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.

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!)

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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....