The Italian Barista Champion Fights Back!!

A couple weeks ago, The Atlantic Magazine published a (puff) piece by Giorgio Milos (Illy employee and former Italian Barista Champion). This piece was... umm.... insulting to many people in the coffee community. I wrote about it in my Cultural Imperialism bit.

Well.... Giorgio is back.

And this time he's a lot less condescending. Which is nice.

But he's still kind of missing the point.

Note: I am assuming that some editor at The Atlantic actually came up with the title of the piece ("Espresso 101: An Expert Responds to Readers") - but if not then I'll retract my above "less condescending" comment.

Anyway... to the piece and my point...

He starts off with a long bit on his background, his credentials... basically defending himself and establishing that he actually does - in fact - know what he's talking about.

At the center of my 20-plus years of training and knowledge is illycaffè. Certainly my views on coffee have been influenced by the company's scientific environment, created by three generations of chemists; a research and development unit covering agronomy, botany, physics, chemistry, biology, statistics, and computer science; and laboratories dedicated to dedicated to the study of coffee, in areas like sensory perception (not just taste, but aroma as well).

The thing is... none of us were arguing that you don't know a lot about Italian espresso. I mean... come on. Illy is arguably the most respected coffee company in the world when it comes to the science of coffee. And you're the Italian barista champion. So we already knew that - if we had any questions at all about Italian espresso - you're the shit.

The problem is that you still don't seem to get that Italian espresso is not equal to espresso anymore. Espresso is global now. We all have our own styles. We owe a debt to Italy for creating this incredible way to prepare coffee. Thank you. But we're doing our own versions now. And, sadly, it seems that not only are you not an expert in other styles of espresso - you still don't even see that there are (in fact) other styles of espresso.

And so we get to the main points.

But some baristas prefer making double espressos with more than twice the amount of coffee--20 grams, not the 14-18 the SCAA guidelines would suggest--and only the amount of water for a single espresso, one ounce. The idea is a power-packed espresso, with half the one ounce of extraction being crema. It might sound good to espresso fans, but this idea has numerous problems.

Not to be a dick here, but 20 is not twice 14-18. In fact, 20 is only roughly 12% greater than 18 (not 100% greater). So, in fact, if one were to dose 20 grams rather than 18 grams (the upper end of the commonly accepted scale), one would only be increasing dose by roughly 12%.

Now... I agree that a 1oz shot from a 20g dose is unlikely to yield a good flavor experience (not impossible, but unlikely). But let's be realistic here... 1oz doubles are very (very) rare among good coffee bars. What is more common here is the 1.5oz double ristretto from 17.5 to 18.5 grams of coffee. While this is, in fact, slightly outside of your range for both volume and potentially dose - the variance is extremely small.

But anyway, what are these "numerous problems"? Well... it seems like there are two (not exactly "numerous" but whatever).

First... the "too much caffeine" problem.

No matter what you call this concentrate, the caffeine content is much higher than what we have come to expect with a traditional espresso. For years people thought espresso contained more caffeine than brewed coffee. Now, most professionals and coffee lovers know this is not true of Arabica espresso prepared with the traditional formula, which contains 60 to 70 milligrams of caffeine. Overdosing the espresso, even using Arabica beans and not higher-caffeine Robusta, the caffeine content could reach 200 milligrams. As logic would dictate, extraction time--how long coffee and water remain in contact--is a major factor.

As the editor (finally doing his job - thank you) correctly points out - extraction time in fact does not impact caffeine (at least within the range of variance we're talking about).

What the editor fails to point out is yet another math error. So... let's assume the same (gasp horror) 20g dose. This is an increase (as noted) of around 12% over the "accepted" range. The high end of the range he provides for caffeine is 70 milligrams. To get to 200 milligrams of caffeine, we would need to increase dose not by 12% but in fact by almost 300%. In other words, the dose would have to be roughly 50 grams.

Okay, so he's wrong about one of the two "numerous" problems being increased caffeine (or at least increased beyond an additional 12% or so.

What's the other one of these two "numerous" problems then?

For a double espresso, the formula calls for using twice the amount of coffee and twice the water. If the water isn't increased in proportion, the resulting extraction will have too little liquid and too much crema, as in the photo here. The beverage is too concentrated, its aromatic components not optimally released and mixed. Effectively, the aromas overlap with one another, creating issues like an extremely sour taste that can be perceived as salty. With this overconcentration, only a few pleasurable notes can emerge in the cup, masking others produced during roasting like chocolate, toasted bread, cocoa, and caramel. Lost is that ideal balance of bitter and sour.

The above statement is 100% accurate.

If you're using Illy coffee.

The problem is that leading non Italian coffee companies have diverged from the Italian traditions when it comes to the formulation of their espressos. Not only are more and more of these companies working with single origin (not blended) espressos, but the blends are also diverging further and further as well (with a larger and larger percentage of the coffee being washed coffees and fewer and fewer roasters working with lower grown natural and pulped natural coffees from Brazil for these espressos). These coffees are not stored and aged. They're not selected purely for their stability and low acidity.

Because the beans being worked with are so different from what Giorgio is used to - and because the flavor profile of these beans is wildly different -- the method of extraction has to be different.

The result in the cup is - logically - very different from what you would get from Illy. But this is not a barista error. It is the result of a series of conscious decisions (from bean selection, through blending, through roast style, to preparation and drink style) all to get a desired coffee experience.

The result is highly unlikely to taste like Illy.

That doesn't mean it's "wrong".

And it doesn't mean it is not espresso.

EAVB_POTOYUZKLF

Thank you sir may I have another

Another day.... another chance to beat the snot out of mainstream media...

Today's contestant?

Esquire Magazine.

Actually.... let's be fair here... in this case Esquire is largely the patsy. They're the rube being taken advantage of by the smirking carnie. And that shifty half-assed conman? No other than everyone's favorite has-been coffee guy Todd Carmichael. In case you don't know (and believe me - the fact that you don't know is the big issue for Todd), Todd is the unbearably louche and jaded founder of La Colombe Torrefaction.

La Colombe was once the shit. Like a east coast Torrefazione Italia before Starbucks bought them. Back when everyone still believed that slavish mimicry of Italian traditions was the only possible way to create good coffee - true coffee. But time has passed La Colombe by. Unlike Torrefazione and Seattle's Best - they didn't sell out to Starbucks. And the new breed has left them behind. They're no longer cool. They're no longer the shit. Hell.... they're no longer even good. And Todd... bless his aging hipster little self... Todd is kinda bitter about this.

Todd's now written two "pieces" for Esquire. The first was snide and annoying and self-serving. The second is all that and also bitter and angry -- and wrong.

The problem is that Esquire is the publisher - and conning your publisher always creates problems. The goal of the publisher is NOT just to give you a soapbox. It's also there to make sure you don't make mistakes and don't step off the soapbox and fall off a cliff in the process. To illustrate, I'm going to do what Esquire should have done (if, of course, they hadn't just been your clueless mark).

Listen, the espresso machine was invented for a reason: to be "espress," a.k.a. fast (and, ironically, to replace the siphon and slow-brew.) Listen up, geeks: Drop the slow-brew renaissance and pick up the pace. We have work to get to.

First of all.... you're missing the point here. As mentioned above - time has moved on. As Starbucks has become ubiquitous folks like you (those who serve a quick pharmaceutical product for consumption on the way to work) have ceased to be the cutting edge. There is no point in competing with Starbucks for this market. The cutting edge has moved. You're no longer cool. Convenience espresso is now a commodity.

Beware the presence of the $17,000 coffee machine. It's a lot like the fad of the $100 hamburger: The beef may be good and the press may love it (at least for a day), but if you order it, someone in public relations will be laughing at you. No one was actually supposed to buy it.

An example of how one plays editor... "Todd... what are you trying to say here?" I mean - seriously. Are you saying that you can only get good coffee from cheap espresso machines? So... you spend a lot of time trying to come off like a bargain basement Tony Bourdain. You want to be treated like you're a chef - and spend energy implying that you've got the same sort of chops, approach and cred. So let me ask you a question.... do you think chefs don't care about their tools? Do you think chefs think spending lots of money on the "right" knives, the "right" stoves etc is "a fad?"

Beware the barista who goes techno-nerd on you when describing how he makes coffee: heat-surfing, pre-infusion profiling, tamp-dialing. Seriously, and how would you describe the act of opening a beer, liquid-load pressure breaching?

This is a great analogy - as it gives amazing insight into your mindset Todd. You are, in essence, comparing the skill required to make a good shot of espresso to the skill required to open a beer. A barista - to you - is completely unskilled labor.

I'm not going to defend some of the behavior of current baristas. I, too, rapidly tire of the near total lack of understanding of what a good customer experience is like. I'm bored and annoyed by the lack of professionalism and the record store clerk mentality.

But even the Italians understand that a great espresso is one part machine, one part coffee and one part barista. You've now dissed two out of the three parts. Are you going to go for the trifecta?

Super-geeks love to claim their coffee hails from single-origin Valhalla, unapproachable for any other roaster. Truth is, we live in the computer and commuter age; the world is tiny and coffee only comes from the small band around the middle. We all have access to the same beans.

Yes.... yes you are. So the machine doesn't matter (just a fad - buy something cheap). The barista doesn't matter (if you can use a bottle opener you can make espresso). And coffee is just a commodity that all of us have (and it's all the same). The trifecta. So much for respecting the Italian tradition there my boy.

But more importantly... now this is where you're showing your age there Todd.

Once upon a time, "we" did all have access to the same beans. We'd all call up Royal or Holland America and say "send me the offering sheet." That started really changing about 10 years ago now. At first, only a few smaller niche players were sourcing outside the spot and commodity markets and from outside the traditional exporters. Around 5 years ago - things really took off. Even the big guys started buying outside the markets - auctions become more and more common - and Direct Trade got big. Now - the whole coffee world is centered around the fact that we all do not have access to the same beans. Getting access, locking up sources and production... this is the new name of the game.

Todd... I'll put it bluntly. The coffees you have access are the coffees that everyone else has picked over and passed on. Your coffees are the ones that other roasters have said are not even good enough to put into the house blend.

You can call yourself a "neo-traditionalist" all you want (despite the fact that even a half-wit editor would call semantic bullshit all over you for this description).

Me? I just call you old and washed up.

a dream machine

49th Parallel

Just cupped a whole bunch of coffees from 49th Parallel in Vancouver BC.

49th Parallel has been considered among the best if not the best roaster in Canada pretty much since they opened business. Their goals, however, are clearly much bigger than that.

I've cupped coffees from them since the beginning, and have seen them grow as both a roaster and a buyer of green coffee along the way.

This morning I cupped a bunch of their coffees and I have to say I was deeply impressed. They have (in my opinion and to my taste) a very very good North American coffee roaster.

Quick tasting notes:

Colombia Finca Silencio - A lovely coffee. Round, balanced and complete. Gorgeous sugars and fats to fill out the structure provided by the chocolate and tannin notes. As it cooled, tons of fruit emerged (apricot, pluot, tangerine). A really very good coffee. The favorite on the table.

Burundi Kibingo - A unique and fantastic cup. Tons of light fruit to start (cranberry, cassis, kumquat, grape) into a very nice cocoa powder body. The aftertaste, however, is what does it for me with this coffee. Amazing tea-like notes and an exotic almost grenache like flavor. Wonderful. My second favorite - though not a universal choice.

Colombia Finca La Palestina - Great acidity. Tons of citrus (sour orange, ruby grapefruit, bergamot) provide a nice nippy punch of balanced sours and bitters. Very, very clean and crisp. Only critique is that it lacks the sweetness and body to really balance out the citrus. Still a very nice cup.

Tanzania Songea - One of the best coffees I've had from Tanzania. Assam tea, white grape, tangerine zest, sweet marmalade. Aftertaste is incredibly jammy and juicy - causing nearly instant salivation. Becomes a little hollow as it cools.

Between this table - the incredible shots of Hairbender - and the interesting new Black Cat - it's been a NICE coffee week so far!!!

Reviewing Espresso

I've been involved in a really interesting side project of late - and I'm learning some important things from it.

Over at Home Barista I've been collaborating on a series of peer-reviewed espresso evaluations. The structure of these reviews has been illuminating and the results very interesting.

First - by focusing on private and collaborative peer-reviewing before publishing, the usual "didn't really nail the extraction parameters" problems are being reduced if not eliminated. With a bunch of reviewers all working on their own with the coffees (usually from a common starting point), we've been able to rapidly identify one or two "sweet spots" and then focus on optimization and most of all tasting around those parameter sets. This is yielding reviews that are more focused on "how do you get this espresso to taste good - and what does a good espresso from this coffee taste like" than the usual "here is my numerical score and two sentences of flavor descriptors. In other words - espresso is being treated differently from how coffee would be treated when cupped and the specific barista and equipment issues around espresso are being addressed.

Second - directed peer-reviewing like this does a reasonably good job of adjusting for (and making transparent) personal taste. As I've said many times, "just because you don't like this coffee doesn't mean it's a bad coffee."

Third - the wide spread of perspectives, tastes, experience and equipment among the reviewers actually gives a far better picture of the coffee. By getting all the different data sources and results and the combining and correlating - the big picture really does emerge.

It's been a very good experience - one I've enjoyed immensely. I'm looking forward to the future reviews a ton. So far reviews have been of Counter Culture Toscano and Ecco Espresso - with Intelligentsia Black Cat and Stumptown Hairbender coming up this week I believe.

But more then the enjoyment of the experience - I think there is something important to learn here. I think this sort of approach has some real power and validity and I hope it spreads and I really hope that it is adopted by the professional community. I think that this is where it could do the most good. Yeah... it's good that this is being done in the Home community (especially given that something like 70% of the home enthusiasts say their coffee buying decisions are driven by online reviews). But if the Pros got on board with this approach it could not only improve espresso (IMHO) but also start to create more knowledge sharing and more collaboration within the industry. And god knows we need that.

Reviews here.

Cultural Imperialism

Sigh... another example of mass media blowing it when it comes to coffee...

But wait... this one is interesting!

Because this time, the article is written by an Italian "espresso expert."

And as well all know.... no-one knows espresso better than the Italians.

Kind of like how no-one knows beer better than the Germans?

Hmmm....

So, wow.

Yeah - the article is largely a promo piece for Illy and the "Illy way."

But none the less... wow.

I'd never really thought about the idea the cultural imperialism could be applied to espresso. I guess I wasn't thinking big enough.

My thoughts (in order and point by point):

Italian espresso (what he calls "traditional" espresso) is different from American espresso.

And to me that's a good thing. Each is its own thing - with its own goals and criteria.

As has been written before, Italian espresso is a cultural product perhaps more than a culinary one. There are rules. It is not a place for experimentation. That's fine.

What is called espresso here sometimes really isn't espresso.

Complaining about the fact that American espresso is different is just silly. It would be like someone from Pilsen complaining about Irish milk stout and saying "it's too dark and too heavy." Yes.... they're both beer. But they are different. And that's fine. They're different kinds of beer.

But what I didn't expect were so many baristas using so many methods to prepare espresso, far from the authentic Italian technique.

The trouble with a piece of food or beverage becoming a cultural artifact is that you end up feeling a sense of "ownership." And you start talking about things like "authentic Italian technique" as if it had some meaning. I'll use food as an example.... If it were not for people who ignored these rules and ignored the "cultural artifact" status quo preservationists, we'd all still be eating Chicken Kiev and Steak Diane. And that would be a travesty.

Yes... here in the US (and big shocker for you - also in places like Australia, Norway, England, Denmark... pretty much everywhere other than Italy in fact) we've been experimenting. We've been breaking the rules. And we've found that there are other options when it comes to espresso - and guess what. We like some of the results better than what you prescribe.

The biggest mistake I've seen is an enormous quantity of coffee being used—way too much. I'm talking about 20 to 25 grams of coffee for a single espresso shot! It is like making a mojito with half a mint leaf, one ice cube, a few grains of sugar, and a gallon of rum. Undrinkable!

Yes... I think we all agree that this is a writing error as I've never (ever) heard of anyone using 20 to 25 grams of coffee from a single shot. But this is the problem with being published when you are not a professional. You miss shit like this - and it destroys the trust in the writer.

Beyond that, I understand the point of hyperbole, but his analogy would only be true if he were talking about making a 5oz cappuccino with 4.5oz of espresso. If he wanted to make the correct analogy, he would talk about the amount of sugar cane used to make the appropriate volume of rum.

More importantly... if the amount of coffee used varies from what Illy prescribes, that is not a "mistake" (unless arguably you're working with Illy's coffee). It's a choice. We're choosing to use more coffee just like we're choosing to not use robusta and we're choosing to experiment with single origin coffees and we're choosing to create blends from 100% washed coffees. It's that that we're unaware of your "rules" - we're just choosing to move past them.

Espresso made this way—well, it's not espresso, but I'll call it that—turns out overly concentrated, and because of that it cannot delight the drinker with the magnificent aromas of toasted bread, chocolate, red fruit, orange, and jasmine flowers that are all present in a high-quality blend.

Three points.

1 - Who the hell is he to tell me what IS espresso and what is not?
2 - If I were to describe the best shot of Illy I've ever had (from Trieste in this case) I would describe it as "caramel, light peanut and marzipan, hints of tangerine zest and light chocolate in the finish." In other words... his own coffee from his own home town fails to meet his "requirements."
3 - On the other hand.... I've had at least 3 espressos in the US that are almost exactly what he describes. One of them was dosed at 17g, one was dosed at 18g and one was dosed at around 19.5g. The flavor has to do with the COFFEE more than the dose.

The beverages I tasted were almost syrups, full-bodied but with a very sour, almost salty taste. I suspect that beans that were roasted too recently played a part. After roasting, beans need a few days to breathe and mature. These too-young beans are a big problem. Also, I've visited too many coffee bars that don't heat cups before serving, and in the process sacrifice flavor and aroma. Or that serve in wet cups, an espresso sin.

And so we get to the point.... Where has he had these coffees? He speaks for ALL american espresso based upon what sample set?

His description (syrup, massively updosed, sour, salty) doesn't sound like the shots from any of the top US coffee bars.

Wow.... beans need to rest?!?!?!?! That must come as a shock to us dumb rubes here in the US.

Listen up buddy.... if you've been getting shots that sound like your description, in unheated cups, from beans that are fresh out of the roaster -- then you've been going to the wrong coffee bars. How would you like it if I went to the coffee bar at the airport in Naples and said "Espresso in Italy sucks."

Oh... and as for your "espresso sins".... yeah... I got your sin right here buddy.

Update: Giorgio has written a new piece responding to the critiques - and I've blogged about it.

Robur at Home - Final Thoughts

So I've lived with the Robur for a bit. I think I have a pretty good handle on it now. Time for some final thoughts and my conclusion.

Note: These thoughts (and the conclusion) are purely focused on considering the use of a stock Robur (dosered) grinder at home. I'm not taking into account suitability for on-bar work. And I'm not considering how the Robur could be modified in any way, shape, or form.

Pros:

1 - fantastic grind quality. The grind quality is on par with if not better than what I've seen with an Alinox. Far better than any home grinders I've ever seen.

2 - great shot clarity coupled with great shot density. Perhaps largely due to the grind quality, the Robur enables the hard act of producing shots that have both clarity and density. No "home" grinders really do this in my experience.

3 - forgiving on prep. Again, perhaps due to the grind quality (or the grind quality combined with the lack of clumping in the coffee), working with coffee from the Robur allows a certain amount of sloppiness in distribution.

4 - quiet, fast, clean. As compared to almost all grinders the Robur is pretty easy to live with. There are no rattles and minimal grinding or motor noise. Grinding a shot is very (VERY) quick. And it's (reasonably) clean.

Cons:

1 - wastes a lot of coffee. I'm a reasonably efficient barista. But I'm wasting about 1/4lb out of every pound of coffee I use. Between adjusting the grind when changing coffees and the periodic overfill (it's a FAST grinder as I said) and the amount of coffee trapped in the grinder and the issues with minimum volume of beans in the hopper (see below) it's nearly impossible to be truly efficient with your use of coffee.

2 - significant learning curve. For me the learning curve was a couple of days - but that is largely because it consisted of remembering all the stuff I was taught when I worked at Stumptown. From the timing with the grind (reasonably quick to learn) to the amount of coffee required to flush post grind change (slow to get nailed) to tricks for adjusting the grind (hard to learn) and for keeping the grind consistent (very hard to learn) - there are a lot of things about working with the Robur that are challenging. Most of these are minor issues or non-issues on bar as you're just working them into the flow. At home... I'd guess that many baristas learning to use this machine would be pulling a lot of frustrating sub-par shots with wildly varying extractions for quite a while unless they really didn't change coffee.

3 - grind impacted by volume of beans. With a stock Robur you cannot do the home barista trick of weighing a single dose, dropping it in the hopper and grinding. Or, rather, you can do it but it negates the single biggest advantage of the Robur (the grind quality). I found a sweet spot that started at a little less than 1lb in the hopper. Variance in the grind was minor from full hopper down to about 1.25lbs. From 1.25lbs down to a little less than 1lb variance started to increase but was still manageable. Below that minimum (say 0.85lbs) it seemed like I would have to adjust the grind with each shot - endlessly chasing an ever-changing and unpredictable target. Once down below 0.5lbs not only was the grind constantly changing, the grind quality started to degrade.

4 - enormous. It's huge. Massive. I've got a small kitchen but honestly, I can't see this really "fitting in" to even the largest kitchen.

5 - expensive. Sure, if price is no object then this is not a con. But realistically, for most people the price point of the Robur is the biggest negative.

Conclusion

I love having the Robur in my house. My shots are easy to pull and are as good if not better than what I'm used to. The shots are slightly less consistent due to the wandering grind issues with volume changes, but that's just something that requires more discipline. I love the quiet of it. I love the speed of it. I love the simplicity of it.

But.... I pay for a small fraction of the coffee I make espresso from. If I were paying full retail for all the coffee I use - I'd be pretty seriously unhappy about this grinder. Wasting that much coffee.... yeah that would be tough.

And.... I know how to work with this grinder. I've had a few folks over who don't have the same experience and training and their frustration with just trying to get the grind into something close to the sweet spot for a specific coffee was illuminating for me.

In other words -- I love the Robur.

But I'd never suggest that the imaginary "average" home barista buy one.

It's still probably the best bar grinder out there.

But there are far cheaper, far easier to live with and far less demanding grinders for the home.