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

551–560 of 631 posts

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#551

Post by Tarq0n »

scoot wrote: post #220
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…

"Bordering on the extreme"?! You are the marketer's ideal mark. $2K for a $20 grinder? $10K for a $100 coffee machine? And that's before rip-off beans...

Particle size matters for coffee, and at $20 you couldn't even get a hand grinder that produces good results.

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#552

Post by Shorel »

I like Twinning's English Breakfast tea with a particular amount of milk and sweetener. It is a very specific flavour.

Not because it is the best tea. I like it because the only times I drank it, when I was a child, I was with my grandfather, visiting one of his cousins.

About coffee, as a colombian living in Europe I despise the Italian espresso and will fight for the best coffee in the world to be either in Medellin or Brasilia. Never in an Italian city. And never espresso.

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#553

Post by 6keZbCECT2uB »

Enjoying coffee, its production, and its flavors is something I enjoy with my friends. We like to share what we liked about the different roasters we've tried recently.

What's happening in our lives with what flavors we enjoy. I have enjoyed chocolatey, earthy dark roasts and then discovered that roast wasn't a great predictor of those flavors because they came from different roast levels. I've been into pairing natural washed roasts with French press. Lately, in really into syrupy, fruity coffees that are still mild acidity.

It can be a great shared activity to make coffee together, share recipes, and watch techniques.

Preferences are individual and the best coffee is one you like. If you don't keep an open mind, you might miss out something new and something special, but that's ok too.

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#554

Post by Shorel »

williamtrask wrote: post #512

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…

Both things, the coffee and the memories, are important to me.

And I don't see the post about being one, or the other.

I see the post about the common point where these two meet, and reinforce each other.

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#555

Post by CTDOCodebases »

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.

> There's a difference between a snob and a connoisseur.

I wholly agree with this statement. I worked in the coffee industry for a long time for a roaster that purchased some amazing coffees. We were buying top quality coffees at a time when most of our "specialty coffee" competitors were too cheap to pay for it.

Some people really do not know what they are tasting and are so prone to suggestion. Some people also like to assume the identity of the coffee snob to feel some type of superiority to others or feel some type of belonging to a group.

Personal taste is subjective. Some people like dark roasted coffees because they dislike acidity and like smokey flavours. To me a dark roasted coffee tastes like an ashtray. Taste itself and by taste I mean sweet, salty, sour, umami is not subjective however different people taste these in varying intensities. I happen to be sensitive to acidity so what tastes sour to me might not taste sour to another person. Aromatics too are not subjective with the exception of coriander or with people that suffer neurological taste disorders. Smell is an undeveloped sense in most people though so without visual cues a person might not be able to articulate what they are tasting or may generalise eg saying citrus instead of tangelo.

Like the author I always took the opportunity to drink bad coffee whenever it was the only coffee available. To me it was a recalibration. Nowadays I drink the house espresso blend of my old workplace though an aeropress. It's funny to think I would drink up to 20 coffees a day and now I just have one a day. I brew the aeropress with the same recipe every day. It works out probably 75% of the time producing a nice simple chocolatey cup of coffee.

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#556

Post by CTDOCodebases »

jquery wrote: post #406
barrkel wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's not wasted. Maybe I'm more sensitive than average, but I can absolutely tell the difference between different beans and roasts even after cream/sugar has been added.

Working as a barista I was always amused when a down to earth tradesman who added sugar to their coffee would pick up on subtle blend changes while others who assumed coffee lover or foodie as part of their identity would be surprised when we casually mentioned that the house blend was seasonal.

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#557

Post by CTDOCodebases »

abstract_put wrote: post #152
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 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"?

This is a very accurate perception.

As a side note I once had a conversation with the head roster of a place I worked at. I floated the idea of accentuating certain characteristics of brewed coffee by microdosing i.e. adding minute amounts of long chain starches to increase natural sweetness in the cup. The head roaster saw this as being fundamentally wrong and unethical.

Maybe it was an egotistical response but in his mind the roasters job was to present the best possible unique expression of the green beans and doing what I suggested would be interfering with this.

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#558

Post by elefantastisch »

GrifMD wrote: post #544
williamtrask wrote: post #512

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…

The core of the post is "have quality experiences". This can be applied to many things, like travel for instance. I remember my times in hostels in Australia and European mountains much more than I do any 5 star hotel because I was having a good time with friends.

I think you're saying the same thing as the post but in a way I worry people will take the wrong way. "TLDR, have quality experiences" is going to read as "don't spend $100 on fancy coffee, spend it on a concert" or some equivalent. In other words, just the difference between buying products and buying "experiences".

But of course that isn't what the original post is about at all. So I might TLDR more like... "Bonding with people over shared experiences is more important than the experience itself."

I've noticed this before with restaurants. I used to really enjoy trying lots of new restaurants, finding the best... until I realized all I ever talked about when eating out was the food. Much better to just go to Applebee's--where the food is clearly no draw--and focus on enjoying time with someone.

I think what the original post is really trying to point out is the various ways we get fixated on optimizing what should really be the background (the coffee, the meal, etc.) instead of the real meaningful experience (the time with significant people).

Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)

#559

Post by eurasiantiger »

krageon wrote: post #505
eurasiantiger wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that is because the harsh taste is a proxy for how much psychoactive MAO-A-inhibiting beta-carbolines the brew contains. You like it because it gets you more high.

Disparaging why someone likes it doesn't make you more right. If anything, attacking their reason for liking it (rather than the relative merits of liking one flavour profile versus another) makes you more wrong: It signifies that you've run out of meaningful things to say and must now attack the character / moral fiber of the person in question to get anywhere.

I’m not being derogatory, rather stating how things truly are in the psychopharmacological and neurobehaviorogical senses.

If anything, you’ve now shown that you carry a belief that ”getting high” is inherently a negative prospect. What I wrote carries no such default.

Post reply on HN