Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

18130Re: [SCA-JML] Sushi

Expand Messages
  • Fyg Adakar - but my friends call me...
    Feb 25 10:09 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      In traditional sushi you don't often see American "rolls" as it's mainly
      nigiri sushi, sashimi, and hand rolls. I'm not saying they don't do maki
      rolls, but the premise is often to use traditional ingredients in maki with
      the inclusion of some local ingredients if they fall close enough to
      traditional fare.

      The traditional chefs that I've spent time with say that when you go for
      tradtional sushi there is a specific understanding of traditional fare and
      to ask for something otherwise (like a California or Boston roll) would mean
      you either question the quality of the ingredients the chef uses or question
      tradition - in both cases you would be asked to leave the establishment.

      I think the 2 biggie modern day sushi where local ingredients were
      incorporated are perilla-leaf and pickled-gourd sushi but in those cases it
      was when the chefs took ingredients from existing Japanese cuisine and put
      into sushi form.



      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Horatius at the Bridge" <horatius314@...>

      > Would it be appropriate to modify traditional sushi to reflect local
      > ingredients?
      >
      > I've seen the various incarnations of modern sushi available at the local
      > deli and Japanese resturaunts. I've even seen 'sushi' (please note the
      quote
      > marks) variants such as the Arkansas roll, the Boston roll and the
      > all-pervasive California roll. I've even seen and eaten the rather tasty
      > North Dakota roll. I understand these are modern versions. But were there
      > local interpretations of sushi that could be served in period?
    • Show all 15 messages in this topic