QPR does not mean cheap, it means value.
In Singapore, laksa is about as common as tacos are in LA. Even one of the McDonalds had some laksa something-or-other on the menu there. Trying laksa in Singapore was the first time I’d ever tried it. So my taste buds are calibrated to the basic profile found there. Cassia’s version to me was too spicy.
Yes, you can get laksa everywhere in Singapore. One of the best ones we had was at a random stand in the botanical gardens! But the laksa flavour continuum is broad.
We do have elevated Korean that is deserving of high prices and attention. It’s called Temple Food cooked by Buddhist nuns.
Quick recap so far: 5 piece $22 bossam == FTC catnip.
Are you talking about the Thai Temple?
Nope Korean Buddhist Temple Food.
I guess I am a little surprised by the vehemence of the reaction. Not every restaurant is for everyone. I never went to Urasawa, etc. Maybe if there is a special occasion and it gets good reviews I’ll go here, but it seems unlikely.
I credit Chang for doing something ambitious. I happen to not be a particularly huge fan of his food. I had an extremely disappointing experience at Ko–that was the most expensive-but-not-good meal I’ve ever had. And I’ve found his other places fine but not noteworthy. It looks like he is doing unique dishes and putting himself out there in a big way.
In terms of LA restaurants, Cassia and Republique now fall in the same category for me. Places I like but are way too expensive. Really I get the sense restaurants like this are for people using work accounts for business dinners.
Uh…that’s what QPR means. Quality Price Ratio. It’s not “Quantity” for anyone else either.
Look at the post to which I was replying:
But what does QPR actually mean? It seems pretty vague. I’m not liking this idea of QPR being a catch-all general acronym that seems to speciously conflate two seemingly established concepts to stand in for, essentially, “I personally wouldn’t spend my own money on it.”
What is assessed in establishing quality? How do we determine whether or not a price is worthy of said enumerated qualities? Are those documented somewhere for all of us to reference with ratio values clearly defined in worthiness ranges? We all have price tolerance (denominator) values that are different, does assigning a worthiness to an output ratio account for that?
Uh it’s not meant to be taken that seriously. We’re just posting on a message board FFS
if it’s not that serious, then why wouldn’t folks just say what they actually mean?
Because QPR is faster to type
does this only apply to you or to everyone who uses QPR (bc that sure doesn’t seem to be the case with some folks on this thread alone)
The QPR applies to restaurants the same as when buying a house or car or going on vacation. The best quality available at the price you are willing to spend. Fairly basic economic concept.
Houses, cars and vacations have tons of established and specifically enumerated offerings that dictate your perception of value… Restaurant food on the other hand is a little bit more anecdotal in scope, usually expressed as “$35 for uni and some bread wtf” or “$3.50 for a bowl of chicken pho hell yeah I’m eating that”
it’s subjective as is any opinion. some folks here try to list objective considerations to support their position but many don’t; palate also is a factor; sadly, some folks don’t seem to have much of one - or they refuse to believe that a palate more refined than their own might exist when rendering their opinions. then there’s cultural sensibilities; someone might describe one sushi place as having a higher QPR based on ratio of neta to rice, while others might understand that truly great sushi incorporates a specific ratio where too much neta could be bad. i suggest that you take the phrase with a grain of salt until you are familiar with the preferences of the person rendering the opinion. there are some whose sensibilities appear to be very similar to mine, and i give their opinions more weight.
Not going to speak for anyone else’s palate, since that’s in that weird vague territory, but it helps to know that this is something that gets established more intuitively as a product of familiarity with the members of the board as opposed to taking these criticisms as sorts of objective warranties from having done any sort of concrete analysis on prices. That’s all I really wanted to make certain.
An objective warranty for food would probably mean:
(a) Food ordered = actual food received; and
(b) Food ordered is edible (e.g., non-poisonous).
Think of QPR as deciding what to do with your pocket change of $2.50 for a post-clubbing taco. Where would you spend that money to get the best damn taco?