another_jim wrote: It is the amount of water that this (7 gram) portion goes into that has changed in Italy ...

King Seven wrote: Interesting - a whole load of pre-'48 machines that I have seen have enormous portafilters and baskets, so I assumed they used more coffee. The 58mm group doesn't really seem to have settled in (from the machines I have seen) until the late 40s.

The old steam pressure groups went all the way up to mass brewers where the basket was about the size of a Bunn filter. I'm guessing these went together with sit down, coffeehouse style cafes, where pots of coffee were served by waiters to tables seating larger groups. There aren't a lot of those left in Italy, at least where I've been.

The current 1 ounce single size has a lot to do with the volume of water that can be conveniently delivered at 8 bar by a lever group without hiring a bodybuilder to pull the lever. This makes the 1 once standard very conservative and arbitrary. But the late 50s was a huge economic boom for Northern Italy, so it's likely that this is the time when the whole prewar sit down coffee culture dissolved and the modern espresso culture replaced it -- just as the lever and 1 ounce singles came into use. Unlike the US, the Italian baby boom generation took over this form of consumption rather than coming up with something new. Hence the conservatism of espresso, at least, that's my guess.

Psyd wrote:I know it sounds a bit like oxymoron, but if the Robusta greens are good, why not use them in great coffee?

That's a pretty theoretical question.
I've cupped a lot of coffees and have (sadly?) cupped a whole bunch of "high quality" robustas.
The absolute best of them would score in the low 70s (and this was one of only two that I would even describe as "drinkable").

So while it's possible that there might be Robusta out there that would score on par with good Arabica - I've yet to experience this.

malachi wrote:4 - the vast majority of coffee drinkers in the US drink coffee for pharmaceutical reasons.

I think this is true in most countries - it is the only explanation of the amount of bad coffee drunk daily the world over.

As for robusta - I've cupped lots of them too, and I get what some people could love about them: oddly sweet, heavy, very low acidity but even the cleanest cups still taste like "robusta".

I don't think anyone will be able to sneak robusta through as something else - not only because the taste is quite distinct but also because they actually look different to arabica beans.

Bluecold, hilarious! Concur with King Seven and you at the same time.

malachi wrote:That's a pretty theoretical question.
I've cupped a lot of coffees and have (sadly?) cupped a whole bunch of "high quality" robustas.
The absolute best of them would score in the low 70s (and this was one of only two that I would even describe as "drinkable").

The 'theory' mentioned it as an ingredient in a blend. As an SO, I'd probably take a pass, but the discussion was as an addition to a blend. Taking the good parts of a Robusta blended with a couple/few Arabicas isn't theory, it's being done. Fairly successfully, too. I'd love to be able to tell you which and how, but the particular roaster isn't really that nice a guy, and the commercial customer no longer has her shop, and the new owner is the roaster, and he isn't sharing.

So I guess my question is (less theoretical) if you ever had the chance to try a blend that included Robusta beans, would you let the taste make your decision, or would the Robusta inclusions be too much to swallow?

If I'm willing to cup Robusta - clearly I'm willing to try a blend with Robusta.
I just don't see why a roaster would use Robusta in their espresso given that the best Robustas are inferior.

Some of my most memorable espresso I've had in Italy was on an Italian airbase in southwestern Sicily. It was so good that I got three in a row and the baristas were laughing at me. I forgot exactly how much but each shot was less than 50 Euro cents.
I've had some at a train station near Firenze and it was pretty decent. Sure it was only Lavazza but it put most coffee shops in the States to shame.

Coffee apparently has played an important social/political role in Europe since its arrival. I've read something of a conflict between coffee and ale during the early days, maybe in Vienna? Anyway, coffee, and later espresso, in Italy is probably much more than a pharmaceutical (though its that too). At least it is to me, and probably anyone reading HB in the first place.

I suppose Jim is correct is saying espresso in Italy is a mass consumption item. In that sense one would only expect excellence about 1% of the time. That's excellence. It wouldn't even be surprising to find that the average espresso in NA is better than the average in Italy, since espresso is more of a specialty item in the former.

What is amazing is this:


The Italians invented pressurized espresso (I think), as Jim notes, to extract the essence of (7-14g of) the roasted coffee bean quickly, under pressure. The old lever machines - hot water, coffee, and pressure, bring this home to me.

peacecup wrote:It wouldn't even be surprising to find that the average espresso in NA is better than the average in Italy, since espresso is more of a specialty item in the former.

The average espresso in Italy is worlds better than the average in NA.

malachi wrote:The average espresso in Italy is worlds better than the average in NA.

When was the last time you had coffee in Namibia?http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com/N141A.HTM