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

311–320 of 631 posts

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#311

Post by LesZedCB »

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've been doing it without ventilation and i'm really surprised how mild it is. it definitely smells for a few hours, but not bad at all. if it's too bad, i open the door for a few minutes or a window while i'm roasting.

i can't recommend it enough! it's super fun, and a whole new domain to learn about :)

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#312

Post by bee_rider »

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.

It is an interesting thought.

I think lots of us have places we loved growing up, that in became nostalgic keystone locations for our childhoods. For me, it is an ice cream place. And it becomes all the more apparent that these locations were actually about the people, because at some point we realize actually it is just kinda mediocre soft-serve otherwise.

And maybe frou-frou is distracting. But the instant coffee doesn't induce the authentic experience, it just makes it noticeable in retrospect. Although, the author didn't explicitly claim that it did induce the experience... Anyway there's a big gap between frou-frou and instant coffee where all sorts of lovely little coffee shops live.

I dunno. This became kinda train of thought. In conclusion, I have no conclusion. It is good for people to enjoy things and we should definitely find little rituals to indulge in with our loved ones.

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#313

Post by duxup »

abstract_put wrote: post #307
duxup wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think by and large recycling programs could generally be described as "a sham" pretty accurately. I'm sure there are good programs somewhere, but locally I think it was estimated (ballpark, just trying to remember) like 5-10% of recyclable plastic ends up being recycled vs. in a landfill or incinerated. Of that, some depressingly small amount is actually usefully recycled. Back of the napkin, if you buy a 30-pack o…

At that point why bother recycling anything?

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#314

Post by galangalalgol »

sgtnoodle wrote: post #206
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.

There's a difference between a snob and a connoisseur. The amount of roast is just one more variable of dozens. I personally prefer medium roast beans when doing a pour over, but you can't go wrong with dark roast in an espresso, aeropress or moka pot. It's rather difficult to compare coffee that's brewed in such drastically different ways. Like the author of the article, I also don't mind bad coffee.

This is how I feel as well. I've never come to appreciate light or medium with pour over or a good showerhead machine with proper temp. I can be ok with medium out of a moka pot as an Americano, but Aero press turns anything lighter than Vienna into something I can't finish. Moka pot with TJs french roast at medium fine grind is what I usually make. Dunkin donuts boxed coffee for meetings is right up there with my favorites though.

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#315

Post by ehnto »

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.

Mm, you're just prescribing preferences I think. You're not wrong that it begins to remove and change the flavors, but that's what some people prefer. It's different to steak as well, in that the bean starts with a flavour profile unique to that bean, and the roast alters it. So roasting different times and temps will yield different results depending on the bean, and sometimes you start with a bean you don't like the flavour of and end up with one you do.

Dark roasts and light roasts and everything in between are common here in Australia, where we have a fairly rich history with espresso coffee.

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#316

Post by a123b456c »

sershe wrote: post #234
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.

Or you could argue it eliminates the flavor that needs to be eliminated; using your steak analogy from a sibling comment, drinking medium/light roast may be like eating the steak raw or frozen. Totally different flavor from medium-rare, just not the one many people want. I recently had an unwitting encounter with medium roast (at the same "semi-fancy" price point as I typically buy) when my wife put some fresh beans…

she might be trying to tell you something about your regular roast.

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#317

Post by duxup »

MAGZine wrote: post #194
duxup wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

reduce, reuse, _then_ recycle. It's better to not use, or to reuse, then to try and recycle something. Despite the fact that it contains a "recycling" logo, the logo is really more of a indication of which plastic it is, rather than whether or not if it'll ever _actually_ be recycled. Of course, you can eliminate doubt by just not producing the waste to begin with.

I have trouble keeping up with different folks approaches from comment to comment.

The other guy mentioned using some that are recyclable so that’s why I mentioned that.

Beyond that what am I supposed to do make a pot of coffee that mostly I won’t drink?

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#318

Post by LesZedCB »

lukevp wrote: post #208
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!

Have you been to Mr. Green Beans in Portland? I’ve gotten beans there before, but just in early stages of roasting my own beans with a repurposed air popper. It’s definitely a hassle to use, have been looking into a standalone roaster.

i haven't, i've only ordered from sweet marias, but i'll check them out! i want a little more variety in my green coffee sources.

i didn't like roasting with the air popper, ever since getting a hottop drum roaster its actually been really fun instead of a chore. i have graphs and logs with data (manual recording), and i'm working on an arduino adapter for easier data logging.

i think i'm gonna keep with the hottop for a year then upgrade to an ailio bullet so i can get better logging/profiles as well as larger batches. the hottop does 225-250 grams per batch which is enough for a week, so i can roast on weekends. but for espresso it's hard to dial in and enjoy it before it's already gone while i'm also doing large french press brews.

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#319

Post by Tao3300 »

jmpeax wrote: post #289

"Maxwell" is mentioned 5 times. Are we sharing well-written advertisements masquerading as organic marketing on hacker news now? Are we becoming reddit?

> Please don't post comments saying that HN is turning into Reddit. It's a semi-noob illusion, as old as the hills.

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#320

Post by abstract_put »

duxup wrote: post #313
abstract_put wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think by and large recycling programs could generally be described as "a sham" pretty accurately. I'm sure there are good programs somewhere, but locally I think it was estimated (ballpark, just trying to remember) like 5-10% of recyclable plastic ends up being recycled vs. in a landfill or incinerated. Of that, some depressingly small amount is actually usefully recycled. Back of the napkin, if you buy a 30-pack o…

At that point why bother recycling anything?

I'm not sure, reading the local stats really discouraged me and also made me aware of some stuff I had been recycling that wasn't actually handled so would be redirected to the landfill anyways.

I guess because some is better than none? I think it's a good question though. If people stopped thinking of recycling as effective, would "reduce" and "reuse" get more limelight to the point of being an overall win?

Post reply on HN