Well, there seems to be "BostonCharles" there to help... Me, I'm in love with portiaperu:

portiaperu wrote:Dear BostonCharles,

You may certainly have the facts on coffee

I'm not an expert, probably not even knowledgeable. I do know that I am happy with the "espresso" coffee my lovely, inexpensive stove top pot makes every time, in just minutes. No expensive machinery, a quality bean that I grind (number of grind unknown), and some tap water (thoroughly tested) - that's all and I'm happy.

If people want to chase the perfect cup of coffee, that's fine - I don't hold it against anyone to pursue that which they desire.

My comment gently mocked what I perceived to be an obsession, for some, to attain perfection in a cup of coffee by purchasing expensive equipment and ingredients - just the right bean, just the right grind, just the right . . .

Me, I'm enjoying my coffee, whatever it may be (can't get away from facts).

Regarding your laptop diagnosis of an inferiority complex - I'm simply protesting what I view as over the top consumerism applied to filling a simple need. There's a tendency in all of us, from time to time, to focus on bigger, shinier, more expensive solutions to fill our needs.

Oh, America! It's so beautiful to think that our absolute commitment to the cheapest possible everything that is advertised isn't over-the-top consumerism, it's those fat bastards who blow their money pursuing things that last more than a few months to make the best out of ridiculously expensive coffee that evil 'specialty' roasters charge outrageous... wait, fresh, awesome coffee from Intelligentsia costs less than Illy and LaVazza? Aw, no they didn't!

Bluecold wrote:we need a kind of "H-B coffee misinformation first response squadron

Nah, whet we need is for someone that possesses the knowledge that is lacking in these things to calmly, cooly, and didactically address the misconceptions being passed on, and to suggest more accurate information, citing sources and references. And then let the readers decide.
The author will take from that response what he will, regardless of who or what is addressed.

I commented on the article in this topic.

My misunderstood point was that we on the boards often kill the messenger. The reporter is clueless, but he's not tongueless; and I have no doubt I would have preferred his shots from the preground Lavazza too. We often blow people off who get better shots from preground Lavazza, Nespresso capsules, etc, pulled on a $200 Krups or Capresso, then either from a superauto, or using store ground or a cheap grinder with fresh US coffee.

Is it really so hard to believe that on a standard espresso machine, well ground, low grade, stale coffee (e.g. Lavazza ground on a perfectly calibrated $500K three roll grinder) can beat badly ground, high grade, fresh coffee (e.g. Black Cat ground on a Bunn set to "espresso")? For people unwilling to spend the money or the time, but who insist on an espresso machine, this is very likely the best they can do.

The mystery is why they insist on an espresso machine in the first place, given these restrictions.

another_jim wrote: ... Is it really so hard to believe that on a standard espresso machine, well ground, low grade, stale coffee (e.g. Lavazza ground on a perfectly calibrated $500K three roll grinder) can beat badly ground, high grade, fresh coffee (e.g. Black Cat ground on a Bunn set to "espresso")? For people unwilling to spend the money or the time, but who insist on an espresso machine, this is very likely the best they can do.

The mystery is why they insist on an espresso machine in the first place, given these restrictions.

Because, Like me near 20 years ago, even a crappy stale pre-ground coffee in a crappy "espresso like" machine tasted better, to me, than the standard drip coffee. The taste of my espresso has improved since thankfully.

People that are just starting out, even before they get into surfing the web, do not know better unless they have a friend that will educate them.

Give all these consumer market people some time and about 0.1% of them will graduate to your level in many, many years. Some will upgrade to various level of sophistication and others will go back to the pre-ground drip coffee.

We all start somewhere... but that "messenger" should have done more research before writing about what he wrote.

Hmm, just who is this "Boston Charles?"

I remember "Boston Blackie," but . . .

Whale wrote:We all start somewhere... but that "messenger" should have done more research before writing about what he wrote.

He's writing for people who don't want to start. They want something labelled espresso, they want it now, they want it at home, they want it from gear that costs less than $200. Most people pick hobbies other than coffee, but are still interested in getting the best shot for their minimal investment of time, money and effort. The reporter is catering to them.

Could this reporter reach his audience if he said something like "you are unwilling to spend the time learning or spend the money setting up for good espresso. That's perfectly fine. But why not be logical about it, throw your junk espresso gear out and make good regular coffee instead?

How well would that work?

another_jim wrote:Most people pick hobbies other than coffee, but are still interested in getting the best shot for their minimal investment of time, money and effort. The reporter is catering to them.

That is fine 99.99% of the coffee drinking public is making coffee as a drink not as a hobby. So he is going for the mass for sure. But nonetheless. I would have expected him to conclude exactly what he concluded (if that is what he found) but to add what his assumption and limitations were.

As it is he is making a statement that does not allow for growth (don't know how to say that otherwise). He is not expressing that this result is the result of what he tried and that maybe there is something more out there. He is implying that when you are where he is ending up you have achieved the best. He is not even allowing for variability in the quality of product. One pre-ground brand will not be the same as the other and one big store grinder will not be the same as the other. is sampling is very small and he is not stating these limitations very loudly, is he?

That is what I meant by he didn't do the research. If he did the research, he is not letting me know.

another_jim wrote:Could this reporter reach his audience if he said something like "you are unwilling to spend the time learning or spend the money setting up for good espresso. That's perfectly fine. But why not be logical about it, throw your junk espresso gear out and make good regular coffee instead?

How well would that work?

How about, the same article he wrote followed by: This is what I found with what I think is reasonable expense and efforts, of course there is a much better espresso to be had at home for those that are willing to do more and pay more."

Do you think that would turn off his readers? Or would it catch the attention of the more interested public and prepare for a more in depth follow-up article?