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

241–250 of 631 posts

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#241

Post by 0xEFF »

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.

Buy direct from the roaster, they generally ship it the day or two after it’s been roasted.

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#242

Post by hammyhavoc »

mihaic wrote: post #122
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…

Completely agree. You can very quickly reach diminishing returns, and now I get great coffee for about 70 cents per cup when I make it at home (including milk). I can't help not notice bad beans, and most places serve almost undrinkable coffee by what I think are minimal standards. If I were to drop bellow this level of quality, I'd rather give up on coffee entirely.

I think a lot of people say they don't like coffee because all they've ever had in terms of coffee has been filth.

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#243

Post by chmod600 »

Great coffee is one of those things that doesn't scale. It requires labor at every stage. Expensive and slow.

Getting OK coffee scales wonderfully. Easy and cheap.

You can still get tired of great coffee, or at least start to feel like it's routine rather than pleasant.

I just feel like there are vetter things to spend time on that are more intellectually rewarding. Learning an old craft, or music, or reading a book. Or cooking. At least with cooking there is a real difference in the nutritional quality... I doubt that's true of fine coffee vs bad coffee.

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#244

Post by strken »

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 use an espresso machine that cost me $0 (because my housemate bought it). Prior to that I used a $0 rescued moka pot with the handle melted off, or an aeropress + porlex grinder. I bought the latter two because someone at work had both and recommended them, and I thought they would be good for camping. I have no idea if these things are "good" or not, but I enjoy the process of using them and like the way the coffee tastes.

Anything older that a week or two tastes a little weaker and is missing some (usually nice) flavours, but it's still damp and caffeinated and tasty. It's not bad in the sense that a stubbed toe is bad, only in the sense that a car snob might call your Toyota Camry bad ("common, suboptimal, plebian, old model, everyone has one"). Darker roasts are missing some flavours too, but they're often the exact ones I don't want. I trust coffee roasters to work out what suits a particular bean and know which flavours they want to keep.

I think coffee is one of those things like wine or whiskey or steak where the best way to enjoy it is to keep your mind open. That lets you work out what you, personally, enjoy. Try over- or under-extracting an espresso shot, and see how it tastes sour or bitter. Try packing the basket differently. Experiment with letting ground coffee sit for a few hours, or with freezing, or with similar beans at different ages. It's fun! You don't have to just believe someone on the internet when they tell you a dark roast is missing flavours, you can go roast your own coffee and see, or ask a roaster to do it.

If you work out what you enjoy, it lets you do enjoyment arbitrage, where you can buy a less popular bean/wine/whiskey/cut for less money and get more enjoyment out of it. If you listen to other people, you're just getting told what the fair market value of the thing is, which means you'll miss any opportunity to get a good (personal) deal.

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#245

Post by grapeskin »

ryanSrich wrote: post #139
staticautomatic wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 mean people can drink coffee however they want, but dark roasting beans absolutely destroys the majority of flavors within the bean. There’s no denying that. It’s similar to eating a steak well done. People do it, and it’s even very common in certain countries. But it’s removing the majority of flavor. I don’t see how anyone could deny that.

I like my steaks borderline completely raw, but I’ll admit it’s because I’ve been around steak snobs and a voice in the back of my mind won’t allow it any other way.

But I’ll also admit that heavily browned beef has a distinctive flavor and quality very different from barely cooked steak. Imagine a sandwich with slightly crispy, well cooked beef and all its drippings. Now imagine one with a slice of meat that’s rare and soggy.

Coffee is similar. Different roasts for different desires and uses. There is a point where it is objectively burnt, but not all dark roasts are burnt.

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#246

Post by criddell »

markmark wrote: post #101
criddell wrote: post #41

Thanks for posting this. I really enjoyed reading it. I can totally relate to the what the author is saying. I went through a mini-version of the same journey. For a while I was buying expensive beans, grinding them on a Baratza Vario (a mid-level grinder) to make espresso in my E-61 based heat exchanger machine. I made some excellent coffee with that setup and more than a few sink-shots. I gave it up though because…

Are you missing out by just not drinking diner or airplane coffee? I just drink something else in those situations.

I’m missing out on having a cup of coffee that I want. It’s something I could easily do before I got into espresso and it’s something I can do again now that I figured out that wanting better coffee was making my life worse.

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#247

Post by mikehollinger »

I feel the same way about restaurants. I realized a few years ago that I don’t crave Enoteca’s rigatoni; I crave the feeling of unwinding with some friends after a failed attempt at going to an ice cream festival. We were hot. Annoyed. Tired. And had a great time laughing about it at this tiny bistro as the sun set. The food and the restaurant was a setting, and essential, but it was second place behind the social connection of commiserating with friends and laughing about the million little things that went wrong with that day.

Going back, the food is good. It’s definitely worth a visit. But nothing will be as tasty as that night. Now that to realize that, I try and seek out those chances to “make a memory” where I can.

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#248

Post by r3trohack3r »

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’ve gone on a similar journey (though lower price tags - I couldn’t justify the $10k espresso machine and its maintenance but used the ones at Netflix daily) and ended up in a similar place. Now, for my cup of choice, I’m picky about my beans and use a Bunn to do the pour over.

Consumer Bunn machines are pretty solid, my grandma’s lasted for over 20 years. Looking inside mine, I suspect mine will do the same. This is the one on my counter: https://retail.bunn.com/38300.0066

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#249

Post by askvictor »

bobthepanda wrote: post #123
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 enjoy cold brew for the reason that it is extremely little work. Really, it’s all about timing, but if you prepare it at the end of the workday you’ll have concentrate ready in the morning, and it generates so much concentrate. The “work” is just grinding the coffee, letting it soak, and then filtering.

Yeah, that's become my go-to for summer. I make one batch for the week - it doesn't seem to drop in quality over that time. Only equipment needed is a grinder (optional, really), a jar and a filter.

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#250

Post by juve1996 »

compiler-guy wrote: post #151
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…

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.

I've come to this conclusion. Growing up in an italian-american household, the moka pot was a major part of that experience. Loved it as a kid (mainly adding milk and sugar in my younger years, now adding a little sambuca). But it was more the ritual - you would have it with others.

Since then I've gone down the espresso rabbit hole, and my set up makes some fantastic espresso, way better than the bitter lavazza moka pot coffee. but somehow, it doesn't replace those memories I made as a kid. Mostly because the ones who I drank espresso with have passed on.

Post reply on HN