Sushi Nakazawa

Defends the place against online criticism, calling it really good and reasonably priced.

Calls Sushi Nakazawa technically superior but clinical-feeling, and prefers Tanoshi to it.

Still their regular omakase pick for price-to-quality, and says they haven't noticed any drop in quality.

Calls quality decent but the room crowded and assembly-line in feel, so ranks it below some mid-range picks.

On a recent visit, thought the fish was good but found the rice gummy and tacky throughout the meal.

Food was delicious, but the room felt soulless, quiet and pricey for a special occasion.

Visited this past October; still a fan, values the quiet atmosphere and says the sushi quality remains very good.

Considers it more casual than Sho and other high-end spots mentioned.

Warned others off after a bad experience.

Says the place gets undue criticism; good value that has kept its costs steady for years.

Ranks Sushi Nakazawa first, calling its omakase the best of their life.

Offered as one of many omakase suggestions, in a list answering the request.

Really enjoyed it as a less expensive option.

Names Sushi Nakazawa as a direct answer to the omakase request.

Also recommends Nakazawa.

Found fish quality poor on a visit years ago, did not return; service also disappointed.

Includes Sushi Nakazawa among their preferred choices.

Thinks this place balances quality and cost well.

Calls it an easy first omakase pick, noting it isn't steep and rarely hurries diners.

Went years ago and found it not worth the cost; strongly advises against going.

Was fantastic on a visit a couple years ago, though thinks it has gotten pricier since.

Stands by criticism: rice crumbled without a redo offer, fish barely changes, and most pieces matched their summer visit.