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

511–520 of 631 posts

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#511

Post by rjh29 »

acchow wrote: post #235
rjh29 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like your point about signalling. It's also true that the vast majority of people are not fussy about coffee and can drink anything. If you stay on the internet long enough it's easy to feel like you're the weird one for not investing in an expensive grinder or coffee machine or caring about the type of beans you use, while those people are actually the very small majority, they just broadcast it loudly.

What is there to broadcast if you are drinking the same Maxwell House every single day for a decade? On the other hand, those in coffee culture are always talking about beans to buy, why their coffee tastes messed up this month, how to fix their machines, how to adjust their grind to the latest roast they are trying (every roast needs a different grind). They're more vocal because there is a lot more to discuss.

Plenty of snobbery and gatekeeping and oneupmanship too, just read this thread if you want some examples.

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#512

Post by williamtrask »

To everyone replying with their coffee preferences, you may be missing the point. This post isn’t about coffee, it’s about people and experiences in life being more important than products. It’s about a product’s quality being defined not by its substance but by its reminder of things that can’t be purchased. It’s one of the most beautiful posts I’ve seen in a long time. Hope you look beyond the coffee.

Edit: Hope I didn't come across as too harsh to folks replying with their favourite coffee styles. I think I find myself in a near-constant state of, "but what about the things that matter" when spending time in VC/Startup/SV/AI/crypto/etc. culture. I know more unhappy-but-wildly-successful people here than I can shake a stick at, and I think we (as a community) are hugely complicit in pushing a consumerist culture where stuff>people. I was deeply moved to see a piece surface to HN which poetically argued for the opposite value set, and I had a moment of frustration when it wasn't clear that it was coming across to people in the comments. :)

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#513

Post by sizzle »

malaki01 wrote: post #385
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.

Live in Portland. Can confirm there are places that lack a simple dark roast / house coffee option. Portland literally encourages a "keep it weird" ethos that imo just results in folks trying too hard, as in banana-rosemary-licorice blends ...

Portland is the first and only place in the world where I was able to order a “lemonade coffee” and it was super unique and the flavors worked well together. They really get my respect for creativity alone, I like trying new things and changing my perception of what coffee is!

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#514

Post by NatSydenham »

quickthrower2 wrote: post #333
sershe wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I find the light roasts interesting as opposed to enjoyable. I had one that tasted like orange juice (not as in “notes”, like actual juice!). Medium is my comfort zone though!

The most bizarre coffee I've ever had was from the Papua New Guinea Baroida Estate. STRONG tasting notes of tomato. I thoroughly enjoyed it, but I love weird flavours like that. Very interesting coffee.

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#515

Post by stephen_g »

dsr_ wrote: post #382
jimmaswell wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apparently coffee enthusiasts hate me for this - I enjoy using a little single serving percolator on the stovetop. It's the kind that only sends the water through the grounds once, from the bottom up through the grounds then into the top. If you leave it on too long it'll "burn" but if you pour it out as soon as it's done it's fine. I tried a recirculating one a while ago and I actually liked it a lot, I just broke i…

That's not a percolator, that's a moka pot. There are many people who will rave about that.

Yeah, definitely sounds like a Moka pot. They're really popular and could even be said to be making a 'speciality resurgence'. Percolators on the other hand are pretty bad. The Moka pot can overheat things if not used well, but a percolator basically always overheats the coffee as part of the way it works!

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#516

Post by AriedK »

BrissyCoder wrote: post #393
fredley wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I second this approach. I buy locally roasted beans, and have a reasonably nice grinder and an aeropress. For my palette, the coffee's as good as I can get anywhere.

Is there an appreciable difference in quality between a french press and an aeropress?

The difference I appreciate the most is the filter of the aeropress that filters all the fine particles that easily make their way through/past a frech press filter.

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#517

Post by sizzle »

aaronbrethorst wrote: post #271
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.

I'd legitimately rather drink Starbucks than Stumptown for all of the reasons mentioned above. Starbucks is 'meh' but at least it doesn't have that sour, floral taste.

Stumptown sold out to Peets fyi https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/07/business/dealbook/peets-b...

I can’t look at them the same ever since.

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#518

Post by fsckboy »

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…

> Now imagine one with a slice of meat that’s rare and soggy

you mean a stack of thinly sliced bloody sheets of rare roast beef? I don't know what you're talking about, it makes an excellent sandwich.

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#519

Post by SheetPost »

mesh wrote: post #480
sershe wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

fyi, different roasts require different grinds, and changing bean roasts without changing grind can definitely lead to bad coffee (even if the beans are high quality). In general, you have to tune in your grind for each roast. Simple overview here: https://coffeechronicler.com/grind-size-chart/

all of these look too coarse to me. I make coffee in a moka pot and at these sizes it just tastes like water

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#520

Post by stephen_g »

fredley wrote: post #111
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 second this approach. I buy locally roasted beans, and have a reasonably nice grinder and an aeropress. For my palette, the coffee's as good as I can get anywhere.

Aeropress is a cool product, but the couple of times I tried it (I borrowed a friend's) I just found it too messy and quite fiddly. So I prefer pour-over now with a V60 now when I'm not making espresso because you can pick the whole filter up by the top (touching only paper) and drop it in the bin. Then the V60 usually only needs a rinse with boiling water if you do it immediately (and don't let it dry).
Post reply on HN