This is a great discussion and no doubt this conversation will evolve for many years. It deals with the philosophy of consumption as well as the mechanics. I wanted to add some discussion around what we are actually calling "single origin".

There are very few coffees which would really qualify as single origin in the context that is being discussed here (comparing to a blend). Any coffee from a coop is nearly certainly going to be a blend of different cultivars, farms, growing conditions, harvest, prep and milling. There could be dozens to hundreds of farms involved. From some coops, it would be difficult to verify that a specific lot was even from the same growing season. Coffees from the same "farm" (deep relationships of years of building trust notwithstanding) will often be blends from neighboring farms where cashflow will dictate the moves between farmers. Even where farms are not blending, very few farms are selling (I should probably say that very few roasters are buying) lotted, single cultivar beans. What about a farm that added 20% caturra and 15% catuai cultivars to their bourbon planted lots (physical lots) to "improve" the coffee notes and increase the per acre yields?

This is important because somewhere along the supply chain, somebody cupped this "bean" and adjusted proportions of one component or another to enhance some characteristic or mute another. At this point, this coffee has now become a blend. Most folks posting on HB realize that if you have 2,000 farms in 11 different micro-climates growing 8 different cultivars in a single geographic region, you are going to have an enormous variation in farm by farm characteristics in the cup.

Does this mean that a great coop like the Poço Fundo coop in Brazil is producing rubbish because their "single origin" coffee is actually a mixture from 31 farms and 6 different cultivars? Or does it simply mean that, like most things in life, the color gray has more relevance than either black or white? How about those Bagersh coffees from Ethiopia? The Idido Misty Valleys and their cousins? It would be hard to deny the greatness of those coffees but are they truly single origin as most roasters would sell them? Certainly, they are not from a single farm and they are definitely not a single cultivar. The amount of truly non-blended coffee making it into retail bags is probably coming from fewer than 100 farms (its probably a fraction of this) with the trade relations to get the beans to a roaster.

So at the end of the day, if most coffees (the overwhelming majority) sold - even to the pickiest of HB aficionados - are actually blends, doesn't this really narrow the scope of this discussion?

Consistency, I find to be an interesting term when it comes to farming, prep. and consumption. As a grass grazed farmer of lamb I had minimal control of the terroir from year to year. Rain, sun, temp. will determine what the soil releases and what the taste will be. I can control my management that I do the best I can in every way consistently. I think this would also hold true for a coffee farmer. Except in the occasional extreme weather/pests/harvest situations a good farmer on good land and best practices will produce quality.
I can also try to have as much control of the processing and aging and delivery of the lamb even when done off farm as possible. This is where the vacuumed and grain pro handling of coffee at origin has helped an often weak link in the chain. Once in the hands of the best Roasters the quality can be maintained. A good Roaster can determine whether a coffee can be worthy as a SO and can put together various blends for various reasons. I care much more about consistent high quality in the chain than I do consistent taste in the cup. Industrial foods are known for consistency of everything but not so much about the highest qualities of the base ingredients, I have little interest in many of them. I would only grab a cup of DD when I'm on unfamiliar turf and fear the cup of draino at an unknown stop. I want consistent high quality but I find little value in consistent taste in fact I find it somewhat a negative and generally bores me quickly. With this I have no favor to SOs or blends.

OkcEspresso wrote:
So at the end of the day, if most coffees (the overwhelming majority) sold - even to the pickiest of HB aficionados - are actually blends, doesn't this really narrow the scope of this discussion?

I believe there is a point to made here, however I think it is very much overstated. Anyone who has personally dealt with coffee in green form can tell you that although there is some variation among beans in the green coffees they buy, especially with dry processed beans, there is a lot of homogeneity as well. I'm sure there are some subtle variations from farmer to farmer, but if you compare, for example, a Brazil Yellow Bourbon to a an Ethiopian, they would be visually distinguishable by a 2 year old. Even if you take a washed Ethiopian, a 3 year old could tell those green beans from a Brazil.

So perhaps the point being made here is that we should be talking about SOs generically more as if they were like wine appellations, than as if they came from a specific vineyard (e.g. comparing "Alsatians" to "Cote du Rhones" rather than comparing "Alsatian Reislings" to "Chateauneuf-du-Papes). But even here the point is overstated because the more typical and desirable the single origin, the smaller the producer pool, the less variation one finds among the beans, and the higher is the quality. When we talk about sought-after SOs we are not usually talking about coffees that have so many constituent parts that they have lost their character. With those sorts of variatals the point being made is valid, but I don't hear people touting those sorts of coffee for use as SOs in any event.

ken

Ken Fox wrote:All sorts of assumptions are made, and the person posting it has no evidence or proof to support any of it.

And this was opportunity for you to provide hard evidence but...

As one who often resorts to wine analogies when speaking of coffee, I have to say that Jim's post

another_jim wrote:I think coffee blends are more like cocktails and brand recipes then like wine blends.

makes a good deal of sense.

Further, Ken, I think it is a mistake to speak of Bordeaux or Châteauneuf-du-Pape as the "obvious comparison" to espresso blends. So, too, is it a mistake to think of SO espresso in term of varietal wines.

Rather, if we do indeed insist on espresso blends as a wine, I think that a non-vintage Champagne blend is a more apt analogy -- very rarely do roasters speak of the "vintage," the year of harvest of the beans. And yet, certainly the weather of any given year will affect the quality of the raw material -- whether it's grapes or coffee cherries. And the goal with each batch of non-vintage Champagne (or a n.v. Tawny Porto for that matter) is to be as identical as possible to the previous bottling.

As for varietal wines -- and sticking to those made in the U.S., as this is where you and I are both based -- Federal regulations merely mandate a 75 percent minimum content for a varietal wine. Thus, most U.S. varietal wines can, at least -- and in many cases, are -- be blends.

However the initial analogy to cocktails also falls a bit short.

Perhaps an espresso blend is more akin to a blended Scotch whisky, and an SO akin to a single malt (though, clearly, a single malt is based less upon terroir).

The cocktail analogy is an interesting one, however, because it includes the bartender, just as making espresso and espresso-based drinks involve the barista (home or otherwise). With very few exceptions, most wines are consumed as is, meaning that the bottle is opened and served; nothing, apart from possible aging, is actually "done" to the wine itself by the consumer. Spirits, on the other hand, are sometimes served straight, whether neat or over ice, and sometimes are made into cocktails.

The barista -- home or otherwise -- has in his or her control a number of different variables that will affect the quality of the shot. These are more than just dose and temperature, but encompass much more -- including the type of machine and grinder . . .

Back to the (strict limitations of the) original question, "Espresso Blends; Why Bother?" -- the most obvious answer is "because they taste good great to a great number of people."

And isn't that enough?

Cheers,
Jason

There is an elephant in the room that is not being addressed in this discussion, but it does need consideration. The "elephant" is the dose of coffee being used to make the shots.

In practice, almost without exception, the famous high end ("marquee") blends one reads about and tastes are designed to be "updosed." I'm sure Chris will disagree with me on this, but it has been my own observation, that these types of blends we talk about here are usually dosed at 18g and above (frequently as high as 20, even 23g). This produces an effect in the cup that you either like or dislike, independent of the quality of the coffee. Heather Perry is wont to say in her web videos that one should "use more coffee" because "more coffee means more flavor." This is the prevailing view among those in the "3rd Wave" coffee movement, especially when it comes to blends.

Now I'm sure there is the odd blend out there that is designed to be used at a lower dose; Vince Piccolo of 49th Parallel in Vancouver told me last year that they design their blends to be used at around 16.5g. While still an "updose," at least that is not as large an updose as most marquee blends are typically used at. But this is exceptional.

If you are used to drinking updosed shots made from blends, then you are used to certain tastes and impressions that are likely going to stick with you when you attempt to make espresso from single origins. If you are a roaster or cafe owner, this is probably going to influence which beans you chose to use for Single Origin espresso, and also how you roast them. You probably will be someone who likes the sort of flavors you get when you extract a lot of coffee into one cup of espresso. So be it.

If you don't like the flavor sensations of espresso made from a LOT of coffee in the PF, if you, like me find these flavor impressions to be more like an "assault" than an enjoyable experience, then your preferences in SO coffees are going to be different than what these roasters and cafe owners are going to provide you with. One thing I have not encountered in these high end cafes is the simultaneous use of updosed blends (designed to be updosed from the git-go) with subtle lightly roasted Single Origins that taste good at lower doses (which I'll define here as 14 - 15.5g). This would be like trying to find a glass of Alsatian Riesling at a brew pub. They just do not mix in my experience.

I think one of the reasons that there seems to be a lot of confusion about the differences between SOs and blends in this thread (and elsewhere) is that there are basically 2 flavor sets that different people are looking for (which I'll define as "subtlety" vs. "Power"). The people that prefer "powerful" espresso, such as served by the marquee roasters and cafes, are comparing similar offerings in SOs that don't taste like the lower-dosed SOs that people like me might like. In a sense we are discussing tangerines and oranges and kumquats as if they are all the same thing, but even though they are all citrus fruits, the resemblance stops there.

ken

OkcEspresso wrote:...I wanted to add some discussion around what we are actually calling "single origin".
...
So at the end of the day, if most coffees (the overwhelming majority) sold - even to the pickiest of HB aficionados - are actually blends, doesn't this really narrow the scope of this discussion?

Ken Fox wrote:So perhaps the point being made here is that we should be talking about SOs generically more as if they were like wine appellations, than as if they came from a specific vineyard

So, what is a single origin coffee? I personally thought, in my complete lack of knowledge, that it was coffee from a specific geographic location. To me that was a LARGE region. Not down to a single tree or farming patch of land but more to the level of Cooperatives.

tekomino wrote:And this was opportunity for you to provide hard evidence but...

Let me just add a +1 to this and assure you that you are the author of the assertions and that Ken called you out on them. The burden of proof is on you in my opinion.

Dennis,
There is evidence in for example what CoffeeKids are doing, it is possible because of cooperation and willingness and dedication of involved people in the industry.
+1 what Nicholas & others said on this.

I wish I had more opportunity to try blends... I should have been born in America

Ken Fox wrote:There is an elephant in the room that is not being addressed in this discussion, but it does need consideration. The "elephant" is the dose of coffee being used to make the shots.

I will disagree with you on this. I agree that what you are writting about the difference in taste preference and habit that will impact your views on the matter is probably correct. But for my part, I am discussing the whole thing with the same "Lower" dose style (14-15g) shots. Sure I will try the occasional updose but always find that lower dose are more to my liking.

I do not think that dose is a criteria in whether to bother with blends or not. Dose selection or dialling will make any coffee (SO or Blend) from good to bad and vice versa.

I didn"t know that the Epic had been designed for optimal at 16.5g shot. I always ended up at 15-15.5g. Maybe I always missed out or I like it lighter....?