How to make excellent shots with Lavazza Super Crema - Page 3

by **Arpi** on Fri Feb 13, 2009 10:38 pm

ha ha. What a joke!

This guy goes now as far as researching me in the internet and selecting things out. there is no way in hell any body can contradict these people!! they got tons of ways to prove things!! research this and research that, forget the many 5 stars, select this and that, and build a castle with piles of stuff to build desired conclusions

Really brilliant.

by **Gus** on Fri Feb 13, 2009 11:42 pm

Maybe you should enjoy your coffee and stop trying to convince everyone else it is good. :roll:

You are convinced, that should be enough. I read some of those reviews you keep referring to, 2 users had switched from Starbucks, 2 from Illy pre-ground, and 2 were using a super autos. Not exactly representative of the current audience.

RapidCoffee (John) is not doing research on you, do not flatter yourself. It takes no special memory or research to recall your post on CG regarding going beyond 90 seconds with a double tamp and extra finely ground stale beans, and then reporting that there was excellent taste with no flavor defects. That same thread also had the 180 second shot with similar taste descriptors.

People are choosing not to agree with your opinion. Not terribly surprising considering the audience and the subject matter. I would also say they are being very tolerant.

Perhaps you might consider abandoning this argument, at least with this audience. As for the 5 star reviews I would question any review that said something was perfect.

Gus

by **Arpi** on Sat Feb 14, 2009 12:09 am

2 users had switched from Starbucks, 2 from Illy pre-ground, and 2 were using a super autos. Not exactly representative of the current audience

And the many others? aren't you selecting?

and then reporting that there was excellent taste with no flavor defects.

hmmm. I haven't looked but I doubt I said 'excellent'. maybe you are adding moment to your opinion. But! I remember saying 'no flavor defect'

People are choosing not to agree with your opinion. Not terribly surprising considering the audience and the subject matter. I would also say they are being very tolerant.

thanks!

Perhaps you might consider abandoning this argument

I will gracefully do it now

Sorry if I offended anybody reading this

by **kschendel** on Sat Feb 14, 2009 12:36 am

Gus wrote:Maybe you should enjoy your coffee and stop trying to convince everyone else it is good.

I dunno, maybe you guys should enjoy YOUR coffee and stop trying to convince arpi that his is bad.

I roast my own, I have my own ideas about freshness, I won't buy beans shipped across the ocean. But I am struck by the stridency of some of the posters here. Geez, if someone likes his cup, so much the better. Is that not right? (and if you think his taste buds are crap, how is that your problem? Lighten up...)

by **cafeIKE** on Sat Feb 14, 2009 1:21 am

The Topic Title is the problem.

Someone searching "Lavazza" here who's making crap shots from Lavazza needs to know the coffee is the problem.

by **BrainInAJar** on Sat Feb 14, 2009 1:31 am

Has it occurred to anyone else that Arpi is just an elaborate troll? Someone who knows enough about espresso to pull a really weird gag on us all by claiming that 80 second single lungos of Lavazza are the pinnacle of coffee?

by **zin1953** on Sat Feb 14, 2009 2:56 am

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

There are limits to what can be reproduced here, not only for reasons of bandwidth, but also under the legal doctrine of "fair use." That said, here is what I consider a representative sampling:

Lavazza Italian "Super Crema" Espresso Whole Beans (2.2 lb bag):
4.5 stars, based on 8 reviews
Breakdown: 7 = 5 stars; 0 = 4 stars; 0 = 3 stars; 1 = 2 stars; 0 = 1 star; zero stars not an option

Selected quotes:

From a 5 star review described as The Most Helpful Favorable Review: "If you love Italian dark roast coffee, this is a very enjoyable coffee. I began drinking this coffee years ago in Italy. I love the crema that forms on the top of the cup, just like being back in Italy. I do use a super automatic espresso machine"
From a 2 star review described as The Most Helpful Critical Review: "Being a long time consumer of Lavazza Creama E Gusto which I find most enjoyable, I thought I'd give Super Creama a try.Very disapointing on flavor and fullness. For a latte I find it necessary to double the quantity in the basket and cut the milk by 80-90% so instead of a 10 oz
double, it's a single shot espresso with a dash of milk."

Lavazza Crema e Aroma Coffee Beans, 2.2-Pound Bag:
4 stars, based on 68 reviews
Breakdown: 33 = 5 stars; 13 = 4 stars; 9 = 3 stars; 4 = 2 stars; 9 = 1 star; zero stars not an option

Selected quotes:

From a 5 star review: "Lavazza makes excellent espresso which for a widely available "mass-market" espresso a huge step up from the American drek like "Starbucks" or anything found found in local supermarkets." (Please note the use of the term "mass market.")
From a 5 star review: "Just made the first pot this Saturday morning for the wife and myself. Used a burr type coffee grinder and used my drip type coffee maker." (Please note the reviewer is not talking about making espresso.)
From a 4 star review: "I use these beans in a Jura Capresso SuperAutomatic."
From a 5 star review: "Do you love the charred flavor of Starbucks at $4 a pop for a thimbleful of overpriced swill? Then you'll feel like a Mensa genius after trying Lavazza Crema e Aroma Beans. This price is genuinely a bargain if you shop around the internet. Even if you're using a $20 grinder with a whirly bird blade and a Sam's Club espresso machine, your toes will curl with a brew of these beans."

Lavazza Italian Coffee, Qualita Oro - bean, 8.8-Ounce Bags (Pack of 4):
4.5 stars, based on 19 reviews
Breakdown: 14 = 5 stars; 2 = 4 stars; 1 = 3 stars; 1 = 2 stars; 1 = 1 star; zero stars not an option

Selected quotes:

From a 5 star review described as The Most Helpful Favorable Review: "First things first: this is NOT an espresso roast coffee and the word espresso doesn't appear anywhere on the packaging. It's somewhere between city and full city roast and makes an excellent, full-bodied cup of drip coffee without a hint of any charred/burnt taste."
From a 2 star review described as The Most Helpful Critical Review: "Tried various grinds with my WEGA espresso machine. Does not have the body and character to make a good espresso beverage."

And so it goes . . .

by **peacecup** on Sat Feb 14, 2009 4:58 am

I have to admit I got carried away...and I don't even like Lavazza. But I do think there are some good Italian beans out there. The one I've used most is Molinari Bio. I think they're worth a try.

And, of course I don't mean to put down the microbreweries that attempt to make real beer. I was thinking of those that filter off half-fermented beer and bottle it with CO2. Maybe times have changed since I drank a lot of beer. Now I drink coffee in the evening!

PC

by **peacecup** on Sat Feb 14, 2009 5:01 am

BTW, I think Mark Prince did a taste test of some Italian beans, vs local BC/PNW beans a while ago. And mostly the Italian beans lost. I think he took them off the shelf, with the idea that that was what would be available to the local consumer.

by **zin1953** on Sat Feb 14, 2009 12:31 pm

That rang a bell, Jack, so courtesy of a quick search:

Battle North America vs. Italy - The Results

The results were posted in October of 2007. The coffees included in the "test" (listed alphabetically) were:

Italian Roasters:

Illy Medium (red ccan) Roast)
Lavazza Qualita Oro
Lavazza Qualitia Rossa
Pellini Aroma d'Oro
Pellini "Top" Espresso Blend
Segefredo Intermezzo
Segefredo Metropol

North American Roasters:

Allegro Coffee Organic Bel Canto Nothern Italian Blend
Counter Culture Roasters' Espresso Aficionado Blend
Ecco Caffe Ecco Organic N. Italian Blend
Ecco Caffe Ecco Reserve Northern Italian Blend
49th Parallel Coffee Roasters' Epic Espresso
Intelligentsia Coffee Roasters' Black Cat

Keep in mind this was "sparked" by a debate about Kenneth David's methodology in taste-testing coffees for his publication . . .

Cheers,
Jason

by **Arpi** on Sat Feb 14, 2009 12:40 pm

This community is a mixed pot. It is an excellent source of information if you remain distant but it has layers of social dominance. There is a dominating established group that is guided by principles of authority even when the case may be of ambiguity. I don't like this negative analogy, but it reminds my of pack mentality. It has its leaders and then a trail of followers. By the creation of 'reasoning' built upon selecting little pieces scattered through the internet, the leaders arrive to unmovable conclusions to win opinions. The victory will have a snowball effect in terms of authority. Any questions or doubts are handled by a laborious and more refined selection of information and presented with the sounded weight of an authority. Once the opinions are created and a leader stands by something, it becomes a matter of dominance by use of repetition techniques and choral agreement. The agreement to an opinion may be sometimes motivated on a social desire to belong to a group instead of true individual judgement. Other members may chose to remain quiet to avoid friction under the fear of being marked or a possible future retaliation. If it just happens that someone insists on believing his taste buds, not bowing and not giving in, name callings will soon appear (ie. troll) and an illusionary image of condescency will be built upon to strike. From here on, any attempts to be understood are futile. Reasoning is then used with an adversary purpose and its motivation is fueled by a sense of a rightfulness to save the planet (ie. prevent people from drinking Lavazza). Points of view are selected, facts are carefully selected, theories are crafted upon this selection, and an image of rightfulness becomes a weapon to convince and gain the opinion of readers like a gladiator would. The human aspects of understanding are sometimes used to control leadership. Reasoning, an invention of Parmenides, propagated through villages and courts to became the flag of Descartes, and here used degraded to convince others about the personal flavors of espresso and tongue receptors.

by **another_jim** on Sat Feb 14, 2009 1:30 pm

Arpi wrote:If it just happens that someone insists on believing his taste buds, not bowing and not giving in, name callings will soon appear (ie. troll) and an illusionary image of condescency will be built upon to strike. From here on, any attempts to be understood are futile.

Rafael, I'm sorry you're already upset by the relatively mild responses you have had so far, since I'm going to put this bluntly:

You are drinking Thunderbird out of Riedel glasses, and telling us how marvelously this improves the taste.

None of us doubt this is true. But we didn't buy thousands of dollars of espresso equipment to brew industrial swill; and so far we've been kindly suggesting that you give high end coffee a try.

Here are some of the facts:

Segafredo is a mass market coffee. They buy container loads of low grown, agro-factory, mechanically harvested, unripe, unsorted coffee from large Brasilian, Indian and Vietnamese plantations at around $0.60 to $0.75 per pound. They run it through a roasting plant where it is mechanically sorted, roasted and packed. Cost per pound is roughly $1.20, roughly the same as Folgers or Maxwell House. Around 3 months later, it arrives at your door. You are right about the staleness not being a negative. For Segafredo, it is a good thing, since the coffees are so fermented that they would taste worse if they were fresh. I know this for certain, because I've cupped many of the coffees they use.

The coffees we drink are grown in mountainous forests, they are hand picked, hand sorted, lovingly pulped and packed. They go from around $2 per pound to roughly $50 per pound unroasted. Once shipped, they are cupped and roasted by artisans and shipped fresh to us. We buy our expensive equipment, and obsess about the details, to enjoy coffees like these, not to drink swill.

Here and here are some readings from actual non-internet-herd writers.

by **zin1953** on Sat Feb 14, 2009 1:41 pm

On the contrary, Rafael . . .

Arpi wrote: . . . to convince others about the personal flavors of espresso and tongue receptors.

Many people here have said (paraphrasing here), Hey, if you like that, great! and have offered suggestions for what they consider better beans than Lavazza.

As I have long said, both here on HB, and though 35 years of being a wine writer and educator, "No one has your taste buds in their mouth but you -- and no one can tell you 'this is THE best' or 'this is THE worst'. What they can say is 'this is THE best/worst' -- for them, for their palate(s)." YMMV, as they say.

(From time to time, here on HB, when someone has made something that could be construed as a "definitive" statement, I will add "in your opinion, you mean." For most people here, "in your opinion" goes without saying, but it's good to remember/be reminded every so often . . . IMHO, of course!) :wink:

Taste is subjective, and most of the comments you've received here have acknowledged that. Some may have not acknowledged it as explicitly as others, but it's been there nonetheless.

A couple of things you may (or may not; that's up to you!) want to keep in mind:

1) You have been here for less than one month (how long you may have lurked here before joining, I do not know). No one here "knows" you, and you know none of us -- not in the way that members of an online community "know" each other over time and dozens (if not hundreds) of posts. That means there is more room for misunderstanding and misinterpretation -- on both sides.

2) You have come on HB and made some very definitive statements, both here and in another thread -- statements which the majority of respondents, it seems, disagree with. C'est la vie; we are all entitled to our own opinions. Again, I will say, if the Lavazza pleases you, this is a very good thing . . . for you! But, personally, regardless of my previous experience in the world of espresso (I've owned espresso machines since 1976), wine (I've been working in the wine trade since 1969), or driving an automobile (also since 1969), I would never presume to tell anyone else definitively what coffee to use and/or how to use it; how to make a wine or how to serve/pair it; or how to drive a Formula 1 or NASCAR racecar on the track!

My post above re: the comments that were posted on Amazon about Lavazza were first brought up by you. There is no doubt that lots of people enjoy Lavazza besides yourself, or else the sales Lavazza enjoys would not be as sizable as they are. Again, the same is true with McDonald's, Budweiser, and Gallo, but does anyone seriously believe that McDonald's hamburgers, Budweiser beer, or Gallo wines are the very best there is? No one will ever agree on exactly what IS the best burger, beer, or wine on the planet, but few would pick these three.

An argument can be made -- and I've made it many times -- that Gallo IS the best wine (and by extension, Budweiser and McDonald's, too) made in the world. No one sells as much wine (or beer or burgers), and since they are the largest selling products in their respective categories, they must be the best. Well, that's possible to argue on an objective level, but not on a subjective level where individual taste comes into play. And in all matters of taste, subjective trumps objective every time!

Cheers,
Jason

by HB on Sat Feb 14, 2009 1:50 pm

Arpi wrote:If it just happens that someone insists on believing his taste buds, not bowing and not giving in, name callings will soon appear (ie. troll) and an illusionary image of condescency will be built upon to strike. From here on, any attempts to be understood are futile.

I believe we're well into "to each his own" territory.

I have tried Lavazza and my experience did not match your "excellent shots" reports. A few years ago, I received a kilo of Lavazza from one of the HB sponsors. I packed it in Mason jars and brought it to our regular Friday get-together at Counter Culture Coffee's espresso lab as part of our occasional "mystery beans" blind taste tests. I thought it pulled a respectable espresso, something I would rate an acceptable 1.5 in competition. My colleagues were less charitable and accused me of trying to trick them with stale coffee.

The moral of this story is simple: Try a blind taste test and decide for yourself.

by **Theodore** on Sat Feb 14, 2009 4:37 pm

As I have again written,I don't like Lavazza, in the small,home, 250g pack..But I like the big boxes,which are sold for bars and cafes.
Somebody here,told me,that it is so.There are different qualities of Lavazza.

by **Psyd** on Tue Feb 17, 2009 4:41 pm

shadowfax wrote:If you enjoy it, good for you.

Great advice.
But, getting the Peet's will be harder and more expensive.
I've given up advocating all spare cash be invested in coffee and coffee kit, in these economic times. My new mantra is 'drink what you like, and be happy with its simplicity'. ; >
Almost every improvement in coffee comes with a price, both financial and in complications (go back and read that again, I *did* say 'almost', so I probably won't benefit from the listing of those upgrades that fit into neither category, thanks).
If you like the Lavazza, drink it and be happy, and share your technique with other Lavazza drinkers. If you like Folgers Crystals, please, publish your favorite recipe and technique. There will be a lot of flak from the elitist junkies, so be prepared, but publish anyhoo. :lol:

by **andtheodor** on Sun Feb 22, 2009 2:22 pm

Well, I was going to jump in on your side but then I blew out my pump and seared off my tongue pulling 5 minute ristretti of stale Italian-fast-food-robusta.

All joking aside, please do not refer to 100 years of tasting and refining technique as 'the staleness theory'. This is akin to 'young earthers' calling evolution 'just a theory'. Oils, particularly those with volatile aromatics, are prone to rancidity and staling. Rancid food tastes bad.

by **another_jim** on Sun Feb 22, 2009 3:48 pm

Aha! I never the knew the difference in evolutionary theories was that one cost $0.50 per pound and the other $5.00 per pound, with those devious Darwinists pocketing the other $4.50 as "shareholder value."

Again, this is not rocket science: crap coffee = crap espresso, always; good coffee = good espresso, sometimes.

by **mrmekmek** on Mon Feb 23, 2009 4:37 am

Off track, but I'd like to second Jim Schulman's book recommendation from a few posts above: "Uncommon Grounds - The History Of Coffee And How It Transformed Our World". I'm just reading it now. I think "Part 3 - Bitter Brews", about how coffee deteriorated as it became more of a commodity product after WWII fits this discussion about what people have been led to believe is "good coffee". This book has helped me think about the soul and history of coffee and not just about 14gr tamped at 30lbs.

by **the big bean** on Thu Apr 16, 2009 4:08 pm

wow, what a great series of messages on this seemingly unassuming topic.

I found my way to it because I have just bought a pre loved san marco 1 group and grinder and was given 2 comp bags of segafredo so I thought I'd just see what people on here thought...

Not much more from me on this topic (as I think all possible has been said....) except that I will probably not be purchasing further bags of sf... and that was before reading this topic....


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: 0.6s, max: 1.9s