I went there last week and had an incredible garlic infused steak. Far better than Mastros.
S. Irene Virbila did one for the Los Angeles Time. (not sure if you’re new to LA, but both are venerable institutions).
1 Like
You realize that review is 11 YEARS old right?
Yes. This was in response to your comment that there were no reviews. Well, there’s a review. A bang up one at that. With the most notable LA critic in the most notable publication. Seemed like a good response!
Should I have started with something more fresh? Or near the beginning?
Actually I would not recommend Mori to Bacoman.
It’s pretty subtle and refined.
Quite different from Baco Mercat and what he seems to like.
I was one of those and didn’t visit for a few years after his departure and frequented Shunji instead. Then last year went to dinner there one night because someone wanted to know where the best sushi in LA was. I have been back 4 times since because I forgot how good it is.
1 Like
You may be right. But it’s odd that Aesthete is seeming to base his opinion on the lack of media coverage (though I recall posts pre/post change over on CH). Not taking sides but if it weren’t for the arguing above, maybe his receptiveness might be different. I am sure each of us rubs at least some one the wrong way. Regardless, Aesthete covers a lot of ground, so I can appreciate that. And don’t all opinions count? Each opinion adds to the depth discourse on FTC, as long as it’s legit, right? And with all the knowledgeable eaters on this board, keeping things honest is easy (if not a bit testy at times).
1 Like
You’re a better man than me.
The guy went to NYC saying I suspect NYC food sucks and came back saying yep, confirmed my suspicions NYC food sucks.
Gotcha. I’m just wearing thin with all the conflict lately. Kinda feeling a 'Hillary" and hoping for a restart. Serenity now!
2 Likes
You’re right.
I’m going to give myself one final defense, and leave the sacred cow alone. But for anyone that wishes to understand my reviews, and discussions (and decide whether to ignore them or not), hopefully this will clarify my viewpoint, and approach to food.
I am happy to be proved wrong by legitimate resources, the whole point of my original question was to gain evidence for the restaurant’s quality given it’s general lack of coverage, compared to the best restaurants in LA, even in it’s class (Q, Shunji, N/Naka, Yamakase, Kiriko, etc… are all written about frequently, ranked highly by major publications, and presented with evidence of fantastic dining experiences quite regularly). One should legitimately wonder why nearly none of this exists if the restaurant is even remotely of the same caliber as these others that people claim it is in the running with.
I am illing to admit I was incorrect, and hadn’t mentioned that Mori got a 2014 nod in an Eater Sushi roundup. Awesome. Everyone is incorrect once in a while, but this place is still basically snubbed by major publications, despite having been around for 12 years. That tells one something. Yes it was written about 12 years ago in the LAT… that leaves a lot of room for change in quality of a place. Usually when major publications ignore a long-standing place, it’s because it’s not very good anymore. (Someone could offer an alternative explanation, such as, the owner is simply hated by all food media publications for some reason I guess).
To respond to questions about why a supposedly great place would receive almost no media coverage, and ask what makes it so good in spite of this, one ought to accept the following as valid in a decent discussion:
-
Recent reviews written by valued critics (within 2 years preferably, restaurants of high caliber go out of business in less time quite frequently, never mind decline in quality).
-
Photos and descriptions of recent experiences offering proof that despite lack of media coverage, the place is stellar.
Look at Papilles, a well known underground place very lacking in media attention…but even they have been very recently “discovered” by the media.
Providing a nearly 12 year old review that’s rather lukewarm from some old archives as proof that it’s a decent restaurant is something you would expect a sleezy restaurant owner of a 4th rate shithole to offer you as proof that his restaurant really was “the best in town” or some such nonsense. No one should ever allow themselves to be cajoled into eating at a place due to such tactics. I certainly feel it is worth challenging such tactics in a public forum for everyone reading, lest they perhaps they feel pressured to try a place merely because it’s what the cool kids all say to do. If a forum is to allow open debate of topics, that seems fair to me.
Anytime anyone has made sincere recommendations with evidence, I have attended to them (see recent posts working through list of Santa Ana Mexican spots).
Any time I have made any claims whatsoever I have put in the work of writing extensively about my experiences, and often photographing evidence as well. Often people eat things I scout out, and enjoy themselves quite a bit, which is great, because I come here to find new sources of great food, and offer up discussions of great food that I find in the world (and warn about the mediocre, which to me, is never acceptable).
I take food a great deal more seriously than anyone else here it seems, and this is because eating shitty food actually depresses me. Therefore I ask of others that make recommendations only what I demand of myself: detailed evidence to back up claims of excellence, and a short guide about what to order to make the experience magical. I am also voracious about seeking out the best experiences possible though, and if Mori was actually the greatest hidden restaurant in LA, I would want to fucking eat there.
I find it almost unbelievable that one has to defend their love of food on a forum dedicated to discussion about food… but here I am. If anyone feels that it’s completely absurd to ask for actual evidence that the food is truly great somewhere, they can feel free to ignore me. I’ve been quite attentive in following the advice of other posters that are willing to share their experiences, and provide evidence of them, allowing me to find more places to experience culinary splendor, and that’s what I come here for. No one is compelling to read anything written on this site, and I certainly don’t give any fucks about people choosing to ignore my posts. If people find it offensive that I don’t give a fuck about their choosing to ignore my posts…I don’t know what to tell them. I’m not holding a gun to anyone’s head. If my reviews are too intense, or my demands for evidence are too much, it’s very, very simple to just ignore me, and leave me to engage with those other people who are also interested in sharing evidence of great food, and where to get it.
1 Like
Maggie: I’m not sure you should actually come here, even. This place just seems to annoy you. You always saying, “He’s got an acting part” that you wanted, or, “He’s got credibility and he doesn’t deserve it.” If you worry about things like that, you’re never going to be happy. No matter how successful you get, you’ll never be famous enough.
Andy: Thank you, Dr. Freud. Next conversation.
Maggie: [is quiet for a second, then smiles brightly] What would you rather be? A penguin that can’t fly, but it swims around in the water like a fish – but it is a bird – or a flying fish that can fly, but it is essentially still just a fish…
Andy: Oh, fuck it. I can’t do these stupid questions anymore. Seriously. We’re grown-ups.
1 Like
I’ll explain Mori and its lack of media attention relative to its greatness for you.
What makes Mori so great, to the sushi aficionado, is a lot of technical nuance when it comes to sushi. Such technical nuances are not only not newsworthy to the media, but they’re also lost on a good deal of diners (and likely even food media). Generally, the kind of diners who care about such don’t rely too heavily on food media, and those who rely heavily on food media probably don’t know or care about such.
At the end of the day, Mori often gets things just right with respect to its cuisine, yet these often go unnoticed. On the other hand, other restaurants in its echelon put forth many other positives which are more readily appreciated, more easily discernable, more exciting, and more newsworthy. Mori isn’t for everyone. In fact, I wouldn’t necessarily recommend it to many unless I knew their tastes. I can see how it’d be somewhat boring for many, unless you know your way around sushi. Even the media probably eats at Mori and simply sees good quality sushi and Japanese food done well, some “Zen-like” qualities, notes the special provenance of the rice and plateware, and thinks it’s nice but expensive. I’ve seen Jonathan Gold eat nigiri and he held it incorrectly, that is to say maybe he liked Mori but didn’t really appreciate the technical knife and handwork to be impressed enough to write a review. Then they think of the myriad other options - many very good in their own right - and fail to see what makes Mori special. The same, even more so, for your average diner who relies heavily on food media to make judgments on a restaurant’s cuisine. The merits or media noteworthiness of Zo, with his luscious big-taste and soft morsels of seafood; Yamakase, with the underground semi “invite-only” and hedonistic procession of opulent luxurious crowd-pleasers; n/naka, with its fairly unique to the area and very nice modern kaiseki (the documentary fame doesn’t hurt); Shunji, with its incredibly diverse array of pristine neta, its fusiony and decadent omakase options, and the juxtaposition of such with its shoddy surroundings; Nozawa Bar, with its secret back room meeting setup (literally), private party one-chef kind of style; Q, with its unique story of law firm origins and its oft-repeated Edomae mantra; Kiriko, with its thoughtful modern omakase options and comfortable digs, etc…are all a bit easier to understand. The media sees good Japanese cuisine at lots or places. Do they see the details that make Mori technically excellent? I’m not so sure. But even if they did, they hardly make for a sexy article and plenty others already do well in the details, even if not quite up to the consistent highs of Mori.
But what makes Mori distinct, in my opinion (and not saying it’s the only good one, just perhaps the most consistent), is the knifework and handwork formation or the sushi. Sushi is so much something for which the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Knifework and handwork are directly apprehendible in two very underrated aspects of sushi: texture and mouthfeel. Texture of the rice, the packing, how the neta rests on the rice, the interplay of the fish and rice in the mouth which of course affects flavor. Case in point, if you want to get technical: I was at a different joint a few weeks ago. The fish was great quality, the rice was well seasoned and the right stickiness and texture. Obviously, this place paid attention to ingredients. But the knifework was off - no sinews, and the itamae had the right idea for the drape, ok but the problem was that it was off in proportion. The akami was cut thin a la sogi-zukuri and the namadako was cut too thick, thicker than hira-zukuri. The mouthfeel and chew was totally off. It felt odd in the hand. I’ve never experienced anything like that at Mori. Mori excels in consistency and doing details in the right way.
By the way, they have great cooked dishes, too, great presentation, and some wicked desserts, but again the subtleties of each don’t stick out to the media or many diners.
Yes there is generally a correlation between great restaurants and media coverage, that’s to be expected, but it’s not necessarily the case that a lack of media coverage translates to a bad restaurant. Especially when it comes to cuisines that aren’t understood by many in much depth - or at least the level of depth to appreciate what a particular restaurant is doing.
Mori, by the way, hasn’t skipped a beat at all since the departure or its founder Mori-san. If one is very serious about sushi, Mori is near the top of what one can do in LA. Sure, it’s not for everyone. Sure, it’s not a media darling. Sure, it’s not the best sushiya in America. I don’t care; to me, and many others, it offers some of the most, if not consistently the very most, technically pristine nigiri you will find in LA. It deserves attention as such, and not to be dismissed so quickly. If the number of reviews is the bottom line for you, then that’s your prerogative. Many of us choose a different analysis when it comes to evaluating a restaurant.
9 Likes
I saw a Mori review today. A black SUV on the freeway had a plate reading “4 MORI.”
1 Like
I’m so confused by this thread
It saddens me that Mori isn’t a media darling. The sushi is very good, as are the appetizers. It has a lovely interior with great artwork. The chefs are really quite nice. The servers are good too.
I think Japanese cuisine is difficult for Americans, even serious foodies, to understand. I didn’t understand it until I lived in Japan. It’s like J.S. Bach: not many people are fans, but a very few people are reverent.
If I recall correctly, Mori had a star when Michelin was here.
Not sure why it’s necessary for a restaurant, sushi or otherwise, to be a media darling to be considered a quality dining destination.
Sushi Kimagure, for example, is one of the better sushi places in all of LA (at least in my opinion), but it’s media coverage is about as dated as Windows 7.
2 Likes
Well, even though you claim to hate me, I appreciate your genuine, thoughtful reply. It adds a great deal of perspective to the Mori mystery that is extremely valuable for most of the people reading these forums I believe. So thank you for your contribution. I appreciate it deeply.
The implication being that the American food critics who have extensively written about the splendors of Shunji, Q, Zo, Kiriko, Yamakase, Go’s Mart, Urasawa, etc… have mistaken elements in those places as being good because the don’t understand Japanese cuisine well?
I am sincerely not trying to be snide here. After reading the extensive post about Mori by markambrose73, for which I think everyone involved in this discussion is better off, it seems to me that Mori is, indeed, the kind of place that must be admired mainly by Japanese ex-pats, and/or those totally dedicated to sushi as an artform. I confess that I am not deep enough into sushi to understand half of the specialty jargon necessary to communicating the quality of Mori it seems, but it does help contextualize the restaurant. It sounds like it is not very accessible to anyone that hasn’t spent a lot of time learning about sushi, and eating high end sushi at the hands of masters.
Still, part of me wonders if the other places that are so regularly written about can really be that horrible? Maybe so. Maybe Japanese cuisine requires too much specialized knowledge to accurately assess, and so reviewers latch onto all the wrong elements, and the product is what we see? Or does the media just trust that it’s better to send people to more accessible venues, while knowing that those who have the necessary knowledge of Japanese cuisine will find their way to Mori on their own?
Unfortunately, it seems like being able to enjoy Mori is about a decade of learning about sushi away for me personally, but it seems like they will probably still be around then, so at least I have something in the distant future to look forward to!
I would say it’s because the food media is incredibly comprehensive. For sure if a place of exceptional quality is around for over 10 years, it’s hard to imagine them failing to write something about it.
The LA Weekly wrote an article calling Kimagure possibly the best sushi bar ever just 3 years ago, which seems to indicate that it is at least a bit of a media darling:
Could just be me… but it rarely seems like the food media fails to pick up on anywhere with enough time. Papilles was the undiscovered hidden gem for quite some time, and even they are turning into a little media darling now.
Maybe just my perception, but it seems like the only way a place can be great and have no coverage is when its brand new.