Even if you are just stopping by, or reading in your feed reader – I’d be very grateful of a quick click.

Thank you.

Related posts:

1. A quick espresso survey POLL NOW CLOSED Brew recipes have been on my mind...
2. One title doesn’t fit all This is going to be a bit of a...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

- Chaff in ground coffee: is there an easy way to get rid of it?  Does the coffee taste very different afterwards? The roll and blow method is quite messy.

- Should coffee definitely spend time in reposo, or are we just roasting super fresh crop coffees wrong? I’ve tasted coffees that have been described as being too fresh (a bit green) and have seen that taste drop back over a few weeks.  Is this a raw product thing or a roast profile thing?

- Is there any solid research/explanation of why we bloom when we brew pourover? A bit like spinning the tamper to polish, this is something I started doing because other people started doing it.  I am sure there is some solid thinking behind blooming (certainly compared to the spinny polish thing) – I just wonder if much formal work has been done.

- Could you fit some form of flow restrictors into pouring kettles? (I’ve had interesting data and flow restriction results wedging a k-type probe down the front of my buono spout.)

- Speaking of pouring kettles, is it me or is it really easy to brew under temp with them?

- Seeing as how chocolate has a similar model to coffee, more so than wine, should we look at it a bit more for inspiration? Or is the communication and spread of knowledge and genuine information about speciality chocolate (I am sure they have a better term) behind that of coffee?

- Cupping:  what temperature should the liquid be at the start of brewing?  at what point in the cupping brew time should the extraction reach the 19-20% mark? Do coffees taste better as they cool because they are continuing to extract? Should you start temperature influence when you break?  The Uber makes me wonder about the temperature thing.

- Honey process.  This is clearly a much tastier name than pulped natural, how long before everyone starts using it?

- Any idea how I can organise the Naturals Debate post into something a little easier to digest?

There are many other questions, but I am not complaining – questions are the best bit of coffee.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Before I type cheese too many times I want to let people know that the next London Gastronomy Seminar is coming up and I am really quite excited about it.  There are more details here.

On a side note – Neal’s Yard Dairy are a company that I have a huge amount of respect for, not just because of the quality of their product but because they do such a great job of communicating it in their shop, and ultimately they are incredibly good at selling it.

There is lots to be learned here.  I hope to see you there!

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

The new Uber arrived today and I am very excited.  This probably could have been a post for the Square Mile Blog, but there are many more exciting/important things to post on there!

What’s different about this Uber?  The capacity is bigger.  We sometimes used the old one for cupping, but it had more of a cafe use/quick recovery capacity so couldn’t do many bowls.  This one has a 6 litre boiler – very exciting!  This one has a flow control dial, instead of an button control.  It also has some beta software for us to test out.

I missed the Uber when it was gone.  My brewed coffee consumption dropped (a bad thing).   My experimentation also dropped off a little (also a bad thing).  I hope to get that going again.  I also grew irrationally annoyed with kettles (a weird thing?).

Before anyone accuses me of spam (perhaps fairly) I should make clear that we don’t make any money from the sale of Uber boilers, though yes – they are now available for sale.  It is just a project that we’re really excited about and it has been, and will be, a great tool for exploring coffee.  We’re extremely grateful to Marco – they are splendid!

Related posts:

1. UK Cupping Competition Just a quick post really about entering the Cupping competition...
2. Introduction to the Uber Meant to cross post this on here after posting on...
3. A grand unified theory of espresso Not too long ago I posted on Home Barista about...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Competition season often leaves me with an uneasy relationship with a drink I usually find very enjoyable.  I should add that my own view is in no way representative of competition judges, or competitions or anything like that – just a thought rolling around my head.

Generally, it seems, we treat milk as an enemy.  People talk as if steamed milk is trying to hold a pillow over the face of coffee flavour.  We talk about whether or not a coffee “cuts through” the milk.  I’ve never really been thrilled with that phrase or way of thinking about coffee but I have to accept that I am in the minority here.

To get a blend to cut through milk we have a few choices:

Roast darker

By and large we end up with a flavour in coffee that is often described as having notes of chocolatey, nuts or  caramel.  These flavours are generally a byproduct of roast – results of maillard/caramelisation/strecker reactions.  Roasting coffees a bit longer will create more of these, losing more of the original characteristics of the coffee and increasing bitterness.  The argument has often been that milk combats the bitterness and allows these kinds of flavours through.  Fair enough – I can’t really argue this point.

Distinct components

Often people use very heavy bodied coffees in blends designed to be used in milk drinks.  Typically either coffees from Indonesia/PNG that will have heavy, earthy or woody notes or a robusta.  The woodiness of the latter is extremely present through milk, an easy to get “coffee” flavour – though whether or not you find it pleasant is a whole other thing.

It seems to me that whatever we do we end up with a fairly homogenous tasting global cappuccino – speciality or not it is likely that we are all using a fairly small number of descriptive terms to communicate the most purchased and accessible espresso based drink in the world.¹

What if?

Adding milk to coffee is a good thing.  As much as I am pro-purity in coffee, I am more pro-enjoyment.  Most people like adding coffee to milk, it adds sweetness and reduces bitterness and intensity.

I can’t help but feel that milk could also be a great vehicle for getting people to explore coffee further.  If you brew a wonderful citrussy washed Yirg as espresso and add milk surely you could sell a cappuccino that tasted like a lemon posset.  A massively juicy coffee from Nyeri turned into a drink that is reminiscent of fruit compote and icecream.  If we stopped looking at milk as getting in the way of coffee flavour, and instead saw it as a very accesible way to deliver coffee flvaour then would we start using more varied and exciting coffees alongside more traditional ones?

1. I am gambling on the fact that globally cappuccinos just edge out lattes, like they do in the UK

Related posts:

1. So what exactly is a macchiato these days? This hasn’t exactly been bugging me but perhaps it is...
2. Morning coffee I have a confession to make:  I used to, in...
3. Phantom Potato We cupped a few coffees today, and in there were...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

We then brew the same coffee in an espresso machine.  It doesn’t taste good.  People say it lacks body, isn’t complex enough, has too much acidity.  People say it is one dimensional.  We roast it darker than before, though hopefully not a lot.  We mute and soften the acidity, try and keep the sweetness.  We burn away some of what we loved in the hope that it will be a better espresso. Even now we don’t enjoy the coffee as much.  People still complain that it isn’t complex enough, isn’t complete enough.

“This coffee isn’t good enough to be a single origin espresso.”

We blame the same coffee that we once celebrated.  This doesn’t make sense.  If the job of a brewer is to translate what is great in the coffee down into the cup why aren’t we pointing our fingers at the espresso machine?  If the job of the barista is to use tools to translate what is great in the coffee down into the cup why aren’t we ashamed of our failings?

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Having tasted coffee that had been aerated, as well as coffee brewed with aerated water, against a standard brew there had been a noticeable difference: an improvement.  Surely, then, this would be something to do in a cafe setting?  If it is going to improve the experience for the consumer, then one would be foolish not to, right?

What my brains keeps asking is whether or not they’d notice?  Without the comparative brew, how would they know that it was incrementally better than it otherwise would have been?  If all theatre of preparation was removed and they were served the finished product on its own, would they notice something was better than it had been before?  Better than expected? Maybe even the best ever?  This has left me thinking about the divisions or tiers of sensory experience in coffee.  I was very happy drinking slightly underextracted,  somehwat updosed cups of coffee because my memory of taste was poor and this was – as far as I could tell – tasty.  Out of isolation, compared to a fuller extraction from a slightly lower dose, these cups suddenly faired very poorly.  I couldn’t really understand how I had enjoyed them so much.

When I visit a cafe, sit down and drink a cup of coffee – how good does it have to be to be enjoyable?  More importantly – how much better does it need to be for any and all consumers to notice an improvement and to have a better experience.

We can all agree that espresso machine technology right now is chasing the next increment, and it seems to be pressure that is being looked to to deliver it.  It will need to be a big jump, because our human shot to shot variation tends to remain within the window of tasty for most customers and we know how big that shot to shot variation is.

It has been, in my short coffee career, the raw product that has taken the most noticeable leaps forward – be it in exploring different varieties or improving processing.  People have had distinctly, remarkably better coffee and as a result have (by and large) been willing to pay a little more for it.

The same is probably true for most foods.  Reading through a Heston Blumenthal recipe you can be in no doubt that the method behind creating the ratio of aged to fresh pizza dough is based on rigorous comparative testing but if you skipped the step of resting half of it for a day to improve flavour, at the expense of elasticity, and just used fresh there is a good chance that it will very delicious.  It is perhaps doubtful that you would, in an isolated instance, get  distinctly more enjoyment out of it without a better or worse benchmark.

This doesn’t mean I think we should give up.  On occasion we manage to make planets align, all the details falling into place, and we have a truly memorable, exceptional experience.  I suppose with the Trifecta looming we should evaluate exactly what we expect from it – because I don’t think it is designed (from my very, very limited understanding) to create better tasting coffee any more than the Clover was designed to make better tasting coffee.¹ The customer shouldn’t be looking for signs that say “Trifecta brewed coffee here”, because it isn’t going to be the machine that creates a new tier of deliciousness.  This is in no way meant to be negative about the machine – I look forward to the opportunity to play with one, to experiment and to drink some coffee from one.  I don’t really think a lot of false hype will really help here either, but hopefully you get the point I am trying to make before I somehow dig myself into a hole…

Back on topic – for all the love we have for technology as an industry, if we look outside it seems to be that service, engagement and interaction are better avenues to explore to yield a noticeably better experience for the customer in our cafes.

1. It looks like it is built for speed, repeatability and control but at best we can only hope that it makes the resulting liquid taste like the coffee we started with.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

There are, however, rare instances where I think it is entirely worth it and this is one of them. There is more information about the coffee on the product page, but we want to keep up the spirit of generosity of people like Aida Batlle and Gwilym and we want to raise as much money as we can.

You can read more about this coffee and what we are doing here. I hope you’ll consider buying a bag.

Related posts:

1. Presents! The last couple of days have been great! Three different...
2. Some Counter Culture Coffee Usually the incessant and nagging ringing of my doorbell doesn’t...
3. The Bodum Kona After the Midlands UKBC heat Anette and I drove over...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Accurately communicating grind size remains near impossible.  We can say coarse, very coarse or fine or whatever, but it is still a pretty bad communicator when you are stood in front of a grinder that you don’t know.

If people are up for it then I’d like to try an experiment.  Pick a method that you know well.  Record how you are currently setting your grinder for your desired grind size.  Each time you brew it, keep everything the same (brew temp, water volume and steep time if applicable) but go a touch finer.  Keep going until you hit the wall of bitterness.  You’ll know it when you taste it, when the cup falls to pieces in a bitter finish.  Come back a touch coarser, and try a side by side brew of this grind Vs your original grind.  Which is better? Why?

I hope a few people will try this – it would be really interesting.  I am interested because if someone asked me the ideal grind size for the aeropress, for example, then I’d say to keep the steep time the same and bring the grind as fine as you can before it starts tasting noticeably bitter.

(I am quite prepared for you to all come back and tell me I am an idiot)

Related posts:

1. Brew Temperature and the Chemex I remember reading early in my coffee days that someone...
2. The Bodum Kona After the Midlands UKBC heat Anette and I drove over...
3. TDS, Chemex and London’s terrible water So thanks to the lovely people at Bunn I have...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

In the english speaking online coffee community it often seems a bit like Intelligentsia Vs. Naturals-Lovers, and Geoff Watts great post on the Intelli website kicked off the debate again recently.¹  To quote the relevant part:

Things I hope become historical footnotes:

The near-fanatical obsession with dry-processed coffees. Increased risk for the farmer + significant loss of varietal/terroir nuance in the cup + likelihood of current trend reversing at some point = probably not the kind of coffee we want to promote.

Now – we probably shouldn’t read too much into this, but each point probably does merit discussion.

- Increased risk for the farmer.

Not one to be underestimated.  For a long time I fell into the trap of believing that the choice of processing for most coffee was to do with the desired flavour at the end of it.  It isn’t – it is to do with preparing your harvest for sale.  Wet process is the most desirable process, not because of the acidity or cup profile, because it is the least likely to result in defective coffee.

Natural processing was either a last resort in areas where water supply was insufficient, or for coffee whose quality didn’t really matter – unripes for example.

Geoff is someone who has more experience dealing with farmers face to face than I will ever have making him very hard to argue with here, and I think encouraging them to jeopardise their livelihood based on a curiousity is perhaps a touch cavalier of the western coffee consumer/roaster/barista/etc.  I have to agree with him here – we have to be careful what we ask for, and how willing are we (as an industry) to pick up the pieces if it goes wrong?  Probably not very….

- significant loss of varietal/terroir nuance in the cup

There can be no doubt that the natural process comes with a particular flavour, in a way that pulped naturals or washed coffees don’t. (But wet hulled coffees probably do).  I don’t believe that it completely masks the character of the coffee – the naturals I’ve tasted over the last 12 months have definitely shown suitable individual characteristics.  However, I think it is a rare part of the coffee chain post harvest where we can add flavour.  I still believe that creation of quality ends the moment you pick a coffee, and that every single step afterwards is about preservation and transparency.  Except for the natural process.

- likelihood of current trend reversing at some point

An interesting point, and one I should avoid being to certain about.  I’ve been drinking coffee since 2004.  The scope of my understanding of trends within coffee consumption (beyond what I’ve read) is very limited.  I can see it being possible, speciality coffee is more susceptible to faddism than the wider industry.  I agree that it could be a concern, though the other half of me feels it is an academic idea rather than a likelihood.

So I agree with Geoff. But I still enjoy natural process coffees.  Not all of them, by a long shot, but when they are done with great care and attention then I think they have value.

This is what it boils down to for me – I think they have value.  I think they have a place.  Most of the issues Geoff raises could be applied to the Geisha variety.  It was suddenly everywhere, farmers tearing out trees to plant it in the hope of the huge returns that the Petersons had seen, even though the original trials of Geisha showed that it generally performed badly.  (Increased risk to the farmer).  It’s cup profile also somewhat smothered the terroir with the character of the variety. (significant loss of varietal/terroir nuance in the cup).  I think the tide has pretty much turned on Geisha too – it still remains popular and interesting but I don’t think it is prized the way it was.  (likelihood of current trend reversing at some point).

This isn’t just some cheap semantic trick (I hope).  Geishas have a place, and a value within speciality coffee.  No one is suggesting we stop drinking them, or growing them.  Nor is anyone suggesting that all coffee grown should be Geisha.  Both naturals and Geisha coffees are extremely useful in demonstrating the broad and fascinating range of flavour within coffee – and I could imagine equally appalled and enthralled consumers of each.

There is, I believe, room to explore within the natural process.  The Aricha and Beloya lots of 2008 were, I thought, a necessary and interesting exploration.  Their novelty briefly captivated a large part of our industry – and part of me is curious how the momentum behind them would have influenced the next years lots had it not been for the changes around the ECX.

We probably shouldn’t be demanding that every producer starts doing naturals – but I think anyone who tried Aida Batlle’s naturals this year would agree that writing them off could be a terrible shame.  I’ll end with the one unexamined sentence, from a single point of a much wider (and excellent) piece.

- Things I hope become historical footnotes: The near-fanatical obsession with dry-processed coffees.

If we choose to polarise ourselves over this we probably won’t get anywhere fast.  Be it the fanatical obsession or hatred – if our opinion becomes a point of pride then the conversation never moves forward.  So once again, with that caveat in place, I completely agree with Geoff.

1. I kind of hope that a few people at Intelli secretly have a stash at home, of illicit dry process coffee – hidden from the world in shame.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.