De gustibus non est disputandum is the wrong conclusion to draw from this. Clearly people learn how to taste, and do so from people and other figures they respect. That does not mean taste is subjective, just that it is learned.

Advertisers have an interest that children learn their taste from sources they control. Since the public has no interest in preventing bad taste, they are allowed to proceed. We do have a slight public interest in making sure kids know, for instance, that the sun is a star, not a painting in the sky by Snap, Crackle, and Pop. So, for the most part, scientists write science text books, and not the marketing department at Kelloggs.

thanks jim. What you say makes sense. As a reader of reviews i always try to identify what the reviewer's likes and dislikes are, as compared to mine so that i can understand his recommendations and choices.

jasonmolinari wrote:Regarding Dolce, both Jim and Chris seem to surprised a little that this coffee can be so good, even though it uses non super-premium coffees, ...

I don't really understand this. Isn't what we are doing all about the flavor and taste of the finished product? Ultimately who cares if the beans used are subpar if what it produces is above-par?

First of all, the answer to your question is "no." A good reviewer does not just say "that was amazing" or "this sucked." He gives you background and a deeper understanding of the subject.

Second, these beans were not just "non super-premium," they were apparently non-premium, non-specialty and arguably sub-standard. Not only is that something of a revelation, if it is true, it is directly contrary to the sourcing claims the vendor makes on his website. So, not only was this information review-worthy, it was probably news-worthy.

Marshall wrote:First of all, the answer to your question is "no." A good reviewer does not just say "that was amazing" or "this sucked." He gives you background and a deeper understanding of the subject.

Second, these beans were not just "non super-premium," they were apparently non-premium, non-specialty and arguably sub-standard. Not only is that something of a revelation, if it is true, it is directly contrary to the sourcing claims the vendor makes on his website. So, not only was this information review-worthy, it was probably news-worthy.

Marshall, is your "no" answer to my question that everything we do is about the flavor?
If it's not about the coffee flavor to you (whatever your coffee flavor preference might be), what is it about? Why do you make coffee if not to enjoy the taste?

Marshall's response is clear: "A good reviewer does not just say 'that was amazing' or 'this sucked.' He gives you background and a deeper understanding of the subject." Please, let's focus on substantive issues and skip the semantic parsing. Thanks.

jasonmolinari wrote:If it's not about the coffee flavor to you (whatever your coffee flavor preference might be), what is it about? Why do you make coffee if not to enjoy the taste?

The conundrum we both speak of is actually somewhat implied herein.
Are we looking for "the coffee flavor"? Or are we looking for "the flavor of the coffee"?

A statement in cooking that's often repeated is "the dish is only as good as your worst ingredient." This is the philosophy of many leading roasters. Couple it with "espresso is not a flavor, it is a way to prepare coffee" and you can encapsulate the philosophy of leading coffee folks.

This philosophy has been embraced by many people outside the roasting community. Jim and I are examples of this. Given that both of us believe this to be true - it's important for us to disclose this belief to provide context to our reviewing.

The Dolce flies in the face of all of this belief.
This would not be a shock in and of itself. The shock is that the Dolce ignores all of this - and produces good tasting espresso.

thanks for your thoughts Chris.

jasonmolinari wrote:It seems that preconceptions are getting dangerously close to obfuscating a clear unbiased review. Are you telling me that if i gave you a CoE that tasted like crap, you would prefer to drink that over a poorly prepped coffee that made a killer espresso?

Of course nobody is saying this. We are doing our best to evaluate the selected espresso blends in an honest and straightforward fashion. But you're right, preconceptions alter your experience. There are plenty of examples in wine tasting, and coffee tasting is very similar.

My preconceptions suggested that Dolce would be a finicky blend, and an examination of the beans reinforced this. Instead, I found a classic Northern Italian blend that was easy to enjoy. Not everyone agreed. There's been reasonable consensus in this review of espresso blends, but some striking differences as well. Dolce is perhaps the best example of the latter.

In addition to preconceptions, "de gustibus" is highly influential in evaluating coffee. Certain chemical constituents in the complex concoction of espresso may trigger a strong negative reaction with your particular taste buds. This is more likely to occur with poorly prepped blends than meticulously prepped SO COE beans, but could happen with any coffee. Remember, some people simply cannot stand the taste of coffee in general. I doubt this is merely a case of uneducated palates.

In fact, a good poll subject might be:
Have you ever had a WTF response to a highly regarded espresso blend? As in, why the !@#$% can't I pull a decent shot with this blend, when everyone around me considers it boss?

In fact, three of the blends reviewed (Toscano, Dolce and Belle) have caused some definite debate among reviewers, with at least one person having major issues with each of these coffees.

Taste is personal. And this is the power of peer reviewing.

RapidCoffee wrote:In fact, a good poll subject might be...

Here you go: Ever had a "what?!?" response to a highly regarded espresso blend?