If you are set on Japanese food, then I second LapLap's suggestion to get out of the city. Even the good Japanese restaurants in hotels here do not really have a "special occasion" atmosphere; they tend to be cramped and hurried (perhaps I have just not been to the right ones). Best bet is to go out to a hot spring somewhere and have a massive kaiseki dinner there.

You might want to think about ShabuShabu at Seryna or Zakuro. You don't find it much outside of Japan and it's usually very popular with foreigners (if you like beef). There are a lot of other.

The suggestions for kaiseki are good too, but for me, my reaction immediately after my first experience with kaiseki (a very long dinner with 20 courses) was "What the **** was that? My knees are killing me and I'm still starving." It's a bit of an acquired taste.

I remember having Kaiseki for the first time at my hotel the evening I first arrived in Japan, and I really loved it.

I have never eaten a kaiseki meal kneeling down. Even in private tatami dining rooms there is often a table with chairs, or a "foot well" that allows one to sit in a normal position. At a hotel restaurant, the meal will either be served at a table or counter with chairs. A meal does take a relatively long time, but often includes far fewer than twenty courses.

For the OP: the 2013 Michelin guides were not printed in English, so they became available online. No need to use an old paper guide. http://gm.gnavi.co.jp/restaurant/list/tokyo

One of my favorite restaurants (I went there first not knowing that they just got their first star in 2011) is considered Japanese Contemporary. It serves multi-course (6-7) meals that are strictly Japanese but some things are very innovative.

Esaki is a well-known kaiseki restaurant that is reasonably priced and has 3 michelin stars. The latter is a mystery to me but it's a good restaurant; ate there once but not compelled to return. I think it deserves 1 star at most, but I think most of the Michelin ratings in Tokyo are way over-rated (as are the US ratings). I also think that sushi restaurants should never get more than 1 star.

No. Personally, I'd use it as a guide of places to avoid.

Great thread!

Has anyone been to Sushi Kanesaka, either the one at Ginza or in the Palace Hotel? Is it a good choice? The concierges at 3 different hotels where I'll be staying in Tokyo have all recommended it as one of their top choices for sushi. Is the one at the Palace as good as the Ginza one?

Also, is Nodaiwa for eel the best choice? Again, they all recommend it. When we used to stay at Grand Hyatt Tokyo, we always went to Yaotoku (now apparently called Unagi-Toku) and loved it. Anyone able to compare to Nodaiwa?

Yes, the entire Kanesaka group is excellent. My favorite is Mao at the Seiyo Ginza, which will be reopening in another location after the hotel has closed (perhaps under a new name, but otherwise unchanged). I prefer Mao to the honten because it has an even nicer atmosphere and it is easier to get a reservation, but it is a bit more expensive. You will not be disappointed by Kanesaka at the Palace hotel either.

I like Nodaiwa.

Don't like Kanesaka or other sushi restaurants of its ilk. I am not surprised that concierges would recommend it. (What do they know? Do they get a cut?) The prices stated in the Michelin guide or wherever are not correct. They charged up to 60k a person when I went there.

A few weeks ago I stumbled across a mom and pop eel place in Kagurazaka and it was pretty good. It was actually an yakitori and eel joint. I think the bill was like 7k for two people.

Hmmmm? Without intending to set off another round of controversy, I personally don't really consider it kaiseki if a) you get it at a hotel, b) you're sitting in a chair, c) any of the courses contain quadruped (other than rabbit), and/or d) quite a few others things.

Anybody else have an opinion on this subject?

Why?? (BTW - I kind of agree, but I'd like to know your thinking on this).

This is not a matter of opinion. It is a fact that at many of the finest Japanese restaurants kaiseki is eaten at counter seats or in private rooms with either chairs or a recessed "foot well" type of seating. I have only had to kneel down for meals at Ryokan, and this is one of the reasons I prefer western style hotels. I am looking forward to the Ritz-Carlton and Four Seasons properties planned for Kyoto.

Re hotels, I also disagree with your above statement, as some hotels have exceptional restaurants. I recommended the Palace in my above post because the food is very good, and because such restaurants are very approachable for people new to Japanese cuisine and who may not speak Japanese.

I don't understand where your comment about quadruped came from, but I would generally agree. Some chefs who take a more contemporary approach to Japanse cuisine do however serve charcoal grilled wagyu as part of kaiseki meals, and it can be delicious.

I don't think that Michelin should rate Japanese restaurants at all. To me the ratings are next to useless, so I disregard them.

Many european restaurants in Japan are also overrated. A Basque in Aoyama is a prime example of this - it is a nice restaurant, but by no means would it be awarded a Michelin star if it were in Europe.

I don't disagree that
1) Some hotels have exceptional restaurants.
2) Hotel restaurants are very approachable
3) Charcoal grilled wagyu is delicious
4) Food can be exceptionally good at these restaurants

But IMHO, it's not really kaiseki. There's probably some official Japanese rule book (maybe not published) on this, but my sense is that there are certain elemental aspects to kaiseki including the type of cuisine, ingredients, seasonality, locality, tableware, decor, etc. This may just be a personal bias or personal experience, but I don't think of it as real kaiseki if it's served on paper plates or to diners sitting in "high" chairs, etc.

Even if the food is the same as kaiseki, it doesn't necessarily make it kaiseki.

I have probably mentioned it here before but I don't think there is enough creativity and even "cooking" involved in sushi to warrant comparison to haute cuisine or Japanese haute cuisine for that matter. I think they could award 1 star to the best restaurants; the ones that receive 3 stars today.

You see this for wagyu. The top steak houses get one star. In both cases we could say that they offer the best ingredients and therefore get the single star.

Since sushi means sour rice then, yes, the rice preparation is important and distinguishes top sushi as well but I don't put this in the category of haute cuisine.

Re Abasque. I looked at that place since it is in my neighborhood and it got its star in recent years. (I typically look for new Michelin restaurants.) I was indeed mystified why that type of food gets a star.

I recently went to a new French one star, Liberte a Table de Takeda. I thought it was good and maybe deserved a star. But if you compare to, for example, Hostellerie de Levernois in Beaune (one star) then no way. I think this latter restaurant might even deserve two by French standards.

p.s. 5K, I guess you don't consider Esaki to be kaiseki. I think they refer to themselves as contemporary kaiseki.

Gnaget,
I tend to agree with you. There's a lot of technique but not that much creativity or variety. (Probably get some dissent on this).

Also I don't really think of going for sushi the same way I think of going to a really fine restaurant. It's more like the local joint where you hang out. Find a place you like not too far away and just keep going back....not much need or interest in trying out anything new. You know them, they know you, fish is good, beer is cold. Once you get to a certain point, the flavor has a lot more to do with Neptune than with the chef.