Coffee in Italy isn't amazing. It isn't awful, and most coffee in Italy is better than most espresso served everywhere else in the world. I've never had an amazing espresso there, not even close. I've had some pretty good, some good and lots of average. If espressos were scored the world over Italy would be a five to six, with very little deviation from that.

Now I only speak from experience. I've been very lucky in my coffee career - I've had training from a couple of places in Italy, from other World Barista Champs and other amazing coffee people. I have trained on behalf of lots and lots of different roasters and suppliers who all have different opinions on brew recipes. I have huge respect for coffee in Italy but the goals there are somewhat different to those of us frequenting forums like this.

I am not saying that the 7g dose is a bad thing, or wrong nor am I saying that the 24g dose is wrong. There are lots of sensible reasons that Italy settled on 7g. I think occasionally they miss out as a result of not wanting to experiment more but I think their soundest reasoning probably (well, definitely) rings true with Aaron: higher doses = more caffeine = less espresso drunk during the day.

I get updosed shots, but to quote Aaron, I don't really like being beaten by a big caffeine 2 by 4. I find it hard to drink many espressos brewed that way on any given day.

The inertia of coffee in Italy is hard to deny. Grinder design has barely changed in 50 years, yet we all know it is horribly flawed. Espresso machine technology is still very much where it was in 1961. I am not saying you can't get a great shot out of an E61, because you certainly can, but it cannot possibly be the pinnacle of brewing.

The point that I am trying to make, in a very long winded way, is that I just don't feel that any technique or practice can be justified by its use in Italy when it comes to striving for absolute excellence in the cup.



...split from How to consistently dose coffee for a traditional espresso by moderator...

King Seven wrote:Grinder design has barely changed in 50 years, yet we all know it is horribly flawed. Espresso machine technology is still very much where it was in 1961. I am not saying you can't get a great shot out of an E61, because you certainly can, but it cannot possibly be the pinnacle of brewing.

IMHO the situation is even worse for the home barista. Many of us are using commercial gear in the kitchen, especially grinders, because home models are so inadequate. But commercial grinders, with their enormous bean hoppers, large dosers, and automatic grinding features, were never designed for grinding only 7 or 14 grams at a time. To some extent, the same is true for heat exchanger espresso machine technology, which is generally tuned for busy commercial environments rather than occasional home use. There's no doubt that improvements are possible.

Great post, thanks for weighing in.

King Seven wrote: ... I am not saying that the 7g dose is a bad thing, or wrong nor am I saying that the 24g dose is wrong. There are lots of sensible reasons that Italy settled on 7g ...

Great post, but this is not quite right. 7 grams has been the standard "1 tablespoon" portion of coffee since steamships brought down the price, i.e. since the 1880s or so. It's the amount of water that this portion goes into that has changed in Italy.

For brewed coffee, 5 to 8 ounces was standard, while 3 to 4 was a demi-tasse. The early steam pressured espresso machines went down to around 2 ounces, and now just under one ounce is the nominal standard, although recently I saw a lot more ristrettos than normales, especially in the south.

You're right about the conservatism of design, especially when it comes to coffee portions -- groups, baskets and grinders are designed for 7 gram single and 14 grams double doses, period. They simply work much more easily (not always better, but always easier) when used this way. So bars in Italy tweak the taste by varying the amount and speed of water rather than the amount of coffee.

But all in all, espresso in Italy is mass coffee, and very standardized. At roughly 0.80 euros for a shot, it should be compared to McDs and Nestles, not the top bars in the UK or US. When seen in this light, they do a very good job indeed. I don't think the idea of haute or gourmet espresso exists as yet, although the whole move to certify Espresso Italiano may get it started.

King Seven wrote:
Coffee in Italy isn't amazing. It isn't awful, and most coffee in Italy is better than most espresso served everywhere else in the world. I've never had an amazing espresso there, not even close. I've had some pretty good, some good and lots of average. If espressos were scored the world over Italy would be a five to six, with very little deviation from that.

Actually, that is amazing. The average espresso served in such countries as the US and France would merit, maybe, a 2. The Italians do an amazing job of consistency. They know how to operate their equipment and they understand extraction parameters. The same cannot be said for the overwhelming majority of cafes located in other countries.

King Seven wrote:
I am not saying that the 7g dose is a bad thing, or wrong nor am I saying that the 24g dose is wrong. There are lots of sensible reasons that Italy settled on 7g. I think occasionally they miss out as a result of not wanting to experiment more but I think their soundest reasoning probably (well, definitely) rings true with Aaron: higher doses = more caffeine = less espresso drunk during the day.

I get updosed shots, but to quote Aaron, I don't really like being beaten by a big caffeine 2 by 4. I find it hard to drink many espressos brewed that way on any given day.

The inertia of coffee in Italy is hard to deny. Grinder design has barely changed in 50 years, yet we all know it is horribly flawed. Espresso machine technology is still very much where it was in 1961. I am not saying you can't get a great shot out of an E61, because you certainly can, but it cannot possibly be the pinnacle of brewing.

I don't own an E61, but I remain to be convinced that an LM or Synesso or what-have-you, produces consistently better shots than an E61 or a Cimbali in the hands of a capable operator. I'd demand some sort of well-designed, verifiable blind tasting comparison experiment before I'd accept that, even if lots of famous coffee houses use more exotic equipment. This sort of thing is besides the point, in my view, for the home user, even if there may be advantages for one sort of equipment in a busy commercial environment. Ditto with grinders; granted, doser design could use a redo, but is there really any proof that any technology exists that will get a grind yielding a better extraction than any number of large conical and hybrid planar/conical designs or huge planar burr grinders already in the marketplace? While undoubtedly some improvement could be made for commercial environments, what's the potential benefit for us home users?

My opinion, for what it is worth, is that most home users would get about 10X as much bang for the buck by improving the coffee that they use to make espresso with, rather than chasing small incremental improvements in equipment, or worrying too much about anything other than very basic barista skills. If the home barista lacks the equipment, time, or interest in becoming a better roaster, then they should buy coffee from places that do a good job with roasting. This is where the real money is, and in fact is probably the primary reason why most Italian espresso is merely good even if the operator's skill is better than that.

ken

Espresso in Italy is 7 times as good:

Italy:
-Get in bar, ask for caffe T=0
-Pay
-Get caffe
-Drink it
-Ciao at T+3min

Rest of world
-Get in bar. T=0
-Wait in line
-Wait some more, because there is a horde of sixteen year old girls, 59 year old* women having a "womans day", and some more random people before you in line.
-The sixteen year olds all want the same, so they order one by one the same. The last one wants something different so everybody rethinks their decision and then they all go for what the last one ordered. T+3min
-The barista after having to suffer through all the chattering of the girls proceeds to make 5 soy latte bambino's with extra chocolate. And 2 muffins which they share.
-The girls get their coffee at T+6min
-The girls try to pay. Since none of them can do even basic math, this takes 2 min.
-The women's clubs turn. Only now they start thinking what the hell they want. Since the choice is enormous, they all get spontaneous brain lockup. Eventually everybody gets a cappuccino with extra milk. Because "expreso" is dirty burnt coffee.
-One barista commits suicide.
-Second barista makes drinks.
-Smartest woman from the bunch pays. But drops money. The rest crawls down to find every last penny.
-Random peoples turn.
-At T+20 its my turn.
-I ask for a double espresso. The barista smiles.
-I get my coffee, pray it isn't disgusting.
-Even if it is disgusting, i drink it because the barista smiled.
-I leave, swearing i'll never ever set foot in a coffeebar outside of Italy. T+21min.

*59 year olds are the worst. They try to act young, because they think they feel young but at the same time want respect because they are old.

another_jim wrote:Great post, but this is not quite right. 7 grams has been the standard "1 tablespoon" portion of coffee since steamships brought down the price, i.e. since the 1880s or so. It's the amount of water that this portion goes into that has changed in Italy.

For brewed coffee, 5 to 8 ounces was standard, while 3 to 4 was a demi-tasse. The early steam pressured espresso machines went down to around 2 ounces, and now just under one ounce is the nominal standard, although recently I saw a lot more ristrettos than normales, especially in the south.

Interesting - a whole load of pre-'48 machines that I have seen have enormous portafilters and baskets, so I assumed they used more coffee. The 58mm group doesn't really seem to have settled in (from the machines I have seen) until the late 40s.

Ken Fox wrote:My opinion, for what it is worth, is that most home users would get about 10X as much bang for the buck by improving the coffee that they use to make espresso with, rather than chasing small incremental improvements in equipment, or worrying too much about anything other than very basic barista skills. If the home barista lacks the equipment, time, or interest in becoming a better roaster, then they should buy coffee from places that do a good job with roasting. This is where the real money is, and in fact is probably the primary reason why most Italian espresso is merely good even if the operator's skill is better than that.

The longer I spend doing this coffee thing, the longer I can't help but feel that good greens always shine through - raw materials are probably the most important thing for me when it comes to the quality of the final drink. This is probably a very real reason why coffee in Italy is as it is - habits, traditions and recipes that formed the basis of most espresso blends came from a time when coffee buying wasn't focused on quality but more on availability and price. Again - adding robusta to espresso blends is one thing, but justifying it by saying that is Italian tradition and therefore must be right just doesn't work for me.

I do agree that the consistency of coffee in Italy is quite amazing. The rest of the world's average cup is a long way behind.

In my experience...

<5% of espresso in Italy is bad.
>95% of espresso in Italy is average to good.
but there is little to no chance of getting great espresso even from that 95%.

>95% of espresso in the US is bad.
<5% of espresso in the US is average to good.
but there is a good chance of getting a good to great drink from that less-than-5%.


I think this is the result of a combination of factors.

1 - espresso is an important cultural artifact in Italy.
2 - espresso is a "commodity" drink in Italy.
3 - equipment/thinking is bound by tradition in Italy.
4 - the vast majority of coffee drinkers in Italy drink espresso or short milk drinks.
5 - the vast majority of coffee drinkers in Italy drink coffee for social/cultural reasons.

1 - the best coffee companies in the US focus on green beans and roasting first -- drink prep methods second.
2 - the vast majority of coffee drinkers in the US drink brewed coffee or tall milk drinks.
3 - espresso is a "lifestyle" drink in the US.
4 - the vast majority of coffee drinkers in the US drink coffee for pharmaceutical reasons.

Interesting observations... I visit Italy annually, and yes, it's great that you can always expect basic competence from the baristas -- they may be the only ones who can use those grinder-mounted tampers & get decent results! Much as I love Italy, I can't be a slave to espresso tradition -- "tradition" is just another term for "habit".

It doesn't bother me so much that Italian equipment design is so retro, to put it nicely -- but it sure would be nice if they built them more like, oh, the Swiss or the Germans, esp. considering the prices we pay!

The thing that surprised me is that Italians generally seem as unaware of the necessity of coffee freshness (& what that really means) as Americans. Italians buy a lot of pre-ground, vacuum-packed, for home use, and their whole beans aren't much fresher. Roast dates on the bags are almost unheard of -- it's "sell by" or "use by" dates, just like in the markets here.

If I were to live in Italy full-time, I'd have to find a local coffee fanatic for a proper bean supply -- I'm a freak here and there!

King Seven wrote:good greens always shine through - raw materials are probably the most important thing for me when it comes to the quality of the final drink.
- adding robusta to espresso blends is one thing, but justifying it by saying that is Italian tradition and therefore must be right just doesn't work for me.

I know it sounds a bit like oxymoron, but if the Robusta greens are good, why not use them in great coffee?

I know a certain shop owner, (now defunct, and I'm pretty sure that there was no relation to this fact...) that had a custom roast made for her shop with Robust beans as one of the ingredients in the blend. These Robusta beans were more expensive than quite a few available Arabicas (go ahead, try to find a farmer that is really, really particular about his Robustas...) and were used as a flavor choice.
The Chiapas beans that are becoming really popular all of a sudden are of a questionable lineage as well. The region had far too little control and far to sparse record keeping to insure that all of the plants were Arabicas. There is a lot of suspicion that there was some Robusta plants interspersed (interbred) with the present crop.
Now, I'm just some guy sitting at home listening to rumour and innuendo from buyers, roasters, and interested travelers, but there are a handful of folk that are suggesting that Robustas (or at least certain Robustas) that are treated with the same care as some of the Arabicas that we are so fond of, might result in not only an acceptable, but a desirable bean.
In Louisiana, in N.O., at the Cafe du Monde, if I were to get a cafe au lait and not get chicory in it, I'd be disappointed.

Coffee, as in American drip, certainly isn't amazing in Italy though my husband tried to find some of that coffee and would resort to stopping at an occasional McD's, and that was barely drinkable.....but I/we sure have has some amazing espressos and morning cappaccinos in Italy....thick, creamy, crema laden, smooth espresso shots. More times than not they were better than most we've had at U.S. cafes or restaurants.

It is very much a cultural tradition and an imperative. When in Rome...so to speak....we'd get into the -do as the Romans thing- of walking up to a bar for a quick shot in the afternoon etc.

In Sicily, visiting my cousins, more times than not the home espresso machine that was being used was just a stove top moka espresso pot.

another_jim wrote: It is the amount of water that this (7 gram) portion goes into that has changed in Italy ...

King Seven wrote: Interesting - a whole load of pre-'48 machines that I have seen have enormous portafilters and baskets, so I assumed they used more coffee. The 58mm group doesn't really seem to have settled in (from the machines I have seen) until the late 40s.

The old steam pressure groups went all the way up to mass brewers where the basket was about the size of a Bunn filter. I'm guessing these went together with sit down, coffeehouse style cafes, where pots of coffee were served by waiters to tables seating larger groups. There aren't a lot of those left in Italy, at least where I've been.

The current 1 ounce single size has a lot to do with the volume of water that can be conveniently delivered at 8 bar by a lever group without hiring a bodybuilder to pull the lever. This makes the 1 once standard very conservative and arbitrary. But the late 50s was a huge economic boom for Northern Italy, so it's likely that this is the time when the whole prewar sit down coffee culture dissolved and the modern espresso culture replaced it -- just as the lever and 1 ounce singles came into use. Unlike the US, the Italian baby boom generation took over this form of consumption rather than coming up with something new. Hence the conservatism of espresso, at least, that's my guess.

Psyd wrote:I know it sounds a bit like oxymoron, but if the Robusta greens are good, why not use them in great coffee?

That's a pretty theoretical question.
I've cupped a lot of coffees and have (sadly?) cupped a whole bunch of "high quality" robustas.
The absolute best of them would score in the low 70s (and this was one of only two that I would even describe as "drinkable").

So while it's possible that there might be Robusta out there that would score on par with good Arabica - I've yet to experience this.

malachi wrote:4 - the vast majority of coffee drinkers in the US drink coffee for pharmaceutical reasons.

I think this is true in most countries - it is the only explanation of the amount of bad coffee drunk daily the world over.

As for robusta - I've cupped lots of them too, and I get what some people could love about them: oddly sweet, heavy, very low acidity but even the cleanest cups still taste like "robusta".

I don't think anyone will be able to sneak robusta through as something else - not only because the taste is quite distinct but also because they actually look different to arabica beans.

Bluecold, hilarious! Concur with King Seven and you at the same time.

malachi wrote:That's a pretty theoretical question.
I've cupped a lot of coffees and have (sadly?) cupped a whole bunch of "high quality" robustas.
The absolute best of them would score in the low 70s (and this was one of only two that I would even describe as "drinkable").

The 'theory' mentioned it as an ingredient in a blend. As an SO, I'd probably take a pass, but the discussion was as an addition to a blend. Taking the good parts of a Robusta blended with a couple/few Arabicas isn't theory, it's being done. Fairly successfully, too. I'd love to be able to tell you which and how, but the particular roaster isn't really that nice a guy, and the commercial customer no longer has her shop, and the new owner is the roaster, and he isn't sharing.

So I guess my question is (less theoretical) if you ever had the chance to try a blend that included Robusta beans, would you let the taste make your decision, or would the Robusta inclusions be too much to swallow?

If I'm willing to cup Robusta - clearly I'm willing to try a blend with Robusta.
I just don't see why a roaster would use Robusta in their espresso given that the best Robustas are inferior.

Some of my most memorable espresso I've had in Italy was on an Italian airbase in southwestern Sicily. It was so good that I got three in a row and the baristas were laughing at me. I forgot exactly how much but each shot was less than 50 Euro cents.
I've had some at a train station near Firenze and it was pretty decent. Sure it was only Lavazza but it put most coffee shops in the States to shame.

Coffee apparently has played an important social/political role in Europe since its arrival. I've read something of a conflict between coffee and ale during the early days, maybe in Vienna? Anyway, coffee, and later espresso, in Italy is probably much more than a pharmaceutical (though its that too). At least it is to me, and probably anyone reading HB in the first place.

I suppose Jim is correct is saying espresso in Italy is a mass consumption item. In that sense one would only expect excellence about 1% of the time. That's excellence. It wouldn't even be surprising to find that the average espresso in NA is better than the average in Italy, since espresso is more of a specialty item in the former.

What is amazing is this:


The Italians invented pressurized espresso (I think), as Jim notes, to extract the essence of (7-14g of) the roasted coffee bean quickly, under pressure. The old lever machines - hot water, coffee, and pressure, bring this home to me.

peacecup wrote:It wouldn't even be surprising to find that the average espresso in NA is better than the average in Italy, since espresso is more of a specialty item in the former.

The average espresso in Italy is worlds better than the average in NA.

malachi wrote:The average espresso in Italy is worlds better than the average in NA.

When was the last time you had coffee in Namibia?http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com/N141A.HTM