malachi wrote:Did they explain the logic behind preferring deliberately staled coffee?

Staling is a term that applies mainly to bread and similar products. It is a process of dehydration and chemical rearrangement of the starch. Coffee doesn't really "stale" in that sense. Volatile aromatics can be lost; oils can go rancid; probably a myriad of changes occur over time. Not all are bad.

You wouldn't call a dry aged Wagyu steak or a 12 year old Scotch "stale" would you?

I'd rather not debate semantics on this, but for at least the last 30 years, "staling" has been used in the coffee business and is in fact a standard term.

Staling, in the context of coffee, is used to refer to the changes in flavor of the coffee that result from exposure to heat, moisture, light, and most of all to oxygen. The process of oxidation is one of the two primary drivers for what is called "staling" along with volatilization.

Over time, oxidation and volatilization together result in a coffee with "stale" flavors (due to oxygen attacking both aromatic components and lipids) and degraded aromatics (due to volatilization).

An enormous amount of research has been performed by large coffee businesses into staling, largely focused on ways to slow the process. Feel free to go and read the research reports if you would like.

I apologize if your comment came not from ignorance but from a wealth of knowledge on the subject. I assumed the former given your comment about lighter roasts going bad when rested for multiple weeks. The fact that they often improve with that treatment is well known. Were you simply being flippant about light roasts?

malachi wrote:Did they explain the logic behind preferring deliberately staled coffee?

jpender wrote:I apologize if your comment came not from ignorance but from a wealth of knowledge on the subject. I assumed the former given your comment about lighter roasts going bad when rested for multiple weeks. The fact that they often improve with that treatment is well known. Were you simply being flippant about light roasts?

To be clear, I did not say that lighter roasts "go bad when rested".
I will repost my question for clarity.

So the belief is that lighter roast coffees prepared as espresso should be treated differently than lighter roast coffees prepared as brewed coffee?

Resting or staling light roasts, especially for espresso, has been a very mixed bag for me. Incompetent light roasts, with grassy flavors, do get better, because the grassy flavors fade. They are never particularly good. Well done light roasts lose their aromatics over time, just like very other kind of roast; and this is never good except for robustas and funky DPs (again it's a question of staling away a flaw).

Finally, bright flavors can mellow out. This for me is the biggest head scratcher. Good bright flavors, say a sparkling Kirinyaga, are still best right after roasting. If the flavors are better a register lower, why not just roast a little darker in the first place? Also, the "mellowing" sometimes creates cutting bitter flavors, like fruit rinds, that I find objectionable, although many like them.

I won't talk here about the whole culture of light roasts that seems more puritan and ascetic than hedonistic. Not acceptable are the simple pleasures of a well done coffee, that's just too easy. Instead, one must go through great effort and expense to extract something indescribably sublime and elusive from something barely drinkable. Succeed in this, and you are among the coffeedom elect. Needless to say, I don't get it; maybe with more research.

another_jim wrote: I won't talk here about the whole culture of light roasts that seems more puritan and ascetic than hedonistic. Not acceptable are the simple pleasures of a well done coffee, that's just too easy. Instead, one must go through great effort and expense to extract something indescribably sublime and elusive from something barely drinkable. Succeed in this, and you are among the coffeedom elect. Needless to say, I don't get it; maybe with more research.

Phew!!! So I'm not the only one?!?! Thanks Jim!

another_jim wrote:Instead, one must go through great effort and expense to extract something indescribably sublime and elusive from something barely drinkable. Succeed in this, and you are among the coffeedom elect.

Let's remember the #1 admonishment in the site's Guidelines for productive online discussion, namely Be respectful. In my understanding, that includes the avoidance of [lightly?] mocking the preparation choices of others. Thanks.

Scott Rao had an interesting IG post a couple of weeks ago about resting very light (too light) roasts.

I asked him about it at his recent NYC master class and he told a story about finding some month+ old beans in a suitcase during a period of extended travel and was quite surprised by how sweet and juicy it was. The beans were forgotten because they were initially a bit underdeveloped and passed over. But fast forward over a month and they were outstanding.

I have found this to be the case as well. I just underdeveloped a nice washed Ethiopia, but instead of tossing it, I just labeled it and left it for a few weeks. I'm serving it this weekend at the bar and it is most delicious.

another_jim wrote:Resting or staling light roasts, especially for espresso, has been a very mixed bag for me. Incompetent light roasts, with grassy flavors, do get better, because the grassy flavors fade. They are never particularly good. Well done light roasts lose their aromatics over time, just like very other kind of roast; and this is never good except for robustas and funky DPs (again it's a question of staling away a flaw).

Finally, bright flavors can mellow out. This for me is the biggest head scratcher. Good bright flavors, say a sparkling Kirinyaga, are still best right after roasting. If the flavors are better a register lower, why not just roast a little darker in the first place? Also, the "mellowing" sometimes creates cutting bitter flavors, like fruit rinds, that I find objectionable, although many like them.

I won't talk here about the whole culture of light roasts that seems more puritan and ascetic than hedonistic. Not acceptable are the simple pleasures of a well done coffee, that's just too easy. Instead, one must go through great effort and expense to extract something indescribably sublime and elusive from something barely drinkable. Succeed in this, and you are among the coffeedom elect. Needless to say, I don't get it; maybe with more research.

I feel like I've read this same post from you on several different threads now, and ignoring the snark, it's just not my experience. Maybe 5+ years ago when all I could find were battery acid light roasts I would've agreed wholeheartedly, but today there are competent roasters on the very light end of the spectrum (or I am just more aware of the good ones) that are producing clean fruit and floral forward coffees with minimal roast character that extract well as espresso. Just as important is there are a multitude of grinders and burrsets that are available today that do a great job of handling these very light roasts. I do find it does require being willing to stray from traditional extraction parameters. In my experience, a longer rest period does often (not always) allow for a more expressive and flavorful espresso. But, to the point you keep trying to hammer home, I don't find it requires any great effort or towel wringing. I don't even use any kind of complicated flow control. Just good coffee, appropriate gear, and different parameters (ratio, contact time, etc).

And it all comes down to taste preferences, no? It's fine with me if you don't like the more extreme end of the light roast spectrum. Hand me a bag of dark roast coffee and I'll either be drowning the shots in milk or sugar, but if the saka thread here is any indication, there are plenty of people who love roasts that I find offensive to my palate. I don't understand why some people get so put out by what others enjoy.