"Gerry" > wrote in message
news:2007043012030675249-somewhere@sunnycalif...
> On 2007-04-30 11:25:35 -0700, "Musashi" > said:
>
> >
> > "John Doe" > wrote in message
> > ups.com...
> >> On Apr 30, 12:55 pm, "Musashi" > wrote:
> >>
> >>> "20th century style Edomae nigirizushi" would probably be the correct
> > term
> >>>
> >> Yes, I agree, it would be a perfect way to express what is meant by
> >> "Traditional" if it were referred to as "20th century style Edomae
> >> nigirizushi". That does explain it very well. From now on when I read
> >> a post from you that refers to "Traditional" sushi, would I be correct
> >> in assuming that this is what you mean?
> >>>
> >
> > Yes, absolutely.
> >
> >>> By the way, nigirizushi that was around 20 years ago was also around
40
> > and
> >>> 50 years ago.
> >>
> >> Were there nigirizushi that were different 20 years ago from that
> >> which was widely accepted 50 years ago? Perhaps the people in Japan 20
> >> years ago told their children that they preferred "Traditional" sushi
> >> rather than the "new stuff"....
> >>
> >
> > Actually, you may be on to something.
> > Salmon was never a "traditional" nigiri ingredient. You'll find it in
Japan
> > now, but
> > I believe it first became popular in the US coinciding with the advent
of
> > salmon farming
> > in the 1980s. The California Roll also is an invention from the 80s.
> > It's very possible that some people did stick to the "traditional"
stuff.
> > Musashi
>
> In this case "traditional" is a reference only to ingredients, I'm
assuming.
> --

Yes and no. Salmon, Avocado....yes.
But I've searched all over looking for a "reverse-roll"
hosomaki and have yet to find it, therefore that style of
rolling with the rice on the outside may also be
"non-traditional".