P.S. As I write this, the overall average works out to be 3.36 on a 6.0 scale.
(115 votes, with a total point value of 386.5)

zin1953 wrote:Interesting, Chris. Initially, I would never have guessed that you would rate your shots so low, but with more thought, I suppose that's inevitable. After all, you (along with a handful of others here) are a professional, versus the vast majority of participants on this site who are true amateurs. Professionals have a greater experience in tasting, whether as a judge in competition(s) or just as they evaluate the shots they themselves pull as well as those made by others.

As an example... I pulled 10 shots of Hairbender this morning.
Of them - 4 were what I would describe as "acceptable to serve were I working at Stumptown", 4 were "in the right direction but not servable" and 2 were "undrinkable" -- all in my opinion of course.
None were shots I would have been proud to serve were I at Stumptown.
But if I were to guess... the one taster who didn't have a lot of exposure to Stumptown would have rated the best shots as Excellent or close to that -- while the one taster who had a ton of exposure to Stumptown would have rated the best shots as Good (and I would have rated the best shots as Average).

It all comes down to how high YOU think the bar is.

malachi wrote:It all comes down to how high YOU think the bar is.

Right! I agree completely. This is what I was alluding to (and you expressed it much better than I) when I was talking about people in the wine trade rating wines "lower" than consumers -- their bar is set considerably higher. In part, this is due to experience and the sheer number of wines (or in your case, espresso shots) tasted; in part this is due to the knowledge of what can be achieved, but wasn't.

As has often been said before, if the shot one thinks is a "god shot" becomes the norm, the standard for a "god shot" is raised.

malachi wrote: . . . if I were to guess... the one taster who didn't have a lot of exposure to Stumptown would have rated the best shots as Excellent or close to that -- while the one taster who had a ton of exposure to Stumptown would have rated the best shots as Good (and I would have rated the best shots as Average).

And I'm sure I would have been the one to rate them Very Good to Excellent . . .

Cheers,
Jason

You guys make me sick, with your "Vivace" and "Stumptown", and third wave shops wall to wall with slayers and custom espresso blends and USBC's...

Seriously, not even gonna rate mine. I don't have enough experience, and just look at my gearlist. EVEN SO, with the same coffee the "shops" in Anchorage are using in LM's and Cimbalis, with my HB at home, I pull better shots ON AVERAGE, sinkers included! Ok, that's a slight exaggeration, but not much. I already would rather drink my own than go out for a cup.

I need to go on a coffee tour of the west coast, and get some palate training. Or, maybe I should just stay here in my ignorance and bliss, happy with shots you guys would dump.

John

furthur wrote:...Or, maybe I should just stay here in my ignorance and bliss, happy with shots you guys would dump.

Who said that "these" guys would dump your shots? Do not sell yourself short. Just as you do not know what their shots taste like, you do know how good your shots really are in relation to "these" guys shots.

You are asked to rate your shots, but you are allowed to rate them according to whatever else you can use as a reference. If you like yours better than any shop around your "neck of the wood" than it is a good start and an indication that, either you like a very particular type of espresso or you produce shots better than the average small coffee shop.