God Shot

So... yeah... it's good that you (finally) provided transparency on preparation of espresso.
And it's good you used a professional barista to pull shots.

But...

Nuova Simonelli barista competition brew baskets, 18-gram dose, 28-second extraction, 2-ounce double split into two 1-ounce singles; water temperature 200F.

See here is the thing....
I can name TONS of truly great espresso that is going to taste like ASS when extracted as described above.
Does that mean it's bad espresso?
No. It means you don't understand espresso.

You need to learn to prepare espresso in an appropriate manner for each coffee - it's a matter of respect (pure and simple).

And the results are freakin' predictable.

Paradise Espresso Classico has a "thin body"? Yeah... that coffee prep (per the roaster) is FAR from what you're using.
Kaldi Competition scores really high? No shock given that your machine set up is WBC spec and the blend was created for USBC competition.
Olympia Big Truck is "astringent"? Uhhh... try the shot as ristretto (1.75oz not 2oz).

Out of curiosity... what about the other 25+ coffees you tasted?
I'd LOVE to see those reviews.
I'm guessing there are a number of famous coffees that are "sour" (brew temp too low) and some that are "thin and bitter" (brew temp to high) and some that are "muddy" (dose too high) and some that are "unbalanced and not sweet" (dose too low) etc etc.

And, beyond that, the fact that Ken uses the descriptor "musty" in several of his high rated coffees disturbs me - especially as I would agree in the cases where I've tasted these coffees, and it's why I think the espresso is bad. It's hard to imagine scoring a "musty" coffee in the 90s.

Finally... Ken... if you want to make this more relevant you need to not do an aggregate score. Taking the score for a straight shot and averaging it with the score for a latte makes no sense.

Given all the above... is it shocking to ANYONE that Intelli, Stumptown and Terroir ALL opted out of this review? And honestly... how relevant is a review of "boutique" American Espresso that leaves out all three of these roasters?

Sorry... epic fail.

As was pointed out to me... I failed to put a price or a way to contact me on my "Monster Mia for sale" post.

yeah... pretty stupid!!!

After checking around, it looks like it would run you at least $2500 to rebuild the Monster Mia (without the additional little bits of equipment etc).

So I'm going to ask $2k for it. And rather than going "highest bid" I'm simply going to sell it to the first person who comes to me with the money.

Pics here.

Reach me at malachi AT gmail DOT com

Yes... it's true.
I'm selling the infamous "Monster Mia".
It's not an easy decision - but I have the chance to purchase an incredible (dream) machine and I need capital to make it happen.

The Monster Mia has been a great experience for me - and along with the GS3 has convinced me that home espresso doesn't have to be a frustrating battle against arbitrary constraints (or require sacrificing white chickens).

For those of you who don't know the story behind this machine and haven't had the chance to either play with it or taste shots from it....

This machine started off its life as a stock Grimac Mia. It was, in fact, the machine I tested for the Home-Barista.com review. After testing was complete, it went back to Espresso Parts NW and I moved on. The Briccoletta followed it, and then the GS3. After the GS3, Terry Z suggested we take the Bricc and "mod" it into the "Monster Bricc". As those of you who read this blog know - this took a long time and resulted in an explosion in my place in Portland. In the end it was decided that the Bricc was a poor choice for the sort of aggressive modifications we were looking to do. The Espresso Parts NW boyz had already done a bunch of mods to the Mia by this time and were using it as their office machine. Terry suggested that this could become the "Monster" project base - and eventually it came to me.

When I first started using it I referred to it as a "poor man's GS3" for its combination of ease of use and suitability for espresso experimentation. Since then I've both discovered more great things about it as well as discovered some of the things that are not so great (as compared to the GS3 for example). It's a wonderful machine - and under normal circumstanced I'd never be letting it go.

Some details on the machine.
- Grimac Mia case/body
- Reservoir and vibe pump removed (replaced with a nice Procon rotary pump and plumbed in)
- Modified to take a long thermoprobe into the boiler (and the requisite electronics including front mounted PID controller)
- Some tweaks and tricks to the internal plumbing to enable better stability
- All crazy work performed by the guys at Espresso Parts NW under the guidance of madman Terry Z.

The machine is incredibly easy to use.
You basically set the brew temp (calculating temp offset from boiler to group), let it stabilize and then go.
To pull a shot, you don't have to go through any crazy flushing routines. I literally just do a quick "rinsing" flush (like I would on a commercial La Marzocco) to get any grounds off the screen and pull the shot.
Changing temp consists of pushing the button on the PID controller until you get the desired temp.
Inter-shot stability is very high.
Intra-shot profile shows a hybrid map (like a flattened version of the HX hump - with less hump and a similar ramp down).

The machine runs at a lower boiler pressure than normal (of course - and dependent upon brew temp). At brew temps above 200f it's fine to steam even for 12oz lattes. It's fine for capps down to around 198f. Below that it takes some nursing.
It's probably not the machine for someone who wants to make a lot of big milk drinks.
On the other hand - if you want to explore espresso and easily make straight shots and short milk drinks (no muss no fuss) it's a dream.
It really is an easy machine to work with. VERY easy.

I find that the espresso consistently has excellent mouthfeel and great clarity and reproduction of flavours. It holds its own against commercial machines in this area.

The machine will include a whole bunch of portafilters (old style rubber handled LM spouted, new style plastic handled LM bottomless, VBM for backflushing) and a whole bunch of baskets (LM OEM doubles, LM triple, Synesso triple, Faema double, Faema single, LM single, blanks).

If you're in the Bay Area... I'll throw in help with the set up and some training on using it.


You want a famous, easy to use and truly unique espresso machine?

hahahahahahahaha

gasp

oh my god this is funny

I've taken a stab at describing how I go about "dialing in" an espresso at various points in time and in various venues.

As time has gone by - I've refined my methodology and practice.

For what it's worth - here is my current model.


The idea: you have a coffee that is new to you, and you want to figure out the extraction parameters for this coffee that give you the best results (for your tastes).

The caveats: some of the stuff in here is specific for my own taste/perception/expectation of espresso. In particular, my concept of espresso is that it is a unique and different way of preparing coffee. In other words - I'm not trying to re-create the flavour of the coffee when cupped or brewed as drip or press-pot or something. I'm also not trying to create something that (as D Schomer put it - "tastes like ground coffee smells"). And I'm not trying to create some sort of HeMan beverage that "puts hair on your chest." For me - I'm trying to extract a balanced and complete mix of clearly defined and differentatiated flavours -- a round balance of sweet, sour, bitter -- that expresses the unique flavours and aromatics of the coffee. In addition, I pay for a small percentage of my beans and can thus afford to "waste" a lot of coffee. And finally, I work on equipment that is easy to "tune" and change quickly.

The process:

I try to start with some constants that are as likely as possible to be accurate for the majority of coffees. In this case, I start with an LM ridged double basket and a target volume of between 1.75 and 2.0 oz with a moderate flow rate (somewhere around 25 seconds for that volume, though I evaluate by flow not time).

I'll also try and understand up front the "signature taste" of the coffee.
The "signature taste" requires some knowledge of the roaster's style and the desired flavour profile of the coffee. Is the person roasting this coffee a fan of low acidity espresso? Are they a "chocolate bomb" aficionado? If you know what they like out of their espresso you can do minor adjustments to your dose. In many cases (these days) you can use the interwebs to research and find out what the roaster looks for. Otherwise, go by the retail location of the roaster and taste the shots.
This allows me to understand what I'm "shooting for" in the cup.

Once I have this information, I'll start making some guesses on the primary variables.

My initial goal is to make a quick estimate of likely dose volume.
I do this based upon the coffee (the bean/blend composition.)
If the coffee seems likely to have low pH (has robusta or aged coffees or a lot of naturals) I'll start with a down dose. If it seems likely to have a moderate pH (pulped naturals, a mix of naturals and washed coffees) I'll go with a moderate dose. If the coffee is high pH (mostly high-grown washed arabica) I'll up-dose.
This baseline is then slightly impacted by degree of roast (for a darker roast I'll drop the roast a percentage, for a lighter roast I'll up it).

On a side note - this focus on pH of coffee is new to me and is the result of reading the results of a research study done by Nestle Labs. This study found that coffee compaction in espresso brewing is dependent upon pH of brew water and pH of coffee. Coffee compacts under brew pressure - but according to this study, how much it compacts depends upon pH. Low pH coffees (robusta and aged or monsooned coffees at the extreme) compact the least and high pH coffees (high-grown washed arabicas) compact the most. Focusing on the pH of the coffee seems to have enabled me to more quickly estimate dose volume -- and this (so far) seems to my taste to be a very consistent system.

Anyway... once I have a starting point for dose, I'll try to come up with a starting point for brew temp.
I'll evaluate the coffee for two characteristics. First - roast degree and second - bean composition.
With the former, I tend to make some quick rough decisions. If the roast is light, I tend to start with a baseline temp of 202F. If medium, I will stick with 200F. If dark, I'll drop it down to 197F.
Now... I'll also adjust this based on the bean composition. If, for example, I'm working with high-grown washed arabica I'm going to reduce the brew temp. If I'm working with aged or monsooned coffees I will up the brew temp (both from the baseline above).
So a light roasted coffee with monsooned beans will move up to 203F as a starting point.

Once I've got temp and dose I dial in the grind and then I'll start experimenting.
I always start by re-evaluating temp. So I'll pull a shot and evaluate it for brew temp. Is it alkaloid? Is it thin? Is it sour or bitter? Astringent or burnt? Does it taste ashy or like fish oil? Based on the taste, I will alter the temp by small degrees to find the sweet spot. If it's sour - I'll take the temp up. If it's ashy, I'll take it down. If it's thin and lacks sweetness and fruit, I'll take it down. Etc. It's basic pattern recognition.
I'm not looking for a great shot here -- I'm just looking for the right brew temp. The idea is to get the balance of sweet, sour and bitter. If any of these dominate too much, I need to change brew temp.

Once I've found what I feel is the brew temp sweet spot, I'll start working on dose.
The way I tend to do this is focus on two things. First - clarity of flavour and second - roundness and balance.
If the cup is "muddied" I'll reduce the dose. If the cup isn't fully developed and sweet and rich I'll up the dose. Mouthfeel is one of the critical attributes I'm looking at here - as is sweetness and definition. If I need a "denser" cup I'll up the dose. If I need more sweetness, the dose goes up. If there is a lack of clarity in the cup, or it's out of balance (with the low end dominating and limited aromatics and high end) then I'll reduce the dose.

This is usually enough. It usually gets me to the point where I have a shot that I feel matches well with the signature profile and optimizes the coffee.
Now... that doesn't mean I like the shot. There are coffees that I just don't like. It means that I feel like I have a cup profile that fits the coffee.

From here I can "tune" with small changes in flow rate, volume of shot, etc.
This allows me to then tune the extraction for what I really want out of the coffee -- to force it a bit in my desired direction.

And that covers all but the edge cases.

But there are exceptions. There are these edge cases where all the above doesn't get me to where I want to be with the coffee.
It's usually only at this point that I start looking at changes to extraction volume and basket size.

For example, I've found that some lighter roasted delicate coffees tend to end up poorly developed no matter what I do - especially when they are pulped naturals. But if I then swap to a triple basket and deliberately down-dose (19 grams) I "open up" the coffee and it becomes more defined and clear. Or with monsooned coffee I find that the only way I can get the desired sweetness without getting a "wet cardboard" aftertaste is by going with a triple basket, normal dose and then pulling a ristretto shot. Sometimes I find that some high-grown washed coffees are best pulled very short and slow. The same is true of some Indonesians.
You get the idea.


I know that some people are simply not into this sort of fiddling.
And others find the lack of "science" associated with this approach to be problematic.
For me - however - this process and approach is not only successful, but quite enjoyable.

And most importantly, by making it entirely taste based - I learn from each and every coffee and each and every change. By not tying it to measurement and machinery but instead to what I taste in the cup - I learn.

I've thought (for a long time) that we really need a legitimate resource for reviews of espressos that is both unbiased and (perhaps more important) skilled and accurate.

Today - the critical nature of this belief became terrifyingly clear to me.

Coffee Review's review of Pod espressos...

Nespresso Ristreto Capsules - 91 points
Island Joe ESE Pod - 90 points

To compare, here are some espressos that many of us would consider to be "leading lights" of the industry...

Stumptown Hairbender - 90 points
Ecco Caffe Reserve - 90 points
Intelligentsia Black Cat - 88 points

So - what we have here is a clear indication that consumers should not be buying coffees from these pesky "boutique craft coffee companies" and shouldn't bother with things like freshness but instead should just buy cheap pod machines and bulk produced "generic" coffee in pre-ground packaging.
Right?

So what's wrong here?

For a simple illustration - let's look at the review of the Hairbender (simply because it's a coffee I know very well).

Smoke, toast and a hint of flowers in the aroma. In the small cup medium-bodied and smooth in mouthfeel, balanced, rich, simple, with hints of cedar, dark chocolate and toast. Sweet finish. In milk lean-bodied but lush, dominated by a smoky semi-sweet chocolate.

This doesn't sound like Hairbender, right?
Well.... actually, if you were to give some Hairbender to a marginally trained barista and have the pull shots with the "wrong" parameters you could easily replicate this. Say you were to set the machine at a little over 201F. Now dose around 15 grams in a double basket. Pull a 1.75 oz double in around 29 seconds.
The problem is that Hairbender is actually best at around 198f (a full 3f colder). And it's best at around 19 grams in a double basket (more than 25% more coffee). And while a 1.75 oz double is about right - you'd want to do it in around 27 seconds. And, of course, most of all you want this done by a trained barista. Of course... if you had a trained barista - they wouldn't have pulled the shot with the wrong settings.


So what do these odd and seemingly shocking review results really tell us?
Should we really all just switch to pods?

Well... if you're the kind of person who likes coffee but can't be bothered to be a barista or learn about things like brew temp and extraction parameters then yes.
But that's pretty damn obvious.


On the other hand... this really (really) clearly indicates that Coffee Review is not a viable or appropriate resource for espresso reviews.
And we don't have anything else.

So someone... please...
Start a legit espresso review magazine or website or service.
Seriously.

It's going to take me a lot of thinking to be able to comment with any sort of clarity on my experiences at Slow Food Nation.

Suffice it to say that it was a truly incredible experience - and an important one as well. Less so about coffee per se and more about something bigger that coffee is a part of.

And, beyond that, it was great to catch up with so many friends and meet so many cool people.