Sey Coffee - Page 4

Discuss flavors, brew temperatures, blending, and cupping notes.
User avatar
Almico
Posts: 3612
Joined: 10 years ago

#31: Post by Almico »

luca wrote:OK, I've got several responses to this.

The first is obvious - that's your opinion, and some people like roasts on the fringes - eg very light, very dark or very baked. So obviously what is to be gained for those people is the very thing they are looking for.

The second is that this comment has a "bury-the-head-in-the-sand" type unspoken assumption in it that somehow we get to choose roasters that deliver perfect roasts. In the real world, this is not the case. A really good roaster might deliver ... what? 30% roasts that are exactly stylistically as they intended them? 50%? There are a handful of roasters that I can think of in the world that do better than this. So I think that if we were sensible about talking about roast styles, we would judge roasters not by their coffees when things go right, but by the percentage that they get right and what happens when their roasts go wrong. This is where "roasting on the fringes" may have an advantage. If a roaster's roasts always tend towards too light, too dark or too baked, then their failures are usually going to fall into the realm between good and that extreme. If a roaster roasts in the "all things to all people" style (you know, where they basically perpetuate the fanciful lie that there is a "medium roast" that is perfect for everyone; it's aromatic, low acidity, high body, low bitterness; nobody can complain about anything) then their failures are usually all over the place; they will have some roasts that are too light, some that are too dark, and some that are too baked. I'd argue that if your roast failures fall into a range between one extreme, this is probably going to lead to a higher customer satisfaction rate. For example; imagine that you have a customer that hates light roasts and acidity, likes medium roasts and doesn't mind it when they are a bit darker. If we assume that a given roaster has a 1/3 success rate and they deliver two failures, when this customer buys 3 bags, they are going to be happier to receive two that are slightly darker than they are to receive one that is slightly darker and one that is slightly lighter. So aiming for an extreme may result in greater stylistic consistency in roast failures. This applies regardless of customer roast level preferences. I'm actually checking in on this thread because I've bought some Sey after a fairly long hiatus, and indeed I think we can see the benefits of this approach in play. I have a chaferote pink bourbon from them that is distinctly darker in colour than the other coffees that they have, yet it is still distinctively aromatic and I quite enjoy it, despite being overly sensitive to roast.
In my world, "baked", "underdeveloped" and "overdeveloped" are roast defects. If someone prefers defective coffee, that doesn't make it good; it makes them a poor judge of coffee. Quality is not subjective. They are not my customers.


I feel the opposite about fringe roasts. If what you say is correct (and I hope you are not) and most roasters at best can expect to be 50% successful in achieving their desired roast plan, then it would be best to stay away from the edge of underdevelopment, because a small miscalculation would result in a "bad" roast 25% of the time. That is unacceptable to me.

For example, 385*F is my low limit for drop temp for high grown, high density coffees. Some "light" coffees I take to 388*. The difference is 2 points on the Agtron Gourmet scale, 70-72. I can get away with 383 or 384 for other coffees, but the risk of underdevelopment is not worth it. My original point was that the flavors to be gained from dropping at 383 or 4 are not enough to justify the risk of a spoiled batch of coffee. There is no magic to be found at the lightest of light roasts. Quite the contrary.

User avatar
luca
Team HB
Posts: 1135
Joined: 19 years ago

#32: Post by luca »

Alan, I think this is pretty simple - we just disagree on basically everything in your post and I think you are burying your head in the sand about how common roast defects are. Different opinions, and others can make up their own mind what their own opinions are.

There's a slightly different analysis, I suppose, which is that maybe you and I disagree at what point something becomes under, over or baked, but if that is the case, that's really a dispute about semantics, not substance.

Where I suppose there might be some ground for us to continue to have a productive discussion is whether or not you think that there is a range of roast colours for a given coffee that are acceptable, or really only a very small range of acceptable roast colour or just one.

I suppose for clarity I should say that I'm not saying that roast defects are good; I'm saying that they are common, and probably inevitable, and therefore worthwhile considering and addressing.
LMWDP #034 | 2011: Q Exam, WBrC #3, Aus Cup Tasting #1 | Insta: @lucacoffeenotes

Advertisement
User avatar
Almico
Posts: 3612
Joined: 10 years ago

#33: Post by Almico »

luca wrote:Alan, I think you are burying your head in the sand about how common roast defects are.
To be honest, I don't really drink any other coffee other than my own any longer; so yes, my head is definitely buried in my own sandbox. I don't have to deal with others' roast defects any more :wink:

In the past I bought coffees from all the big names to get an idea of what was going on out there. Many were disappointing, a few were stellar which set the bar for what coffee could be. I even got some roasted samples from Nordic Approach which really opened my eyes to how light coffee can be roasted and still be fully developed.

I subscribed to Facsimile for a while to calibrate with other roasters, but I couldn't bear watching the 1+ hour cupping videos. The coffees were mostly very good. There was some tomato soup, not a flavor I look for in coffee.

I also just bought a few Prodigal coffees to see what that is all about. I want to let my staff compare it to what they serve daily. I'm also enjoying following Scott's journey in getting set up.

There is certainly an acceptable roast range for any coffee. But a big part of running a successful coffee business is establishing a strong brand recognition. It's best to pick a style lane and stick to it so customers know what to expect. Once that lane is established, any significant deviation, even in the absence of roast defects, is to be avoided.

User avatar
luca
Team HB
Posts: 1135
Joined: 19 years ago

#34: Post by luca »

Almico wrote:But a big part of running a successful coffee business is establishing a strong brand recognition. It's best to pick a style lane and stick to it so customers know what to expect. Once that lane is established, any significant deviation, even in the absence of roast defects, is to be avoided.
I certainly agree on this. If you try to be all things to all people, you will be nothing to anyone, and you'll just annoy everyone. You won't be dark roast enough for people that like dark roasts, you won't be light roast enough for people that like light roasts, and there's no point in gaslighting them in marketing descriptions, because they'll just buy the coffee, be misled, annoyed and will complain, probably loudly and online.

There's a highly respected roaster out there that I bought a bunch of coffees from them over a few years. A few were incredible and exactly what I was hoping for, another one was similar, two were dramatically under, one was dark and one was flicked (which is to say that it had all of the aroma that I'd want, but with a charry bitter roast type overtone to it). They are on my blacklist, because I have no idea what to expect from them as a consumer.

Personally, if I have to choose a roast defect - and I do, because most roasters aren't good enough to deliver stylistically consistent roasts - my preferred roast defect is underdevelopment of some description. I appreciate that others may prefer bake, flick or too dark if they had to choose a roast defect. So most of the roasters that I buy from regularly are ones whose roast defects tend to be underdevelopment. Y'all are free to bury your heads in the sand and pretend that you buy coffees with only perfect roasts as much as you like.

Poor Scott; unfortunately it looks like the Prodigal setup journey has not been straightforward.

Anyway, it's nice that we can have a civilised exchange without agreeing.
LMWDP #034 | 2011: Q Exam, WBrC #3, Aus Cup Tasting #1 | Insta: @lucacoffeenotes

shotwell
Posts: 250
Joined: 5 years ago

#35: Post by shotwell »

Quality is not subjective.
I don't dive into discussions like this often, but I don't see how you can argue that any coffee analysis we do today is truly objective. Sure you can use some data (like drop temp) as a quantitative measure but it doesn't matter given the significant taste variance you can have at a given drop temp.

Coffee is a thing we enjoy by tasting, it is one of the most subjective things you can possibly discuss. Arguing that it isn't is fallacious, and honestly harmful since what you're saying is that *you* (or the people that you agree with) are the arbiter(s) of what someone else should consider good. That's, at best, naive.
★ Helpful

shotwell
Posts: 250
Joined: 5 years ago

#36: Post by shotwell »

Should have included some agreement with Luca in that first post; all roasters are far less consistent than I would prefer to the point that I struggle to recommend specific coffees with much detail in my tasting notes. Life on the light side means that the batch I just had with minimal roast may be baked for the next buyer or overdeveloped. That's not ideal, and I'd far prefer to recommend someone like Sey to the people I chat with because what I've seen is that they'll take care of an issue if a customer brings it up.

User avatar
Almico
Posts: 3612
Joined: 10 years ago

#37: Post by Almico »

shotwell wrote:I don't dive into discussions like this often, but I don't see how you can argue that any coffee analysis we do today is truly objective. Sure you can use some data (like drop temp) as a quantitative measure but it doesn't matter given the significant taste variance you can have at a given drop temp.

Coffee is a thing we enjoy by tasting, it is one of the most subjective things you can possibly discuss. Arguing that it isn't is fallacious, and honestly harmful since what you're saying is that *you* (or the people that you agree with) are the arbiter(s) of what someone else should consider good. That's, at best, naive.
Quality: "the degree to which an object or entity (e.g., process, product, or service) satisfies a specified set of attributes or requirements." "The standard of something as measured against other things of a similar kind; the degree of excellence of something".

Underdeveloped and overdeveloped coffees are of inferior quality by definition. Over means too much, under means not enough.

It is erroneous to conflate objective quality and personal preference. Many people make the mistake of saying a thing is "good", when in reality they are only saying that they like it, and visa versa. It is fine to say you like underdeveloped coffee. It is "fallacious" to say underdeveloped coffee is of good quality.

Objective quality for products like coffee is arrived at, not by an arbiter, but organically by agreement of the masses. Quality can change as times and tastes change. It does not change with one individual's subjective opinion.

Advertisement
User avatar
Jeff
Team HB
Posts: 6807
Joined: 19 years ago

#38: Post by Jeff »

I guess I like crap coffee, since the masses concur that Tim Horton's, Dunkin' Donuts, Starbucks and the like are properly selected and roasted.

shotwell
Posts: 250
Joined: 5 years ago

#39: Post by shotwell »

A large number of subjective opinions does not create an objective opinion. Overdeveloped to me is different from over developed to you. Put enough people together and average the opinions and you'll have coffee that suits no one.

Your opinion of quality is just that, even when supported by other individuals. Believing that all coffee needs to fit 'the masses' is erroneous; it needs to fit a market. Implying that the definition of what quality coffee is has been fixed and can't change is even worse, which I know you aren't saying. What it seems like you are saying is that people that may be ahead of the curve or behind it are in the wrong, and that's about as weird a position as I can imagine.

User avatar
Almico
Posts: 3612
Joined: 10 years ago

#40: Post by Almico »

Jeff wrote:I guess I like crap coffee, since the masses concur that Tim Horton's, Dunkin' Donuts, Starbucks and the like are properly selected and roasted.
Like I said...