The case for bad coffee (2015) • Hacker News Board

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#111

Post by fredley » Sun, Jul 17, 2022, 10:59 PM UTC

ryanSrich wrote: post #105

I’ve gone through several coffee phases, some bordering on extreme — extremely sensitive weighing, timing, $2,000 grinders, $10k espresso machine, etc. My happy medium is just doing basic pour overs, but with really good locally roasted coffee. To me, this is the cheapest and best approach. In fact, even if pour overs require too much work (weighing, timing), then just do drip. But do it with quality coffee. Quality…

I second this approach. I buy locally roasted beans, and have a reasonably nice grinder and an aeropress. For my palette, the coffee's as good as I can get anywhere.

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#112

Post by duxup » Sun, Jul 17, 2022, 11:01 PM UTC

I just like Costo Kirkland k-cups. Cheap, easy to get a quick cup. Both the medium or dark are good IMO.

https://www.costco.com/kirkland-signature-coffee-organic-sum...

https://www.costco.com/kirkland-signature-coffee-organic-pac...

Like many others I don't have time to get all fussy about coffee.

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#113

Post by spread_love » Sun, Jul 17, 2022, 11:01 PM UTC

bombcar wrote: post #103

65 wrote: post #100

Someone should write the equivalent for beer. Maybe my palate isn't very advanced, but I do not like fancy beer. I only like cheap beer. Same with coffee. Same with most food. Not sure if it was my steady diet of microwave dinners growing up but the fancier the food the less I usually like it.

Cheap beer amusingly is often some of the hardest to “craft” - pilsners require some skill. Home brewery stores get people asking if they can make Budweiser to start and have to be steered toward a stout or Porter as those are much more forgiving.

Oft repeated but not true. The commercial processes used to brew cheap beer make it incredibly easy. There weren't a ton of strong flavors to start with and extra steps to remove flavors (ex aging on beechwood) make a consistent result easy. You're using 1 variety of hop, 1 or 2 of barley (or rice), and a battle-tested yeast, no dry-hopping, much easier to control. 100 bbl in a single run then you filter it until it practically runs clear.

Much harder to make some wacky IPA w/7 hops, adjunct stout with breakfast cereal or foudre-aged wild ale and have it not turn out horribly. You can't hide that many mistakes. Your local brewery has a pilsner.

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#114

Post by wodenokoto » Sun, Jul 17, 2022, 11:02 PM UTC

I recently moved and didn’t have a coffee machine so I got a jar of instant coffee and … honestly it tasted quite good.

I read an article on instant coffee that said it uses a bean that is easier to grow “and therefore considered inferior in Europe and America”, but apparently the choice in many parts of the Middle East and Asia.

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#115

Post by qbasic_forever » Sun, Jul 17, 2022, 11:03 PM UTC

adhesive_wombat wrote: post #94

CptFribble wrote: post #4

Like most things, coffee is subject to diminishing returns. I have also owned nearly every device invented to make coffee - as I'm sure many others here have - and I've settled on a simple over-the-mug pour-over cone, but mainly because there's no moving parts or tubes to worry about cleaning. I don't even know what "correct" pour-over technique is, so I'm basically making bog-standard single-serving drip coffee with…

Indeed. I've worked in places with very fancy machines and with nice beans. I nearly always drink black coffee, so I can certainly taste differences between various coffees, though I don't think I can reliably describe them. I just like that it varies from place to place. However, my default coffee option at home is a simple cafetière (aka French press) and a kettle. I don't do much else other than, if I'm paying att…

French press brewers are great and nothing to be ashamed about using. There are two big variable that you can tweak when using it, the grind size and the time you keep the coffee brewing before plunging and pouring. Water temperature is a third variable but with a basic kettle don't worry about it and just use water off a boil. If you decrease the grind size it increases the extraction, and if you brew for longer it also increases the extraction (to a point).

When you get wildly different results from the same beans it likely means you've changed one of those variables. Try playing around to find a good balance of grind size and time brewed. I usually like a kosher-salt level of grind size (moderately coarse) with a 4 minute or so brew time. But if the coffee comes out too bitter then I likely over-extracted it and increase the grind size or reduce the time brewing, and if too sour then it's probably under extracted (decrease grind or brew longer next time).

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#116

Post by NoboruWataya » Sun, Jul 17, 2022, 11:04 PM UTC

CptFribble wrote: post #4

Like most things, coffee is subject to diminishing returns. I have also owned nearly every device invented to make coffee - as I'm sure many others here have - and I've settled on a simple over-the-mug pour-over cone, but mainly because there's no moving parts or tubes to worry about cleaning. I don't even know what "correct" pour-over technique is, so I'm basically making bog-standard single-serving drip coffee with…

Like other posters, I agree that it's about more than taste, but disagree that it's about tribal membership. For me, it's also about ritual. Grinding beans and making coffee (pourover in my case) is a very nice relaxing experience with enjoyable sights and smells before you ever put the cup to your mouth.

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#117

Post by jamal-kumar » Sun, Jul 17, 2022, 11:06 PM UTC

I moved somewhere that has incredibly good coffee. You can literally just walk into a park in the city and find a coffee bush that probably nobody is harvesting, grab some, and bring it home to roast in a toaster oven. Good stuff from the grocery store [1] is about 4$ for a half kilo (20$+ for a bag on amazon if you can find it), and the way to make it is basically an apparatus (Can be made out of anything from nice wood to a coat hanger) which you use which holds a sock-like bag that has a wire in it to hold the mouth in an O and operate as a handle, which you then fill with coffee and pour hot water into to fill the vessel you want to drink or serve out sitting below. This simple device is called a chorreador [2], and it's a great gift to bring home if you ever come down for a vacation in the region. [3]

The cheaper stuff is weighed down with sugar for some reason but even that's not bad. About 1-1.50 a bag for the same amount. I haven't had it outside of convenience stores when in a pinch but it's not that bad. It's so ubiquitous that I stopped drinking it daily just to enjoy it a little more.

Whatever the hell gets sent up north gives me digestion issues and doesn't taste great when black. Some of the less cheap instant brands aren't as bad but anything in that category still needs to have milk and sugar in there for it to be tolerable and that's not really my style. Oh yeah, the secret of starbucks coffee is that it's actually really terrible quality coffee at an insane price and what they really serve is coffee milkshakes.

[1] https://cafe1820.com/

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chorreador

[3] https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1095/7444/articles/el-chor...

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#118

Post by LeoPanthera » Sun, Jul 17, 2022, 11:06 PM UTC

duxup wrote: post #112

I just like Costo Kirkland k-cups. Cheap, easy to get a quick cup. Both the medium or dark are good IMO. https://www.costco.com/kirkland-signature-coffee-organic-sum... https://www.costco.com/kirkland-signature-coffee-organic-pac... Like many others I don't have time to get all fussy about coffee.

The coffee may be fine, but k-cups are some of the most environmentally unfriendly products ever produced. They cannot be recycled, they do not biodegrade, and they are produced in the billions. Apparently (citation needed), the inventor regrets his invention.

If you must drink pod coffee, consider Nespresso, which despite the questionable record of the Nestle company, can be fully recycled.

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#119

Post by rubicon33 » Sun, Jul 17, 2022, 11:06 PM UTC

ryanSrich wrote: post #105

I’ve gone through several coffee phases, some bordering on extreme — extremely sensitive weighing, timing, $2,000 grinders, $10k espresso machine, etc. My happy medium is just doing basic pour overs, but with really good locally roasted coffee. To me, this is the cheapest and best approach. In fact, even if pour overs require too much work (weighing, timing), then just do drip. But do it with quality coffee. Quality…

You clearly did not read the article lol. His point was really not about money at all.

It was a piece about slowing down, fussing less, and just appreciating moments with people over things like roasting dates and quality of beans.

That said, have any good coffee recommendations?

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#120

Post by bigDinosaur » Sun, Jul 17, 2022, 11:06 PM UTC

abstract_put wrote: post #38

michaelchisari wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those little stove-top espresso makers that Italians use make the best espresso. Apparently they're called Moka Pots, never knew that.

The moka pot is how I transitioned from coffee as a utility drink to coffee I enjoy drinking. James Hoffman (popular coffee YouTuber) has a video[1] where he goes over what it takes to get consistently good results out of the moka pot - it's not easy. Used naively they kinda go heavy "bitter and dark". What appealed to me about the moka pot at the time was the reeeeeally "strong" coffee flavor. As I've moved away fro…

I didn't find his advice on preheating the water (and also cooling down the pot before pouring the coffee out) to be particularly useful (or make any appreciable difference at all) but got a few burns for my trouble. Grrr.