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

421–430 of 631 posts

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#421

Post by chewz »

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 think that you are missing the point...

You should be enjoying coffee - pure and simple joy of the moment - instead of focusing on the technicalities of making your brew ... The marginal gain of weighting, expensive grinders etc. is not worth it.

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#422

Post by kQq9oHeAz6wLLS »

technothrasher wrote: post #265
zwieback wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree, I don't even order coffee in Portland anymore because everything is "delicate, fruity, floral" light roast aka. tastes like goddam vinegar.

Last time I was in Oregon I tried to go into a coffee place and get a cup of coffee. Now, I'm admittedly not a big fancy coffee guy, usually drinking whatever Dunkin Donuts or McDonald's swill I can get, but I couldn't for the life of me figure out what the hell I was supposed to order. It was all fancy names on the menu and nothing that was just "coffee". I finally just said, "I want, like, normal, I don't know, Eas…

You gotta get outside the Portland metro area. Then you'll find normal coffee.

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#423

Post by rowanG077 »

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…

Forgive my ignorance but why does local roast matter?

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#424

Post by kQq9oHeAz6wLLS »

Robotbeat wrote: post #266
compiler-guy wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Starbuck’s Via instant coffee is the best instant coffee I’ve ever tasted, and it’s not close. Like a real cup of coffee, somehow. I’ve been looking for an off-brand version of it (micro ground coffee beans?) considering it’s much more expensive than regular instant coffee but haven’t found any.

Community Coffee makes an excellent instant.

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#425

Post by doublepg23 »

bee_rider wrote: post #362
doublepg23 wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I say whisk(e)y of any type lean towards the right, wine is left, steak can be a unifier, but chicken might get you called "soy".

Hey now, Jura (makes whisky) advertises on the Crooked Media Podcasts, so we can't accuse them of being right wing. Generally I think of whisk(e)y as having like all brown liquors, if anything, a bit of an elitist vibe but not really a left-right association.

I find wine to have more of an elitist twinge vs whisk(e)y - bourbon especially. I don’t think a fifth of Wild Turkey 101 is particularly elitist.

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#426

Post by Foobar8568 »

rfrey wrote: post #263
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.

It's not undeniable. Dark roasts are much more difficult to get right and be consistent with. Many roasters can't do it, so they're happy to promote the idea that people who like dark roasts are coffee dilettantes. To me, it's similar to how so many American microbreweries go crazy with hops.

I would say, medium roast is difficult to get right, too often, the inside part of the bean is like charcoal. Dark roast is plainly bad, when I see really shinny beans, I know it'll be awful. I rather have robusta blend then a dark roast or badly roast medium.

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#427

Post by Foobar8568 »

LesZedCB wrote: post #187
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…

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!

In Europe we don't really have such variety of roaster in the cheap... So modded popcorn roaster, considering the current way u roast, I am unsure if modding was needed... So $20 for 80-90gr roaster

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#428

Post by puchatek »

> waiting 15 minutes for my morning caffeine fix

I can prepare a homemade cappuccino in 5 minutes - with milk froth, from freshly ground beans, using an improved version of the classic Moka Express. While i empty and clean the pot, the water is boiled in an electric water cooker and the beans are ground. Then the milk goes in the frother. Hot water and beans go in the pot which goes on the stove. Froth into cups, a quick rinse of the frother and then the coffee is already ready to be poured.

The quality is not that of an espresso made with a high-pressure espresso machine but it's still pretty good.

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#429

Post by fho »

413 comments and not a single mention of arabica beans? :-)

Maybe it's a local/German thing, but here you will not find a single brand that will not praise its 100% arabica beans content.

Now, we lived close to an old Italian guy who roasted coffee for a living in a small garage. A lot of it went to his families restaurant, coffee and ice cream place.

Whenever he got the chance he went on a rant that arabica beans were overrated and that the robusta beans he was using were superior in quality (and more expensive).

No idea if that is true, but his roasts were great, so there must have been at least some truth to it.

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#430

Post by coolsunglasses »

puchatek wrote: post #428

> waiting 15 minutes for my morning caffeine fix I can prepare a homemade cappuccino in 5 minutes - with milk froth, from freshly ground beans, using an improved version of the classic Moka Express. While i empty and clean the pot, the water is boiled in an electric water cooker and the beans are ground. Then the milk goes in the frother. Hot water and beans go in the pot which goes on the stove. Froth into cups, a q…

Which moka pot is this? I'm not aware of any that go above 3 bar and that is very far from being espresso unfortunately.
Post reply on HN