7310 Burnet Road
452-2883
Dwight's comments:
Something I didn't know about sushi, pointed out by one of the Ichiban sushi chefs:
Sit at the bar if you can. At the bar, you get the best cuts, and occassional freebies: at a table, you get what you ordered, no extras.
I have trouble wrapping my brain around Ichiban: I ate there once in the days it was a bad Chinese place, and they haven't done anything to the outside since then.
On the inside, however, Ichiban is much less tacky.
The food? We didn't try any of the Korean dishes (maybe next trip). Raw fish is raw fish to me: I can't tell the subtle differences between fresh fish and very fresh fish, so I'd only notice bad sushi if the materials were actually starting to rot. (Or if my lips started going numb. Fugu you too.)
The presentation of the sushi was incredibly artistic, though, especially some of the speciality rolls.
If you can stand the sticker shock (We're talking Ruth's Chris level here, people.) I think Ichiban is worth trying. (They do have a discount card, but you have to eat a lot of sushi to get a discount.)
Lawrence's comments:
Though I'm not a huge sushi fan, every now and then I have a hankering for it, and Ichiban proves to be an excellent place to satisfy that particular craving. Both the unagi (smoked eel) and the various types of fish sushi I had were very tasty, and the Rainbow roll was truly a work of art (when it was set before me, my dining companions lamented the fact we didn't have a camera with us). The soy sauce seemed a lot tastier than average, and the wasabi was suitably potent (just the thing for stopped-up sinuses).
My only real complaint is with the prices, which seem higher than average, even for sushi. Part of the problem is that an "order" of the standard sushi pieces (unagi, hamanchi, etc.) was for two pieces rather than one. Still, it's been more than a year since I've tried competing sushi offerings, so I don't know how Ichiban's prices compare with Mr. Wasabi or Azuma Express (though I bet they're still lower than Musashino, where their motto is "Our prices are so high we dare not print a menu"). But if you're willing to drop the dough, Ichiban offers a fine setting to serve your sushi jones.
6319 N. IH-35
452-9363
Dwight's comments:
I'm not as wild about Pappadeaux as Lawrence is, but I have to concede the service is pretty good. And my blackened Opaloupas fillet (with crab, shrimp, and oysters) was pretty darn good.
I just wish I felt less like I was eating inside a noisy barn with a bad echo. Pappadeaux is a little too big, too crowded, and too loud for me.
Lawrence's comments:
Here's a quick clue as to why Pappadeaux's was packed on a Monday night while Pearl's was all but empty on a Saturday night: though we paid about the same for each meal, Pappadeaux's gave us almost twice the food for the money. My blackened mahi mahi was huge and (as usual for Pappadeaux's) very good. And though it was fried rather than blackened, the alligator was far superior to Pearl's offering.
The only drawback was having to wait on some drink refills; given how busy they were, I'm willing to cut our waitress some slack.
A few days before, I had eaten at a Pappasito's in Houston, and the back-to-back dining experiences proved a good example of why the Pappa's chain is so successful: charge the same as the other guys, then provide huge portions of good food and excellent service. At Pappasito's, my Dr Pepper was refilled several times without my even asking, as were the chips and salsa. Aspiring restauranteaurs take note: this is the way you build a success.
Previously visited: April 19, 1997.
3010 Guadalupe
477-7884
Men's room rating: 2.5.
Dwight's comments:
(sigh)
It took us nearly a half hour from the time we sat down until someone took our food order: though the service improved after that point, I've still had better service at 1/6th the price in other Austin restaurants.
The side dishes fall a little short of justifying the prices. (I have to give credit to the person who came up with the salad menu, though: the idea of just taking a head of lettuce, whacking it a few times with a chef's knife, and putting it on a plate with dressing is truly inspired. I wish more places would emulate this example.)
And my ribeye didn't seem to be a first quality cut of meat: too much fat and gristle, I think. While it was cooked properly, it wasn't served hot enough for me. And Ruth's Chris is selling the sizzle as well as the steak: no sizzle is a sin, especially at these prices.
I hope to try Sullivan's at some point: right now, I'm not sure I can justify spending Ruth's Chris money at Ruth's Chris.
Lawrence's comments:
Though they still have the best steak in town, I can't help thinking that Ruth's Chris is slipping.
The service was OK, but didn't seem nearly as attentive as it's been in years past. Soft drink refills seemed to take longer than they should have (it didn't help that I had recently eaten at two different Papasittos where they bring you soft drink refills before you ask for them). When our steaks arrived, they weren't sizzling nearly as much as usual; part of the problem may have been the almost complete absence of cooking butter on my T-bone plate, and the steak itself, while still exceptional, seemed a touch less tasty than previous offerings.
On the plus side, the French fries were quite good (as usual), and the Creme Brulee was excellent.
Though Ruth's Chris Steakhouse still provides a fine meal, I can't help thinking that it's getting harder and harder to justify the $60 price tag.
9041 Research Blvd.
832-9722
Dwight's comments:
They've gotten better, but then they couldn't get any lower.
The buffet (lunch and dinner, seven nights a week, $8.99) is not a bad idea. I thought the actual implimentation on the night we were there was a little heavy on vegitable dishes.
The major problem with buffets, I think, is that some things don't hold up well in the buffet line: the duck entree was surprisingly good, but the pad thai pretty much sucked, and I've never cared much for buffet fried anything.
I think Bangkok Cuisine is still at the bottom of the Thai food chain (and if I was in the area and wanted buffet food, I'd probably try Sarovar first) but the improvement is enough for me to reconsider my "burn it to the ground and pour salt over the remains" position.
Lawrence's comments:
The last time we tried Bangkok Cuisine (back in the early 1990s), the food was bad and the prices were high. Thankfully, since then they've changed hands, and now offer a reasonably priced buffet.
The good news: As a buffet, Bangkok Cuisine offers pretty good value for the money. Favorites included a meatball and onion dish, a duck dish, and what seemed to be battered and fried hard-boiled eggs. Also good was the fried fish, though it tasted more like something that should have come out of an English pub than a Thai restaurant (and they needed some tarter sauce to go with it, or at least ketchup).
The bad news: As a Thai restaurant, Bangkok Cuisine doesn't offering anything compelling enough to put it ahead of other Thai area offerings. Though good, none of the particular buffet offerings seemed particularly hot or particularly innovative (having hot condiments on the side to spice it up helps, but it just doesn't compare to having the peppers cooked in), and the non-buffet menu seemed limited. Plus, if you're going to have a salad bar, some salad dressing would be nice.
Still, the prices are low enough that it might be worth your time to drop in for the lunch buffet.
Return to the main Saturday Dining Conspiracy page.
See the logs for March of 1998.