another_jim wrote:The proviso I'm trying to add here is not about how long to let ground or whole beans stale (to call it either degassing or staling according to good/bad taste claims is more BS). Instead it is that this takes out the harsh edges. Last year's Esmeralda (at least my over casually stored lot) is not aging well, and is developing a tarry edge; the Barrington Bar Blend is angular all over when fresh ground. Staling only works when smoothing out a flawed coffee, and it comes at the cost of flavor clarity. However, since 99% of coffees are flawed in one way or another, and the minus of a flaw almost always trumps the plus of clarity, this can be a useful technique.
I understand, I had when I read the whole thread first time already. But I guess due to my inserting "degassing" issue into my post you probably missed my point alltogether. Even if this technique works, it will be useful mainly for very fresh roasted coffee. What we will do then? Take that not so well aging esmeralda (or any other beans with this kind of problems) measure greens, roast small batches every 2-3 days and pre ground to get the desired taste? How we will schedule ourselves? How will I know if I'll want to drink coffee after 12 hours or 30min? Will we have enough time to enjoy coffee while we're trying to cure every flawed bean on the way by freshly roasting them then pre-grounding then storing those pre-grounds properly? Then there are those not so much flawed, aging well coffees.. We will build another schedule for those, different cups/bags, different storing conditions, a separate grinder? Even thinking of these makes me go "hmmm". That's why I'm simply saying T.J. was right, roast properly, store properly, let beans degas properly, do everything possible and if you still find the taste unacceptable then accept there's a problem with that coffee. That's what "I"
will stick to, and I'm not saying do as I do
, I'm saying I just don't understand the extra effort, why?
another_jim wrote:If people drink what's acceptable, rather than what tastes good to them, they deserve what they get. This is especially true when someone tells them what tastes better and what tastes worse without further description.
Mr. Schulman, it's undeniable
that your posts are taken very seriously by readers (no disrespect to other posters, can't name all those invaluable members one by one here, there's just not enough space). When I say "people will/may follow" I'm not only referring to entry level enthusiasts, or curious readers, but also I'm talking about intermediate ones too. Have you recently take a look at Alexa world wide
traffic ranks? It's now way beyond "If people drink what's acceptable, rather than what tastes good to them, they deserve what they get."
I was not trying to imply anything or trying to prove your efforts wrong in any way. I just mentioned about my concern cos when there are too many people involved things get out of control easily. Here is a clear explanation of what I "actually" meant with my previous post -->
Foodandwine.com has a traffic rank of: 57,908 (at USA FW rank 10,708 / consider they are "professionals" )
Coffeegeek.com has a traffic rank of: 74,957 (at USA CG rank 20,622 )
Home-barista.com has a traffic rank of: 316,298 (at USA HB rank 155,561 / consider HB is only 3 years old but already 1/4 huge as CG)
I can't remember how many times I read about wine and robert parker in various coffee forums.. so lets look at there also --> Erobertparker.com has a traffic rank of: 78,226 (at USA RP rank 23,058 / wow! CG readers beat his!
Resistance is futile. You will be caffeinated!