jgriff wrote:Clearly, you are questioning it. But hey, what's the fun of these forums if we can't have a lively discussion, eh?

Justin

In theory, any individual varietal is a "Single Origin."

I know not what Stumptown is doing with single origins or any other sort of coffee. For the record, I have never been to a Stumptown cafe, and in fact haven't been to Portland in recent memory, other than for changing planes in the airport. None of my comments are to be taken as if they were directed at Stumptown or any other particular cafe.

I roast light, to emphasize varietal character. I am not currently roasting any coffee beyond the first several pops of 2nd crack.

I am not familiar with the coffee you reference or how it would taste as a single origin and at what roast level. There are an unlimited number of variables one can use in the process of making espresso. It is true that as you increase the roast level you can probably get away with using more coffee in the basket than you could use at a lower roast level.

What is clear to me however is that fine varietal coffees are generally not enhanced by roasting darker; they lose more and more of their distinguishing qualities with each increase in roast level, so it generally is not going to be a winning strategy to increase roast level on a good single varietal in order to be able to cram more coffee into the basket.

That is my experience with SOs, at least.

ken

I'm not debating the validity of your opinion about preserving characteristics of any given bean through roasting so they can be tasted in the cup. I'm also not on about Stumptown for any particular reason other than I live in Portland and it's what I'm familiar with and use. I didn't reference a specific coffee, nor do I expect you to know what it tasted like if you haven't sampled it. You said:

These coffees, competently roasted, do not make good updosed shots.

My point was just that I have sampled good coffees (such as Honduras Finca El Puente and Guatemala Finca El Injerto--now I've referenced specific coffees), roasted by folks who (presumably) know what they're doing, prepared in an "overdosed" fashion and pulled as shots by knowledgeable baristas. I found the espresso to be very good. Naturally, this is only my opinion. You are every bit as entitled to your own. I just wanted to clarify my point: SO espresso can make good updosed shots.

Justin

jgriff wrote:I'm not debating the validity of your opinion about preserving characteristics of any given bean through roasting so they can be tasted in the cup. I'm also not on about Stumptown for any particular reason other than I live in Portland and it's what I'm familiar with and use. I didn't reference a specific coffee, nor do I expect you to know what it tasted like if you haven't sampled it. You said:

These coffees, competently roasted, do not make good updosed shots.

My point was just that I have sampled good coffees (such as Honduras Finca El Puente and Guatemala Finca El Injerto--now I've referenced specific coffees), roasted by folks who (presumably) know what they're doing, prepared in an "overdosed" fashion and pulled as shots by knowledgeable baristas. I found the espresso to be very good. Naturally, this is only my opinion. You are every bit as entitled to your own. I just wanted to clarify my point: SO espresso can make good updosed shots.

Justin

Assuming that this is a good SO for espresso, I would be surprised if it wouldn't make even better shots at a lighter roast level and dosed in the range of 14g.

If you go back to your earlier post on what Stumptown is doing with SOs, to the extent that they do anything with SO espresso, I don't get the impression from your post that this is something they are very much interested in nor do much experimentation with (e.g. they do basically the same thing with it that they do with their blends, if I read what you wrote correctly, although they pull a little shorter).

What I can tell you from my own experimentation is that I have yet to find an exception in my own experience where roasting darker and updosing a good SO produced a better SO shot than roasting lighter and dosing in the range of ~14g. And I have done a fair amount of experimentation with this.

ken

I can't speak for the folks at Stumptown about their interest in SO espresso. I know of at least one local cafe that usually has Hair Bender as well as one SO to choose from. Stumptown's own Kyle Larson competed at USBC using an SO. I imagine they know what they're doing and it's a safe bet they've experimented a bit, but for whatever reason don't have an interest in offering it at their own cafes (or simply haven't yet). I think their roasting philosophy agrees with yours in that most of the "normal" coffee they offer is roasted fairly light. But they do occasionally offer SO shots during tastings (along with the same coffee prepared in a press) as an example of another way to experience a fantastic coffee, and as an education to the public.

As Chris stated, you are entitled to your opinion. And of course, this is all a matter of personal taste. There is no single "right" answer.

Justin

jgriff wrote:I can't speak for the folks at Stumptown about their interest in SO espresso. I know of at least one local cafe that usually has Hair Bender as well as one SO to choose from. Stumptown's own Kyle Larson competed at USBC using an SO. I imagine they know what they're doing and it's a safe bet they've experimented a bit, but for whatever reason don't have an interest in offering it at their own cafes (or simply haven't yet). I think their roasting philosophy agrees with yours in that most of the "normal" coffee they offer is roasted fairly light. But they do occasionally offer SO shots during tastings (along with the same coffee prepared in a press) as an example of another way to experience a fantastic coffee, and as an education to the public.

As Chris stated, you are entitled to your opinion. And of course, this is all a matter of personal taste. There is no single "right" answer.

Justin

The major problem, as alluded to by Jim Schulman in his earlier post (as quoted by Chris) is that the clientele of even the best cafes overwhelmingly orders milk drinks. SO espresso is only "worth the effort" if you are going to drink it straight. When less than 10% of the customers order straight shots, you reach a point of diminishing returns, and the effort expended is minimally rewarded.

There is a myth out there that home users take their cues from the marquee cafes and their staffs, that from these cafes comes received wisdom. I've learned a lot from various professionals in this field, but almost none of it came out of any of these cafes.

ken

Ken Fox wrote:The major problem, as alluded to by Jim Schulman in his earlier post (as quoted by Chris) is that the clientele of even the best cafes overwhelmingly orders milk drinks. SO espresso is only "worth the effort" if you are going to drink it straight. When less than 10% of the customers order straight shots, you reach a point of diminishing returns, and the effort expended is minimally rewarded.

There is a myth out there that home users take their cues from the marquee cafes and their staffs, that from these cafes comes received wisdom. I've learned a lot from various professionals in this field, but almost none of it came out of any of these cafes.

ken

The SO could be used in milk-based drinks just as easily as a blend. Either it's going to be in a drink where the customer is more interested in the volume of milk and the sweetness of the flavors added and won't really care as long as it has caffeine, or it will go in a shorter volume drink for someone who can appreciate it. There are SOs that work well with milk and can be very enjoyable. James Hoffman used one (or at least it was single estate) for his capps in WBC competition.

I'm not saying there is one right way of thinking or going about it. In fact, that's the only reason I'm arguing at all. It's just like updose vs. downdose (or normal dosing). It's all opinion and based on personal taste. I can see both sides of the argument.

I'm a home user and I do take cues and have received wisdom from local cafes. I've also learned a lot from reading forums like this. Some people take cues from the Italians. Strong statements about the "right" way of going about espresso are exactly the wrong way of going about things, as is being a strict disciple of Schomer and being closed-minded to other alternatives.

Justin

jgriff wrote:The SO could be used in milk-based drinks just as easily as a blend. Either it's going to be in a drink where the customer is more interested in the volume of milk and the sweetness of the flavors added and won't really care as long as it has caffeine, or it will go in a shorter volume drink for someone who can appreciate it. There are SOs that work well with milk and can be very enjoyable. James Hoffman used one (or at least it was single estate) for his capps in WBC competition.

I'm not saying there is one right way of thinking or going about it. In fact, that's the only reason I'm arguing at all. It's just like updose vs. downdose (or normal dosing). It's all opinion and based on personal taste. I can see both sides of the argument.

I'm a home user and I do take cues and have received wisdom from local cafes. I've also learned a lot from reading forums like this. Some people take cues from the Italians. Strong statements about the "right" way of going about espresso are exactly the wrong way of going about things, as is being a strict disciple of Schomer and being closed-minded to other alternatives.

Justin

It's a free country (or world); everyone could or should do as they see fit.

The point I've tried to make in this and other threads is that we home users, especially in N. America, were sold a bill of goods when it comes to espresso preparation, e.g. that it is hard to do, requires a lot of fancy maneuvering with baskets and tampers and what have you, when in fact if the machines are used with doses, for which they were designed, the process is very simple and produces a very balanced beverage with little effort.

If you, or others, feel that jumping through a bunch of hoops in order to force 9bar heated water through 19g of coffee is worth the effort, I say, more power to ya.

ken

Ken Fox wrote:It's a free country (or world); everyone could or should do as they see fit.

The point I've tried to make in this and other threads is that we home users, especially in N. America, were sold a bill of goods when it comes to espresso preparation, e.g. that it is hard to do, requires a lot of fancy maneuvering with baskets and tampers and what have you, when in fact if the machines are used with doses, for which they were designed, the process is very simple and produces a very balanced beverage with little effort.

If you, or others, feel that jumping through a bunch of hoops in order to force 9bar heated water through 19g of coffee is worth the effort, I say, more power to ya.

ken

Then I'd say this is a very unenlightened response.

While I am quite public about my view that normale dosing is preferable, for a variety of reasons, I am not so stubborn as to imply that it is the best technique for every coffee.

Espresso can be as simple or as complex as you make it.

Jasonian wrote:Then I'd say this is a very unenlightened response.

While I am quite public about my view that normale dosing is preferable, for a variety of reasons, I am not so stubborn as to imply that it is the best technique for every coffee.

Espresso can be as simple or as complex as you make it.

Espresso machines, at least the ones I have had any experience with, were designed to function with a certain approximate dose of ground coffee. The dose for which they were designed is the dose that has been used in Italy, where the beverage was born, over many decades. This design is not just a matter of the size of the portafilter being used, including how much coffee it will comfortably "hold." Rather, it is the entire design of the machines which encompasses their hydraulics, flow rates, diffusion disk designs, and many other things I haven't mentioned.

Anyone who doubts this has only to experiment with different doses and to observe the behavior of the equipment when one puts varying doses into the portafilter, be they 12g, 14g, 15g, 19g, or 22g (or whatever). There is a dose range, which I'll arbitrarily label as 12-15g or thereabouts, where the machines will make "effortless" shots, where the water flows, where very little or no "basket preparation" is needed, where the coffee cake does not normally channel, and where the extraction proceeds properly without much operator intervention.

This is a fact. A plain and simple fact. One has only to spend a few hours in cafes in Italy and to experiment for one's self with dosing and it is like observing the behavior of a vacuum cleaner; put the right bag in it, and it sucks up the dirt, put a grocery sack in there instead of the filter bag and it does not. It is really that simple.

Along came David Schomer and some others, who went to Italy and came back with some strange variant of this procedure but who did not modify the equipment used, only their technique. And, in order to make espresso using grossly more coffee than the dose for which the equipment was designed, one has to do all sorts of weird stuff like tamping 30pounds or using convex tampers or concave tampers or other stuff I've tried to forget, and then you get this other beverage, but it is not classic espresso.

You can take this huge quantity of coffee, a 50% "updose" of coffee if you will, and cram it into a piece of equipment that was designed for the lower dose, and you can jump through all sorts of hoops (see paragraph above) and you can, if you are lucky get something to come out the spouts (or bottomless) PF without spraying an emulsion of coffee and crema and whatever all over your kitchen, and you can call it whatever you want. You might call it an improvement on espresso, "great coffee," whatever it is that gives you pleasure. You might even prefer it, to which I'd say, once again, "more power to ya."

But it ain't espresso, it most certainly is NOT the beverage for which the machine was designed. And we could argue over the semantics of it but to be honest I don't have the patience and if you like it I hope you will drink it, just don't serve it to me!

It is nonsense, and I repeat here, utter nonsense, to claim that you should be changing the dose you use with each coffee on the order of 50% for equipment that was not designed to operate in this way. And who is telling us to do this? What exactly are their credentials, their qualifications to define "taste" for us, the mass of people out there trying to make espresso in their homes? These are people who come out of a culture in which this sort of stuff is accepted as dogma, who have worked in places where this is what you do. You have only to read Chris's post from a few days ago where he challenges an old post of Jim Schulman's regarding updosing. Chris says updosing is only a recent phenomenon; this is because he thinks that 16 or 18g is normal and 20g is updosing, when in reality all three of those doses are significant updoses, something we have done in cafes here in N. America for a very long time.

It is my opinion that 12 or 14g of coffee is more than enough to make a balanced concentrated 1.0 or 1.5oz beverage, and that tastes good and showcases the coffee being used. If you use more coffee than this and underextract it in order to make a similar sized beverage with the larger dose of coffee, you will not, in my opinion, have a balanced beverage, even if your comparison is to some dull blend of boat coffee that was roasted 3 months ago in Italy. Neither is good, and you don't fix one problem by creating another.

You can have the best of both worlds by taking the Italian TECHNIQUE, and applying it to the best single origins out there, ones that can stand on their own for making espresso.

This, the above, is my opinion. I do not buy into the idea that there are coffees out there that should be dosed to 20g and put into current equipment to make a more concentrated/underextracted facsimile of espresso. You may like how this tastes but I assure you that I do not, now that I've tasted the difference and experimented with this quite a lot since first experimenting on this after reading the observations of others I respect.

Sorry you are not satisfied, but this is how I feel.

ken

I hope that Mr. Fox is finally done with his preaching. We get it, you only want 12 grams of coffee for your espresso, that's fine. I may even agree that sometimes I like a small dose(not 12 but maybe 14) for certain coffees. Also, coffee that I've had in Italy, IMHO was a bit lacking, almost everyone I saw there put sugar in it. I'm just saying this cuz' if a person reading all this is just learning, then maybe a lower dose is a bit easier. Just know that there are different flavors, and other characteristics in larger doses that may be more enjoyable for some people.

Ken please keep enjoying your 12 grams, I'm happy for you that you have mastered the art of espresso. I myself still learn from coffee, and enjoy the process, and the different taste qualities

Jepy wrote:I hope that Mr. Fox is finally done with his preaching. We get it, you only want 12 grams of coffee for your espresso, that's fine. I may even agree that sometimes I like a small dose(not 12 but maybe 14) for certain coffees. Also, coffee that I've had in Italy, IMHO was a bit lacking, almost everyone I saw there put sugar in it. I'm just saying this cuz' if a person reading all this is just learning, then maybe a lower dose is a bit easier. Just know that there are different flavors, and other characteristics in larger doses that may be more enjoyable for some people.

Ken please keep enjoying your 12 grams, I'm happy for you that you have mastered the art of espresso. I myself still learn from coffee, and enjoy the process, and the different taste qualities

I actually use 14.

You can say what you want. My point is that N. American Cafe dogma, which has been crammed down the throats of home users for as long as there was online coffee, is wrong. It is flatly wrong.

The dogma is that you use the equipment with doses for which it was not designed, jump through all sorts of hoops such as tamping 30lbs, put up with channeling and other signs of poor extractions, and consider this to be an improvement on "espresso." It is not.

Real espresso is a beverage made with a particular type of extraction that with typical equipment demands a dose in the range of what it was designed for. You can do whatever you like as a variant on that process, but telling newbie types that they should emulate this bastard N. American cafe process is simply wrong.

Let them learn how to use the equipment in the way it was designed and if they want to experiment later to find what they prefer, more power to them.

ken

Ken Fox wrote:The dogma is that you use the equipment with doses for which it was not designed...

As Jim has pointed out in another thread, different machines respond differently to dosing levels. His suggestion that the Cimbali is one of the machines that does not respond well to updosing may be one reason for the strength of your conviction over this point?

Some coffees most definitely taste better with a 15.5-16gm dose than to a 14gm dose on my E-61 Brewtus II. In fact, I can even generalize as far as to my machine and taste to say that coffees that are typically described as chocolatey, sweet, heavy, thick...(like Black Cat, in other words) are better at 15.5-16gm than at 14. I don't dose higher than around 17gm, so maybe this is not high enough to fall outside 'design spec', but this thread makes me suspect that if I had a machine that was less tolerant of a higher dose, I would not enjoy some coffees to the extent that I do.

I do agree that a 20gm dose leads to taste imbalances. This level of dosing does not suit my tastes, with any coffee that I have had.

Mark

Ken Fox wrote:You can say what you want. My point is that N. American Cafe dogma, which has been crammed down the throats of home users for as long as there was online coffee, is wrong. It is flatly wrong.

And I agree. My website reflects that very problem— we had been preached at that you should completely fill the basket, level, tamp, and try to make espresso. Those methods were all I read when I started, and I passed it on. I have been under-dosing for a few months now, and it does create better results.

As Ken stated, there are a lot more factors involved other than X-ounces and X-grams of coffee involved in the creation of espresso. Some we have control over and some not so much, depending on what machine you are using. I learned that in a hurry with the VBM Super. For example, the Silvia's pressure ramp is like a freight train compared to the slow infusion of the E-61 that begins the VBM's pull.

And, Ken, don't let the detractors wear you down- at least not any more or less than the beating of my dead horse slowed me.. My arm got sore, but I beat away!

Dogshot wrote:As Jim has pointed out in another thread, different machines respond differently to dosing levels. His suggestion that the Cimbali is one of the machines that does not respond well to updosing may be one reason for the strength of your conviction over this point?

Some coffees most definitely taste better with a 15.5-16gm dose than to a 14gm dose on my E-61 Brewtus II. In fact, I can even generalize as far as to my machine and taste to say that coffees that are typically described as chocolatey, sweet, heavy, thick...(like Black Cat, in other words) are better at 15.5-16gm than at 14. I don't dose higher than around 17gm, so maybe this is not high enough to fall outside 'design spec', but this thread makes me suspect that if I had a machine that was less tolerant of a higher dose, I would not enjoy some coffees to the extent that I do.

I do agree that a 20gm dose leads to taste imbalances. This level of dosing does not suit my tastes, with any coffee that I have had.

Mark

I have no disagreement with anything you have written. There are two issues with the extraction problems that come with updosing, e.g. those that are perhaps more obvious on certain pieces of equipment, and those that remain somewhat "hidden." The hidden ones are along the lines of "microchanneling" aluded to in a number of the posts from Jim and Andy S. having to do with their experimentation on solubles extraction. Just because the extraction problems on a given machine (like an LM) may not be as obvious as they are on another piece of equipment does not mean that they are not there. In the end it is the taste that will tell all.

As to how best to approach the idea of getting the best results out of an espresso machine, I have hoped that discussions such as on this thread would turn the debate on its head and get people thinking as to whether what has (unfortunately in my view) become common practice in marquee cafes and in N. America is really the best way to go.

The N. American/cafe approach has been to change the process, to updose and then figure out a way to get an extraction that doesn't look terrible, then to develop blends and roast styles that fit this method; this is what has been taught online as the "proper" way to do this espresso gig in the home. I have been like a lone wolf in the wilderness rejecting this approach, which is part of the reason I've been so adament.

The other approach, what I'm advocating that people play around with, is take the piece of equipment before you and use it the way it was designed to be used, e.g. with dosing that makes effortless shots. Many associate this approach with lackluster but correct coffee they have been served at endless cafes in Italy, which is what produces a lot of the knee jerk rejection of this suggestion.

BUT, if you take the process on its own terms, espresso preparation using equipment within its design constraints, AND THEN you change the COFFEE to meet the process, you get something altogether different.

So, in a nutshell, what I'm suggesting is that people take a step backwards from what they have been taught online or seen at high end cafes, and toy around with this a bit. Use better coffee. Experiment with Single Origins. Roast lighter.

If at the end of this experimentation you prefer the N.American/marquee cafe approach, so be it. Continue as you have done before, you have tried something "new" (that is really old) and learned from it.

But one thing is very clear; you CANNOT take the same old coffees and blends, roasted and blended for use in updosed shots, and expect to get good results with ~14g shots. It is not that easy. It requires more effort than that. It requires a real understanding of the whole process, plus a better understanding of coffee and of roast levels, to really explore what I am getting at.

ken

HB wrote:Thanks Ken, this has been a very interesting discussion that has benefited newbies and experienced baristas alike. However, at this point in the discussion, I believe anyone who does not fully understand the salient issues must be sufficiently thickheaded that nothing less than a Vulcan mind-meld would help them comprehend your message.

judging by some recent responses in this thread, we may need to get Leonard Nimoy out of retirement, and fast

Ken Fox wrote:judging by some recent responses in this thread, we may need to get Leonard Nimoy out of retirement, and fast

... not mention nonsense like A few hints from Heather Perry

Ken Fox wrote:This is a fact. A plain and simple fact.

Simply claiming something is a fact does not make it so.
You continue to provide your own (personal) opinion and claim that it is universally true and in fact an unarguable fact.
The only fact here is that what you are saying is purely opinion.

Ken Fox wrote:One has only to spend a few hours in cafes in Italy and to experiment for one's self with dosing and it is like observing the behavior of a vacuum cleaner; put the right bag in it, and it sucks up the dirt, put a grocery sack in there instead of the filter bag and it does not. It is really that simple.

So you're saying that home users should, in fact, learn from cafes -- but only if those cafes are in Italy?

Ken Fox wrote:But it ain't espresso

Honestly, what makes you feel that your own (personal) definition applies to the entire world?
I mean... this is some pretty incredible arrogance -- and it takes some big-a** balls to make this statement. I'm commonly considered a seriously arrogant person and I would never attempt to claim that my personal taste is espresso is not just superior -- but comprises the ultimate, universal definition of the beverage!

Ken Fox wrote:It is nonsense, and I repeat here, utter nonsense, to claim that you should be changing the dose you use with each coffee on the order of 50% for equipment that was not designed to operate in this way.

So you're saying that we should base espresso not on what's in the cup, not on the coffee itself - but rather on the engineering specs and intended use of the physical equipment?

Ken Fox wrote:And who is telling us to do this? What exactly are their credentials, their qualifications to define "taste" for us, the mass of people out there trying to make espresso in their homes? These are people who come out of a culture in which this sort of stuff is accepted as dogma, who have worked in places where this is what you do. You have only to read Chris's post from a few days ago where he challenges an old post of Jim Schulman's regarding updosing. Chris says updosing is only a recent phenomenon; this is because he thinks that 16 or 18g is normal and 20g is updosing, when in reality all three of those doses are significant updoses, something we have done in cafes here in N. America for a very long time.

Mkay...

Let me get this straight... my saying "don't trust dogma, it's all personal and subjective, any claims to universality of rules" is my telling people what "taste" is and my telling people what to do and is 'dogma' --- but your insistence that your way of preparing espresso, your perspective of espresso, your taste in espresso, your roast of espresso and in fact your very definition of espresso is NOT?!?!

Is that correct?



(on a side note... I find it ironic that I'm lumped into the "overdosing" camp. As I've noted many times, I think there is a right dose for each coffee and I've spent the last 4 days working with an espresso that rewards somewhat dramatic under-dosing. but I guess it's easier to make this about up-dosing versus down-dosing than it is to accept that it's about dogma vs freedom.)

Well, it is very nice to watch like a few of you, who probably claim themselves as some kind of coffee pros, started proving their own's against each other completely ignoring my quite definite questions, probably only for the reason that I resemble a complete coffee moron.
Oh well...
then you did not get the point of my post, did you?