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

171–180 of 631 posts

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#171

Post by p1necone »

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…

There's nothing wrong with a French press. Use great beans and a French press will make great coffee (with good ground size, water temp etc). The only real downside with them is that they don't filter all the grounds out of the final cup very well.

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#172

Post by xeromal »

LesZedCB wrote: post #157

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.

I understand your point, but I personally feel like we're at a point where anything you consume has downstream consequences that you mentioned. It doesn't even matter if you get made-in-the-(EU, USA, ETC) as the raw materials mined using the same bad practices.

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#173

Post by adamisom »

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…

> don't even know what "correct" pour-over technique is

Well, hmmm, it would only take a few minutes to learn. Frankly I think your post is signalling (on a meta level). I know it probably doesn't feel like it, but that's what signalling usually feels like from the inside (it doesn't feel like you're doing it).

On the object-level, I think there are huge differences in quality when it comes to... most anything, including coffee, beer, chocolate, you name it. I don't think it's usually about "1%" gains.

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#174

Post by lisper »

LesZedCB wrote: post #126
lisper wrote: post #46

Good grief. If you enjoy it then by definition it is not bad, it is good, even if it didn't cost you an arm and a leg and you got it at the grocery store or the diner. The coffee snobs can just go fuck themselves. I had two life experiences that beat the culinary snobbery out of me. Many years ago I was a tea-totaller but I decided I wanted to develop a taste for wine (because social pressure) so I started a wine tas…

growing fruits is a wildly complex process, fermentations are an Astoundingly complex process, barrel aging is a surprisingly complex process. myriad things in each step can and do go very wrong. experts are absolutely able to taste fruit defects and fermentation defects. just because you can't doesn't mean the differences aren't there and throws away a massive tradition of expertise and artistic direction, and is wi…

> just because you can't doesn't mean the differences aren't there

But that's the point: we could tell the difference. We just all preferred the Barefoot when we didn't know what we were drinking.

Nowadays my tastes have evolved beyond Barefoot. But there isn't anything wrong with you if you just happen not to like Chateau Petrus.

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#175

Post by xeromal »

luma wrote: post #143
robbrown451 wrote: post #137

I'm an advocate for the middle ground. I get store brand whole bean coffee (1) , and grind it and use a Mr. Coffee. Then put sugar and milk in because black coffee is nasty. I see no value to obsessing over perfect coffee. I have friends who do and love to talk endlessly about it. Holy crap how boring. Nor am I going to drink Maxwell house unless I have no other reasonable option. 1: typically light or medium roast..…

You advocate for not buying high quality coffee and then follow it with: > Then put sugar and milk in because black coffee is nasty. If you think your coffee is nasty, maybe it's the coffee?

The only black coffee I've ever liked is cold-brewed and I've tried loads of coffee. Probably most coffee shops in los angeles that are highly rated.

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#176

Post by wrycoder »

criddell wrote: post #43
hanklazard wrote: post #34

This was a really beautiful post. As for coffee, like many other parts of life (movies, food, and music especially), I find that I like it very good or very bad—as long as it’s not down the middle, I can find a time/place to enjoy it. I have a fairly expensive Rocket Espresso machine, I’ve learned some latte art. I have every coffee making contraption out there. And I enjoy all of it, at times. When I’m in a hurry I’…

What are you ordering at Starbucks? I’ve found, if they aren’t too busy, you can ask the barista about the beans they currently have and order a pour over or French press that’s pretty good.

Yeah, well, if you want something really bad, order a Starbucks espresso in their paper cup.

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#177

Post by LesZedCB »

xeromal wrote: post #172
LesZedCB wrote: post #157

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.

I understand your point, but I personally feel like we're at a point where anything you consume has downstream consequences that you mentioned. It doesn't even matter if you get made-in-the-(EU, USA, ETC) as the raw materials mined using the same bad practices.

yes, but if minimization is a goal, rather than perfection, it's still a good heuristic.

especially when there are better options, namely, paying more to smaller farms that pay better.

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#178

Post by 2muchcoffeeman »

Scarbutt wrote: post #150
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…

Getting "roasted recently coffee" sounds like a problem, how do you make sure of it? Also, have you try nespresso(machines and coffee)? I find their coffee really good and can't stand anything else, easy to make and not expensive.

At a specialty roaster, the date is printed on the bags of coffee. Or they will tell you.

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#179

Post by wrycoder »

jll29 wrote: post #142

Well put: the author's "ode to bad coffee" makes the point that high-end coffee is to brag about whereas most valuable personal memories tend to be connected with _low-end_ coffee; part of what makes one value low-end coffee more highly than high-end are indeed these personal memories associated with it (e.g. finishing one's dad's leftover coffee from his cup in the morning).

Hanging with the salt of the earth can be more rewarding than exchanging ripostes with the would-be elite.

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#180

Post by LesZedCB »

lisper wrote: post #174
LesZedCB wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

growing fruits is a wildly complex process, fermentations are an Astoundingly complex process, barrel aging is a surprisingly complex process. myriad things in each step can and do go very wrong. experts are absolutely able to taste fruit defects and fermentation defects. just because you can't doesn't mean the differences aren't there and throws away a massive tradition of expertise and artistic direction, and is wi…

> just because you can't doesn't mean the differences aren't there But that's the point: we could tell the difference. We just all preferred the Barefoot when we didn't know what we were drinking. Nowadays my tastes have evolved beyond Barefoot. But there isn't anything wrong with you if you just happen not to like Chateau Petrus.

right, and i completely agree on that point.

the counter-point is that everybody uses the "taste is subjective" as a bludgeon for there being not quantifiable difference in quality between offerings.

Post reply on HN