After cool down, we can vote on best quotes from the controversy.

I vote for

Alan Frew wrote:Personally I wouldn't have dismissed it on the basis of "eye cupping", the only way to judge coffee quality (or otherwise) is in the cup. And by that I mean actually cupping it and not putting it through an espresso grinder/machine/refractometer dance with all the attendant variables.

I like this reminder to focus back on cupping, if you are challenged or disappointed by a particular bean or blend.

Apogee wrote:This is my 3rd similar bag in a row from blue bottle and poor flavor experiences before that.
[...]
I can only comment that my 4-6 weeks on Bluebottle was a total fail, that honestly became a great learning experience tho.

Out of curiosity, did you only buy 17ft Ceiling from Blue Bottle - or did you try any of their other espresso roasts? Blue Bottle has historically had some espresso blends that are trickier to pull outside of the commercial environment (that's not a critique - there are certainly other roasters like this offer unique espresso experiences, such as Espresso Vivace), but given that you're using a refractometer, maybe something like their Opascope would be more up your alley?

Opascope was better and had a great chunky mouthfeel but far too roasty to extract fully for my taste. I have softened on blue bottle anger, maybe they simply are not my preference as I prefer high extraction recipes which I found extremely challenging.

I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone would want a half under-extracted, half-over extracted muddled bag of coffee. It has a wide range of average brewing success but no way to nail it for me. It is quite possibly my failure in technique. I needed to move on.

Apogee wrote:
I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone would want a half under-extracted, half-over extracted muddled bag of coffee. It has a wide range of average brewing success but no way to nail it for me. It is quite possibly my failure in technique. I needed to move on.

Blends vs. single origin for espresso is an ongoing debate. Single origins let the more mechanically inclined espresso producer minimize variables to produce a consistent product which exactly suits their palate. Blends, and particularly post-roast blends and Arabica/Robusta blends are more of an adventure. They tend to produce an acceptable espresso over a wider range of variables than is possible with most single origins, which is probably why the biggest selling commercial espresso coffees are all blends.

Alan

I was at their Palo Alto location a while back. Stunning location, horribly mediocre coffee. Asked what espresso was being served and further added I was hoping for something balanced and not too bright. Got a total shaming from the barista about how their coffee was "more refined" than "corporate" coffee and (I don't remember the exact wording but something to the effect as) I should be willing to broaden expectations of coffee, as if i were some swill drinking neanderthal. I then got a shot of very bitter, darker than expected espresso that was as uninspired as our presidential candidates. Don't know the blend, but not at all the blue bottle of yesterday. On top of that, the sandwich rang up to about 12 bucks...never again. You are dead to me blue bottle.

I bit my tongue, but Earth to Blue Bottle Barista, YOU ARE A EFFING CORPORATION.

This is what happens to most artisan places when they get too big, but I've gotten attitude from small shops too (Brown Coffee in San Antonio, Tx). For whatever reason, some baristi automatically assume that every customer knows diddly squat about coffee and even less about espresso. That part is kinda sad. The good news is that the overwhelming majority of "coffee people" are just awesomely cool, so these bad experiences are rare.

I stopped buying BB a couple of years ago, in part because their beans were more than $20/# and there are sooooo very many roasters offering as good or better for several dollars less. It's not so much the actual money, but more the principle of feeling ripped off because of the hype.

Regarding the 17ft ceiling, I actually was able to pull some really good shots with it, but anytime I tried to put it in a milk drink it was horrible...to me. I had great success in both arenas using the Hayes Valley, however.

Apogee wrote:Opascope was better and had a great chunky mouthfeel but far too roasty to extract fully for my taste. I have softened on blue bottle anger, maybe they simply are not my preference as I prefer high extraction recipes which I found extremely challenging.

I was looking at the tasting notes for 17ft Ceiling, and they say to "[skip] the first few drops" - giving some insight to their theory about espresso extraction. Blue Bottle has always been on the "more developed" side of specialty coffee roasting, and 17ft Ceiling is their homage to Italian espresso. I'm guessing they are probably not optimizing their espresso blends for maximum refractometer-based extraction (as some roasters do and you're looking for)? Pretty much every BB espresso I've had has been a particular profile - short, dense, saturated. That's their style.

Apogee wrote:I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone would want a half under-extracted, half-over extracted muddled bag of coffee.

Some like dark and toasty espresso, some like high-acidity, high-extraction yield espresso - and everything in between. I think it's interesting to hear people's different preferences and theories about espresso. A few months ago there was a SF tech guy who wrote a medium post detailing in his opinion, why all American espresso is terrible - and why only mass market Italian blends produce the *best* espresso. It was a difficult read for me

One roaster that comes to mind that I know designs roast profiles to optimize espresso extractions (and might be of interest to you?) is Mountain Air Roasting. He comments on HB from time to time, and is very easy to talk to on social media.

See I also love giving up EY% for TDS with a punchy double ristretto; but I couldn't pull that off with blue bottle either. It is a mistake to say refractometry pushes you to lungos all the time; drink type remains my choice, I just make them all far better and more consistently than I used to. I could only make this standard, average, muddy mess with BB; again, probably limits in my technique. YMMV

Ordered a bag of mountain air coffee (El paraiso) they are only a few hours from me. Thanks for the recommendation. Many specialty coffees can be roasty fully extracted when ground with a big flat; if the roaster doesn't buy into refractometry. But more seem to be getting on board.

Apogee wrote:See I also love giving up EY% for TDS with a punchy double ristretto; but I couldn't pull that off with blue bottle either. It is a mistake to say refractometry pushes you to lungos all the time; drink type remains my choice, I just make them all far better and more consistently than I used to.

To be honest, I haven't had a BB espresso roast *at home* in years - it seems like they're sticking with their profile. When I have bought BB coffee for home, I always seemed to have better results with their single origin filter roasts as espresso; they seem to be a bit less developed than their espresso roasts.

When you think about the average home espresso setup of people that buy speciality-grade espresso for home, they very likely do not have a refractometer - or the massive flat burr grinders to achieve maximum extraction. There are few that insist on using it as a metric for espresso evaluation, though!