Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The case for bad coffee (2015)

seriouseats.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 631 posts

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#151

Post by compiler-guy »

ryanSrich wrote: post #131
rubicon33 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

My point still stands. Doing a pour over or drip is low fuss. You could argue grinding your own beans isn’t low fuss, but most grinders have a preset with a hopper, so it’s still pretty quick and easy to grind your own beans. As for recommendations, I always say go local, and make sure it’s been roasted recently. As for what’s near me (Portland OR) I have quiet a few — Case Study, Coava, Heart, and Never are my curre…

Still more work than instant maxwell house, and still missing the point about the article. It isn’t about the coffee, it’s about the experience and the people you drink it with.

Frou-frou coffee has a way of making the experience about the coffee, rather than about the company and environs. At least that is the author’s point.

And I say this as someone who grinds their own beans every day.

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#152

Post by abstract_put »

staticautomatic wrote: post #125
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…

This isn’t directed at you/OP, but the anti dark roast thing seems to me to be a distinctively American coffee snob hipster thing. Many places in the world have wonderful dark roast coffee. Honestly, are these people just wandering around Austria, Italy, Vietnam, Cuba, or Turkey complaining about bad the coffee is? Give me a break.

I think this is the same principle as pretty much everything. Variety is almost always sought after, and then within that variety specific characteristics are cherished. I think the "anti dark roast" thing is "anti uniformity". The darker the roast, the closer every bean gets to tasting exactly the same.

For example, why do people dump on pop music and think of jazz as "real music"?

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#153

Post by tsomctl »

staticautomatic wrote: post #125
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…

This isn’t directed at you/OP, but the anti dark roast thing seems to me to be a distinctively American coffee snob hipster thing. Many places in the world have wonderful dark roast coffee. Honestly, are these people just wandering around Austria, Italy, Vietnam, Cuba, or Turkey complaining about bad the coffee is? Give me a break.

Perhaps. But that's how Starbucks works, by buying shitty beans and dark roasting them. It also makes it easier to have consistent coffee (consistently burnt, that is).

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#154

Post by bombcar »

alar44 wrote: post #129
spread_love wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The point is that making a beer with a simpler taste profile is harder to control. The 7 hops wacky thing is easier because no one knows what it's supposed to taste like and there's so much going on any off flavors are hidden. That being said, I like macro brews and crazy beers. They both have their place.

Exactly - and the pilsner is "easy" with tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars of equipment to monitor and measure everything.

But at home, with imperfect tools? You can make almost anything but you can't make it twice.

Even some of the craft breweries have difficulty keeping the taste consistent on their brews (this is the reason behind "limited edition runs" often).

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#155

Post by kaiuhl »

LesZedCB wrote: post #147
ryanSrich wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point still stands. Doing a pour over or drip is low fuss. You could argue grinding your own beans isn’t low fuss, but most grinders have a preset with a hopper, so it’s still pretty quick and easy to grind your own beans. As for recommendations, I always say go local, and make sure it’s been roasted recently. As for what’s near me (Portland OR) I have quiet a few — Case Study, Coava, Heart, and Never are my curre…

Heart is great!

Agreed. I buy 5lbs from them at a time and keep it in the freezer. It’s usually frozen two days after they roasted it. I then refill the hopper on my grinder as necessary and use a pour over (chemex with a metal filter). It’s fast and easy and tasty. But I will also drink any coffee and enjoy it.

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#156

Post by EL_Loco »

I've read the same thing a few times. Coffee cognoscenti gets jaded after a while in a world where it's not as hip and interesting anymore to be a coffe cognoscenti. Goes back to basic coffee, usually whatever blue-collar workers drink.

Cynical, I know, but like I said, I read the same thing a few times. This also happens with many other interests/hobbies/obsessions.

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#157

Post by LesZedCB »

commodity coffee is bad

- for the farmers and workers (low, inconsistent pay)

- for the environment (mono-cropping)

- for the roaster (inconsistent quality and needs to be over-roasted to equalize)

- in the cup (tastes over-roasted)

sorry. just because we have all gotten used to commodity coffee pricing "for your daily fix" doesn't mean it's good or acceptable. it's inextricable from it's history in colonialism.

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#158

Post by jerlam »

xioxox wrote: post #25

I certainly like instant coffee and prefer it over many other types I have tried. It took a few tries to find a good one, however. Perhaps it's because I mostly like coffee quite milky, which might cover over any quality issues. Developing a taste for good coffee (or wine, etc) doesn't seem attractive to me. You end up needing more and more equipment. You need expensive high quality beans. It's typically messy, time…

I was actually pretty relieved when I realized I couldn't tell (or was indifferent to) the difference between good coffee and merely average coffee. Another hobby I didn't need to spend any more of my limited time/effort.

It's like when I tried on some audiophile headphones and discovered that they sounded the same as my $20 cheap ones. Saved myself months of "research" and hundreds of dollars, and marketing/ads bounce right off me.

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#159

Post by LesZedCB »

kaiuhl wrote: post #155
LesZedCB wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Heart is great!

Agreed. I buy 5lbs from them at a time and keep it in the freezer. It’s usually frozen two days after they roasted it. I then refill the hopper on my grinder as necessary and use a pour over (chemex with a metal filter). It’s fast and easy and tasty. But I will also drink any coffee and enjoy it.

that's exactly what i recommended elsewhere in this post!

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#160

Post by duxup »

LeoPanthera wrote: post #118
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.

Kirkland cups have a recycling symbol (5) on them.

Just take the foil off and rinse and I’m told they are good to recycle.

Post reply on HN