The Baristas' Espressos

As I said in my most recent (The Baristas' Baristas) post...

This list does not attempt to judge either the coffee this baristas are using or the quality of the shots they are pulling day to day .... I'm considering how to apply this same approach to coffees...

Obviously, the value of the prior post was compromised by looking purely at the baristas (in the abstract). If the goal really is to give people a direction to go to understand what espresso can and should taste like, then the coffee needs to be considered as well. To answer the question of "what does great espresso taste like" by sending someone to taste great espresso from a great barista - I would need to look at the barista, the coffee - and the combination of the two.

So after some consideration, I went back to the same "panel" of baristas etc and asked them a similar question to last time - but in this case looking at the coffees.

You walk into a very good coffee bar to get an espresso. What espressos would you be most excited to see them working with?

As with the last time, all nominated coffees would require multiple nominations to be added to the list. Unlike last time, with the espressos I asked for folks to rank up to three of them in order. I then used a combination of ranking score and number of nominations to determine the final list.

In the end, the list of espressos that folks would be most excited to see on bar is:

Square Mile -- London, UK

Stumptown -- Portland, OR; Seattle,WA; Brooklyn, NY

The Coffee Collective -- Copenhagen, DEN

Wendelboe -- Oslo, NO

Ecco Caffe -- Santa Rosa, CA

Kaffa -- Oslo, NO

Intelligentsia -- Chicago, IL; LA, CA

Of course, again, the same major caveats apply.

There is massive under-representation from Australia and New Zealand due to low response numbers from that region.

Obscure roasters and roasters not known on the international scene are under-represented.

That means that there are probably some very good coffees being left off this list.

In addition, there are two additional caveats.

First, the people surveyed in general are excited about coffees they cannot get. So a lot of North American folks nominated coffees from Scandinavia. You get the idea. This might skew the results a bit.

Second, this is purely intended to discuss espressos - not all coffees and explicitly not coffees designed for other brew methods.

And the disclaimer.... this is not an attempt to claim these are the "best" roasters in any way shape or form or that these roasters produce the "best" coffee. It's simply looking at the other axis of information to address the original question "how do I know what great espresso tastes like."

So now we have the baristas - and the coffees.

What does this mean (other than suggesting it would be worthwhile to pack 5lbs of Square Mile Winter espresso or Hairbender for a flight to Copenhagen so you can beg Klaus to pull you shots)?

Well... it looks to me like the best options for understanding what espresso can and should taste like would be for you to do something like go to:

1. Copenhagen and have Klaus Thomsen pull you some shots of espresso from The Coffee Collective, or
2. Portland and have Billy Wilson pull you some shots of espresso from Stumptown or Ecco Caffe, or
3. Oslo and have Tim Wendelboe pull you some shots of espresso from Wendelboe, or
4. London and have James Hoffman pull you some shots of espresso from Square Mile, or
5. Chicago and have Mike Phillips pull you some shots from Intelligentsia.

Hmmm... I guess I have my vacations planned for the next 2 years!!!

The Baristas' Baristas

Earlier this week I was asked a pretty classic good question.

How do I know what good espresso should taste like?

As always, my answer was "go have a shot of great coffee pulled by a great barista." In hindsight - this is a somewhat glib response. It was pointed out that, if you don't know what good espresso tastes like you're also unlikely to know what a great coffee is and even more unlikely to know who a great barista is - or how to identify them.

So I started to think about how to address this. If I wanted to make sure that someone were able to taste a shot that gave them an idea about what great espresso was all about - who would I send them to?

I realized that the best solution would be to ask the people that I think are great baristas and great judges of baristas who they thought were great baristas. More than that.... to ask them who they would be excited to get a shot of espresso from - who they would look forward to a shot from.

So I asked this question of 30 people in the business whose opinions on the matter I deeply respect. This was a mix of great baristas, WBC/USBC judges and coffee professionals.

I then took the answers and created a list of the people who had more than one mention from this group (figuring that if two or more people vote for one barista - that's validation). Ironically, almost everyone on this initial list was someone on the "voting panel." In some ways, I think this is a good validation of that panel itself. I then sent the first cut of the list back out to the group along with the list of people who had only one vote - and asked for any suggested corrections. After a bunch of back-and-forth, I arrived at what we all seem to think is a good list.

It's important to note that this is not a list of who we - or I - think are the "best" baristas. This is instead a list of the Baristas' Baristas. These people might not, in fact, pull the absolute best shots in the world - but they are the people who we believe always pull good shots. They're the pros' pros.

In alphabetical order:

Billy Wilson -- Barista, Portland OR

Bronwen Serna -- Hines Public Market - Origins Coffee / Joe Bar, Seattle WA

Chris Baca -- Verve, Santa Cruz CA

James Hoffman -- Square Mile, London UK

Klaus Thomsen -- Coffee Collective, Copenhagen DEN

Mike Phillips -- Intelligentsia, Chicago IL

Scott Lucey -- Alterra, Milwaukee WI

Stephen Morrissey -- Intelligentsia, Chicago IL

Tim Wendelboe -- Tim Wendelboe, Oslo NO

Now... there is one important caveat and one important disclaimer that need to be mentioned.

Caveat - because of the "multiple vote" criteria, this list punishes people who work in remote areas and don't compete in barista competitions. In addition, because I got minimal response from contacts in Australia and New Zealand, it entirely leaves out the great baristas in those countries. Just because a barista working out in the backwoods isn't on here doesn't mean they're not amazing. And just because a barista who works in Sydney (or Christchurch) isn't on here also doesn't mean they're bad. It's a flawed system - what can I say.

Disclaimer - these baristas do the best they can with what they have, but they're only as good as their coffee. This list does not attempt to judge either the coffee these baristas are using or (as a result) the quality of the shots they are pulling day to day. It's simply a list of the baristas that baristas love and respect. I'm considering how to apply this same approach to coffees next. If I can pull it off - that should give a more useful final list.

In the end - however - this list should provide some direction for people who want to taste what espresso should and can taste like. It should help people calibrate.

At least... that's what I hope.

Death to Generic Espresso Blends (and generic thinking)

So much of coffee (at least at the high end - in the craft / artisan sector) is improving. The old methods and concepts are being re-evaluated, questioned and in many cases rejected. New models and approaches are being explored. And, as a result, coffee in improving.

But there is one thing that we seem to be passing by (or ignoring) for the most part.

Our espresso blends are far too often generic and weak - and our approach to creating espresso blends is dated, flawed and also generic.

It's time to change that.

At present it seems like most of the good coffee companies are trying to address the issues with their espresso blends by ignoring them - by instead introducing single origin espressos as an alternative. This allows them to express seasonality, to produce espressos that are not generic and to continue to progress.

But this is cheating - and is amateur.

Everyone who has cooked professionally knows that any good untrained cook can create great appetizers. You're working in one dimension with one palette. But it's plated entrees that separate the amateur from the pro. Now you have to work with a complex combination of not just ingredients but component dishes. This requires a kind of thinking and approach and palate that few amateurs possess.

Right now all the coffee companies that are offering their "house" blend and then a seasonal single origin are the equivalent of a restaurant offering a bunch of really cool, changing and interesting appetizers and then roast beef with mash and veg. It's weak and its unacceptable.

So what is the problem with these espresso blends?

I feel that it is largely due to the thinking behind them. Most commercial espresso blends are the product of formulaic thinking. It goes a little something like this:

1. I need to create my house espresso blend
2. It needs to be something that no-one will dislike
3. It needs to work in milk and in shots
4. It can't change in flavour over time
5. What Brazil can I get right now that is affordable and will provide mid-tones?
6. What Latin can I get that is affordable and will provide high notes?
7. What's the least bad Indo I can get right now for the bass?
8. And what East African can I get to provide fruit and wildness?
9. Can I get enough of each one to not have to change formulation for a while?

There is literally something wrong with every single step of this.

What I would propose instead is a thought process that is far more simple but far more involved. Something like this:

1. I need to create a seasonal espresso blend
2. It needs to be something I like
3. If it can't work in milk and as straight shots I need to create two or optimize for straight shots
4. What great coffees are available right now that might work in espresso?
5. What can I do with these coffees - what can I create?
6. What do I want this all to taste like?

This is not impossible.

In fact there are companies that are doing this (Square Mile is at least getting close for example).

So why are so many otherwise good companies NOT doing this?

Why do so many espresso blends from decent roasters contain unacceptable indonesian coffees and defect ridden east african beans?

Laziness and fear.

Roasters... I'm calling you out.

Stop ignoring your espresso blend.

Be professional.

It's time to grow a pair.

A Good Day

There are days where you realize just how lucky you are.

When it comes to coffee.... today was one of those days.

Last week I decided I wanted to do a multi-roaster, blind cupping (as with the State of SF Coffee experiment). This time I wanted it to be some hand-selected roasters from all over; and with a larger group of cuppers. And while I was at it... I wanted to include a bunch of espresso.

In the end... here were the coffees:

4 Barrel Espresso

4 Barrel Costa Rica Cafetin "wee berry"

4 Barrel El Salvador La Montanita

Ecco Caffe Brazil Sertaozinho Reserve Espresso

Ecco Caffe Ethiopia Yirgacheffe Dama Co-op

Ecco Caffe Colombia Loma Redonda

Ritual Kenya Kiambara

Ritual El Salvador Finca Los Andes

Intelligentsia Kenya Gichathaini

Stumptown Hairbender Espresso

Stumptown Ethopia Yirgacheffe La Michella

49th Parallel Ethiopia Yirgacheffe Wondo

49th Parallel El Salvador Los Planes

For consistency's sake, all shots of espresso were pulled by me and experimentation was largely limited to dose, volume and brew temp.

Cuppers consisted of 3 coffee professionals (representing roasters, baristas and green bean buyers) and one food and wine professional (highly respected sommelier and coffee fan). All cupping was the usual blind set up with coffees coded with playing cards.

All three espressos were good to excellent. The Four Barrel Espresso was sweet and heavy, with an interesting savory note in the finish. It has great fruit and a really nice powdery chocolate tone. The Stumptown Hairbender was fabulously balanced, with great sweetness and soft bitter tones in the middle before finishing with fantastically clean fruit notes. The Ecco Sertaozinho Reserve had fantastic honey/caramel and stone fruit with a chocolate/butter finish.

In the end, those tasting the espresso felt the Hairbender was the "preferred" coffee of the three. We felt it managed the unique and challenging task of being familiar and comforting while tasting new and exciting. We loved the rainier cherry notes and the not-cloying sweetness. The finish was incredible and long-lasting. In our opinions, the Hairbender is a great benchmark for American Espresso.

After cupping the remaining coffees, we felt that four of them stood out as the class of the table. These four were all absolutely lovely coffees - and the gap between our favorite of the four and our fourth favorite was 1.5 points (out of 100). The Stumptown Ethopia Yirgacheffe La Michella was outrageously balanced and nuanced, with a beautiful balance of milk-tea and lemon zest with cantalope and apricot flavours. Aromatics of lemon skin, assam tea and jasmine complemented the experience. Just a very elegant cup in all ways. The Intelligentsia Kenya Gichathaini was the complete package, with a solid backbone of dark molasses, leather and pluot/pear supporting fantastic dried blackberry and marmalade high notes. Aromatics were overwhelmingly rich and sweet, with tons of molasses and jam. The Ecco Caffe Ethiopia Yirgacheffe Dama Co-op (a past favorite of course) was wonderfully sweet and balanced - with tons of layered citrus (bergamot, lemon zest, tangerine, sour orange) and a lovely lactic/honey body. Deep layers of honey, lemon, assam tea and sweet fruit aromatics were an elegant and mouthwatering introduction to the cup. The 4 Barrel El Salvador La Montanita was dominated by sweet tangerine-marmalade and persimmon notes and had a lovely, clean finish. Clean and with layers and layers of unfolding citrus, this coffee had a fantastic, deep resinous finish. Aromatics were subtle and soft with a nice savory soy sauce note.

In the end, the differences between these coffees were almost too tight to call - and there were some disagreements in ranking between those cupping - but when push came to shove we were forced to rank as follows:

1 - Intelligentsia Kenya Gichathaini. Clean, sweet, complicated, rich, deep - perfectly roasted.

2 - Stumptown Ethopia Yirgacheffe La Michella. Sophisticated, classic, balanced - wonderful nuance.

3 - Ecco Caffe Ethiopia Yirgacheffe Dama Co-op. Polished, rounded, complex - wonderful structure.

4 - 4 Barrel El Salvador La Montanita. Clean, balanced, rich - deeply satisfying.

It's important to keep in mind that all four of these coffees are fantastic - and that the spread from 1 to 4 is miniscule. Not only that - the difference between 2 and 3 was small enough that they were effectively tied (one cupper in fact had it tied for 1st rank with the Gichathaini).

On the national stage, Intelligentsia and Stumptown have established themselves at the "gold standard" for coffee. The SF roasters should be very proud that they were able to hold their own on this table.

It was a good day indeed.

A Simple Answer

Any changes to the way you prepare coffee that increase the complexity and / or difficulty of your preparation are almost always due to a problem with your methodology, coffee or equipment (in that order).

balance in espresso

One of the elusive properties I look for in coffee is balance.

In fact, balance is a positive value in coffee for most people. For me, however, it is of nearly paramount importance. My hierarchy of value when it comes to coffee has changed over time, and at this point I prize balance above almost everything else.

In talking about coffee and writing about coffee, as a result, I mention balance a lot.

But the other day someone said to me, "I don't really understand what you mean by balance."

After a couple discussions with various folks - I realized that what I thought was clear is far, far from it. In fact, what I describe as "balance" is probably wildly different from what others describe and at least slightly different from what almost anyone else means what they use the word.

So... I thought I would take a stab at defining the concept - as I use it.

I view balance as having four dimensions (as is true with any complex system).

If you flatten this into two dimensional models, what you get is one model that shows balance as a sort of "even distribution" of gross level taste components; beneath that one model that then maps that even distribution in terms of synergistic (hopefully) flavour components that combine to create an experience; and then map both these models over time.

So you have Model One - which shows the balance of the traditional Sweet, Sour, Bitter, Umami and Salty tastes; you have Model Two which takes that balance and describes the flavours within the above model and its hopeful completeness; and then you have how those two models combined change and are experienced over time.

I figured I would illustrate this through the analysis of three different types of espresso. So I went with Tonx to three of the leading SF espresso bars and tasted a shot at each. We then discussed the distribution of tastes, mapped the flavours, and then modeled it all over time.

In looking at the above chart (click on it for the full size version) of the results for Model One, you see an interesting and unique "profile" for each shot.

Obviously, for my personal taste (prizing balance) I preferred the shot from Four Barrel. What's interesting is that you can see how someone who strongly dislikes bitter flavors and doesn't prize my definition of "balance" would likely prefer the Ritual shot. In fact, you could see how someone who does not prize balance and has specific tastes they like more or less would likely prefer one of these over the others - and can predict which it would be.

Now let's look at each shot in terms of flavour profile and balance / completeness within the taste style described in the chart (ie Model Two).

Ritual - the combination of tons of fruit and honeyed sweetness yields a very intense tart and syrupy shot that is powerful and interesting. In terms of balance as defined as synergistic completeness, however, the shot is hollow and missing the counterpoint notes to both play off of and complement the strong fruit and citrus and simple syrup notes. It is largely a two note coffee - albeit one where the two notes are not only interesting and flavourful but also played very loud.

Four Barrel - the semi-sweet chocolate body provides the bitterness and some sweetness and is balanced against an interesting pomegranate acidity which provides sour notes. Strong savory flavors that are somewhat reminiscent of cured meat fill in the gaps. This combines counterpoint and unexpectedness into a very complete albeit unusual flavour combination - what I would describe as balance.

Sightglass - perhaps the shop or the barista was having a bad day, but the shot was thin and underextracted and a bit dirty and as a result the flavours were dominated by an astringent turpentine and some resin notes. There was some citric acidity and a woody mushroomy body. In addition to being rather unpleasant, this created a severely incomplete and in-fact clashing rather than synergizing flavour combination.

Finally, we'll look at each shot by mapping the two prior two-dimensional models over time - adding in the fourth dimension.

Ritual - over time the sweetness slowly faded, but the sour acidity did not. This resulted in a concentration of flavour on the center of the palate that seemed to almost intensify as time went by. I would describe this as unbalanced on this last dimension.

Four Barrel - over time the savory notes become stronger and both the umami and the salty flavours intensified. Sweetness and sourness declined and the shot tasted more and more strongly of cured meats and soy sauce. While this was not unpleasant, it was also not balanced as a complete experience.

Sightglass - over time the acidity faded, the residual sugars faded and what was left was a flavour of slightly rancid oil and a strong metallic note. Obviously... neither enjoyable nor complete.

In the end, if I were to score each of these shots for Balance on all four dimensions combined - I would do so as follows:

Ritual - 5/10

Four Barrel - 8/10

Sightglass - 3/10

This does not say I would grade each as an entire experience as such. In fact, I would likely grade Ritual's shot higher than that score due to its positive flavors and Sightglass' lower due to its preparation flaws and the fact that the machine was clearly dirty. I think it's important to understand that modeling balance does not equal grading the shot. You can have a very enjoyable unbalanced shot - just as you can have a poor and / or unenjoyable balanced shot. Nothing is so simple...

As a final point - my concept of "balance" as defined above is largely the result of my working in restaurant kitchens and may not be shared by many (or in fact any) coffee professionals. In talking with some very qualified coffee folks, I've found that some (for example) see no need for any bitterness in an espresso and consider an espresso with zero bitterness to still be "balanced." I'm not arguing that my concept is correct - or that others are wrong. I'm not arguing that "balance" should be the primary desired characteristic for other people. I'm merely illustrating what I mean when I say Balance. And I'm hoping that this will lead other people to evaluate their own values hierarchy and what they mean when they say "balance."

(All photos provided by Tonx - concept of the spider graph for flavours stolen from 33Beers thanks!)

State of SF Coffee (round 3 and final wrap-up)

(For the story up to now - read Round One and Round Two)

The final round (round 3) of cupping has now been completed.

We have the results - and we have some conclusions.

First the results from Round Three...

To start with - this table was very, very good. Most of the roasters really stepped up their games. The differences were noticeable.

For this third round, coffee selection was Roasters' Choice.

Each roaster was asked to suggest two coffees for the table - and each was informed about what was going on (State of SF Coffee, blog posts, cupping blind, yadda yadda).

The coffees provided were as follows:

Ritual Coffee Roasters:

Kenya Kanyoni (also cupped in Round Two, but according to Ritual now with a different roast profile)

Honduras La Pinona (the controversial "sour" coffee from Round One)

Four Barrel Coffee:

El Salvador Finca Los Alpes (part of the Ground for Health program)

Ethiopia Yirgacheffe Moplaco

Blue Bottle Coffee:

Ethiopia Yirgacheffe YCFCU Co-op

Nicaragua Pueblo Nuevo Co-op

Ecco Caffe:

Yirgacheffe Dama Co-op (the top ranked coffee from Rounds One and Two)

Colombia Loma Rodonda Auction Lot

Equator Coffee and Tea:

Ethiopia Sidamo Amaro Gayo

Kenya Riuki AA

Given the number of coffees from East Africa, I have to assume that some notice had been paid to the performance of the Dama Co-op Yirgacheffe in the first two rounds.

In addition to the coffees from these same five Bay Area roasters - this time there were two "ringer" coffees. In order to enable us to evaluate the State of SF Coffee as compared to coffee elsewhere - two coffees from Intelligentsia were sourced. Intelligentsia is one of the top coffee companies in the US - but more than that they are a very good "control" for this cupping. Pretty much everyone knows Intelligentsia and knows how good their coffees are. By comparing to these other coffees - we can derive an understanding of how SF Coffee in general compares.

The coffees sourced from Intelligentsia were:

Kenya Gichathaini

Colombia Finca Santuario Heliconias Bourbon

As always, the coffees were cupped blind - with no whole beans displayed and the coffees coded based upon playing cards to make sure there were no clues given. Coffees were roughly sequenced from light to dark roast - but with no other form of sequencing or sorting.

As noted at the start - the roasters stepped up their games for this one. There was not a single "failed" coffee on the table. Even the lowest ranked coffee would have been ranked out of the bottom 3 in either other round of cupping. In addition, there really were only a couple coffees that showed "issues" in their roasting - a big change from past rounds.

In the end we had an absolutely clear top coffee, a very tight group of coffees in the 2-7 places, a tight group in the 8-10 places and two nearly tied coffees as 11 and 12. In addition, as in Round One, we had one seriously "controversial" coffee - and this time the controversy did not divide the "coffee people" from the "non coffee people."

In this round, the top coffee was the Ritual Kenya Kanyoni. As noted above, the folks at Ritual said that they had changed the roast on this coffee - and that was very clear in the cup. The coffee was incredibly layered and deep - opening up beautifully as it cooled. It had tons of molasses and spice that revealed wonderful bright lemon rind and candied grapefruit over time. Lovely notes of dried berry throughout. A really wonderful coffee.

The 2nd through 7th coffees were as follows:

Ecco Yirgacheffe Dama Co-op (a clearly different roast of this coffee yielded pomegranate and kiwi acidity with tons of lavender and a nice lemon-verbena oil flavour)

Intelligentsia Kenya Gichathaini (a very unusual coffee. sweet roasted beets, leather, tons of dried stone-fruit, simple citrus acidity, complete but crazy. hints of horse-blanket funk as it cools.)

Four Barrel El Salvador Finca Los Alpes (the "controversial" coffee of the day. tons of berry and ferment that by some was considered to be "too much" and others to be "in control". incredibly sweet with lovely fruit and hard candy high notes like jolly ranchers)

Intelligentsia Colombia Finca Santuario (lots of of dried fruit and tropical spice on a very sweet dark molasses backbone. cherry candy and a little bit of "twig tea" flavour)

Four Barrel Ethiopia Yirgacheffe Moplaco (elegant with interesting Nori-like flavours. lovely lemon acidity and assam tea. hints of celery and scallion as it cools.)

Ecco Colombia Loma Redonda Auction Lot (lovely clean acidity with tons of lime and lemon and some sweet tangerine. a bit thin and some hints of ash.)

In the 8th-10th places we had:

Equator Kenya Riuki AA (very savory, a dense and almost huge coffee that opens up with dried stone fruit and a bit of a roasty toasty finish. kind of flat and gets a bit flabby as it cools.)

Ritual Honduras La Pinona (tons of citrus acidity ranging from grapefruit pith to lemon zest to lime juice. sweet honey in the body. unusual flavours of mirin and bologna as it cools. lost some structure over time)

Blue Bottle Nicaragua Pueblo Nuevo (lots and lots of dried cherry and dried plum. a little roasty tasting and a bit flat and bland as it cooled)

And the 11th and 12th place coffees were:

Blue Bottle Yirgacheffe (initially round and dense and big and bold, as it cooled it became initially flat and then notes of smoke appeared and it became somewhat harsh and unbalanced)

Equator Ethiopia Sidamo Amaro Gayo (tons of blueberry but what were initially hints of inner tube became more and more phenolic over time. a great roast of a poor coffee)

A couple things to note from these results - some "take-aways" so to speak...

Blue Bottle and Ritual stepped up their games. While the Nicaragua from Blue Bottle was not to everyone's taste, it was still a good professional coffee. As compared to the two previous rounds of cupping, this was a big step up. And the difference in the Kenya Kanyoni from Ritual between the previous cupping and this was truly dramatic.

There are a lot of really good coffees available in SF right now. Of the 10 SF sourced coffees on the table, 8 of them are good to excellent. In addition, every one of the 5 roasters produced at least one coffee that was good or better.

In terms of conclusions.... there are again a couple of high level points to be made.

Coffee in SF can be quite good.

The top three roasters are producing coffee that is competitive with coffee from Intelligentsia - a clear measuring stick nationally. This is huge for SF. In many ways at this point, you can argue that coffee lovers are as well off in SF as anywhere in the US (other than perhaps Portland OR).

The top 3 coffee roasters in the SF area are pretty obvious.

In looking at the scores and the rankings across the three rounds - it is quite clear that the top three roasters in SF are Ecco, Four Barrel and Ritual. By both score and rank, Ecco would be #1 with Four Barrel and Ritual #2 and #3 but separated by a difference of less than 5% in total score. Ecco really rode the success of the Dama Co-op Yirgacheffe while Four Barrel showed impressive consistency across rounds and coffees and Ritual just knocked it out of the park with two coffees and had two that didn't show as well.

SF roasters for the most part are roasting to distinct personal styles.

Four of these roasters are roasting in their own style - and are incredibly consistent about doing so. This is a very good thing as it gives consumers a clear choice - allowing them to choose a style of coffee that pleases them and giving them choice within that style. Ecco is consistently round and elegant and balanced. Four Barrel is consistently developed and big and deep and balanced. Ritual is consistently bright and focused and layered. And Blue Bottle is consistently deep and rich and bottom-heavy with little acidity.

I think these results are at this point quite clear.

So rather than beating a dead horse, I'd like to thank some folks for making this happen.

Thanks to Tal, Johnny and Jeremy from Four Barrel for the feedback and the coffees.

Thanks to Ryan and Ben from Ritual for the thoughts, input and coffees.

Thanks to James from Blue Bottle for the feedback and concerns and for making sure I got the coffee I needed.

Thanks to Maria from Equator for the clarifications and help with sourcing the coffee.

Thanks to Andrew, Drew and Gabe from Ecco for the thoughts, feedback and helping me source the coffee.

Special thanks to my fellow cuppers for the time - the focus - the dedication - and the sense of humor. This was really fun.

Thanks to everyone who commented on the blog or who emailed or called me with feedback, support and input.

Most of all thanks to Valerie for keeping me sane.