How to make excellent shots with Lavazza Super Crema - Page 2

by **Dogshot** on Thu Feb 12, 2009 10:21 pm

Yes, I have had the odd lb where my regular roaster blew it (stalled the roast, or insufficient dry time) and the coffee was basically undrinkable no matter what I tried. However, I noticed that it was actually no longer "offensive" after about 3 weeks.

In other words, you can probably take any coffee, and if you let it sit long enough, it will get so stale that everything is gone.

Arpi, I am surprised that you find differences in dose and brew temp, etc. In my experience, you do anything you want to stale coffee, and it just keeps smiling that rictus grin at you.

Why do you suppose that many roasts that contain robusta have to "age" for a few weeks before they are at their "best"?

No thanks - and you don't need anything more than a moka pot to enjoy Lavazza like that.

Mark

by **Arpi** on Thu Feb 12, 2009 10:35 pm

Don't know much and I cannot formulate theories. All I can say is that tomorrow morning I'll do it again and I will try to meticulously describe the flavor and try to point out why I like it as compared to other blends. But all this 'prove' is kind off deviating my motivation to enjoy it and putting my attention in elevating my liking as correct. Whatever comes next is just going to be justifications a posteriory from my part.

Cheers

by **cannonfodder** on Fri Feb 13, 2009 1:15 am

If it suits you than enjoy it in good health. Once upon a time I thought Illy was the best thing on the planet but tastes change. I find myself looking for that unusual blend that grabs my interest for a couple of weeks then start looking for the next eye opener.

by **peacecup** on Fri Feb 13, 2009 2:04 pm

I've been really busy with the move, new job etc. so I don't have half the time I need to respond properly. I'll just say that I've had a lot very good espresso made with commercially-roasted Italian beans over the past 10 months. I doubt many of those responding to the OP have gotten a properly-sealed bag of Lavazza and made a serious attempt to dial it in and make espresso. Its the same response syndrome that any poster gets if their machine or grinder costs less than an SUV.

Really, a bunch of home baristas who have, maybe, been making espresso for an average of 10 years, think they can roundly critique an espresso roaster who's been at it for 50 years or so. When Italian beans are properly sealed they retain some level of freshness, and can be surprisingly good. Perhaps this is due to their long-term experience in blending and roasting? Kind of like the difference between English Real Ale and American microbrew, if any of you know what that means.

Ciao,
PC

PS, these Lavazza IPA cups are really some of the best espresso and cappa cups around.

by **zin1953** on Fri Feb 13, 2009 2:52 pm

Jack, Jack, Jack . . .

peacecup wrote:I doubt many of those responding to the OP have gotten a properly-sealed bag of Lavazza and made a serious attempt to dial it in and make espresso.

Let's say that you are correct, and that all the $#!++> cups of Lavazza people have had here in the States is because the bag was not "properly sealed," does that speak more to the talent (or lack thereof) of the individual pulling the shots, or does it speak more to the quality control (or lack thereof) of the bagging operations at Lavazza?

Perhaps their QC when it came to sealing bags used to be crap but has dramatically improved in the last 12, 24, or 36 months (take your pick). Do you realistically expect people who have tried Lavazza and moved on to _____________, ________________, or ________________ (pick three local coffee roasters of your choice near where you lived in the US before the move to Sweden) are going to go back?

Tell ya what I'm gonna to do . . .

The next time I run out of coffee -- which does happen from time to time when I misjudge my "order more" date -- instead of running off to buy a half-pound of Peet's (or something else from a roaster similarly convenient to my commute), I will swing by one of the local markets that offers Lavazza in whole bean and (as long as it's not a kilo), I'll check it out.

Now, moving on . . .

peacecup wrote:Really, a bunch of home baristas who have, maybe, been making espresso for an average of 10 years, think they can roundly critique an espresso roaster who's been at it for 50 years or so.

How is this any different from wine critics criticizing (e.g.) Moet & Chandon, when they started in 1743? Do they get a pass? At what point does a home barista get to say, "I think this sucks!" -- after 5 years, 10 years, 25 years? At what point does one trust their taste buds when they say "yum" or "yuck" to a cup of espresso, cappuccino, latte, or whatever . . . How it is any different than tasting a wine, or tasting food prepared by a certain chef?

Granted, Jack, making espresso is different: it's the barista (pro, experienced amateur, brand "newbie") who makes the coffee, versus pulling a cork or picking up a fork. But if you're giving the "bunch of home baristas" an average of 10 years experience, I think that's long enough for them to be able to say "yum" or "yuck" with some conviction, don't you?

peacecup wrote:When Italian beans are properly sealed they retain some level of freshness, and can be surprisingly good. (Emphasis added - jbl)

"Some" being the operative word, I should think. Hence the "surprise," perhaps? :twisted:

peacecup wrote:Kind of like the difference between English Real Ale and American microbrew, if any of you know what that means.

As a former card-carrying member of CAMRA -- yes, I do know what it means. :wink:

by **jpreiser** on Fri Feb 13, 2009 4:06 pm

peacecup wrote:When Italian beans are properly sealed they retain some level of freshness, and can be surprisingly good. Perhaps this is due to their long-term experience in blending and roasting? Kind of like the difference between English Real Ale and American microbrew, if any of you know what that means.

So, English Real Ale is a better product that travels better than American craft (prefer the term to micro) brew because the Brits have been doing it longer? I'd have to disagree.

As a member of CAMRA, a cellarman for the Real Ale Festival that had been held in Chicago, a cellarman for the Chicago Beer Society's Night (and now also Day) of the Living Ales, and one who makes at least one trip to the UK each year to drink cask ale, I have some experience with Real Ale (UK and American made). I'm also quite familiar with American craft brews; being involved with organizing numerous tastings and competitions, including the Festival of Barrel and Wood Aged Beers.

Cask ale is best within a short time of its brewing. Also, once the cask is broached, an even shorter window (3-4 days) exists for an optimal product. In contrast, American craft beer is often served as a draft product which pretty much extends its serving life indefinitely (not actually but nearly so in comparison to cask).

I'd relate roasted coffee that is properly packaged to cask ale because it has a finite window of optimal life both while sealed and once opened. The experience of the roaster (or brewery) may (or may not - think A-B Budweiser) put a better product in the package but I wouldn't necessarily expect something meant to be consumed fresh to be better if shipped around the globe than obtained locally just because the folks making it have been doing it longer. I'd think enthusiastic "kids" would be able to produce an equal or better product than the old-timers who may have gotten stuck in a rut and, all other things being equal, proximity to the production facility (i.e. freshness) wins out.

Joe

by **cafeIKE** on Fri Feb 13, 2009 5:41 pm

Arpi wrote:But I've already tried _many_ fresh and famous blends. The second I like most 'at this time' is Blackcat but only in Lattes (double basket). I am too lazy to try to convince people that know a lot!

Save a boatload of time and effort with a Nespresso and the Roma blend, not to mention about 4 grand.

by **Arpi** on Fri Feb 13, 2009 6:23 pm

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=lavazza&x=0&y=0

Then, how come people like it so much? Are they wrong? Are they uneducated? Don't they know better?

by **jpreiser** on Fri Feb 13, 2009 6:54 pm

Arpi wrote:Then, how come people like it so much? Are they wrong? Are they uneducated? Don't they know better?

Budweiser, Miller, and Coors are some of the most consumed beers in the world. Some people have determined those are what they like. Are they the best beers? Not by a longshot to me and a small but passionate segment of folks looking for something better. The same goes for coffee. Many people are happy with Folgers, Starbucks, McDonalds, Dunkin' Donuts, etc. The folks here generally want something else.

To each their own, IMO.

As was previously posted:

cannonfodder wrote:If it suits you than enjoy it in good health.

by **Arpi** on Fri Feb 13, 2009 7:07 pm

yeah, but don't those _many_ reviews contradict the 'staleness theory' I was bombarded with? If it is stale why does it have 5 stars?

Fist I post how I come up with a way which produces something I like, something that I consider 'addictive.' Then I get showered by opinions that tell me to throw the beans away because apparently I don't know better and espresso is not supposed to taste that way. Try fresh beans. The beans are stale. Throw them away. Then someone even says that if I like those espresso beans then I should not have spent $4000 in equipment??? pfff.

by HB on Fri Feb 13, 2009 7:15 pm

Arpi wrote:If it is stale why does it have 5 stars?

I assume because the writers genuinely liked it. Or they're shills. Probably a mixture of both.

by **cafeIKE** on Fri Feb 13, 2009 7:16 pm

Arpi wrote:Then, how come people like it so much? Are they wrong? Are they uneducated? Don't they know better?

People

DER

by **cafeIKE** on Fri Feb 13, 2009 7:19 pm

Arpi wrote:If it is stale why does it have 5 stars?

Same reason there are infomercials for miracle products :

SELL to the uneducated and gullible.

by **Arpi** on Fri Feb 13, 2009 8:09 pm

cafeIKE wrote:SELL to the uneducated and gullible.

Looks like they do pretty good in Italy. Aren't they educated in espresso? Isn't that flavor a 'design' flavor, designed because people like it like that?

by **ccfore** on Fri Feb 13, 2009 8:12 pm

Arpi wrote:
Fist I post how I come up with a way which produces something I like, something that I consider 'addictive.' Then I get showered by opinions that tell me to throw the beans away because apparently I don't know better and espresso is not supposed to taste that way. Try fresh beans. The beans are stale. Throw them away. Then someone even says that if I like those espresso beans then I should not have spent $4000 in equipment??? pfff.

Rafael, If you can see through all the "smoke" of the helpful direction given, what everyone is trying to do in a somewhat adversarial way I might add, is to say that in general fresh beans = better espresso. Can't put it any more simply than that. Is this 100% true all the time in every place, given all the different variables such as skill level, equipment, experience, environment, beans etc.? Absolutely not and if anyone claims this, take what they say with a LARGE grain of salt. I can't totally disagree with what you say about your coffee as I've never had the urge to try any Lavazza (now I just might) so I recognize that its your opinion, and thats fine with me for now. I wonder how many others here have tried it?

zin1953 wrote:How is this any different from wine critics criticizing (e.g.) Moet & Chandon, when they started in 1743? Do they get a pass? At what point does a home barista get to say, "I think this sucks!" -- after 5 years, 10 years, 25 years? At what point does one trust their taste buds when they say "yum" or "yuck" to a cup of espresso, cappuccino, latte, or whatever . .

To continue your wine analogy then, it is also right to expect many different "scores" or ratings on a given wine by an "expert" each given after a personal tasting and consideration of the wine. Some you agree with and some you don't. Its not an exact science and if it was it would not be as interesting and fun to try different beans, technique, equipment, etc. if you knew the result was going to be the same for everyone all the time. So Rafael, keeping doing what you like and you'll never be wrong, after all...

It is what we learn after we think we know it all, that counts. John Wooden

by **cafeIKE** on Fri Feb 13, 2009 8:33 pm

Arpi wrote:Looks like they do pretty good in Italy. Aren't they educated in espresso? Isn't that flavor a 'design' flavor, designed because people like it like that?

Comparing espresso in Italy with what we are doing here is to compare chalk and cheese.

Illy, Lavazza, Caffe Nero et al are commercial products designed to be produced in large quantities at maximum speed with minimal variation.

Artisan roasters on the other hand attempt to maximize the potential of the bean[s] at the expense of a unvarying consistency.

Love Lavazza? Enjoy it.
Expect as much interest here as preparing gourmet burgers from Costco frozen patties.

by **Arpi** on Fri Feb 13, 2009 8:33 pm

Tx Todd. I agree 100% about 'best' freshness. Yet, I don't agree about throwing the beans away just because. Which is what the staleness theory tells.

In no way I represent the Lavazza company. Nor I'll feel responsible if anybody buys Lavazza beans and don't like them.

Cheers

by **timo888** on Fri Feb 13, 2009 8:36 pm

peacecup wrote: Kind of like the difference between English Real Ale and American microbrew, if any of you know what that means.

Peacecup, I know what you mean. Back when I was a college student, I worked in a wine bar in Bath and had a chance to enjoy many a pint o' bitter in the village pubs of rural Somerset. Though I've had many a tasty American microbrew, they do not quite attain the simple perfections of British "real beer" -- as made by local breweries. I've felt the same about many American artisanal espresso roasts.

Regards
T

P.S. With the "craft" or microbrews, it comes down, I think, to an imperfect appreciation for hops; with the artisanal espresso roasts, it comes down to an imperfect appreciation for robusta.

by **Dogshot** on Fri Feb 13, 2009 9:43 pm

Arpi wrote:yeah, but don't those _many_ reviews contradict the 'staleness theory' I was bombarded with? If it is stale why does it have 5 stars?

Fist I post how I come up with a way which produces something I like, something that I consider 'addictive.' Then I get showered by opinions that tell me to throw the beans away because apparently I don't know better and espresso is not supposed to taste that way. Try fresh beans. The beans are stale. Throw them away. Then someone even says that if I like those espresso beans then I should not have spent $4000 in equipment??? pfff.

I'm perfectly happy to ""live and let live", but please recall that it was you who stated that the long-held idea that fresh coffee is better is some kind of "staleness theory" that does not hold water.

If you like stale coffee, that is one thing, and good-on-ya. But to suggest that your enjoyment of Lavazza is reason enough to conclude that coffee does not really go stale (or that staleness does not matter), and that many of the readers of your post are out to lunch (blindly following some internet meme), is to invite flak.

I don't have anything against Lavazza, or the muted mid-tones and absent hi/lows of old coffee. However, $4k of espresso equipment can help you to explore much, much more of the range of coffee. I would really enjoy reading a post from you on this thread 2 years from now.

Enjoy your equipment, and enjoy your coffee! But you'll need a much stronger refutation of the "staleness theory" than the one put forward to win me over.

Mark

by **RapidCoffee** on Fri Feb 13, 2009 10:00 pm

A couple of years ago, some joker on CG started a thread about his wonderful new technique for making coffee. No grinder needed! He simply soaked his whole beans in water overnight. Sure, the coffee was a bit lighter in color than what he was used to, but it tasted great.

Usually I'm happy to try new methods, and this even made a weird sort of sense: coarser grinds (e.g., French press) generally need longer brewing times, so maybe you could argue that a long enough brewing time would allow you to use whole beans. But this... nah.

Like the whole bean brewing guy, you are proposing several things that fly in the face of standard practice. First, championing the use of stale coffee. Second, the use of a "very fine" grind, followed by sieving the coffee grinds in a colander. Third, the use of high brew temperatures (205F). Fourth, a long brewing time (40 sec) coupled with a lungo extraction (brew ratio of 30%).

This is not a first for you. Perusing your posts on CG, I see you arguing in favor of 80 second and even 180 second espresso extractions. While I applaud your inquisitive nature and willingness to try out new ideas...

Arpi wrote:well, there is theory and then there is truth. The practical truth is that I get excellent flavor out...

When it comes to overturning established beliefs, the burden of proof is clearly upon the person bringing forth the new ideas. As far as I can see, you offer absolutely nothing in the way of proof, only a repeated declaration that this method produces "excellent", even "addictive" shots. No offense, but that's just not good enough to convince me to rush out and buy Lavazza beans, let them stale, and try to replicate your results. I have a wealth of experience suggesting that your taste buds and mine will disagree.

So enjoy your stale Lavazza and, um, interesting brewing techniques. :roll:

For now, I'm going to stick with freshly roasted, freshly ground, high quality beans and standard extraction parameters.


Contact Us	Legal disclaimer and copyright: This content and all its parts are copyrighted, all rights reserved. Content including all text and images in part or in whole may not be reproduced in any electronic or printed medium without prior permission. Home-Barista, Home-Barista.com and related logos are trademarks of Home-Barista.com, LLC. Other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. By accessing this site, you agree to the terms of service. Overall speed: fast, current page: 0.5s, avg: 0.5s, max: 1.9s