Consistent GOD shots - Page 3

[zin1953]

As an espresso novice I'm very confused about one key point in reading through this thread. Does one have to believe in God in order to experience a God shot?

No, but the Devil is in the details . . .

[zin1953]

I've only seen two post related to the actual recipe, which is what this thread is all about. How about it guys? Am I going to wake up tomorrow to some meaningful reviews, or to more hot air?

Let's not get all testy about this. Part of the fault lies in your initial post; part in people's reactions to it.

Semantics is where much of your problem lies. Semantics are important. Each and every "specialized" field -- take Wine as an example -- has its own "lingo," which specific meanings for that field. They are defined in ways not found in the OED. In that, Dave G, you are incorrect when you write

The insistence that a godshot or what ever you want to call it is unrepeatable underscores what can ONLY be interpreted as INCONSISTENCY IN YOUR TECHNIQUE OR EQUIPMENT.

Rather, in the commonly accepted usage of the term WITHIN the World of Espresso

Well, if the shots are consistently God shots, then they by definition are no longer God shots but very consistent and exceptional shots. A God shot is by definition a rare occurrence. To me, a God shot is a shot that just happens with no special preparation by the barista that produces a shot of above average quality, a shot so good and magical that it had to have been touched by the hand of God himself. Upon drinking it, the heavens open and the angles sing and you spend the next weeks/months/years trying to reproduce that magical occurrence.

The better you get, the rarer the God shot becomes. They go from once a month to once every few months to one every year to one every few years. It is a sign that your skills and understanding of the process has evolved, practice until you good becomes better and your better becomes best.

As you get better and more consistent in the shots you pull, the once-in-a-____________ "God Shot", by definition becomes more and more rare because the quality of your daily espresso shots is so high to begin with.

C'est la vie!

I have no doubt that you are pulling consistently delicious shots . . . for you. Whether I would find them consistently delicious -- let alone "God Shots" -- I have no idea. I am sure I'm find them consistent. But "delicious" and "God Shot" are subjective, and I haven't tasted your espresso, have I?

Aging aside, if you are unable to repeat your results one shot after another, don't complain to me. Look at what's happening at both ends of your PF, starting at the handle end.

Don't go there. First of all, no one is complaining to you about anything! (Trust me on that one.) No one is saying that, and no one here ever forgets the 4M's.

Please don't make the mistake of thinking I believe I have eliminated all the variables from my process. I haven't.

Neither have we.

Cheers,
Jason

[miKe mcKoffee]

You are misinterpretting me and accusing me of something I expressly declined to say. I am not telling anyone how to enjoy their espresso. But the OP said he found a way to repeatedly make "godshots." Godshots are not just "better than usual" or shots that "taste good to me," they are espressos that are so exquisite and extraordinary that they inspire some people to see the hand of God in them.

Agree definition of a Godshot is personal and tenuous at best. Myself I've only called 7 total Godshots in my short 6 years Journey down the Dark Side. Five at home on Silvia then Bric' and two over the past 7 months on LM at my Roastery Kafe. For me a Godshot can only happen once and then becomes an expected target. Once attained again it's merely hitting the target not a Godshot. The Heavens rarely open with a chorus of Angels singing, yet when it happens it's glorious.

[miKe mcKoffee]

I've only seen two post related to the actual recipe, which is what this thread is all about. How about it guys? Am I going to wake up tomorrow to some meaningful reviews, or to more hot air?

Ok speaking directly to over dosed super short super long pulled ristrettos. Been there done that and haven't been my target for a number of years. Very easy to replicate for generally speaking super sweet chocolate bombs. However, at the expense of varietal character and clarity. A well pulled normale is much more difficult to pull yet IMO sings the bean's song with much greater range and nuance.

[Randy G.]

The insistence that a godshot or what ever you want to call it is unrepeatable underscores what can ONLY be interpreted as INCONSISTENCY IN YOUR TECHNIQUE OR EQUIPMENT.....

I've only seen two post related to the actual recipe, which is what this thread is all about. How about it guys? Am I going to wake up tomorrow to some meaningful reviews, or to more hot air?

I agree with others in that you do not understand what such a shot is all about. In approaching 8 years of making espresso at home and sampling out of the house, I have had maybe two shots that would classify as God Shots. I have had lots of really good shots (just about every shot for the last two weeks has been quite good to excellent) and quite a number of great shots. But only two (maybe 3, but I remember two of them) that were so exemplary that they could be considered God Shots.

As another stated, this is all a matter of semantics. If you define a God Shot as "An espresso that can be swallowed without being accompanied by a desire to immediately spit it out on the floor, carpeting, or wall," then I have had hundreds of them, and there are ways to improve your espresso to that point and beyond. I just wrote an article on improving espresso, what to look for, and how to deal with it. It came out as 13 pages of typed text, and still it does not come close to any sort of recipe or process that could produce a God Shot.

A true God Shot has a depth of flavor that is difficult to even describe. It lingers on the palate for a LONG time after the last sip is swallowed— 20 or thirty minutes after! Sweet, deep, rich, thick. Taking the risk of being sexist: drinking a God Shot is like a beautiful woman, in all her perfection, walking towards you, the cling of her silk blouse against her perfect torso, the hint of her perfume wafting to you as she passes, imagining her deep, blue eyes behind her dark sunglasses, her auburn air slightly blown back from her face in the breeze, and after the last sip it is like when you turn around and watch her walk away, delighting in the motion of her curves and knowing that you won't see another like her for a very long time, if ever.

The recipe: Take fresh, properly blended and roasted fresh coffee, grind it quite fine, pack it tightly, and force water at the proper temperature through it at a temperature and flow rate that produces a perfect espresso."

Making espresso is not a mechanical performance of tasks. There is art involved. There was only one piece of granite in the world with the statue of David encapsulated, waiting to be revealed. Just keep looking inside of your coffee beans and maybe, if you are lucky, patient, and skilled enough, you may find a God Shot or two.

[CoffeeBuzz]

Myself I've only called 7 total Godshots in my short 6 years Journey down the Dark Side. Five at home on Silvia then Bric' and two over the past 7 months on LM at my Roastery Kafe.

mike, with all due respect, thank you for mentioning a Silvia in a discussion about repeatability. I couldn't have made my point better myself.

If you separate a pound of beans into equal piles and then grind, dose, and then pull them using IDENTICAL processes, (let' assume laboratory conditions here) the results will be IDENTICAL. PERIOD.

I guess I have a problem with the concept of a godshot. I haven't read anything meaningful about what a godshot is other than that whoever made it doesn't have good enough technique or equipment to do the same thing over again.

By the accepted definition, if the person DOES have the ability to do it again, then it isn't a godshot. So, it seems to me that a godshot as defined here is NOT the highest form of espresso making, and one claiming to have made one should be instructed to go back and work on their technique.

[shadowfax]

IDENTICAL? PERIOD?

Man, I suggest you put your brewtus on a Scace device and plot out some temperature and pressure profiles on that Brewtus. If Chris Tacy is right, and one can detect a 1°F change in brew temperature, then your Brewtus is not even capable of the consistency that would be needed for IDENTICAL, PERIOD.

If what you suggest is true of the Brewtus, I think we'd all have one. But it's not...

I think that you have failed to appreciate that you introduced this topic in terms of claiming that you make perfect espresso every time you come up to that machine. Having spent years reading the internet forums where people who have devoted their LIVES to coffee post, as well as spending a great deal of time refining my own methodology, I find that your claim is quite pretentious, as, apparently, have quite a few other people.

I think that you should tone your rhetoric down a bit--say you're getting "tasty" shots, or better yet, give us a fuller description, rather than "The resulting cup is completely free of the typical bitterness and/or sourness that often accompany pulls made with traditional techniques, and usually tastes like sweetened chocolate syrup." This is not a description of a godshot to anyone here. Sweetened chocolate syrup is not all that interesting. If you think that Normale's are typically bitter or sour, perhaps that points to a serious flaw in your technique for normales?

Ok speaking directly to over dosed super short super long pulled ristrettos. Been there done that and haven't been my target for a number of years. Very easy to replicate for generally speaking super sweet chocolate bombs. However, at the expense of varietal character and clarity. A well pulled normale is much more difficult to pull yet IMO sings the bean's song with much greater range and nuance.

I have a pretty decent level of experiences with updosed-super-ristrettos. I like them a lot, myself, but I agree with Mike above, and I think that he might be getting at why you think your machine is so consistent--you're pulling a type of shot that is much more repeatable.

I don't mean to be rude, but I think that you're getting defensive about a topic that you approached in a really wrong-headed way. I don't think that Randy Glass, Dave Stephens, Mike McGuinness, or any of the other people who have responded to your post are blowing hot air. From my perspective, the majority of the hot air in this thread is from your claims of such a high degree of consistency in your setup and technique.

[Randy G.]

If you separate a pound of beans into equal piles and then grind, dose, and then pull them using IDENTICAL processes, (let' assume laboratory conditions here) the results will be IDENTICAL. PERIOD.

..and if the atmospheric pressure, and the ambient humidity, and the ambient air temperature, and temperature of the portafilter, and temperature and moisture level of the ground coffee, and the local gravity, and static electricity, and ... etc. In other words, i believe that there are factors at work beyond the control of the barista.

So, the answer is, if you quantify EVERY factor, known and unknown, when you pull a God Shot, and if you duplicate all factors, known and unknown, for the next shot, would the coffee be the same? Probably.

But you might as well ask, "Can God create a coffee bean so large that it won't fit into the grinder He created?" Well.. not quite the same thing, but just as likely to get a usable answer.

[Marshall]

If you separate a pound of beans into equal piles and then grind, dose, and then pull them using IDENTICAL processes, (let' assume laboratory conditions here) the results will be IDENTICAL. PERIOD.

Let me suggest that, to the four "M's," you add a fifth element: a big "H" for "humility."

Champion baristas, who work with Synesso's, LM's and Roburs, have state of the art water treatment, and have spent thousands of hours honing their craft, regularly toss their own shots because of defects in the cup. None of them has eliminated the element of chance in the art of espresso, which is what makes the "godshot" so elusive.

[Psyd]

However, at the expense of varietal character and clarity.

See my post about my 'Sixty Second Ristretto'. I ended up letting it run just to see what my next adjustment on the grinder was gonna be, and tasted it just to see what that kind of 'mistake' was going to taste like, and had to catch myself on the way to the sink. Yep, it was good, and it opened my eyes and I swear I heard angels singing somewhere (perhaps it was the greyhounds) but it did lack the depth of character that the blend is capable of. The chocolate and blackberry notes were overwhelmingly present to a remarkable degree.
Was it god? I think not. Philosophy aside, it was a bit of a religious experience, but in the back of my mind I knew that I could sacrifice a bit of that berry and sweetness for extracting a bit more that the beans had to offer. Was it repeatable? Sure, many times in a row! ; >

[AndyS]

If you separate a pound of beans into equal piles and then grind, dose, and then pull them using IDENTICAL processes, (let' assume laboratory conditions here) the results will be IDENTICAL. PERIOD.

This is false. Coffee beans are a highly variable agricultural product. No two doses, even with the most stringent sorting, will produce identical results. Equal "piles" of blended beans vary significantly in their numerical constituency. Even beans in single-origin blends are variable, and a series of espressos made from them can easily produce different taste nuances despite the fact that all other parameters are normalized.

I guess I have a problem with the concept of a godshot.

Me, too. It's a charming term in the journalistic sense, but in practice its meaning is so variable that arguing about whether something is "really a god shot" or not is pretty ridiculous, no?

[HB]

Repeat of Dave's recipe from the first post for easy reference:

1. Brew Temp 96C on my Brewtus II. For reference, that is at the high end of the brew temp range for my machine, and equates to a short cooling flush on an HX.

2. Dose is ~13.5g in a single basket.

3. Grind is extremely fine, resulting in an extremely short ristretto from a very long pull. Pull results in 1/4 to 1/3 oz in 1 MINUTE.

I've pulled lots of "extreme updosed ristrettos", though I usually consider 42 seconds the end of the line. Some coffees are bitter/acrid when extracted this way; the telltale sign is minimal crema and globules of oils. Some coffees, like exotic single origins, are enjoyably sweet and intense when pulled at the far end of the brewing ratio range.

My main complaint about these types of espressos is their lack of interesting character; I call them "gong shots" because they're dominated by one HUGE (taste) note. They remind me of the first third of a regular espresso, e.g., booming chocolates and front-loaded taste. That said, they're good as macchiatos or breves, especially to the typically espresso-only drinker.

Me, too. It's a charming term in the journalistic sense, but in practice its meaning is so variable that arguing about whether something is "really a god shot" or not is pretty ridiculous, no?

I treat it as a euphemism for "beyond mortal man." On a related note, only 1 out of the 80 people voting in the poll What does your typical espresso rate? answered "6", which supports the community consensus that it's a not a typical occurrence.

[zin1953]

I treat it as a euphemism for "beyond mortal man."

Hmmm . . . I thought it went like this:

Announcer: "Faster than a speeding bullet! More powerful than a locomotive! Able to leap tall buildings at a single bound!"

Voices: "Look up in the sky! It's a bird! It's a plane! It's Superman!"


Announcer: "Yes, it's Superman, strange visitor from another planet who came to Earth with powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men. Superman, who can change the course of mighty rivers, bend steel in his bare hands; and who, disguised as Clark Kent, mild-mannered reporter for a great metropolitan newspaper, fights a never ending battle for truth, justice, and the American way."

[Tim356]

I like Jason's post. Let's take religion out of this and we mere mortals will call it a "Supershot"!
We could start wearing Superman t-shirts and red capes like Mom made for us when we were kids.

What do you say gang. Let's fire up our machines in the morning and take our espresso making counter culture up, up and away!

Tim356

[Marshall]

Me, too. It's a charming term in the journalistic sense, but in practice its meaning is so variable that arguing about whether something is "really a god shot" or not is pretty ridiculous, no?

No. We're really arguing about what is a "masterpiece" and who is qualified to judge it. Setting standards and judging the judges. This argument has been an entertaining sport for centuries. Sure, taste is subjective. But, it's important to know what the critic's standards and criteria are. That's why we have cupping sheets.

[Psyd]

By 'masterpiece', do you mean the work that was considered the pinnacle of an artists or a craftsman, or the work of a journeyman submitted to the other masters of a guild or union in hope of being accepted as another master?
I think that most of us refer to a godshot as that one that gets some 'other' result that makes it flawless. There is no attribute of the flavor or temperature or consistency of the shot that has any quantitative or detectable negative to it. It's just darned great. While those with other religious beliefs (Santa, Superman, Shiva, or Succelus) might have differing definitions, the shot referred to is just as close to perfect as we can make it. And we don't know why. AFAICT, these are the two themes that seem to run through most of the definitions given here. We can't find anything wrong with the shot, and we're not comfortable taking all the credit for that.
And, I still can't see why a godshot becomes less of a godshot if you freepour some latte art into it.
I do accept that there are some out there that will no longer be able to recognise that it's a godshot if it's combined with milk, but I think that that is a rather weak platform to mount an 'it ceases to be' campaign upon.

[cafeIKE]

And, I still can't see why a godshot becomes less of a godshot if you freepour some latte art into it.

The shot doesn't become less, it's just that you'll never know.

The ten or so since my first espresso ~40 years ago have been so wonderful and sublime that milk would mask the perfect flavor and texture balance.

BTW, how about a gshot is 'worthy of serving to the gods.'
Because we didn't offer it up, they condemn us to produce our regular comparative swill.

[zin1953]

OK, so everyone in the wine trade speaks of (e.g.) Cabernet Sauvignon as having a "cassis-like" aroma, not that it truly smells of currants but there is something in the bouquet of the wine that reminds one of that particular fruit. Now, there is nothing wrong with someone who thinks, perceives, and says that his/her Cabernet is reminiscent of (e.g.) "lime zest" -- if he or she truly smells that -- but most people will think it's a very odd Cabernet indeed, and probably best avoided . . . no matter how great that individual thinks it is. It may be a good wine, but few will think of it as a good Cabernet.

There is an unspoken but nonetheless agreed upon convention that "Cassis = Cabernet."

A "God Shot" is akin to a "once-in-a-lifetime" experience that only happens when all is in harmony. (Note: it's been a long time since "once in a lifetime" truly meant that something only takes place once in your life!) It is a serendipitous occurrance with a dash of synergy thrown in, when indeed the result is greater than the sum of its parts.

If one is used to drinking, say, 1945 Chateau Lafite Rothschild (considered one of the greatest wines ever made) every night, then where do you do from there? OK, that may have been a bit obscure for some. If all one drinks are wines that receive a "100" point score from Robert Parker -- what happens when you taste a wine that's better? The scale stops at 100; you can't give it a 103! You give it a 100 because the bar just get set higher! Yesterday's 100 is today's, what?, 96? 97? Because you can't go over 100, everyone's score drops a bit, because a "100" has to, by definition, be hard to achieve. It is the "God Shot" of wine . . .

This is also why, in part, people don't buy 90 point wines anymore. 90 points is an awesome score, and that used to be the bar -- 90 points or higher -- for generating "buzz" in the wine world. "90 points Parker" or "90 points Wine Spectator" was all one had to say; pass that threshhold and you had it made.

Today, 90 is mundane. The overall quality of wine worldwide has increased so much that the saying in the wine trade is "94 is the new 90." The bar's been raised, and now "90" is met with -- (yawn) who cares? -- but get a 94, or better yet a 96 or higher, and you got it made. But getting 100 is all but impossible, let alone getting 100 year in year out!

Wine is an agricultural product. So, too, is coffee. Both are "processed" -- made into wine; made into coffee/espresso -- but both remain anchored to their agricultural roots. Most winemakers will tell you that great wine is made in the vineyard. The quality of the green coffee, too, is subject to the whims of climate, soil, other factors that affect growing conditions. Yes, it IS terroir! And this year's crop is never the same as last year's. It may be better; it may be worse; it may just be somehow different but still delicious (or horrible).

Unless one's name is "God" (and I actually know two people who are -- being Jewish, I'm not counting the myriad of Latinos named "Jesus"), pulling "God Shots" consistently is -- by the commonly accepted definition of the term -- impossible. You can consistently pull shots which blow you away, that knock your socks off, that are in-f***ing-credible. But that just means your standard shot is awesomely good, and your God Shot remains just as elusive as always.

Cheers,
Jason

[shadowfax]

Not to try to wrap up the discussion or anything, but I just wanted to toss in that I really appreciate all the comments from you guys on the topic this has turned into. It's always nice to have things put into perspective in a reasonable way!

[HB]

Repeat of Dave's recipe from the first post...

This morning at our regular Counter Culture get-together, the grind setting was initially way off. Slow, slow drips, barely eking out a one-half ounce from a double basket in 30 seconds. Normally I would have cut it off after 10 seconds, but I thought of this thread and wondered if a godshot would emerge. While I've had some espressos that were tasty pulled as a ultra slow ristretto, this wasn't one of them.

DaveG, do your results only apply to single espressos?