http://www.salon.com/food/feature/2010/08/25/american_espresso

How much divergence is there between traditional Italian espresso and what high-end 'Third Wave' shops are doing in the U.S.? I'm certainly not one who believes in jettisoning tradition altogether (hey, I'm primarily a blues musician, even at my most experimental, and those traditions are important to me), how much needs to be retained or acknowledged to stay rooted? Just a couple of questions this article raised in my mind.

article wrote:Giorgio Milos, the master barista at the high-end Trieste, Italy-based illy - whose familiar red logo adorns cans of quality coffee in 140 countries - stands inside a trendy downtown coffee shop in New York City and sucks in his cheeks. Something is wrong with the espresso he has just drunk. It has some of the right components - a bit floral, a bit chocolate - but there's an astringency that makes him compare it to a green apple. "A good cup of espresso has to be balanced between sour, bitter, and sweet," he explains. "Maybe they are using old beans."

Mmm, Illy, the symbol of fresh, quality coffee in 140 countries. He must be an expert. ...who thinks that a "green apple" acidity in the cup might be from old beans. What?!

As far as I can tell this guy (Milos, not the actual author of the above article) is a bigoted idiot who doesn't seem to understand coffee that deviates from the traditional Italian style. You can Google his publications in the Atlantic and also find lots of criticisms of him from US specialty coffee people if you look. If your ultimate goal in espresso is to copy the Italians, then you'll probably love Giorgio Milos. If you're willing to be a bit more open-minded with your palate, you might appreciate american espresso. Of course, a lot of it sucks, which is indeed tragic. But when it's done right, IMO it trounces Italian-style espresso, at least what you can get of it in the US. But if all you have are rigid preconceptions, you're always going to be a hater.

EDIT: To be clear, I'm not trying to say american espresso isn't above criticism, just that I'd rather read the criticisms of experts rather than "experts." I could fully believe you could go to the cafés mentioned and get some pretty disappointing shots. I haven't been to NYC yet myself, but I have a number of friends who've been, whose palates I know pretty well, who have also expressed some disappointment at the quality of the drinks. A very legitimate criticism! but explaining it as a failure to adhere to Italian standards, that American espresso is not real espresso, that's just a crock from someone who's trying to sell you something (IMO).

Just watched a John Cleese documentary called Wine for the Confused which is an intro to wine for novices. The most important point he makes during the movie is "drink what you like." And I think that's perfectly applicable here. If three people go in to a NY cafe to get espresso, and one says that it's pulled too short and too concentrated, one says that it's not pulled short enough and one thinks that it's just right, is one of them right, and the other two wrong? Does it matter if one of them is from Illy?

TrlstanC wrote:If three people go in to a NY cafe to get espresso, and one says that it's pulled too short and too concentrated, one says that it's not pulled short enough and one thinks that it's just right, is one of them right, and the other two wrong? Does it matter if one of them is from Illy?

It's when he gets to the explanations of why he's right and the coffee is wrong that it starts to get ridiculous, IMO. If you try a bunch of coffee shops in NY and you aren't happy with the shots you get, that's fine. But if you're here to pass your 'expert' opinion on to john Q. public via a large publication and the things you say don't add up, there ought to be some blowback. If you really think De gustibus non est disputandum, then why stand up for the Illy guy who's arguing quite the opposite?

Edit: also, here's some thoughts from Chris Tacy.

Edit 2: Also, looks like there's another post from Chris today on the Salon article...

shadowfax wrote:But when it's done right, IMO it trounces Italian-style espresso.

I like to discuss espresso, but don't you think this is over the top? It's the kind of statement that makes discussing espresso difficult, if not impossible.

Anyhow, this Giorgio Milos character shouldn't be taken too seriously. He's from Illy after all. What was he going to say? Even people who like Italian-style espresso - I'm one of them - know that there's more than Illy between heaven and earth.

shadowfax wrote: A very legitimate criticism! but explaining it as a failure to adhere to Italian standards, that American espresso is not real espresso, that's just a crock from someone who's trying to sell you something (IMO).

But the American Specialty Coffee folks who are taking umbrage at the criticism also are trying to sell us something, aren't they? So it's hardly one-sided.

I've had Illy, but by the time it gets to me, no matter how carefully packaged it may have been, it's stale. So I'll reserve judgement on that since I've never been to Italy and had it with any semblance of freshness. I really only care about how the coffee tastes to me. What interested me about the article is the cultural differences and the very real questions about what parts of traditions are of value and what parts may be disposable, or at least malleable (although those are questions that are raised in my mind and not really touched on in the article as such).

ethiopie wrote:I like to discuss espresso, but don't you think this is over the top? It's the kind of statement that makes discussing espresso difficult, if not impossible.

It's just my opinion, as I quite explicitly said. You are free to disagree. If you prefer Italian espresso, I am happy for you. It's the 'cultural imperialism' as well as the ignorant generalizations and hyperbole in Giorgio's articles that I find insulting, not that he doesn't like american-style espresso, which would be fine. It sounds like we're more or less in agreement on this point. How's that for making discussing espresso difficult?

GVDub wrote:But the American Specialty Coffee folks who are taking umbrage at the criticism also are trying to sell us something, aren't they? So it's hardly one-sided.

Sure. I suppose the real point is what Chris said: Milos knows Italian espresso and not American espresso and presumes to judge it based almost entirely on a handful of experiences in NYC shops. Whatever he or anyone else is trying to sell, he's not trying to learn about American espresso, he's taking potshots at it based on bad shots he's gotten (which sucks, sure) rather than making an honest effort to engage fellow professionals and really get his head around what Americans (and, heck, the rest of the specialty coffee world) are doing. It's just bigoted straw-man hyperbole at that point. It's misleading consumers about a competing product to advertise what you're selling.

shadowfax wrote: It's just bigoted straw-man hyperbole at that point. It's misleading consumers about a competing product to advertise what you're selling.

Uhm, wow... It could be, but it could also be a bit of the cultural ownership that Chris spoke of, combined with the hearsay nature of the articles. I've had the press get it so wrong so many times that I tend to give any quoted person the benefit of the doubt right out if the box.
That said, my response to a buddy, and on bX, was to compare what I might fond my reactions to an international cheeseburger and fries competition. You absolutely know that we'd gig a Chinese guy for sprouts and mushrooms, the French guy for arugula and gruyere, and the Dutch and Belgians for the mayo with the fries.
'Cause the cheeseburger and fries that we're so fond and proud of is from a bowling alley, or a corner dive diner, with some tattooed blue-collar hash-slinger putting it together from muscle memory.
And that's Milos' cultural viewpoint on espresso.

I'd actually love a cheeseburger with arugula and gruyere, and probably one with sprouts and mushrooms too. I'll leave the fries and mayonnaise to others, but that's just me. I don't think Americans have the right to rigidly define the cheeseburger as something greasy from dive diners, nor do I think Italians have cornered the market on the exact definition of espresso. That's cultural imperialism, which goes hand-in-hand with bigotry. Definition of bigotry: "A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, irrationality, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs." IMO it's right hand-in-hand with the idea of cultural imperialism (not ownership) Chris Tacy wrote about, so I am not sure what you're disagreeing with.

Straw man: "A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To 'attack a straw man' is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the 'straw man'), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position." This is exactly what Giorgio has done by going to a few coffee bars and judging American espresso by this subset. Why not judge it (and its international counterparts who are doing the same type of things) by the shots that bested the Italians' at the WBC for several years running now? If Milos were criticizing consistency in the American café (which is part of what he's doing), get me on that train. I'll have a list of complaints, and I'd readily agree from my small experience and from things I've heard from people I trust—American cafés need better training, even the ones that are reputed to be quite good. Top US roasters know this well and try to be very big on training, but that's still a work in progress. If Milos had stopped there, and just complained about this, I'd be fine. But he's sprung from this to a criticism of American espresso vs. Italian espresso. It's unfair and illogical (cf. the above fallacy).

As to the "hearsay" nature of articles, IMO that is a common defect that you find in articles rather than part of their nature. The fact that so many are full of hearsay is something to be upset about. If you're a journalist and you can consult Giorgio Milos, but not (take your pick of) Geoff Watts, Peter Giuliano, Duane Sorenson, Mike Perry, Mike Phillips, Chris Tacy, one of the proprietors of the businesses that were criticized by Milos in his article... what's the point? Hearsay is for internet forums and tabloids, not respected publications. I understand no one is perfect, but to write a whole article about American espresso and fail to include the perspective of the purveyors of it? I mean, it's one thing to some extent when it's editorial written by Milos (from The Atlantic), but the Salon article? That's just a failure to do your homework. It's not an article to bring people into a discussion or issue, it's to feed someone one side of a story: an advertisement. Sure, all too common today. But I've heard some people say that that's really unfortunate.

So, I don't get it. Why do you seem surprised by my word choice?