HB wrote:good sensory judges can distinguish between their personal preference and a well-explained standard of an exceptional espresso

Again, an example from wine judging: One of my least favorite wines from California is off-dry blush wines (think "White Zinfandel"), yet I personally love dry rosé. These are my personal preferences, but as a professional judge, I still NEED to be able to taste blush wines, to be able to distinguish a well-made example from a flawed one (or even one that is merely "good"), and to be able to score the wines as objectively as possible. (See my final paragraph below.)

coffeefrog wrote:This (Dan's comment above) reads like standards trumping personal preferences, and that makes me nervous, whose preferences are being encoded in the standards?

Herein lies the rub. You have every right to be nervous, BUT . . .

Yet again, because I judged wine professionally for over a quarter of a century, it's easier for me to illustrate this using examples from the wine trade . . . and, hopefully Greg, you know something of Australian wines.

Barossa Valley Shiraz is quite different in character than the Shiraz from the much cooler climate found in the WA's Margaret River, so tasting a Peter Lehmann Barossa Valey Shiraz will be a very different experience than tasting a Vasse Felix Shiraz from the Margaret River. Both can be excellent. Yet there is little doubt that the majority of the world, when asked to describe the "typical" Aussie Shiraz, thinks of and describes an example from the Barossa. In a sense, that is the "encoded standard."

So, too, is the "big, over-blown Cabernet Sauvignon filled with gobs of hedonistic fruit" -- to use the cliché that describes the wines (seemingly) favored by the American wine critic Robert Parker.

This does not exclude a Vasse Felix Shiraz, or a more elegant, leaner California Caberent, from getting high marks from judges or critics.

In the world of coffee, some people may not (as an example) prefer the intensely dark roasts popularized in this country by Alfred Peet (see Peet's). They may prefer the lighter roast known in some circles as "Northern Italian." Indeed, despite the popularity of Starbuck's, I would imagine (not being a professional coffee judge) that more professionals prefer the lighter Northern Italian/Ticino roasts -- the exact opposite of "Charbux." Yet a judge needs to be able to evaluate all sorts of coffees . . .

This would apply, too, to evaluating blends which are all Arabica as well as those containing varying levels of Robusta. Or, despite a personal preference towards espresso made from a blend, a judge must still be able to evaluate SO coffees. Indeed, to be able to appreciate the distinctions between (e.g.) a true Kona coffee and a true Mocha from Yemen . . .

There may be an "encoded standard" that objectively describes (or attempts to describe) the perfect espresso, or that describes the perfect Mocha from Sa'ana . . . but the evaluation is made by individuals with different and distinct taste buds in their mouths, not by a computer or unfeeling, unseeing scientific instrument. And thus, IMHO, it is impossible to eliminate all subjectivity.

Cheers,
Jason

sweaner wrote:The tongue can only taste 4 tastes. The rest of the taste experience comes from olfaction. Just talk to someone who has lost the sense of smell.

Whether it's sweet, sour, salt, and bitter, or one accepts the so-called "fifth" taste (umami*), you are absolutely right: it's all in the nose -- we can distinguish over 10,000 different olfactory scents, and even this pales in comparison to dogs . . .

Cheers,
Jason

* FWIW, the fifth taste is universally accepted within the wine world.

Wow, what a diverse discussion

Who would have ever thought coffee would bring Aristotle and Plato in to coffee tamping techniques

Well here's a thought. Drinking California French Wines and Drinking the same wines with French Origin

Did you guys know that there are lots of Roasters in Italy, who make "Italian Blends" and try comparing them to American Roasters take on Italian Blends.

For instance this Well known roaster in Torino with Outlets in many towns in Italy ??
http://www.caffepalio.it/contatti.htm

I wonder how their Italian Brand compares with American Roasters of so called Italian Brands ??

What would the Italians think of YOUR taste buds ?? hmmmmm

We always talk about Italy as the "source" for inspiration of good Cappuccino's or Caffe Latte after all they were invented in Italy. And Italy Coffee machines are the best.

coffeefrog wrote:I was rephrasing another_jim. Wittgenstein was a bit like that in his early years, but he got over it.

{start OT}
I think the older Wittgenstein was wrong as often as the young one. It's just as implausible for an infinite number of carpenters asking for an infinite number of hammers to get a performance of Hamlet, as an infinite number of traffic judges pointing at an infinite number of toy cars getting the text. In essence, he went from being an eggist to being a chickenist in things linguistic.
{end OT}

But he did get one thing right in his 2nd phase, when he insisted there was no such thing as a private language. If preferences are indeed private and subjective, then the Romans had it right with de gustibus non disputandum, and we are wasting our time discussing espresso. If we are not wasting our time, and preferences can be discussed, then they are not private or subjective.

So the productive argument is not about standards versus no standards, but about which (or whose) standards. For coffee, I'm recommending a standard based on skill and effort all along the supply chain. But I'd be happy if people used any standard of their choosing as consistently and clearly as possible rather than just reporting their raw likes and dislikes.

another_jim wrote:That doesn't mean that good bridge players are better than poor ones or old maid players, but it does mean they are enjoying themselves more.

that's quite the assumption to make, and i think it gets at the heart of the "problem" here. how is this statement founded? evidence or assumption? i know you're not trying to sound elitist, but dang if that doesn't sound elitist. if you swap "better" and "enjoying themselves more", the statement sounds more reasonable.

the "problem" as i see it, is that connoisseurs can never believe that other people don't cherish the (fill in the blank) they do. but to go as far as to say that they don't enjoy themselves as much as the skilled/experience/refined person is just plain crazy. i'm terribly uncompetitive at games and sports, but i have a GREAT time while losing badly. but you're saying if i played against a skilled player, i would enjoy myself less than the other person? i don't think anyone has the right to claim that in general, unless you are secretly hiding an Enjoyometer

another_jim wrote:Again, to say "I like it because of MY preferences," is to say "thou shalt not question what I do."

this is probably only true for the people you claim are "tasting correctly." if someone likes one food over another, there is a reason, whether or not they can explain in your vocabulary---it 's because it tastes good to them. maybe if you just asked them why they thought it tasted good, you wouldn't see it as a cop out on refining their palate. most of us would probably be happy to explain why we like something.

you obviously have a very refined palate for coffee, and you have friends that do too, and it seems you want everyone to share in the enjoyment you get from good coffee and be able to communicate it.
maybe the thing to do is stop claiming people are tasting incorrectly (because that can never be proven), and instead give them the tools to describe what they are tasting. i wouldn't assume that i could talk to you in a meaningful way about the flavor of espresso any more than i could speak a foreign language to a native speaker. but if i said, hey this tastes nutty, then you can say, well is it almond, hazelnut, etc.....then the conversation can start in a meaningful way.

Bluecold wrote:I can't take people who believe japanese people have magic tongues capable of tasting 5 flavours and that every taste is a combination of 5 flavours serious.

if its any help on this matter, peoples of cultures that have diets composed highly of starch (i.e., rice) produce significant more of the enzyme amylase then people that don't, which might account for tasting things differently.

another_jim wrote:If preferences are indeed private and subjective, then the Romans had it right with de gustibus non disputandum, and we are wasting our time discussing espresso. If we are not wasting our time, and preferences can be discussed, then they are not private or subjective.

i smell a logical fallacy (though its been over 10 yrs since my logic course!)....if our time is well spent discussing trivial (private and subjective) matters, doesn't make those matters any less trivial (public and objective), it just means we like wasting our time

someone please correct me if i'm wrong on this

I'm not quite sure where to jump into this fray, but here's my attempt.

First of all, we have to distinguish certain objective factors involved. There are or are not certain chemical properties of the coffee, and different individuals have varying biological capacities to register these qualities. What this means at a basic level is that there are different flavors in the coffee (whether we want to talk salty, sweet, sour, bitter and umami or some other descriptors) and some people will be more or less able to detect and describe both the components and their balance.

Second, different people have different levels of training and experience to detect all of these different and very objective qualities of the coffee. So we might have well trained individuals with less biological capacity better able to detect these qualities than an untrained person with lots of biological potential. But of course, biological capacity being equal, training does matter.

Putting those two issues aside, assuming we have a group of people with more or less equal capacity and training, they should be able to identify the various flavor components and overall balance of those components of a given coffee, more or less in agreement.

Separate from that, is whether they LIKE those flavors or combination. One person may enjoy blueberries, while another doesn't. One person may like chocolate covered bacon, while another finds it repulsive. It's more complicated than this of course. Sometimes, I like like blueberries and sometimes I don't. It depends on a number of things such as what they're paired with, my mood, the people I'm with, the music I'm listening too, how much I've had them recently, etc.

But yet another point, that I think has been suggested here, but not discussed much is that people can also recognize what most people like. They can also recognize what most learned people like. OR they can arbitrarily come to an agreement about the things they all like and make that a standard. Of course, it might also be the case that someone doesn't like something but wants to be a part of that group so badly that they convince themselves to like it. Regardless, there is some ability to set a standard and recognize whether something meets that standard whether you like it or not.

All of these elements come into play when tasting coffee. When I'm at home or think about what I want, it's usually more of a subjective reckoning with what I'd LIKE at that moment. When I write my blog or what I think is happening with judges at competitions is more of the latter - an agreement about whether a coffee meets certain agreed upon standards. Of course these standards are always shifting and changing (and being heavily discussed on the internet). I think though that these last two points, LIKES vs. AGREED upon standards are probably one of the biggest areas of conflation and confusion around coffee taste.

Cogito ergo Mmmm.

itsallaroundyou wrote:i smell a logical fallacy (though its been over 10 yrs since my logic course!)....if our time is well spent discussing trivial (private and subjective) matters, doesn't make those matters any less trivial (public and objective), it just means we like wasting our time

someone please correct me if i'm wrong on this

If you went out and polled 1,000,000 people at complete random, I would guess the VAST majority would think spending thousands of dollars on equipment in the search for great espresso (and the discussions around it) are a complete and total waste of time.

Probably the same as asking people if spending 100,000 on a car is worthwhile (and talking about fine automobiles).

sweaner wrote:The tongue can only taste 4 tastes. The rest of the taste experience comes from olfaction. Just talk to someone who has lost the sense of smell.

Yes, true. But since most people taste with their tongue and nose it is ridiculous to claim that their are only 5 different flavours. I do not know anyone who lost their sense of smell.