Jimseven with some interesting observations on roasting mistakes and the stigma related to bad roasts.

He talks about how roasting has become imbued with a morality scale.

Basically, he says light roasting errors are forgiven more easily, while over roasting is considered the Darth Vader of bad coffee.

"As I said at the beginning - roasting is hard. Mistakes will happen often, as reluctant as the industry is to talk about it. I think our tolerance is badly weighted, and I worry this is impacting our existing customer's experiences and also our ability to reach and engage new customers and new audiences. If you're going to criticise a company/roaster/batch for roasting too dark, then you should equally criticise those who roast too light."

This seems in line with how we frequently talk about coffee. It's a common refrain to blast *$ for over roasting, or complain about dark roasts that eliminate every note but ash and coal. And while sometimes you hear complaints about tomato soup light roasts, or third wave orange juice, it's often the taster that gets blamed for not having a sophisticated enough palate to appreciate the uber light roasts. Nobody blames the light roast itself.

Here's James' blog post:
Http://www.jimseven.com/2016/04/05/ligh ... -roasting/

And therein lies the reason(s) to become a home roaster!

1) if you don't like the roast, you don't have far to go to place the blame!

2) you don't have to worry about getting a roaster's new beans that are too light (or dark) for your style and palette of coffee making

3) you're not stuck with a given blend once you find something you like

That balance of light to dark is extraordinarily hard to find from a commercial roaster, imo, and once you do find something you like, a different SO coffee may not suit your style quite so well. I like variety, but mostly of origin, not roast level. Since I (almost) only brew espresso, and that puts me in the minority, it's much easier to roast my own to my desired level than find it from a commercial roaster.

I do like a lighter roast level for brewed preparations than for espresso. So end use is a very important player in this game.

Palette preferences evolve with time. My journey into espresso started on the very dark side, and has been years in the travel. But we are all on a different place on the journey, and you're right to recommend restraint in bashing...what benefit to chastising a roaster or taster with preferences for darker (or lighter) roasts, especially if we have 1) been there at one time in our journey or 2) might one day be there as our tastes change (or even return to previous preferences!)

Having many excellent light roasts from George Howell and Counter Culture, when I taste grassy/soupy underdeveloped notes, I think it was a bad roast. When I have something slightly darker, I usually assume it was intended to bring out more deep dark roast flavors(unless it tastes smokey), rather than a mistake.

Dark roasts almost always take cream and sugar well when worst comes to worst

canuckcoffeeguy wrote:...
Basically, he says light roasting errors are forgiven more easily, while over roasting is considered the Darth Vader of bad coffee...

This seems in line with how we frequently talk about coffee. It's a common refrain to blast *$ for over roasting, or complain about dark roasts that eliminate every note but ash and coal. And while sometimes you hear complaints about tomato soup light roasts, or third wave orange juice, it's often the taster that gets blamed for not having a sophisticated enough palate to appreciate the uber light roasts. Nobody blames the light roast itself.

Amen and amen.

Yakster, another friend and I were on a crawl in San Francisco. Entered a good shop and the two baristas were pushing a Colombian light roast from a well respected, well known Oregon roaster. I said, "Let's try a pourover." It is important to remain abreast of the industry. The baristas were bumping into one another to get them prepped for us.

Sip one, horrible. Grass, lemon. Let it cool, David. Maybe it will be more approachable. Cooled somewhat and a took a second run at it. Brighter still, grassy, lemon-lime sour. I pushed it across the bar and sat and just talked.

We teach medium roasts on our line of equipment to those not overly familiar with roasting. I teach aspirants how to run them into 2nd crack for those customers who will demand "strong, dark roasts." These are roasters who sell to the public. Lights need to stay on, staff need to be paid, floors needed to be mopped. We discuss how to politely inform and educate their customers. Offer both the medium and dark roast of an origin so customer can learn along the way.

We discuss light roasts, how to do them. Light roasts which are adequately developed are the toughest dance of all and it takes a skilled artisan to pull them off. Most that try, fail, yet still market them.

Most importantly, we stress cupping the roasts and letting the bean determine the depth of the roast, not what any West Coast shop or I suggest is the best roasting method.

I think the development of the roast is more relevant than the lightness. I enjoyed the baristahustle article on roasting a while back that focuses more on failure to develop the roast than underroasting.

http://www.baristahustle.com/lets-talk-about-roasting/

Perhaps people blindly aiming at making coffee look light roasted from the color is partly to blame, but except in some extreme cases, I'd be hesitant to blame it on just being too light.

How much is it roasting too light vs roasting badly.... Meaning roasting unevenly? Very light roasts can be delicious. Grass probably comes from roasting in a way where the bean is not evenly developed throughout but is more raw in the middle than the outside.

It would be nice to have a more developed vocabulary when discussing the issue. Aha Someone else beat me to it!

.

There's dark and there's overroasted--when you get that overwhelming burnt note. And on the other side of the spectrum, there's light and there's underdeveloped -- when you get that undeniable grassy note.

I don't remember ever having paid for, or even encountering professionally roasted coffee that was underdeveloped. Light, yes. Underdeveloped? Nope. If underroasting was as common, I think we'd hear more lambasting of the "lightside".

And here lies the quandary ...taste is subjective ( yeah you can under and over extract too to make things worse ) . I've had really dark roasts that have been recommended to me as " dark bakers chocolate " and I can't go near em .
I've also had light roasts that have been as bright as bright can be - lacking sweetness ...
I try my best to get the best from any coffee - use the knowledge I've built and the tools at hand ... Buy my roasty and bitter is still someone else's delicious and powerful ( even on the cupping table )

In the last 30 odd years I've roasted and cupped my way across the whole spectrum, always beginning with very light cupping roasts. Note that cupping roasts are light for a reason, you are normally cupping "for fault" and also to establish baseline characteristics. You are not trying to produce a mass market coffee which can be safely consumed without added sugar and milk.

Some coffees show a rich, smooth character, decent body and excellent flavour at this roast level. Generally they are low altitude coffees (Brazils), dry processed (Brazil and Ethiopia) or island coffees. They can be taken a little darker to accentuate sweetness and caramel but develop ashy, bitter flavours if taken too dark.

Some coffees are overwhelmingly acidic at cupping roast levels, you tend to judge them by acidity type and fruit flavour analogues, citric, blackcurrant, grape, apple etc. and then by nuance in the aftertaste, berry, chocolate, fruit and nut. These coffees usually need to be taken to the cusp of second crack or slightly beyond to develop the full spectrum of possible flavours and to balance the acidity with sweetness and body.

Some cupping roast coffees display what I regard as faults, but these days seem to be acceptable tastes. High on my list are biting, tartaric acidity, grassiness (often noted as "herbaceous"), tea flavours (tannins and bergamot, tea rose) and similar descriptors. In some cases it's possible to roast around these "faults" and even to turn them into positive attributes, but you'll be at the first snaps of second crack before you get there.

Some coffees you just expect and accept faults at cupping roast levels, "Giling Basah" Sumatrans, dry processed Ethiopian Harars, Yemen Mokhas, knowing that beginning at second crack the faults are going up the chimney and the real flavour complexity is just starting to emerge, the trick is getting there without making things worse.

And of course there are heaps of coffees which are just bland and inoffensive regardless of roast level, in the trade we call these "filler". These are often sold as extremely dark roasts in large chain coffeeshops.

"Good" vs "Bad" end results in roasting are highly subjective and totally dependant on local taste and brewing process. The most consistently faulty coffee I have ever cupped, Rioy Brazil, is prized in Turkey and Eastern Europe (very lightly roasted and extremely finely ground) as a base for middle eastern coffee. Mixed with spices and heaps of sugar it somehow makes a palatable drink. Starbucks still makes huge profits in the USA despite roasting any trace of varietal character out of their beans. "Nordic" roasts and roasters are praised and win prizes and profits for stuff I regard as battery acid.

In the end, there is no accounting and no morality for taste.

Alan

In the end, there is no accounting and no morality for taste

And that Imo is a quote worthy of keeping for the future