian, and would be open to giving it another try. Iâll even bring more sake.
Ray, I wasnât underwhelmed. Like I said our group really enjoyed the food. Every non-sushi dish was a winner for us. Some of the sushi was really great and some just OK. Like I said, I would go back but next time I want to sit at the bar. And service for us was excellent. Jared did a great job of keeping things flowing.
I was in the private room as well. I share Sarah and Paulâs views. And the experience that night was so different from my first meal there at the bar (counter) that it was like eating at two completely different restaurants.
During and after my first meal there, I was ecstatic. Never a fan of Neta, I was thrilled at what these guys were doing. True, we got lots of attention (I was with a restaurant critic and we sat next to Jonathan Waxman who is a friend of the chefs), but the food and the sushi were transcendent. Every bite was a glimpse of perfection. I was so thrilled, I couldnât wait to go back.
Go back I did, with 7 wine friends in the private room, and, by comparison, it was a real let down. As Ray says, one canât compare sitting at the sushi bar with being at a distant table of 8 people; still, it shouldnât drop that much in quality. I found the food âfair to very goodâ but not beyond that. Certainly not thrilling; indeed, somewhat forgettable, except, as Paul says, for the veal breast. I might even use the word mediocre. I agree with Sarah about the caviar. When I tasted it, I thought to myself, âIs this even the same dish I had before?â Utterly unremarkable whereas the prior dish was thrilling.
I have to say, now, the jury is still out. I see from Facebook that Steve Plotnicki was there the same night. Iâm going to email him and ask him what he thought of the meal.
PS Apparently it will be reviewed by Pete Wells in the Times next week; curious what he will have to say.
Wilfred sent me an email about this thread and he asked me my opinion of Neta. I sent him a response and he asked me to post it on this thread:
So here is my take on it.
I liked what they were going at Neta better
My two trips to Tokyo totally changed my perspective about sushi
As I have come to learn, there are three strains of sushi, Large grains of rice with a lot of vinegar added that is served with large cuts of fish, small grains of rice with less vinegar and smaller cuts of fish, or a version that is in the middle. The larger grains of rice is âJiro-styleâ like in the movie. That is the traditional style. At Shuko they serve the smaller grains which is the most contemporary style. I have come to learn I like the traditional style best. So while I thought the fish was of pretty good quality last night, the pieces lacked the same type of explosive flavor that I find at the more traditional places. So far, the closest I have found to Japan in NYC is Kuruma Zushi. His rice is just like eating the rice in Japan. Itâs funny because I used to like his sashimi better than his sushi. But once I went to Tokyo my preference flipped.
Meanwhile I would give Neta a rating of Rec + on the OAD scale (which is the equivalent of 6/10.)
If youâve spent time in Japan, you have to play a mental game with yourself when evaluating sushi elsewhere, I think, because itâs not comparable. A few places in the US, mostly in LA in my experience, touch the edges and hit some notes, but mostly you need a separate scale or to pretend itâs a different cuisine altogether. To be fair Shuko isnât trying for traditional, so I tried to comment only on quality, not preference (inescapable of course) Itâs always a little weird when no one behind the bar in a serious Japanese restaurant speaks Japanese, though.
Iâm willing to believe Wilfred, Ray and Robert Dentice, whose palates I respect, that they can do better. The lapses in quality were pretty serious to me, though, and the attitude was a problem.
In the interest of disclosure, in addition to the 5-6 trips Iâve made to Japan, my hunsband lived there and worked as a chef/restaurant consultant there. So, while we may try and sseparate ourselves from that experience, it does inform.
[quote=âSarah Kirschbaumâ] Itâs always a little weird when no one behind the bar in a serious Japanese restaurant speaks Japanese, though.
thatâs very true sarah. where i live, most of the sushi places are manned by chinese these days. (but i wouldnât refer to them as âseriousâ anywayâŚ)
We went to Zuma (nouveau Japanese cuisine) in London a few weeks ago. They are just opening in NYC (Madison in the 30s IIRC). The food was wonderful, esp the wagyu (lightly seared) and fish tempuraâthe best tempura Iâve had. We didnât try their sushi, so I canât comment on that. Definitely up for the NYC one when it has a few weeks to settle down.
Caveats: Iâve never been to Japan (well OK, for a few hours, but not long enough to matter) and the London place was pretty trendy.
I am going to disagree with Sarah just a bit. In general, she is right and the sushi here is not as good as in Japan. But if you can find a sushi chef who makes really good vinegary rice, and slices larger pieces of fish, you can approximate the Japanese experience here.
There is a place in Paris called Jin and the chef used to run Sushi Taku in Hokkaido (not surprisingly his name is Taku.) His sushi is a dead ringer for what you get in Japan and its because his rice is the real deal.
And I am going to disagree with Steve that vinegary rice and larger slices of fish are the traditional Japanese experience. Jiro does cut his fish in larger slices than many, and his sushi is outstanding. But thatâs not, in my experience, what typifies traditional Japanese sushi. I cannot argue that you learned that in Tokyo - obviously you did, but it is definitely not gospel. Also canât argue that it is what you like, and delighted if you have found something here that approximates what you like.
There isnât a set traditional style that you can simplify that way, Steve. Iâm sorry if my comments implied that another style IS the traditional whereas what you describe is not. I see that I was unclear.
The point I intended to make is that you cannot say "ah yes - now I understand that THIS is what makes it âtraditionalâ, in the way that âtraditionâ can be put on a pedestal. Why so quick to put in a box and decide you know, you understand? People spend their lives studying this stuff. Larger versus smaller pieces of fish, more or less vinegarâŚsome masters have one preference, others have another. Regions also make a difference - old Kyoto-style sushi is pressed, for instance. Famous chefs get recognized worldwide, five-generation masters behind tiny sushi counters across from railroad stations may not. Jiro is rightly and justly lauded, but because heâs making incredibly sushi, and has been for a long time, and plenty of other things. Not because âhe is the most traditional.â Even in a country that competes constantly as to who is the most Japanese, not everyone there agrees what it means to be the most Japanese.
Sushi in Japan is so much more than this kind of rice and that slice of fish. It is a sensibility. If I absolutely had to pin traditional down, I might say something admittedly vague like that. And of course the quality of ingredients. There are places that are revered and studied simply for the way the make their tomago! You cannot understand and categorize so glibly, I believe about the epitome of a cultureâs culinary expression (even that being arguable), and what it means to be traditional inside that deep and complex world.
So I canât disagree with what you said, but I am going to stick with my description of three categories. I have fallen in with a bunch of people who are serious Japanese diners. One of them visits from Hong Kong 4-5 times a year just to eat. Another lives in Bangkok and he imports Japanese cakes and goes to Tokyo to eat 6 times a year. Another rents an apartment for a month just to eat at the top restaurants. They have been doing it for years. And we are all in agreement about the three categories which we refer to as:
Jiro style for Sukibyashi Jiro Big rice vinagary
Saito style for Sushi Saito medium rice
Masa style for Sushiso Masa small rice
Agreed not every sushi restaurant perfectly fits into one of those three boxes but it gets close. And you will find that most sushi chefs who serve fish in those styles trained with one of the above. Like Harutaka (my favorite) trained with Jiro. Sushi Ichi (one star up and coming) trained with Kaneseka etc. Most people like Saito style best (not me) but Jiro style/Mizutani style/Kyubey style is considered the traditional style of sushi. Masa serves a 40 piece omakase of tiny pieces (small rice) and he is considered a sushi modernist.
You know itâs sort of like wine. Lots of people make wine from the same vineyard. But some guys are highly extracted and oaky, some guys are elegant etc.
