-
Perhaps the biggest asset of California is its location with same-day access to the freshest fish from the Atlantic and Pacific. Large fish, small fish and crustaceans of all kinds are readily available and often caught within a few miles of where it is eaten. There is rarely a need to ship in the most common staples (like tuna, crab, halibut etc.) because you (or the restaurant owner) can drive to the nearest harbor and buy fish right off the boats, moments after they arrive from sea.
›1 Reply-
re: rdean
Robert Lauriston
Dec 15, 2006 02:02 AM
The vast majority of fish consumed in SF Bay Area sushi bars and other restaurants come from the airport. The best comes from Japan.
-
-
I believe that there has been a trend in California sushi toward more sugar and less vinegar - the "seasoned rice vinegar" bottled by the big suppliers is sweet. And the supermarket sushi doesn;t appear to have any - su at all... catering to the developing wider audience. I have spoken with sushi chefs at popular restaurants, and they admit to having adjusted their -su way from the pungent/acetic to a mellow sweet tone. Some have even broken away from the traditional rice vinegar/water "wash" for their hands, and the counters, to keep the rice from sticking and microbes in check.
Same for the shoyu - less salt, less sodium, lighter soy sauce.
BTW - best sushi I ever had was at a hidden spot up some dark stairs in midtown Manhattan - you had to know it was there. Fish was almost boat fresh, texture and a slight resistance to your bite. And I am very, very grateful that I was the guest and didn't even see the cost. Similar experiences in LA with Nikkei hosts - those Japanese businessmen on an expense account demand the best... -
I haven't had sushi in New York, but CA sushi tends to have over-sized fish. The ratio is all off for me as a Japanese person who grew up in Japan.
Also, those places that serve sushi rice with no vinegar in it should all re-label their menu to "onigiri". Sushi with no vinegar is just not sushi... I don't like the rice to be sweet, but it should have a faint vingear taste.
-
-
re: srr
Robert Lauriston
Dec 13, 2006 05:57 PM
-
-
I have not noticed a difference between Los Angeles and San Francisco as much as I have noticed a difference between different restaurants.
I usually do not like restaurant sushi, too sweet. I occasionally find a restaurant whose sushi I like such as: Sushi House, Palo Alto Town and Country. Seto Deli, Maude Ave, Sunnyvale.
-
Robert Lauriston
Dec 13, 2006 04:05 PM
Los Angeles's sushi scene is very different from San Francisco's.
›5 Replies-
-
-
re: choctastic
Robert Lauriston
Dec 14, 2006 06:13 PM
People who know all three areas generally seem to agree that New York and Los Angeles have world-class sushi while the SF Bay Area's best are a notch or two down.
-
-
re: Waterboy
Having lived and sushi'd in all three, I would totally agree. The difference really comes down to freshness/quality and finesse. The fish is much fresher and of far superior quality (it takes a true master to pick the best fish), and the ingredients are handled with a much greater level of care in terms of knive work, subtle parings, use of wasabi, and most especially in the quality of the rice accompanying the fish. The Bay Area just can't even compare, and once you've had the great stuff, it's nearly impossible to go back. If anyone remembers my quest from about a year ago in the Bay Area...I finally gave up.
-
-
-
-
-
