ThaRiddla wrote:I have to disagree with your assessment. I believe Jim's explanation of our philosophy is spot on.

respectfully,
Matt Riddle

This might be a good subject to take up at the Roasters Guild retreat.

Alan Frew wrote: In terms of "Signature Blends" this is just crap. A roaster and blender "paying attention to details" should be able to reproduce their signature blend exactly, regardless of the changes in blend components.

Actually, this is what's crap. And Alan, you're in the business, so you know it.

Blenders who get absolute consistency, year in, year out, say, for instance, in a blend of Sidamo, Brazil, and Sumatra, do it by using five or six different Sidamos, Brazils and Sumatras each year, carefully compositing them into a standard varietal taste. The Brazil coffee board will even help one do this by creating blends with a constant ratio of 4 or 5 chemical markers. Illy uses the same "electronic nose" technology to keep all the regions represented in their blends completely standardized. A smaller, less high tech roaster can do something very similar by relying on importer's "generic specialty" coffees: the endless list of "Guatemala SHB," "El Salvador SHG", "Columbia Excelso", etc etc that Holland, Royal or Volcafe blend and import. These importers know their business extremely well, and they keep these generics highly consistent year in, year out.

In other words, blenders who get absolute consistency year in year out do it by using second rate coffees, coffees that cup at around 82 to 87 points. There is no other way to do it. There are just too few coffees that rate higher each year, and they will vary.

If a consumer (almost by definition not a coffee lover) wants consistency, they should not buy any of the blends we talk about here, since none of them follow this blending strategy. Instead, they all take great pride (and get very competitive) in locating the very best coffees they can afford to use, and blending with those.

This means there's going to misses sometimes: blends that are hard to pull, or blends that don't appeal to some buyers who liked it in previous iterations. For instance, it's no secret that I wasn't a huge fan of Black Cat last year. However, this is the price you pay to get really top class espresso ...

... And if you get your attitude right about it, it's also one of the rewards. It's impossible for a blend to get better if all the energy goes into keeping it the same, and all the risk of it getting worse is eliminated.

Greetings

Why would I want to buy Black Cat if I could never be sure what blend is in the bag?

Cliff

I think Matt answered your question earlier:

ThaRiddla wrote:We always do our best to adhere to the core of what Black Cat is. Over time our tastes may change, our palates may change, but the core of the blend will remain the same.

Stunning to me. The company has a web site. The product is different. No information on the web site. Stupid unappreciative customers.
Really?!?
Wow.
If this was my company getting spanked on multiple forums I would be taking a very different approach. I get the issues of an agricultural product but the company is really missing the boat here.

cai42 wrote:Greetings

Why would I want to buy Black Cat if I could never be sure what blend is in the bag?

Cliff

Why would you want to buy it if you know exactly what's in the bag? I'm seriously asking.

Is pulling a shot of Black Cat like a shelter from some insanely chaotic day, so that the more it's the same every time, the more comforting it becomes? I've never really thought of espresso this way; brandy maybe, but never espresso. It seems that maybe this is what some of the posters are looking for.

Interesting conversation for me, as I am new to espresso. I assumed named blends would not vary in characteristics. Jim, don't you find your name brands as a comfort in the world? Most marketing is directed to enhance that very character. I certainly get the notion of exploration into taste, and the belief that the world be diminished without variety. But you can have both. I looked to blends intentionally to ensure the product remained constant as my skills are seriously variable at this point. Glad I have access to the forums. I have learned a lot from this thread alone.

Jim,

Would you keep buying your favorite brandy if 2 or 3 times a year they changed the formulation and didn't mention it on the container?

Cliff

This is a really interesting topic, and I have to say that I come down on the side of Intelly.

As Jim said - the only way I've ever seen genuine consistency maintained is with 2nd rate coffees - either sourcing generic origin tastes, or roasting the individual characteristics out of the greens.

I would never want to work like that - I am always more interested in what is new, fresh and delicious - in coffees that have character and individuality. This of course creates the consistency dilemma.

I suppose this is where you pick an ethos and let it guide you. Consistency of quality and interest are more important to me than absolute consistency of taste. I get the comfort of a familiar product, I completely understand the pleasure in a reliable product but I also understand the conflict a roaster like Intelli would have in creating it.

Intelli is a company full of people bitten by coffee, who have tasted what is possible, what is exciting and are driven by that. (I know I don't really have the right to speak on their behalf - this is just my impression of them).

Coffee has never tasted better than it has today. It simply hasn't. Knowledge, standards, technology and drive across all of the industry have never reached the levels of today and things will only get better. Absolute consistency would mean you would ignore this, refute this and wish to stay stuck in a golden year or time. Companies like Intelli have the power to drive things forward, always want to improve but as Matt demonstrates on this forum - always want to interact with their customer. These things, I believe, are to be applauded and not criticised.

zoroaster wrote:Interesting conversation for me, as I am new to espresso. I assumed named blends would not vary in characteristics. ... I looked to blends intentionally to ensure the product remained constant as my skills are seriously variable at this point.

King Seven wrote: .... I would never want to work like that - I am always more interested in what is new, fresh and delicious - in coffees that have character and individuality. This of course creates the consistency dilema.

Wow! It's not often we get to the heart of an argument, but with David's, an espresso newbie's, and Jim's, a barista world champion's, posts it looks like we're there.

It may be that Intelly needs to communicate their approach more clearly in its sales communications. In manufacturing of all sorts, quality control has improved to such stellar levels that any inconsistency has us suspecting poor quality or some sort of mistake. Moreover, there are expensive and distinguished espresso blends that are absolutely consistent, Illy is famous, and I'm sure Alan's is even better. So a blend like Black Cat, which is more a combo of a few great coffees than an orchestra of lots of very good ones, with occasional cold nights, may need to be explained.

Cliff, when I was growing up my best friend's dad was a coffee roaster along with having a wine and spirits business. His favorite brandy was the Napoleon made by Cognac Robin, and he'd put it out against Hine's and Delamain's to show how much better it was. A few months back I was looking for it, and found out the company had picked up stakes and moved to Sonoma.