What should I spend on dinner?

March 15, 2006 11:15 AM

At Nobu, Next Door the Omekase menu has price points of "$80, $100, $120 and up". What's the optimum value for "and up", assuming price is unimportant?

We ate there last night, and the waitress was unable to give a definition of what I'd get for various values of "and up" (she just said that I would get more exotic stuff, but no real clarification). I ended up ordering a $300 omekase menu, which was a fairly resplendant 8 or 9 course meal, impressive both in selection and portion. Out of 30+ different foods, I only thought that three were misses, and there were a few that are imprinted eternally.

But would I have received the same thing for $200? Would I have received something even more fantastic for $500?

posted by I Love Tacos to food & drink (27 comments total)

I asked for specific price points that might be interesting, but she just responded by seeming confused, and asking me how much I wanted to spend, so I pulled a number out of a hat, and hoped for the best.

I'm not interested in your opinions about the ethics or intelligence of a $300+/person meal.
posted by I Love Tacos at 11:19 AM on March 15, 2006

It depends on what (s)he has that day. Feel free to discuss it with the chef beforehand.. it's not a game, it's just polite. It's also 'omakase', "your [chef's] choice". :)
posted by kcm at 11:19 AM on March 15, 2006

What's the optimum value for "and up", assuming price is unimportant?

If the price of the meal has no negative effects as it increases, then the optimal value is infinity. Realistically, I have no idea.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 11:20 AM on March 15, 2006

I don't have an answer for you, but if you aren't satisfied with the answers you get here, try checking Chowhound or EGullet.
posted by necessitas at 11:24 AM on March 15, 2006

Ask the chef to prepare the most luxurious, decadent meal he or she can conceive, with absolutely no restrictions of any kind. Specify that price is no object and that you are willing to pay literally any amount. When you receive the bill, you'll have your answer. (And we expect a full description of the menu afterwards.)
posted by Faint of Butt at 11:27 AM on March 15, 2006

Actually, Faint of Butt, that'll only give us the maximum price. I suspect that I Love Tacos is looking for the flat points on the price curve — the prices to which you can add $2 or $10 or even $50 without getting a better meal.

After all, if he'd known that the $300 meal and the $290 meal were the same, he could have saved $10. By contrast, knowing that the most expensive possible meal cost $5,000 wouldn't have saved him any money.

(Of course, if I Love Tacos does go in for your experiment, I too would love a copy of the menu. Or perhaps an invitation.)
posted by nebulawindphone at 11:45 AM on March 15, 2006

What'd you have? Because yes, I think that there is a limit to the value. The chef can't use more exotic ingredients than are available to him, for instance. Though at some price point, I suppose you could pay enough for him to fly ingredients in just for you.
posted by desuetude at 11:48 AM on March 15, 2006

"...the waitress was unable to give a definition of what I'd get for various values of 'and up' (she just said that I would get more exotic stuff, but no real clarification)."

Hmm...I've encountered this pricing scheme before, but it involved naked ladies and a so-called VIP room. I think what you get for "and up" in that situation depends on a lot of things - but for me in resulted the same thing for more money.
posted by mullacc at 11:50 AM on March 15, 2006

I don't think this will have a hard-and-fast answer, as it depends on what the chef has on hand and what he paid for it that morning at the fish market. He's probably just going to make it up on the fly.

Consider how he might approach his merchandising. How often will he expect someone to order $300? He might not have inventory on hand that is "worth" $300, in which case you'll get the $200 with some extra presentational flourishes.

Personally, I'd suggest that the highest price that's actually listed ($120) is the "optimum," as it suggests that the chef has carefully planned to merchandise inventory at that level, and anything beyond that is likely semi-improvisational.
posted by frogan at 11:51 AM on March 15, 2006

If you Google for [omakase nobu] the first two links have descriptions of cheaper menus. You can compare if you like.
posted by grouse at 11:56 AM on March 15, 2006

I was treated to regular Nobu for my birthday last year and we went for the $100 omakase, which was pretty fantastic. I only recall seeing the $80 and $120 for other options, no "and up." I can't imagine that price directly correlates with the quality of your experience, just that the ingredients they're using are more expensive to find or make. So you'll just get something that's more and more exotic, just like she said, but not necessarily better. I guess the main advantage would be that if a regular Nobu meal was old hat to you, you would get something different.
posted by lackutrol at 12:00 PM on March 15, 2006

I would expect that many high-end chefs would be willing to prepare quite expensive meals, but only with advance notice. You can obtain the beluga caviar, the kilos of truffles, the sexless salmon, [insert any of the other premium foodstuffs from Iron Chef], and the nubile young woman to serve the meal upon, but none of these things might be stocked normally.

I imagine you got larger portions than usual, and the best of whatever the chef had on hand. But I'll bet you would have been well-satisfied with the $120 version. In the future if you want extravagant meals you may get more for your money with three days' advance notice to the chef.
posted by jellicle at 12:11 PM on March 15, 2006

For what it's worth, the differences between $80, $100, and $120 were well defined. It was a set number of cold and hot dishes, and at each price point you got an additional dish.

nebulawindphone is exactly correct. In an ideal world, they would've given me a step function that showed what changes at different price points.

The idea of a "make me the best possible meal" meal is intriguing, but I'd want to take a lot of time choosing the right chef for such extravagance. Maybe I could do that when I retire.

As for what I actually got, the two most memorable dishes were a spiny lobster sashimi with two fantastic dipping sauces, and kobe beef with foie gras and matsutake mushrooms. There were about seven other courses, most of which were very large, and with the exception of one course, contained ingredients that weren't typical.

I found a flickr photoset of somebody else's omakase meal at a different Nobu here. My take is that I had a much wider variety, more courses, and more interesting dishes than the person who took those photos. The only exception being dessert. My dessert was competent, but unimpressive (a small chocolate souffle that wasn't half as good as the ones at 11 Madison Park, green tea iced cream, and a third thing that I've totally forgotten).

And looking at the google results that grouse suggested, the meal was definitely more interesting (and much larger) than the ones pictured.
posted by I Love Tacos at 12:11 PM on March 15, 2006

Either the $100 or $120 as explicitly listed would be the optimum as these represent what customers would be expected to pay on average as aligned with the quality and volume of food that Nobu usually prepares. It's possible that $120 might be more optimal as the chef might try to "wow" you with his capabilities when you order past the average. It's a bit of game theory really.

At $300, you're pricing yourself at the extreme end of the curve so in terms of $/"arbitary quantifier of quality", so you're probably not doing as well as the $100/$120 price points. You probably received unique fish/dishes that wouldn't appear at all at the $100/$120 level.

Aside:
For traditional sushi chefs, the idea of omakase with a dollar figure is somewhat unusual. Ideally, when you ask for omakase, you'd tell the chef how many courses you want and particular fish/preparations you want and the chef would come up with a menu based on your past preferences and what he has. At the end of the meal, the chef throws out a figure only partly based on the cost and volume of what you received. It allows the chef to be more fluid and honest with the cost and quality of what he has to offer. For people unused to the idea, it can be a bit unsettling.
posted by junesix at 12:15 PM on March 15, 2006

Omakase can also vary in price based on the chef. For example, once every several months my wife and I treat ourselves to what I consider to be the best sushi dinner in New York: Omakase at Sushi Yasuda. There are no fixed prices, you simply sit at the sushi bar and eat spectacular sushi until you have had enough. The cost varies greatly, but is generally between $150 and $200 per person exclusive of drinks.

If you happen to be at Yasuda-san's station, though, you can expect to pay substantially more--perhaps as much as 50% more. The preparation and selection will be very slightly better, but also the fish will be just a fraction better, as Yasuda-san makes sure he has the best pieces of the day's fish at his station.

No idea if Nobu is like this. I don't even know if Matsuhisa-san even prepares sushi there anymore, though I'm sure whoever is head chef at the sushi bar is execllent. I live two blocks away, but I haven't been in 10 years.
posted by The Bellman at 12:24 PM on March 15, 2006

junesix: I was a bit surprised by the request for an exact dollar figure also. I was expecting that "and up" would be at the chef's discretion, or that they'd give me some vaguely defined pricing choices (or descriptions of menu changes that would infer the price ranges)

I really had no idea how to answer the request for a specific dollar amount, thus my question.
posted by I Love Tacos at 12:27 PM on March 15, 2006

All I can tell you is that an omakase meal as good or better than the finest food made at Nobu Next Door (I've had their omakase three times) can be had for half the price - CDN$320 for two people, including sake, tax and a very generous tip - in Vancouver, at Tojo's. He'll ask you what you like, what you don't and what you are allergic to, and then just go to town. You simply signal when you are finished with the meal, or the dishes keep coming. We had perhaps 12 small courses, and I can honestly say it was the best meal I've had anywhere. This is a more traditional omakase, as junesix describes.

There's Nishino in Seattle, too, for their truly incredible omakase, which is also consistently a small step above Nobu. Their sushi is good, but the omakase is something entirely different. They also do a good seasonal kaiseki, I think.

The only place in New York that I think compares in terms of quality is Yasuda, but I really don't see the point when a $450 meal there is equal to a $150 meal at Tojo. The difference would cover the airfare. I used to think that NYC was the be-all end-all of North American sushi, but I've come to find that the northwest does almost everything better - more variety, better prices, higher quality, and most importantly - more accessible! You don't need reservations a month in advance, nor do you need to wait in a Sushi of Gari-sized line in the snow for an hour.
posted by luriete at 12:38 PM on March 15, 2006

(and I've been told that Tojo beat Morimoto on Iron Chef, but I was unable to find that episode online)
posted by luriete at 12:41 PM on March 15, 2006

I think the difference between the $200 meal and the $500 meal can be most accurately measured by determining the differences in the relative lengths of jaw-droppage you get when telling friends/associates you spent $200/$500 on your meal.
posted by troybob at 1:29 PM on March 15, 2006

Just in case you weren't aware, luriete, you pay a 10-30% premium on EVERYTHING in Manhattan, including (and especially) premium food and drink.

Also, if you think you can find a $300 ticket from NYC to Tokyo, I've got a very nice bridge I'd like to sell you.

$300 is probably a bit much. You more than doubled the top menu item, after all. The cost, in terms of labor and ingredients is more than covered even at the $80 level, so what you're really trying to do is send the message "I want the best you have and can make." I think doubling the top line would more than accomplish it, and maybe even just going up by 50% would do it, too. Therefore, I'd say maybe $180 is a good number.
posted by ChasFile at 1:36 PM on March 15, 2006

$300 from Vancouver to NYC.
posted by maledictory at 1:45 PM on March 15, 2006

(jellicle: may I ask what is sexless salmon?)
posted by Eater at 1:49 PM on March 15, 2006

Yes, $300 from Vancouver to NYC, and that's doable right now even with fuel costs.
posted by luriete at 4:47 PM on March 15, 2006

This is kinda right. Nobody will order the $100 option since it's only twenty bucks more. The people who order the $80 option have made it clear price is their number one priority so they won't get any special flourishes or the like.

At this point, you can figure that there is no optimal point. There's no well-defined step function; instead there's likely a set of ranges. Also, there's no special magic sauce that's going to make any given dish better or worse. Logically the only way they can increase the value of any given serving is by increasing the quantity, quality, and variety of the food. So you might figure that people who order in the $120-$200 range are going to get something "very good," the $200-$250 range will get great quality, and $250-$500 will get both an enormous amount of food of great quality. So I don't think you did too bad with the $300 option but you might've gotten more food than you really wanted.

Next time you should simply tell the waitress what sort of experience you want. That's what the real question is, and that's what they really want to know. So let her know whether you're just hungry, or if you want to be dazzled, or if it's a special occassion etc. And yeah, in Manhattan, you're going to pay a premium. That's why they call it Manhattan. Accept it and enjoy the food.
posted by nixerman at 4:52 PM on March 15, 2006

Certain types of salmon are highly prized (and thus expensive) because of traits that increase fattiness. Good luck finding places outside of Japan that serve or have even heard of them. I heard about these from my local sushi chef but he laughed when I asked if he would be getting any :(

keiji: The "sexless" salmon that jellicle mentioned are better described as sexually immature. They produce neither milt (sperm) nor roe (eggs). Since energy and resources aren't expended on producing reproductive material, the salmon retains more fatty tissue.

tokishirazu/tokizake: Salmon that fail or forget to swim up river. Like keiji, fatty tissue is retained because energy isn't wasted swimming upstream.

mejika: Similar story to the tokishirazu.

I've heard about Tomi in Mountain View (first link) but I highly doubt they'd let on if they had any of the above to non-regulars.
posted by junesix at 5:03 PM on March 15, 2006

FYI, at the $300/person mark, Anthony Bourdain (author; Cook's Tour guy), Michael Ruhlman (co-author of all Thomas Keller/French Laundry books), and Frank Bruni say Masa in the Time Warner center is the shiznit for the best no-frills fish period.
posted by junesix at 5:34 PM on March 15, 2006

nixerman, actually I bet the $100 is popular. That's because when we made it clear to our waiter that we weren't sure which of the three to get, he said that he thought the $100 was the best way to go if you hadn't been there before.
posted by lackutrol at 3:26 PM on March 16, 2006