What does your typical espresso rate? - Page 2

[luca]

The typical espresso that I'd serve a customer is probably a 4. The Synesso and second mazzer make it a bit easy, plus I take my time and am not afraid to throw away dial-in shots. Plus it's usually a guest espresso blend, so I'll spend a bit of time dialling it in in the morning. Every now and then we'll get a really special guest coffee that would have to be rated a bit higher than the other guest stuff. At home, it's another story. I reckon I'm dishing out 2s on my Silvia/Rocky, with the occasional spike to 3 or so. Damn I love the Synesso!

I don't think that it's really necessary to expect the barista comp scores to be predictable or to fit into any preconceived notion. As long as all of the judges are in line in any given competition, competitors are on an even footing. And that's why there is a head judge.

Cheers,

Luca

[olypdd]

I guess I would rate mine 3-3.5 with and occasional <wow honey 'OMG', come and look at THIS one!> which I suppose could be a 5 to some, but perhaps not to one of those judges.

I have recently found myself getting consistent with the new Vetrano and am pulling some incredible ristrettos with the triple basket. Not sure they would wow the judges but they sure look and taste incredible.

Rich

[miKe mcKoffee]

A few months later continuing my espresso journey and after attending yesterday's NWRBC judge's cert' workshop total re-evaluation is in order. Just pulled a quite nice looking and tasting but way sub optimal shot, crema color probably only a 2.5 at best, average to good. Pulled a tiny bit too fast with wee touch of late blonding subsequently infecting the hazelnut to dark brown crema with weak but present reddish hues. I'd say the crema had good to very good consistency and persistency so probably a 3 to 3.5. Taste balance had good harmony but tinged a tiny bit to bitter so maybe a 2.5. (FWIW Zoka Paladino pulled at ~201f top of HX hump) Tactile balance a bit better so say a 3. So overall my typical shots probably 2.5 to 3.5 with occassional 4 to 4.5 and maybe a once in a blue moon or so 5, maybe.

And this can of course all be taken with a grain of salt. Especially since I didn't make the judging cut. I was told that due to the large number of USBC pre-certified judges and returning regional judges I wouldn't be needed. They felt some of my scores varied a bit too much during the calibrations and I'd benefit from taking the cert' course again before judging. I don't disagree. I did make the mistake of giving a couple zeros when there was no apparent rules violation which I've come to understand just isn't done. It can be terrible but like Dan said and I didn't drill into my thick skull, if it fits within the rules it's a one (acceptable) not a zero (unacceptable). But hey, they would have been "unacceptable" sinkers to me!

[peechdogg]

Having recently upgraded equipment, I'm going to say I can now hit the 3.5 range regularly.
Even though I have always read how important the grinder is, it's now more apparent than ever...

[k7qz]

Being a light sleeper (a trait learned from years of being jarred from blissful slumber by the relentless ringing of my telephone), I once again was wakened hours before my usual get out of bed experience and decided, rather than waste time by staring at the darkened ceiling, that I should do something useful such as read old HB posts...

Skimming this thread again caused me to consider my personal scoring system and how, over the past several years, it has become and continues to be a moving target of sorts. Two or three years ago shots that I would have rated as "Very Good" or even "Excellent" would now be awarded an "Average" at best. Thanks to the helpful advice and techniques that I have learned here (as well as a fair bit of rote practice, not to mention a great grinder/manchine combo) my espresso has consistently improved. That's the good news. The downside is that I am now used to pulling shots that previously would have been judged as "Very Good" and as such, they have now become my new "Average" shots. The end result is that I have become harder and continually harder to impress and even to simply please. Worse yet, espresso shops around my half of the country that I used to think served "out of this world" espresso now gather thoughts such as "Hmmm, not bad but I could do as well at home..." Sort of a vicious cycle-

Admittedly many (most?) of you here are more experienced as baristas than I and have likely locked your methodology into stone some time ago, thus your scoring system would be constant and meaningful. Sigh... this elusive perfection problem. I would guess that those of you who have had the privilege of serving as judges at a barista event can probably relate!

Nonetheless having said this, I wouldn't go back to my former espresso-skills self for anything! May the progress continue!

[Psyd]

Two or three years ago shots that I would have rated as "Very Good" or even "Excellent" would now be awarded an "Average" at best.

I used to pull better shots out of a steamtoy than almost anybody in Tucson could get out of their pro kit. Not that that was very hard, at the time. My shots were considered excellent. I was in love with them. I put shots like that down the sink, today. Thankfully, Tucson now has a bit of barista competition of its own going on now, and those guys that think that they're baristi because they can push a button are on the way of the dinosaur. What do we use as a benchmark?
I have been getting very good to excellent shots for the last fifteen years, it's just that 'very good' and 'excellent' have been changing gradually for the last fifteen years as well. I'm sure that today's very good will end up in the sink five or six years down the road...

[TimEggers]

I dug this thread out of retirement to offer my two cents. I gave myself a 2 for average. Up until lately my shots had been terrible and undrinkable. It wasn't until a few days ago that things began to come together. Now I consider my shots average. What I mean is that I truly enjoy them however at the same time it seems that each time I think to myself "that's good but..." and then I think of something that could be tweaked.

I'm sure I could serve my shots to you pros and you would say (I hope) "Tim that's not too bad, but next time try this or try that."

There in lies my pleasure in all this, getting practice everyday and seeing progress in my technique. Am I a home barista? No. Not yet. But in time and training (via reading here and abroad) I hope to join the likes of JonR10, cannonfodder, HB, malachi, RapidCoffee, another_jim, Jasonian, luca, jesawdy, mike mcKoffee and the many others here who I admire and respect (I know I left some names out, please forgive me, you know who you are). It is because of the thoughtful contributions of you guys that new and upcoming HB's like me can begin to learn your craft. You guys don't get enough credit for your impact on home espresso. From the bottom of my heart (and shot glass) I thank and salute you!

[welone]

Could anyone please help a poor 'middle'-european, lacking of a proper reference?

The only 'standard' I know is the one from traditional italian espresso bars (singles!) - I would appreciate you could give me a ballpark value for it!


marco

[pauljolly65]

While the dramatic improvement in my shots recently has been due to (1) getting a good grinder, (2) developing my espresso blending/roasting skills, and (3) paying diligent attention to my 'mano' (not to mention the PIDding my Silvia), I still don't consistently make mindblowing espresso. OK, so "mindblowing" may be setting the bar a bit high, but I get perhaps two shots a week that absolutely captivate me---when the kids, the wife, the house, the cat, and everything else just fades into the background and it's me & the shot floating somewhere in the clouds. The average shots are in the 3-3.5 range.

Thinking of comparisons, I still prefer my own to most of the local haunts. Peets is good sometimes (but only when they're pulling Espresso Forte, IMO, and that's still not very consistent). Another local place that uses Ecco makes very good shots and, while they are on average better than mine, the great ones I get at home are far above the best that I get at the caffe. Of course, those I've had at Blue Bottle and Ritual in S.F. are way better than what I make at home. Still, what I'm making now is very good and I'm darn happy with the results.

[Niko]

Of course, those I've had at Blue Bottle and Ritual in S.F. are way better than what I make at home. Still, what I'm making now is very good and I'm darn happy with the results.

You're a modest person...
I've had better coffee at friends houses than those places.
But I shouldn't talk, lately my shots have been in the 0-1 range for my taste buds although I had a good average in the 3.5-4 range for quite a while with the occasional godshot. I was never able to achieve that un-godly "6" listed here, if I do I'll make sure I can make contact from the land beyond to tell about it...

[another_jim]

...
The only 'standard' I know is the one from traditional italian espresso bars (singles!) - I would appreciate you could give me a ballpark value for it!

They run from 1 to 3.5, with the bulk being around 2.5 to 3.

Crema in Italy is mostly a 0 (over 50% no crema) with occasional 2s. There's a cultural difference not reflected in WBC rules -- the ideal Illy espresso is uniform hazelnut with reddish tint, but no flecks or tiger stripes. This would rate a 2.5 to 3, since flecking is required for higher scores. A bulls-eye, darker rim, lighter towards the center, non-uniformity is a major flaw to Italians, and a minor one to the WBC.

A score higher than a three requires an espresso shot that has a non-generic, memorable taste that is accurately described to the judges ahead of time. This is hard to do, and is supposed to be that way -- it is a national or world barista championship, not a can you pull a decent espresso competition.

My shots range around 3 to 4, with occasional lapses and even rarer high points, despite all the work I pour into them. Fours are roughly the starting point for anyone with a chance of making the USBC finals or winning there.

I hope this clarifies the scoring system: basically the "Unacceptable," "Acceptable," "Fair," Good," "Very Good," "Excellent," and "Exceptional" scoring means what it says when the terms are interpreted as applying to the work of the best shot pullers on the planet, and not to that of any old espresso maker.

[cannonfodder]

My shots have been getting better. I would say 4 normally with an occasional 0.5 swing on either side.

[gvideo]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-754422103277107107[/gvideo]

Practice makes perfect, that shot was not perfect, but very good.

[Psyd]

I hope this clarifies the scoring system: basically the "Unacceptable," "Acceptable," "Fair," Good," "Very Good," "Excellent," and "Exceptional" scoring means what it says when the terms are interpreted as applying to the work of the best shot pullers on the planet, and not to that of any old espresso maker.

In this light, I'm truly hoping that the 'very good' and 'excellent' scores I was giving my shots are taken as the purely subjective grades that I was giving them. My scores were in no way supposed to represent the criteria that Jim just put forth. 'Excellent' for me is when I start to get to the 3.5 level on Jim's criteria. I'm guessing that I can sometimes get to a four, just because I end up with a beautiful shot that actually tastes like what it has been described as by the roaster and other connoisseurs, a giant head of crema that seems to last forever, and an aftertaste that doesn't remind me of grapefruit rind.
My criteria (and this has nothing to do with this thread, as far as I can tell, other than to explain how I scored my shots in the previous post) are:
1. Nothing that resembled espresso came out of the spouts. *
2. Something that resembled espresso came out of the spouts, but not close enough that I'd consider drinking it.
3. Reminiscent of espresso. I could call it a ristretto or a cremosa, and give it to my Folger's swilling friends.
4. A good shot. Good crema, somewhere within 2-28 seconds before blonding, I'd drink it and like it.
5. A very good shot. No squirts, little donutting, good color, tiger stripes, crema lasts, and starts blonding right at 26-27.
6. Great shot! The stars align, the humidity and the grinder coincide, and the dream that every one has ends up in my cup.

These last ones are happenstance rather than planning. If I were to sink more of the fours rather than accept them (I find it difficult to sink something that I'd not mind drinking) I'd end up with more sixes, I'm sure. Time and money, and knowing that once I start following the rabbit down the hole, I'll end up in Wonderland (but am I willing to trade the rest of my free time and cash for it?), I've accepted my present level of satisfaction, and I'm sometimes jealous of my bud's who happily swill Starbucks drip made in a thirty cup aluminum pot.

*Recently I awoke at the GF's house, where Silvia spends her time, only to discover that I had warmed her up (Silvia, the GF was still asleep) and had no beans. The roommate had purchased some Starbucks preground French Roast, so I decided to experiment. I overdosed and over tamped, and ended up with a ten (maybe) second blonde gusher. I did put both of those into a sugary latte to try to disguise them. Those were both 0-1, at best. No, I didn't drink it...

[Jasonian]

Is it possible for one to grade their own espresso?

[HB]

I suppose there's always the risk of bias when evaluating your own work. It's worth "calibrating" your evaluations with others. For example, USBC sensory judge candidates spend much of the two day workshop discussing and participating in mock competitions to confirm their scores are consistent with the stated evaluation criteria and senior judge assessments. I recommend volunteering to be a sensory / technical judge purely for the learning experience.

[welone]

They run from 1 to 3.5, with the bulk being around 2.5 to 3. ....
A score higher than a three requires an espresso shot that has a non-generic, memorable taste that is accurately described to the judges ahead of time. This is hard to do, and is supposed to be that way -- it is a national or world barista championship, not a can you pull a decent espresso competition.

Thanks for the clarification on the scores of italian singles, it helped me a lot for getting an idea. So I'm probably hanging somewhere between 2 and 3 with half a dozen outliers above.

When judging the capabilities of a barista it seems necessary to apply a rating of the shots from what's expected (from the outset of pulling it). Notwithstanding for rating my own shots, I would find it more helpful to apply a scoring 'exclusively' based on the sensory experience the shot outcome. The term 'exclusively' is of course more of an theoretical idea to approximate as good as possible.

[cannonfodder]

I had mentioned earlier in the thread that the problem with judging's ones own shot is the reference point you are judging them from. I have been lucky enough to have some shots pulled by a couple of stellar baristas, and that is my benchmark for judging and target shot quality. So the problem now becomes, are you judging based on the average cafe, or worse yet StarBucks, or a world class competitive barista. I believe most of the Home-Barista readers have surpassed the quality of the latter but aspire to reach the quality of the pros.

[Psyd]

I had mentioned earlier in the thread that the problem with judging's ones own shot is the reference point you are judging them from.

Which Jasonian put rather succinctly, and I put rather eloquently (read: long-winded and windingly...) in my posts. Subjective scores are either too generous based on a lack of experience, or too harsh based on a lack of experience. Jim Schulman's method of scoring is a bit closer to an objective set of criteria to score on, but it's still hard to get an idea of what you look like to others by looking in a mirror.

[Jasonian]

I had mentioned earlier in the thread that the problem with judging's ones own shot is the reference point you are judging them from. I have been lucky enough to have some shots pulled by a couple of stellar baristas, and that is my benchmark for judging and target shot quality. So the problem now becomes, are you judging based on the average cafe, or worse yet StarBucks, or a world class competitive barista. I believe most of the Home-Barista readers have surpassed the quality of the latter but aspire to reach the quality of the pros.

Well, here's the thing. I had never had a good espresso until I learned to make it on my own at home. I have never been to a "mecca"-ish coffee retailer to draw a comparison.

I HAVE compared tasting notes with people who I believe to be good baristas, though whose espresso I have never personally tasted.

I have tasted espresso made by people who I have taught.

I find it very difficult to grade my own espresso since the best espresso I've had so far has been made by me. It's hard to grade based on experience when I haven't had the chance to experience anything better.

I am a (not world class) competitive barista... or, rather, I will be in about three weeks. (first ever SCRBC)

I guess we'll see how I compare to others in my region. Still, though, the coffee has a huge impact as well. A much greater impact than the skill of the barista, actually.

I'd be curious to know how I'd "officially"(is that possible?) score, though.

[appa]

I agree with not being able to find a measuring stick.

My problem has been that when I ask for a single espresso at a shop in my area
(including starbucks)
I get at least 3oz of liquid in a cup. Not that it tastes bad, but its not really
an espresso anymore (at least not by the brewing ratio charts Ive seen here), so its
kind of apples and oranges really..