I'm back from a really good family vacation back on the East Coast.
I'm hard at work wrapping up the GS3 review for Home-Barista.com.
I won the PF.net award for 'most over-exposed coffee personality of the year'.
12.31.2005
12.20.2005
Learning
A while back, a user posted a question about "exploring the extraction space" on Home-Barista.com.
"In various reviews, you speak of varying the basket size, dose, temperature, drink size, and extraction time. Exploring this space with a new coffee seems like a hugely daunting task, particularly for those of us who home-roast and therefore may have at most half a pound of a given blend, with no assurance that the next roast of the same coffee will be exactly the same. Do you have any rules that help you do it?"
At the time I gave the best response I could come up with. But since then I've continued to think about the topic. Actually... it's one of those really, really big questions. And it's something I've practiced without really thinking about it in a systematic way. The question made me realize this - and has made me think about the issue in a more structured way.
I think I'm probably ready to start talking about what this means - about what to do -- basically to try and propose a starting point for further discussion of the problem.
First of all... I've been incredibly lucky. I'm in a unique situation. I have access to a huge number of coffees - and I don't have to pay for them. I have a lot of free time. And I have the prototype La Marzocco GS3.
Most coffee professionals don't have the time to spend doing this sort of experimentation. Most coffee pros don't really have access to the range of coffees from all sorts of roasters. Home enthusiasts tend to have to pay for their coffees. Home enthusiasts really don't have access to a piece of equipment like the GS3. For that matter... very few pros have that luxury!
This is a unique moment in time for me - and I'm trying to milk it for all its worth. It isn't going to last forever.
So... what is the process for exploring the extraction space? What are the goals? What is the methodology?
What is this and how do we do it?
Right now... it's still all in some state of flux.
It's still largely trial and error, guided by some very rough guidelines, leading to some equally rough general rules and structures and patterns.
At it's most extensive, I'll start with a coffee I know nothing about. In other words, I don't know what beans are in the blend. I don't know anything about the style or philosophy of the roaster (i.e. I've never tasted their coffee before). I've not cupped the coffee. I have no input from the roaster on target extraction goals.
In this case, I'll always start with a visual evaluation of the beans. The goal is to try and narrow down a starting point. I'll look for degree of roast, I'll try to identify beans. The idea is to try and recognize commonalities with previously evaluated coffees. As an example, if I see a very light degree of roast and from visual clues see that it may contain Monsooned Malabar I will use what I have learned from working with the Vivace Dolce as a starting point.
I'll then move on to evaluating aroma of the beans. The idea again is to try and identify beans. I don't need to identify the exact beans per se - it's more that I'm again looking for experienced patterns to narrow down a starting point.
As a generic starting point I tend to go with the following parameters:
- LM ridged double basket,
- 200F brew temp,
- 9BAR brew pressure,
- 18 gram dose,
- 2oz extraction in 27 seconds.
Based on the initial visual and aroma evaluations, I will start by making some assumptions on the brew temp. If the degree of roast seems light, I'll adjust the baseline brew temp up to 202F. If the roast is dark, I'll drop that baseline down to 198F. I then tune this based on the beans. If, for example, it looks like the coffee is high-grown washed arabica I'll reduce the brew temp. If I see aged or monsooned coffees I will increase the brew temp (both from the baseline above). So a light roasted coffee with monsooned beans will move up to 203F as a starting point.
At this point, I move on to establishing a dose starting point. To do this I look at the bean composition and the "signature taste" of the roaster and the coffee. If the coffee has a lot of naturals or pulped naturals I will adjust the dose down from the baseline. If the coffee is mostly high-grown arabica I'll increase the dose. So, for example, with the Terroir Daterra Reserve I'd go with a 17.5 gram dose. But with the Stumptown Hairbender I'd go with a 19 gram dose. The "signature taste" is a harder one and requires some knowledge of the roaster. Is the person roasting this coffee a fan of low acidity espresso? Are they a "chocolate bomb" aficionado? If you know what they like out of their espresso you can do minor adjustments to your dose. So, for example, based on this I would actually drop the Terroir Daterra down to a 17 gram dose but would up the Stumptown Hairbender to a 20 gram dose.
Of course, the shortcut for all the above (as implied earlier) is to recognize a common "type" of espresso. For example, from working with the Vivace Dolce I would immediately start with a brew temp of 203F and a slightly down-dosed triple basket pulled ristretto when beginning experimentation with the Victrola Streamline. Or from working with the Stumptown Hairbender, I would start with a brew temp of 197.5F and an updosed double basket pulled short when exploring the Lighthouse Espresso.
In either case, once I have an adjusted temp and dose baseline I'll start experimenting with extraction. I always start by re-evaluating the brew temp. I'll pull a shot and evaluate it. Is it alkaloid? Is it thin? Is it sour? Astringent? Based on the taste, I will alter the temp by small degrees to find the sweet spot. On a side note... many people use visual clues for adjusting temp (looking for crema, colours, patterns, etc in the flow and in the cup). I find that this can be both distracting and often inaccurate. For me - I find it far more worthwhile to focus on the flavour.
Once I've found what I feel is the brew temp sweet spot, I'll start working on adjusting dose from that initial baseline number. I go about this by focusing on two things. First - clarity of flavour and second - roundness and balance. If the cup is "muddied" I'll reduce the dose. If the cup isn't fully developed and sweet and rich I'll up the dose.
It's important to keep in mind that there are some limitations to these guidelines. In particular, there are coffees that benefit dramatically from increased headroom in the basket - and others that are best with restricted headroom. In these cases, the actual dose is less critical than the headroom - in other words, the dose is a way to reach headroom goals. I recently tasted an experimental espresso from Andrew Barnett at Ecco Caffe that required a ton of headroom in the basket. This held true across different baskets and the resulting different doses. With too little headroom, the coffee lost all sweetness.
With a lot of coffees this will get me to the point where I'll have a cup profile I really like. But this probably represents a minority of all coffees.
There are times when I won't be able to get to where I want to be with just these factors. It's at this point that I start looking at changes to extraction volume and basket size. For example, I've found that some lighter roasted delicate coffees tend to end up poorly developed no matter what I do - especially when they are pulped naturals. But if I then swap to a triple basket and deliberately down-dose (19 grams) I "open up" the coffee and it becomes more defined and clear. Or with monsooned coffee I find that the only way I can get the desired sweetness without getting a "wet cardboard" aftertaste is by going with a triple basket, normal dose and then pulling a ristretto shot.
As a general rule, I tend to initially tune extraction volume at this point rather than going to a different basket. Much of the time, tuning this parameter will result in my identifying a desirable profile. To do this I tend to start decreasing the shot volume while keeping extraction time constant. Given that I'm also keeping dose and brew temp constant, this requires a constant fining of the grind. With the exception of certain unusual experiments, I tend to never go below 1.25oz in volume. If I reach that point and still have not found the extraction I desire I will start exploring basket sizing.
With baskets - I'll swap to a triple basket in three cases.
First - if there is a recognized espresso type that I've learned performs best in this basket and I can identify the coffee as seemingly belonging to this type.
Second - if, in experimenting with dose and brew temp I've found that the flavour of the espresso is "constricted" and the coffee seems to me to be a delicate, light bodied one.
Third - if I've gone through all the various permutations above and cannot get the flavour I desire.
The reason I tend to leave this swap to the end is that, once you've switched baskets you really need to re-evaluate all your parameters. Even brew temp might change on you. As a result, I'd rather wait until the end and then treat this as an entirely new process - starting from the beginning again.
A lot of the time I'll find a "sweet spot" that I like but then start wondering about what a coffee would taste like when pulled differently. I generally believe that all great coffees have at least two different "sweet spots" depending upon your own personal taste. As a result, finding an "ideal" extraction should never be the end of your exploration - but merely one more lesson to learn and one more pattern to add to your lexicon.
Finally... the above is, at best, an incredibly rough and inaccurate set of lessons learned. For example... the reality is that there are times when changes to dose are going to require changes in brew temp rather than vice versa. And I have not even gone into brew pressure!
That being said - right now the biggest challenge for me is that I'm doing all of this in a partial vacuum. I would be learning far faster and developing these theories both more quickly and more accurately in a collaborative environment.
I am confident that there are people who have already gone through this - I am sure that I'm repeating the mistakes and successes of others.
I am equally confident that there are others doing exactly the same thing as me in other locations.
My hope is that setting down my (rough and probably at least partially incorrect) ideas is going to result in these people sharing results with me - and this is going to create that collaboration and accelerate this process.
"In various reviews, you speak of varying the basket size, dose, temperature, drink size, and extraction time. Exploring this space with a new coffee seems like a hugely daunting task, particularly for those of us who home-roast and therefore may have at most half a pound of a given blend, with no assurance that the next roast of the same coffee will be exactly the same. Do you have any rules that help you do it?"
At the time I gave the best response I could come up with. But since then I've continued to think about the topic. Actually... it's one of those really, really big questions. And it's something I've practiced without really thinking about it in a systematic way. The question made me realize this - and has made me think about the issue in a more structured way.
I think I'm probably ready to start talking about what this means - about what to do -- basically to try and propose a starting point for further discussion of the problem.
First of all... I've been incredibly lucky. I'm in a unique situation. I have access to a huge number of coffees - and I don't have to pay for them. I have a lot of free time. And I have the prototype La Marzocco GS3.
Most coffee professionals don't have the time to spend doing this sort of experimentation. Most coffee pros don't really have access to the range of coffees from all sorts of roasters. Home enthusiasts tend to have to pay for their coffees. Home enthusiasts really don't have access to a piece of equipment like the GS3. For that matter... very few pros have that luxury!
This is a unique moment in time for me - and I'm trying to milk it for all its worth. It isn't going to last forever.
So... what is the process for exploring the extraction space? What are the goals? What is the methodology?
What is this and how do we do it?
Right now... it's still all in some state of flux.
It's still largely trial and error, guided by some very rough guidelines, leading to some equally rough general rules and structures and patterns.
At it's most extensive, I'll start with a coffee I know nothing about. In other words, I don't know what beans are in the blend. I don't know anything about the style or philosophy of the roaster (i.e. I've never tasted their coffee before). I've not cupped the coffee. I have no input from the roaster on target extraction goals.
In this case, I'll always start with a visual evaluation of the beans. The goal is to try and narrow down a starting point. I'll look for degree of roast, I'll try to identify beans. The idea is to try and recognize commonalities with previously evaluated coffees. As an example, if I see a very light degree of roast and from visual clues see that it may contain Monsooned Malabar I will use what I have learned from working with the Vivace Dolce as a starting point.
I'll then move on to evaluating aroma of the beans. The idea again is to try and identify beans. I don't need to identify the exact beans per se - it's more that I'm again looking for experienced patterns to narrow down a starting point.
As a generic starting point I tend to go with the following parameters:
- LM ridged double basket,
- 200F brew temp,
- 9BAR brew pressure,
- 18 gram dose,
- 2oz extraction in 27 seconds.
Based on the initial visual and aroma evaluations, I will start by making some assumptions on the brew temp. If the degree of roast seems light, I'll adjust the baseline brew temp up to 202F. If the roast is dark, I'll drop that baseline down to 198F. I then tune this based on the beans. If, for example, it looks like the coffee is high-grown washed arabica I'll reduce the brew temp. If I see aged or monsooned coffees I will increase the brew temp (both from the baseline above). So a light roasted coffee with monsooned beans will move up to 203F as a starting point.
At this point, I move on to establishing a dose starting point. To do this I look at the bean composition and the "signature taste" of the roaster and the coffee. If the coffee has a lot of naturals or pulped naturals I will adjust the dose down from the baseline. If the coffee is mostly high-grown arabica I'll increase the dose. So, for example, with the Terroir Daterra Reserve I'd go with a 17.5 gram dose. But with the Stumptown Hairbender I'd go with a 19 gram dose. The "signature taste" is a harder one and requires some knowledge of the roaster. Is the person roasting this coffee a fan of low acidity espresso? Are they a "chocolate bomb" aficionado? If you know what they like out of their espresso you can do minor adjustments to your dose. So, for example, based on this I would actually drop the Terroir Daterra down to a 17 gram dose but would up the Stumptown Hairbender to a 20 gram dose.
Of course, the shortcut for all the above (as implied earlier) is to recognize a common "type" of espresso. For example, from working with the Vivace Dolce I would immediately start with a brew temp of 203F and a slightly down-dosed triple basket pulled ristretto when beginning experimentation with the Victrola Streamline. Or from working with the Stumptown Hairbender, I would start with a brew temp of 197.5F and an updosed double basket pulled short when exploring the Lighthouse Espresso.
In either case, once I have an adjusted temp and dose baseline I'll start experimenting with extraction. I always start by re-evaluating the brew temp. I'll pull a shot and evaluate it. Is it alkaloid? Is it thin? Is it sour? Astringent? Based on the taste, I will alter the temp by small degrees to find the sweet spot. On a side note... many people use visual clues for adjusting temp (looking for crema, colours, patterns, etc in the flow and in the cup). I find that this can be both distracting and often inaccurate. For me - I find it far more worthwhile to focus on the flavour.
Once I've found what I feel is the brew temp sweet spot, I'll start working on adjusting dose from that initial baseline number. I go about this by focusing on two things. First - clarity of flavour and second - roundness and balance. If the cup is "muddied" I'll reduce the dose. If the cup isn't fully developed and sweet and rich I'll up the dose.
It's important to keep in mind that there are some limitations to these guidelines. In particular, there are coffees that benefit dramatically from increased headroom in the basket - and others that are best with restricted headroom. In these cases, the actual dose is less critical than the headroom - in other words, the dose is a way to reach headroom goals. I recently tasted an experimental espresso from Andrew Barnett at Ecco Caffe that required a ton of headroom in the basket. This held true across different baskets and the resulting different doses. With too little headroom, the coffee lost all sweetness.
With a lot of coffees this will get me to the point where I'll have a cup profile I really like. But this probably represents a minority of all coffees.
There are times when I won't be able to get to where I want to be with just these factors. It's at this point that I start looking at changes to extraction volume and basket size. For example, I've found that some lighter roasted delicate coffees tend to end up poorly developed no matter what I do - especially when they are pulped naturals. But if I then swap to a triple basket and deliberately down-dose (19 grams) I "open up" the coffee and it becomes more defined and clear. Or with monsooned coffee I find that the only way I can get the desired sweetness without getting a "wet cardboard" aftertaste is by going with a triple basket, normal dose and then pulling a ristretto shot.
As a general rule, I tend to initially tune extraction volume at this point rather than going to a different basket. Much of the time, tuning this parameter will result in my identifying a desirable profile. To do this I tend to start decreasing the shot volume while keeping extraction time constant. Given that I'm also keeping dose and brew temp constant, this requires a constant fining of the grind. With the exception of certain unusual experiments, I tend to never go below 1.25oz in volume. If I reach that point and still have not found the extraction I desire I will start exploring basket sizing.
With baskets - I'll swap to a triple basket in three cases.
First - if there is a recognized espresso type that I've learned performs best in this basket and I can identify the coffee as seemingly belonging to this type.
Second - if, in experimenting with dose and brew temp I've found that the flavour of the espresso is "constricted" and the coffee seems to me to be a delicate, light bodied one.
Third - if I've gone through all the various permutations above and cannot get the flavour I desire.
The reason I tend to leave this swap to the end is that, once you've switched baskets you really need to re-evaluate all your parameters. Even brew temp might change on you. As a result, I'd rather wait until the end and then treat this as an entirely new process - starting from the beginning again.
A lot of the time I'll find a "sweet spot" that I like but then start wondering about what a coffee would taste like when pulled differently. I generally believe that all great coffees have at least two different "sweet spots" depending upon your own personal taste. As a result, finding an "ideal" extraction should never be the end of your exploration - but merely one more lesson to learn and one more pattern to add to your lexicon.
Finally... the above is, at best, an incredibly rough and inaccurate set of lessons learned. For example... the reality is that there are times when changes to dose are going to require changes in brew temp rather than vice versa. And I have not even gone into brew pressure!
That being said - right now the biggest challenge for me is that I'm doing all of this in a partial vacuum. I would be learning far faster and developing these theories both more quickly and more accurately in a collaborative environment.
I am confident that there are people who have already gone through this - I am sure that I'm repeating the mistakes and successes of others.
I am equally confident that there are others doing exactly the same thing as me in other locations.
My hope is that setting down my (rough and probably at least partially incorrect) ideas is going to result in these people sharing results with me - and this is going to create that collaboration and accelerate this process.
12.18.2005
SF visit
So I had to go to San Francisco for work the other day.
My schedule worked out so that the best option for flying in would put me into the city a couple hours early - giving me time to visit Ritual.
I've been to Ritual a few times in the past - but mostly early on, soon after they'd opened. I figured this would be a more realistic way to check out how they're doing.
A little backstory... Ritual Coffee opened earlier this year in the Mission. Ironically, they opened a short walk from my old apartment in SF. To think that a really good coffee bar opened in my neighborhood after I left... damn. Ironic and annoying given how bad the coffee was back when I was living there. In any event, Ritual is using Stumptown coffee and is really committed to doing a great job with it. Duane has worked extensively with the folks at Ritual, and Stephen has done a ton of training with them.
In any event, I showed up right around 9am on a weekday. It was hopping. Line to the door, 5 people behind the bar. Cranking... Stepped up, said hi to Gabe and Jeremy who were working the machine and ordered an espresso.
It was a really, really good shot of Hairbender. Heavy and dense and coating without being stewed. Nice fruit, preserved aromatics... great balance. Nice chocolate, some sweetness and a lovely cinnamon/spice note.
While I drank it I watched the action behind the bar. These guys have got it dialed. The line was to the door the whole time and they're were just rolling. In the time I watched, I saw Gabe taste at least 4 shots to make sure all was going right. The care and attention being put into the coffee was impressive. The guy making press pot coffees was keeping everything clean - Jeremy had the milk flow perfect... it was impressive to see.
Then Jeremy gave me a cappuccino. Really lovely rosette. Nice espresso. To be honest, it was closer to a short latte than a capp (8oz cup, latte style milk) but it was a really, really good short latte.
Both drinks were as good as the good drinks I'd get at a Stumptown cafe. This made me feel really proud of the folks at Ritual. It's so cool to see.
In addition, the old Stumptown 5k Probat is now in residence there. It's not set up yet - but it was still really cool to see it there. Nice little memory. Plus... it means they really are going to start roasting. Love it.
The only negative about the whole experience (and this is something that others have commented on) is that the place is really over-run by laptop users. This makes the place seem kind of cold and kind of unwelcoming. There was even a laptop user working away at the counter. Actually... the seating was a challenge given how many people were taking up tables with their laptops and paperwork. I know this is not something that is easy to address and I feel a great deal of sympathy for the folks at Ritual - but it is a problem.
Otherwise... a great place. Seriously. I hope folks in SF realize how lucky they are to have a place like Ritual -- a place owned and run by people who really care about great coffee and creating a great coffee bar, and a place staffed by people who are passionate about their jobs and the products. Nice.
My schedule worked out so that the best option for flying in would put me into the city a couple hours early - giving me time to visit Ritual.
I've been to Ritual a few times in the past - but mostly early on, soon after they'd opened. I figured this would be a more realistic way to check out how they're doing.
A little backstory... Ritual Coffee opened earlier this year in the Mission. Ironically, they opened a short walk from my old apartment in SF. To think that a really good coffee bar opened in my neighborhood after I left... damn. Ironic and annoying given how bad the coffee was back when I was living there. In any event, Ritual is using Stumptown coffee and is really committed to doing a great job with it. Duane has worked extensively with the folks at Ritual, and Stephen has done a ton of training with them.
In any event, I showed up right around 9am on a weekday. It was hopping. Line to the door, 5 people behind the bar. Cranking... Stepped up, said hi to Gabe and Jeremy who were working the machine and ordered an espresso.
It was a really, really good shot of Hairbender. Heavy and dense and coating without being stewed. Nice fruit, preserved aromatics... great balance. Nice chocolate, some sweetness and a lovely cinnamon/spice note.
While I drank it I watched the action behind the bar. These guys have got it dialed. The line was to the door the whole time and they're were just rolling. In the time I watched, I saw Gabe taste at least 4 shots to make sure all was going right. The care and attention being put into the coffee was impressive. The guy making press pot coffees was keeping everything clean - Jeremy had the milk flow perfect... it was impressive to see.
Then Jeremy gave me a cappuccino. Really lovely rosette. Nice espresso. To be honest, it was closer to a short latte than a capp (8oz cup, latte style milk) but it was a really, really good short latte.
Both drinks were as good as the good drinks I'd get at a Stumptown cafe. This made me feel really proud of the folks at Ritual. It's so cool to see.
In addition, the old Stumptown 5k Probat is now in residence there. It's not set up yet - but it was still really cool to see it there. Nice little memory. Plus... it means they really are going to start roasting. Love it.
The only negative about the whole experience (and this is something that others have commented on) is that the place is really over-run by laptop users. This makes the place seem kind of cold and kind of unwelcoming. There was even a laptop user working away at the counter. Actually... the seating was a challenge given how many people were taking up tables with their laptops and paperwork. I know this is not something that is easy to address and I feel a great deal of sympathy for the folks at Ritual - but it is a problem.
Otherwise... a great place. Seriously. I hope folks in SF realize how lucky they are to have a place like Ritual -- a place owned and run by people who really care about great coffee and creating a great coffee bar, and a place staffed by people who are passionate about their jobs and the products. Nice.
12.08.2005
Brazil Daterra Reserve
Some back story...
Troels won the 2005 World Barista Championship using a coffee from Brazil - the Daterra Reserve - roasted by George Howell from Terrior.
The Daterra Reserve is a very high grade coffee from the Daterra estate in Brazil.
It's commonly called a Single-Origin Espresso which, while technically true, I take issue with as it's actually a blend of a couple different coffee cultivars grown on one estate.
This coffee is very popular amongst espresso freaks and is now roasted by a range of high-end roasters.
As a recent experiment, I had the chance to taste the Daterra as roasted by three different roasters. This was an incredibly cool opportunity to see the results of different roasting styles and philosophies and evaluate the end result in the cup.
First up was the Daterra from Terroir (as mentioned above). This is actually the first Daterra I ever tasted and the coffee I most associate with "Dattera". It's a Northern Italian style roast - quite light and focused on preserving the varietal and origin characteristics of the coffee. It seemed to perform best in an LM ridged double basket, standard dose and with the highest brew temp of the bunch (I liked it the most at 202.1F). At lower temps it had incredible aromatics, but I found that it simply had too much acidity for my taste. At the higher temp it retained much of the aromatic power (floral, citric with some raw honey notes). In the cup it was dominated by a heavy, almost fluffy marzipan flavour. There is some lovely sweet citrus in there, some hints of what I would describe as quince and a wonderful caramel finish. Medium bodied... not a big or heavy espresso. The finish is clean and sweet and not particularly long-lasting. One trick I discovered with this espresso is that simple alterations to the extraction parameters can have unusually dramatic results. Ristretto shots become quite heavy and almost cloying with aromatics degraded and a peanut note emerges. In general, I would describe this as a comforting and quite traditional espresso. It's not big, it's not "extreme." While it is good as a macchiatto, it really doesn't hold up well to much milk and is best suited for use as in straight espresso.
The second of the three was from Caffe Fresco. This is an unusual take on the Daterra as it is a much darker roast than the other two. Now... to be clear, this is in no ways a "dark" roast coffee. It's just that the other two are quite light... especially for espresso. I actually prefered this coffee in the LM ridged double basket as well, but very, very slightly updosed. At a lower brew temp I found the complexity of the coffee really emerged - In the end I found 198.8F to be my personal "sweet spot". This is not the aromatic bomb that the Terroir is. It's far less of an "unusual" espresso. In the cup it is dominated by a sort of "peanut butter cup" flavour. Sweet, nutty and with a goodly amount of chocolate. There is a little fruit brightness, but it's more of a dark or dried fruit flavour. Much heavier than the other two - this is quite coating. As a straight shot this is a bit unbalanced, but in short milk drinks it softens and rounds out. It makes a really wonderful cappuccino. I would describe this as a new american take on the classic espresso.
The third of the three was from Ecco Caffe. In terms of roast degree, this falls between the first two - though just barely darker than the Terroir. Given this, I'd expected the two coffees to have similar flavour profiles and similar target extractions. I was wrong. I'm dying to figure out how the same beans taken to very similar degrees of roast can be this different. I ended up deciding that I enjoyed this the most in a triple basket, downdosed significantly. At a brew temp of 201.2F it really hit a nice balance. In fact... the word I would use to describe this coffee overall is balance. Wonderful floral, spice and fruit notes in the aroma; it's one of those coffees that is just fun to smell. in the cup there is that same marzipan note - but there is also a really cool belgian candy sugar note. Tons of fruit up front - meyer lemon, pomegranate... you name it. Hints of various tropical spices and that sweet caramel and honey finish. Once again, this is a medium-bodied coffee but this time it's very long-lasting. I love it as a straight shot - but (perhaps because of all the fruit) it seems to hold up really well in short milk drinks as well. This coffee is the espresso equivelant of comfort food.
This was a really great experience for me.
To see the commonalities... but also the differences.
I love to see roasters creating coffees that reflect their own tastes - their own beliefs and philosophies.
Three really great espressos... a really great coffee.
Lovely.
Troels won the 2005 World Barista Championship using a coffee from Brazil - the Daterra Reserve - roasted by George Howell from Terrior.
The Daterra Reserve is a very high grade coffee from the Daterra estate in Brazil.
It's commonly called a Single-Origin Espresso which, while technically true, I take issue with as it's actually a blend of a couple different coffee cultivars grown on one estate.
This coffee is very popular amongst espresso freaks and is now roasted by a range of high-end roasters.
As a recent experiment, I had the chance to taste the Daterra as roasted by three different roasters. This was an incredibly cool opportunity to see the results of different roasting styles and philosophies and evaluate the end result in the cup.
First up was the Daterra from Terroir (as mentioned above). This is actually the first Daterra I ever tasted and the coffee I most associate with "Dattera". It's a Northern Italian style roast - quite light and focused on preserving the varietal and origin characteristics of the coffee. It seemed to perform best in an LM ridged double basket, standard dose and with the highest brew temp of the bunch (I liked it the most at 202.1F). At lower temps it had incredible aromatics, but I found that it simply had too much acidity for my taste. At the higher temp it retained much of the aromatic power (floral, citric with some raw honey notes). In the cup it was dominated by a heavy, almost fluffy marzipan flavour. There is some lovely sweet citrus in there, some hints of what I would describe as quince and a wonderful caramel finish. Medium bodied... not a big or heavy espresso. The finish is clean and sweet and not particularly long-lasting. One trick I discovered with this espresso is that simple alterations to the extraction parameters can have unusually dramatic results. Ristretto shots become quite heavy and almost cloying with aromatics degraded and a peanut note emerges. In general, I would describe this as a comforting and quite traditional espresso. It's not big, it's not "extreme." While it is good as a macchiatto, it really doesn't hold up well to much milk and is best suited for use as in straight espresso.
The second of the three was from Caffe Fresco. This is an unusual take on the Daterra as it is a much darker roast than the other two. Now... to be clear, this is in no ways a "dark" roast coffee. It's just that the other two are quite light... especially for espresso. I actually prefered this coffee in the LM ridged double basket as well, but very, very slightly updosed. At a lower brew temp I found the complexity of the coffee really emerged - In the end I found 198.8F to be my personal "sweet spot". This is not the aromatic bomb that the Terroir is. It's far less of an "unusual" espresso. In the cup it is dominated by a sort of "peanut butter cup" flavour. Sweet, nutty and with a goodly amount of chocolate. There is a little fruit brightness, but it's more of a dark or dried fruit flavour. Much heavier than the other two - this is quite coating. As a straight shot this is a bit unbalanced, but in short milk drinks it softens and rounds out. It makes a really wonderful cappuccino. I would describe this as a new american take on the classic espresso.
The third of the three was from Ecco Caffe. In terms of roast degree, this falls between the first two - though just barely darker than the Terroir. Given this, I'd expected the two coffees to have similar flavour profiles and similar target extractions. I was wrong. I'm dying to figure out how the same beans taken to very similar degrees of roast can be this different. I ended up deciding that I enjoyed this the most in a triple basket, downdosed significantly. At a brew temp of 201.2F it really hit a nice balance. In fact... the word I would use to describe this coffee overall is balance. Wonderful floral, spice and fruit notes in the aroma; it's one of those coffees that is just fun to smell. in the cup there is that same marzipan note - but there is also a really cool belgian candy sugar note. Tons of fruit up front - meyer lemon, pomegranate... you name it. Hints of various tropical spices and that sweet caramel and honey finish. Once again, this is a medium-bodied coffee but this time it's very long-lasting. I love it as a straight shot - but (perhaps because of all the fruit) it seems to hold up really well in short milk drinks as well. This coffee is the espresso equivelant of comfort food.
This was a really great experience for me.
To see the commonalities... but also the differences.
I love to see roasters creating coffees that reflect their own tastes - their own beliefs and philosophies.
Three really great espressos... a really great coffee.
Lovely.
12.03.2005
proposed name change
Based on feedback, I'm suggesting the name be changed from Put Up or Shut Up 2006 to Keeping it Real 2006.
12.02.2005
It's been brought to my attention that people might have the wrong idea about the whole Put Up or Shut Up 2006 idea...
I guess that it has to do with the general perception that I am, as they say "a cocky bastard." As a result, people are making the assumption that either:
a) the whole thing is intended by me to be a way to show off my skills, and/or
b) a way to make other people look bad.
I guess that, given the impression people have of me - I should have been able to predict that this would be the interpretation. I probably should have tried to either figure out a better way to manage this or should have had someone else suggest the whole idea.
Honestly... the majority of my motivation for the whole idea has to do with the non-tangible aspects of the Internet conflicting with the very physical nature of espresso. Seriously, haven't you wondered what the shots people post photos of really taste like? I think one of the reasons why most of the talk on the internet about coffee is not about taste is that you cannot capture and share that taste in this medium. Well... this is the chance. This could be the opportunity for you to actually taste one of those sick looking naked espressoporn shots. This could be the opportunity for me to either demonstrate or fail to demonstrate one of my many theories to you.
I share thoughts on espresso with people like Jimmy - but he's only tasted two shots from me and I've never had a chance to taste a shot pulled by him. Alistair and I trade theories all the time - but I don't think I've ever pulled shots for him.
Now... to be fair... there is a part of me that also wants to force people to step up and put their rep on the line.
And... to be blunt... even with the (very small) list of interested party I have to admit that I know all too well that I'm about to get my ass kicked. There are two or three folks who has said they're in who can run circles around me as a barista. But that's okay - I may be cocky but I'm not unrealistic about my own skills.
Given the feedback I've received I would like to suggest some revisions to the proposed structure. In particular, I'd like to suggest that we remove "scoring" and instead only have written tasting notes and opinions. In addition, I think that all "entrants" should also judge so that it is a peer deal (with other folks judging as well). Finally, I think that the WBC style standardized temp, portafilter, basket stuff should (if possible at a logistic level) not be used in this case.
I guess that it has to do with the general perception that I am, as they say "a cocky bastard." As a result, people are making the assumption that either:
a) the whole thing is intended by me to be a way to show off my skills, and/or
b) a way to make other people look bad.
I guess that, given the impression people have of me - I should have been able to predict that this would be the interpretation. I probably should have tried to either figure out a better way to manage this or should have had someone else suggest the whole idea.
Honestly... the majority of my motivation for the whole idea has to do with the non-tangible aspects of the Internet conflicting with the very physical nature of espresso. Seriously, haven't you wondered what the shots people post photos of really taste like? I think one of the reasons why most of the talk on the internet about coffee is not about taste is that you cannot capture and share that taste in this medium. Well... this is the chance. This could be the opportunity for you to actually taste one of those sick looking naked espressoporn shots. This could be the opportunity for me to either demonstrate or fail to demonstrate one of my many theories to you.
I share thoughts on espresso with people like Jimmy - but he's only tasted two shots from me and I've never had a chance to taste a shot pulled by him. Alistair and I trade theories all the time - but I don't think I've ever pulled shots for him.
Now... to be fair... there is a part of me that also wants to force people to step up and put their rep on the line.
And... to be blunt... even with the (very small) list of interested party I have to admit that I know all too well that I'm about to get my ass kicked. There are two or three folks who has said they're in who can run circles around me as a barista. But that's okay - I may be cocky but I'm not unrealistic about my own skills.
Given the feedback I've received I would like to suggest some revisions to the proposed structure. In particular, I'd like to suggest that we remove "scoring" and instead only have written tasting notes and opinions. In addition, I think that all "entrants" should also judge so that it is a peer deal (with other folks judging as well). Finally, I think that the WBC style standardized temp, portafilter, basket stuff should (if possible at a logistic level) not be used in this case.
11.30.2005
More Brew Temp Stuff
I've been doing more experimentation on the whole Flat Brew Temp profile and espresso blend theory I described earlier.
Until I have access to all the component beans of a couple espresso blends as well as the combined final blend this will all remain a theory. But I have some results from Single Origin tasting that indicate that the theory is at least worth considering and pursuing.
I ran taste tests with two different beans, graded on the same scale and with the same methodology as the original blend tests.
The first was the Victrola Brazil Cerrado Natural Peaberry Fazenda Pantano CoE. The results, as you can see below, map to the predicted bell curve distribution. Please note that these scores are the aggregate scores of all the attributes. Also, please note that the scores are entirely arbitrary and self referential (i.e in all cases the temp where an attribute was considered best was given a score of 9 and further scores were relative purely to that score).
The second was the Stumptown Ethiopia Sidamo. Again, a bell curve distribution.
Interestingly, and again predictably, not only is the temp "sweet spot" different for these coffees but the bell curve itself is different for each. Note that the Brazil has a very steep drop off from its sweet spot and the drop off is nearly symetrical. The Sidamo, on the other hand, drops off rapidly on the high end, but has a more gradual slope on the low end.
I'm going to continue to pursue this angle and see what I can figure out (if anything). Hopefully a roaster will be willing to provide component beans for me for their blend so I can get some real results (I'd be glad to have the beans simply labeled "Bean One," "Bean Two" etc to protect confidentiality).
Until I have access to all the component beans of a couple espresso blends as well as the combined final blend this will all remain a theory. But I have some results from Single Origin tasting that indicate that the theory is at least worth considering and pursuing.
I ran taste tests with two different beans, graded on the same scale and with the same methodology as the original blend tests.
The first was the Victrola Brazil Cerrado Natural Peaberry Fazenda Pantano CoE. The results, as you can see below, map to the predicted bell curve distribution. Please note that these scores are the aggregate scores of all the attributes. Also, please note that the scores are entirely arbitrary and self referential (i.e in all cases the temp where an attribute was considered best was given a score of 9 and further scores were relative purely to that score).
The second was the Stumptown Ethiopia Sidamo. Again, a bell curve distribution.
Interestingly, and again predictably, not only is the temp "sweet spot" different for these coffees but the bell curve itself is different for each. Note that the Brazil has a very steep drop off from its sweet spot and the drop off is nearly symetrical. The Sidamo, on the other hand, drops off rapidly on the high end, but has a more gradual slope on the low end.
I'm going to continue to pursue this angle and see what I can figure out (if anything). Hopefully a roaster will be willing to provide component beans for me for their blend so I can get some real results (I'd be glad to have the beans simply labeled "Bean One," "Bean Two" etc to protect confidentiality).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)