I don't think that you'll ever get total agreement here. I know that there are some people who enjoy drinking coffee right out of the roaster with zero rest. That's when it tastes best to them. Other's will not drink the coffee for 2, 3, maybe 4 or more days to allow the coffee to rest. There's always been a hazy belief that coffee needs to rest and then it starts to stale. Where does resting end and staling begin? What if the taste you prefer is after two weeks of "resting?"

When I started roasting almonds between coffee roasts, I noticed that the almonds tasted best-to me-after a day of rest. They were good right out of the roaster, but they tasted better, roastier the next day. I prefer to give my coffees a couple of days rest, when I have the luxury and many highly acidic coffees I can tell peak at 3 or 4 days rest and then the flavors change. I've got a Honduras and a Tanzania coffee I roasted on the first that I believe have started to lose some of their sweetness and brightness, but they still taste pretty good. Just not at their peak, to me. I've also had some Sumatrans and Monsooned Malabar blends that taste better with more rest.

I consider the rule of 15s a guideline. Certainly, picking up coffee from a supermarket where it has had four or more months of "rest" after roasting in less then ideal circumstances is something to avoid, at least for me.

ethiopie wrote:Am I the only one to find this a bit judgemental? Somebody else wrote (I'm quoting out of context a bit here) "Subpar quality beans benefit from a long rest. The defect taste is reduced as the coffee ages."

When I'm writing 'judgemental', I'm not writing about the fact that for someone a certain bean is "subpar". That's a matter of taste.

Why else would anyone bother with blending? If the blended result is no better than a single available bean, there is no comprehensible other reason to both with blending than that.

ethiopie wrote:
Coffee is a heavily processed product. It's harvested, stored, roasted in many different ways, aged 5 days (and not 10), you grind it to a certain particle size (but not to another), you push (exactly!) 89 °C water through it at a certain pressure (but not another!), you take a 19 g dose (and certainly not 14 g!), etc, etc.

In certain circumstances this is described as "getting the best out of the bean". However, in other circumstances this processing is called "masking defects" - when a bean gets better if it's a bit "stale".

I don't read all the threads, but I've never seen a thread that screams "defect" when a premium SO actually tastes flat when you take a 15 g dose and 91 °C water.

And your point is?

ethiopie wrote: Aren't we always "masking defects" when we are processing coffee? And what's wrong with masking defects? Before it's Champagne, it's actually a quite horrible wine. Making Champagne out of it is certainly masking a defect. So what?

Where did you read that? "quite horrible wine" is quite an overstatement. The grapes, mostly Pinot Noir and Chardonnay, are grown in an area a bit far north of where they are known to make excellent still wines (which is in the Burgundy region, a bit to the south of Champagne). As a result, they would struggle to mature and often would not do so in some years if given that opportunity. Instead, they are picked at an earlier level of physiological maturity, to be vinified in a process designed for less mature grapes. This is by design, e.g. the viticulture fits hand in glove with the vinification; they are parts of the same whole thing. They did not start out with horrid wine then found a way to make it drinkable by turning it into Champagne. It is all part of a very much intentional process.

ken

ethiopie wrote:Am I the only one to find this a bit judgemental?

Probably. I drink almost nothing but blends and was not offended. But, Ken left out the most important reason in the industry for blending: to control costs and flavor profiles as the taste, availability and price of different coffees change from crop to crop. In the trade this is known as "managing your blend."

Mayhem wrote:Over here in Sweden high-end roasters most often recommend you let their coffees rest 10-12 days after roast before consuming, sometimes even longer.

Ok folks, I know that this topic has been discussed many many times, but I am willing to believe that there is some truth behind the statement above.

Some time ago in this thread Imported Italian Espresso? I got the following answer from Chris Tacy:

malachi wrote:There are few (if any) coffees that are optimal after more than 10 days post roast.
The majority are optimal between 3 and 6 days post roast.

And I really don't doubt that statement.

However, when going to Tim Wendelboe's webshop he recommends for his current espresso 6 to 8 days of resting at the minimum (some time ago he had a coffee that with 7 to 9 days even). He explicitly makes the point that it is crucial to wait that long.

When I had me Square Mile's Winter Espresso (this winter), they also told me resting this coffee would be especially important.

So, what is the conclusion from that? Is it possible that (at least some) folks in northern Europe simply prefer a different style of espresso that may be considered a minority style from the US point of view? Why not? I wouldn't see a contradiction here.

Or is it just easier to pull shots when the coffee has rested. That would mean that for an average consumer it would be preferable to wait to get the optimum, but not for an expert.

I'd really like to hear your opinions about that, because, when I started reading this forum, I also got the impression that people consider freshness to be the most important thing (in the sense of a few days).

Most espresso benefit from it. Just taste a 3 days old espresso and a 8 days old. World of difference. Doesn't mean it's bad at 3 days, but if I had the choice, it's obvious.

When the coffee is very fresh it produces a lot of crema, it's harder to pull because of the puck is expanding so much and the shot seems to have very tight aromatic.

Letting it rest will "loosen" up the aromatic, the acidity will be less overwhelming and sweetness will come through.

For filter I found it a bit less like a necessity, I usually drink it until 6-7 days and then freeze it.

I find I can drink some espresso blends I roast as soon as 1 -2 days - and enjoy their liveliness.

Howard

another_jim wrote:If people inflexibly dose the same way all the time, and use the precisely wrong grind adjustments to compensate, they will be making incompetent shots: overdosed and ground much too coarsely when the coffee is young; and underdosed and ground too fine when the coffee is old. Their lack of understanding means they will find the coffee only works inside very precise "freshness window."

This is true, up to a point, especially if one needs to consume a quantity of coffee that exceeds what can be consumed within several days to a week. The result almost certainly will be acceptable espressos throughout an extended "life period."

If on the other hand one is familiar with a given coffee and one studies how it evolves, over time, with the dose adjustments that Jim suggests, one likely will find that there was a period of time when the coffee was better than during the rest of this "extended life period." For me that period, when most coffees are at their respective "bests," tends to last no longer than 3-5 days, although it almost never starts on day 1, and seldom ends much after day 10. These are subjective time periods that reflect my own personal taste, those coffees I roast and drink, and how I dose (generally in the 14-16 g range).

Rather than constantly adjusting my grinder to accommodate the progressive decrease in flavor that occurs in coffee as it ages, I prefer to use my very cold freezer to enable the storage of quantities of freshly roasted coffee that cannot be consumed within a relatively tight time window, per this older thread Better Espresso thru Freezing.

ken

The rest period of the Coffee, is accordingly to experienced and passionate roasters I talked to, largely dependent on the way it was treated during and after roast.

In the scheme : "get in the bags right after the roast and the cooling", this is often true that more than a week and half after roast offers a sensible difference in taste.
But when degassing has been done in a specific way, subtle aromas can keep up for a month in sealed impermeable bag.

What I observed from reading on this great forum, is most of micro and artisan roaster in US and canada uses aggressive roasting profiles, aggressive cooling and no rest periods for beans. This ensures their beans to age pretty quickly, and that is verified in practice by the reports here and there.

There's also two other things that may explain the freshness dogma, IMHO :

Phenomenology : None or very few real blind tests (has defined in international ISO norms) has been done and released here on staleness. So the Dogma seems to have been based on personal observation from few passionate people. Since their are well regarded coffee fans and experts, newcomers in the espresso world refers to them, their skills and their saying, they don't question it and evangelize it.
So a rule is born. Example : once I posted here that I drank Black Cat 10-12 days after roast (Shipping from Chicago to France); someone suggested I should throw them away because of staleness (without tasting). That would have been a great loss
(Same phenomenon exits for High Dose and flat temperature profile.)

Marketing: There is surely also a interest of this dogma for artisans and micro roaster. 15 years ago this market was really small in America and for the third wave roasters freshness was a way to sell their products against renown giant - mainly Italians. Selling fresh, very fresh, coffee was the most prominent advantage over Italian roaster. Because they couldn't be beaten on the experience, marketing, skills sides at that moment.
It also helps business in the way it doesn't require to have resting silos (stock) ; if coffee is packed just after roasting, it allows to start a business with minimal estate investment.

Ken has some interesting points that will help me develop that resting is also a skill a good roaster could develop, Here we go :

Ken Fox wrote:Coffee is a food item. While there are a few food items that benefit from aging, there aren't many and even among those that do age well, most will only do so under certain conditions that are conducive to being aged well. Usually these conditions include "optimal" temperature and humidity.

This assumption is very true, but misses also one precision, it also relies on specific skills from the craftsman. See below with your examples.

If one takes wine as an example, most wines for sale in the world will not benefit from aging, and among that small percentage that will, the conditions need to be right, with cellar-like temperatures and ample humidity.

If ones want to produce wines that will age well, it should be from the start (selecting varieties of vine, terroir, processes during growing, harvesting methods, stocks, etc...). Stocking conditions are just the end of that chain, and are on the consumer side.

Another example might be cheese. Once again, most cheeses are made for immediate consumption and those that will benefit from aging need to be aged under the right conditions, which aren't all that much different from those given above for wine.

Ken, you know France well and I am sure you have enjoyed very good cheeses here. And you must know that most of the cheeses made here are better weeks after their packaging. Why? Because they have been designed for it!

Try a real Camembert (Raw milk, no heat treatment, processed in small farms,...) Eat it two days after making and you will throw up. But eat it when it starts to be smelly and 'Coulant' weeks after, eat it at the right temperature with the right bread, no wine (Most of red wines are not suitable with this cheese, only blood aromas) and you will enjoy what it is all about.

The Conté can stay up to 2 years in cave 'à l'affinage' and you can eat it weeks after it has been sold to you, and you will enjoy it more and more. Same applies for Reblochon, Brie, Abondance, etc.. all raw milk cheeses. The cheeses with taste and aromas.

Some meat benefits from aging, at least for a short while. Again, it must be done right, or one gets spoiled meat and or potentially dangerous bacterial contamination.

It is well known by top restaurateurs that the best beef meat is the one that has matured from 30 to 45 days in cold chambers. With the appropriate process and skills it offers the softer and tastier meat, and is absolutely safe.


So your example are very pertinent when producers, farmers etc... have not designed their product to age well.
One of the reason is because for mass production it is not possible. And it is hard to find people with the skills to allow those tricky processes to end well.

I think this applies to coffee and roasting/aging techniques.