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

251–260 of 631 posts

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#251

Post by collegeburner »

MegaButts wrote: post #164
abstract_put wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"?

> For example, why do people dump on pop music and think of jazz as "real music"? Because jazz+jazz=jazz https://youtu.be/GAbg8X9-uBI

lmfao that guy got the perfect "npr voice" going on

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#252

Post by yumraj »

ryanSrich wrote: post #205
LesZedCB wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

currently my local roaster is in my kitchen! i use a hottop 2k roaster, got it for $600 on craigslist, and get green coffee from sweet marias. so far it's the best cost/return i've gotten yet!

How’s the smell? I’ve considered doing this, but have a house full with a wife and 2 kids. I don’t hate the smell, but it’s not exactly enjoyable for all.

I use a popcorn maker (air popper) to roast coffee and do it in our yard. No one complains about smoke or the chaff.

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#253

Post by barrkel »

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.

On the pourover side of things, coffee can tend towards a tea-like substance, with some degree of translucency and delicate flavours, the kinds of flavours that you need light roasting to preserve.

It's in part exploring different kinds of drinks that can be made from coffee beans.

You can also get a different kind of espresso, but it's wasted if it's going to be mixed into a milk and sugar concoction.

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#254

Post by catgary »

rubicon33 wrote: post #119
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?

It’s funny, my lab in grad school had a reasonably nice coffee shop on the first floor. So I have a lot of pleasant memories with my lab mates and supervisor while drinking pretty good coffee (sometimes with flat whites or single source light roasts).

I remember once waiting in line while a new student in my lab was complaining about how Reddit coffee snobs said anything besides a light roast coffee with a splash of milk “killed the flavour of the beans”. So a postdoc and I each ordered light roast and put a splash of milk in it, originally planning on spending the next twenty minutes talking about how he had killed the flavour coffee with a dark roast, but then finding we both quite liked getting our coffee that way.

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#255

Post by 1123581321 »

collegeburner wrote: post #251
MegaButts wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For example, why do people dump on pop music and think of jazz as "real music"? Because jazz+jazz=jazz https://youtu.be/GAbg8X9-uBI

lmfao that guy got the perfect "npr voice" going on

He also voices Homer Simpson. Very skilled!

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#256

Post by juve1996 »

jerlam wrote: post #158
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 boun…

Yea, I think delta matters more than just being objectively better. Going from those crappy iPhone default headphones to even a cheap pair of Sony earbuds made a huge difference. Going to the next level, our expectations say it should be a similar jump, which doesn't come, and we feel let down. The hype doesn't match.

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#257

Post by rr808 »

My love affair with mediocre coffee started after increasingly being stuck in line behind fussy people ordering ever more increasingly complicated requests. Now I just want someone to pour out some black coffee quickly and we can go on to do more interesting things.

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#258

Post by [deleted] »

sakras wrote: post #219

This reminds me of that Order of the Stick strip about bad coffee: Xykon: Hell no, it's the most disgusting sludge I've put in my stomach in years. But you see, nothing really compares to a cup of truly awful coffee. Right-Eye: Uh, how about a cup of really good coffee? Xykon: Not the same thing at all. When you drink a cup of really good coffee, you try to immerse yourself in that cup. You focus all your senses on w…

[deleted]

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#259

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#260

Post by technothrasher »

grapeskin wrote: post #245
ryanSrich wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> I like my steaks borderline completely raw, but I’ll admit it’s because I’ve been around steak snobs

I usually like my steaks straight up raw, but most steak snobs I know insist on medium-rare as the "perfect" temperature. Truthfully, I won't usually complain about anything from tartare to medium, and you're right, the different amount of doneness has a drastic effect on flavors and sometimes you just want one flavor profile or another.

Post reply on HN