Just to briefly touch on a couple of (admittedly minor) points:

another_jim wrote:This seems a parochial way of looking at it.

Well, I did say that I didn't know which way I should feel...

another_jim wrote:Espresso in Italy has the same market segment as Folgers or 7/11 here -- it is inexpensive mass consumption coffee.

I believe you meant to say, "... the same market segment as unattended, automatic drip coffee here ...". Otherwise, you're comparing type/method against ingredient/personality, no?


I also should've stated earlier that I've been using (& preferring) imported Italian blends for the past 3 yrs. I've continually tried SO coffees over the years, but they simply don't taste as good on my equipment. (They turn out better for me as cafe créme than as espresso.) I prefer Kili Caffe Gold, for its open-the-bag aroma of earth, wood, wine & leather, & its in-the-cup aroma of chocolate, tobacco & sweetmeats. I also enjoy Attibasi Crema d'Oro, although it's not quite as tasty to me. I've tried several kilos of Caffe Barbera's Caffercole, which I did not care for. It's much too rustic for my tastes (& doesn't appear to be a blend in production any longer anyway). None of these are as highly rated as the Segafredo Massimo that you tried.

I've read Abe's review of espresso in Rome, & enjoyed it very much. I view espresso in Italy to be similar to the wine sold in vending machines in France; it's a "second-nature" product. That is, it's something so interwoven into the fabric of the culture, that it's produced at exceptional (to us) levels with relatively little fanfare. Do we have any products like that here in the U.S.? None that I can think of immediately. Maybe that's part of our (Americans') problem; we don't do anything well, without expecting multitudes of accolades in return. But that's a thread for Knockbox, isn't it?

The WBC holds no meaning for me, in terms of what I'm going to drink. I see it being similar to the Academy Awards; interpretations of performances as evaluated by onlookers. I might have a favorite performer that I root for, but I already know that my fabrication methods will employ different equipment & techniques from that person. Like a racer winning the Tour de France, I simply don't have the finances to provide myself with comparable equipment. Nor do I have the time to devote solely to the pursuit of a single passion, to the exclusion of all else.

Why be afraid of capsules? Do we now fear technology? It gave us the ability to make "3rd wave" espresso at home (if you've got the funding, of course). But we're still in the film-camera-era of espresso equipment, & the next-in-line consumers are expecting digital ease-of-use. If the ingredients (& equipment) can provide a good enough result, then all of the parties involved win. There will always be obsoleted-equipment users. People still draw with charcoal, don't they?

I guess part of what bothers me about your comments is your choice of words. You say that you're reconsidering your ("smooth and somewhat arrogant"?) outlook towards those ingredients and individuals that run counter to your beliefs, but your chosen words continue to expose your biases. Perhaps I wouldn't always want to dismiss your comments out-of-hand if you seemed to consider more of your online community as having worthwhile input. I don't know....

another_jim wrote:That is one of the issues that goes to the heart of what food or drink are; are they just decorative or can they be art?

Personally, I would never pay as much for a "background wine" that goes well with food and friends as one that is so striking it can only be drunk on its own.

That's a bit of a Procrustes bed. The dichotomy "just decorative or art" doesn't mean much to me. Espresso, for me, is part of the fabric of life like I like to live it. It's a trustworthy companion. I like the infinite capacity of espresso to amaze the senses, but I'm not perpetually looking for that amazement.

Your comparison with art is, in a sense a very good one, though. Take Taxi Driver, the movie. In 2003, I saw Taxi Driver with a friend. But her only reaction was: "Man, what a boring movie. I've seen those city scenes at least 100 times in other movies." She's right. In Taxi Driver, Scorsese defined the way cities are seen in contemporary (popular) culture. And an uncountable number of film makers have re-created that vision. I'm one of those people that still enjoys Taxi Driver as a unique (and uniquely American) contribution to art & culture. Others might think it's old hat, and want to move on to other sensations. I still enjoy classic Italian espresso as a unique contribution to coffee culture, and what's more, I accept that it defines the way I look at coffee. I'm not saying that other viewpoints are inferior; only that I don't think that other approaches are superior because they are new or different or use more expensive ingredients or whatever.

Anyhow, I just came back from a trip to Nice (brought back some coffee from a local roaster, 70 % Robusta, of course) and visited the MAMAC, the Musée d'art moderne et d'art contemporain. Lots of great art - Niki de Saint Phalle, Yves Klein, Martial Raysse, Jean Tinguely, César, Christo, le Nouveaux réalisme, quoi. Did I enjoy it? Yes! It was an exhilarating experience. Would I like to have a Tinguely in my living room? No, thanks. Most of the art I saw is great in a museum context, but would be awful in my living room. Although, if you have a spare Raysse you don't use, you can always send it to me. There's a wall in my living room that needs some decoration, really.

The point I wanted to make about those wines - but didn't make because of my poor English - is that wines that win contests, usually aren't wines that can only be drunk on their own. In my experience, they're wines that shine in the context of a contest, but not outside of it.

ethiopie wrote: The point I wanted to make about those wines - but didn't make because of my poor English - is that wines that win contests, usually aren't wines that can only be drunk on their own. In my experience, they're wines that shine in the context of a contest, but not outside of it.

Ah, I get what you mean, 1812 overture wines I think most judges in a restricted competition (all entries are of one kind) guard against glitter and flash; but in a public tasting where everyone tries lots of different things, I agree: flashy will usually win.

If WBC defines what is a 'good' coffee culture, I will say THIS is biaised in many ways.

In this whole 3rd wave story, the arrogant people may not be the Italian, that did this kind of so-called revolution in the 30-60s, but the 50 people in this ad-supporting competition ; trying to tell us that 90 years of knowledge and technological research in Italy and southern Europe had led to mediocrity compared to the 5-10 years they spent 'experimenting' on they Marzocco, Extract Mojo and bottomless PF.

Trying to judge a whole culture on its mass market is quite silly, it has nothing relevant to offer. Mc Donald's and Dunkin Donuts really represent what America has to offer in terms of cooking? If so, no American should be allowed to taste anything and criticize any other cuisine. But there's plenty of Chef in USA that deserves this title, and plenty of people to fully appreciate it.

To me it's quite the same with espresso. Don't look at mass market, but at people that have passion and a large experience at producing blends, machines etc...

There's plenty of this people in Italy, France, Spain etc...If you haven't met them, maybe you did not really try.
I did met some of those people, and you have plenty to learn from them, but humility is required. They are usually not interested in forums and so. They maybe not aware that some people are really interested in their work. So you won't meet them here or in WBC or SCAA competitions.

Masini blend or other blends are not top quality, but my guess is the people behind them know what they do, and might have a phenomenal knowledge on the coffee world, that sadly might die with them.

I consider that 10 years ago, to help artisan roasters growth in USA, there was a paradigm set : 'Nothing to learn from Italy and their crappy blend.' And hundreds of people have say the same thing without ever tasting what they were criticizing. Not even understanding.

That's a good thing that Jim tries to nuance this paradigm.

Eiron wrote:None of these are as highly rated as the Segafredo Massimo that you tried.

I read this review in the context of the Italian versus US blend shootout, which the Massimo won. The Masini tastes very similar to the way David's describes the Massimo, and it's made by the same company; but I don't know if it's the same blend.

I've heard the leather, brandy and cigars description applied to several blends in the past, including one by very third wave Nick Cho.

I'm going to bring up a dead thread if I may..

Given that these coffees are largely "stale", has anyone tried to use these coffees in their homes with their auto dosing grinders ? That is, fill up the dosing chamber and then just pull twice to fill your basket (at 14g I believe they are set to) and not worrying anymore about anything else ?

Or will the coffee become completely and horribly stale in a home setting using this ?

Hmm, I have a 5lb bag of Lavazza someplace and a Saeco Hercules.. I should try.

J

Hi J,

As a user of so called "stale" Italian bagged coffee, I'd suggest not filling the hopper, unless your using the whole lot within a day or two. After receiving my bags, I freeze them & just fill an airtight jar, & draw from that when needed. I have dumped the hopper & just grind my 17.5g directly. The supply jar is not not too large, so I'm not using coffee more than 3-4 days from frozen, this ensures my coffee isn't stale.
If your bag of Lavazza is within date, I'd suggest you freeze it now & draw from it when needed as I do, since it may be quite acceptable. I have been trying lots of different Italian roaster companies products, & I'm forming a clear list of my particular favourites, one of which isn't Italian! The company is Blaser from Switzerland & their best Lilla e Rose is superb. Others I've enjoyed are Hausbrandt Gourmet ( a great low roast ), Danesi Doppio ( like the Blaser perfectly balanced ), with the likes of La Brasiliana Marfisa, Molinari Oro, New York Extra, Musetti, Miscela D'oro Argento being repeat buys. My taste in coffee would be more in line with N. American tastes, so I'd heartily recommend them to you, & as good as Lavazza can be, the above suggestions are better, if a little more expensive.
The notion that all bagged coffee received in the States is stale & not worth buying is something I don't go along with. Try some of the more obscure brands as above, you may find they surprise you.

Cheers,
Ted.

I wasn't referring to the hopper but the doser !

My thinking was since the coffee is supposed to be already stale, would this not be a great choice of coffee to simply let the grinder autofill the doser (assuming your grinder supports this) and then dose shots as the grinder was designed to do..

I never got around to testing my theory but I will.. as soon as I run out of fresh coffee.

J

However stale stale is, there is always staler, which is generally worse...

I occasionally buy these blends out of nostalgia (I lived in Italy for 12 years) and do not fill the doser on the grinders that have one. I also find that purging the grinder before a shot (to clear the burrs and dosing chamber of stale ground coffee) yields a better cup.

Ah fair enough.. It might be worth a try though.. Just for sh*ts and giggles.

I too rather like those Italian blends. It's a nice change from the fruit bombs that are all the rage around here.

In Montreal, before the "3rd wave", the only place to get decent espresso was in Italian cafes and they generally only serve this type of coffee.. Many of us "grew up" on this espresso.

J