The World of Coffee

[bedir than average]

There is the possibility as well that they are using a very low grade of green coffee (generally called Prime Washed) that is available for well below even commodity pricing. That would get them to the margin that apical has them at, and it would explain the quite unflattering flavor notes provided by the tasters noted above.



And dlb, most people in the industry use the term "roasty", with those that don't like it calling it "over roasted" or if they are extraordinarily bitter they call it "burnt" Though "char" is likely just as valid in meaning to the general public we have specific languages similar to the wine industry.

[dlb]

It's also possible that they're buying under a futures contract, made back when prices were much lower.

[dlb]

My failure to post on this thread during the past week is not due to my having given up coffee, nor to the lack of any new discoveries. I got my Bodum Santos vacuum pot for Father's Day and have spent the past week figuring out how to make a good batch of coffee with it.

My efforts were not at all aided by the instruction manual. There isn't one. This would lead a user to believe that the device is simple to master. The user is thus misled.

Science is a wonderful thing, and the vacuum pot is a scientific wonder. As I mentioned before, it works by a simple application of the pressure principle (if that's what you call it). As the water in the bottom pot is heated, the ensuing high pressure sends it up to the top pot, where it remains until the heat is reduced to such a point as to reduce the pressure in the bottom pot, allowing gravity to pull the brewed coffee back down. When the coffee descends, it mixes with the remaining water in the bottom pot (there to keep the contraption from exploding), to create the stuff that you must drink.

It sounds simple, and watching it work is very, very cool. However, making it work well requires quite a bit of precision (science often demands precision, that's why most folks hate it).

The first thing I discovered is that even though the 8 cup (32 oz) Santos has a mark to facilitate the brewing of only six cups (24 oz), one cannot get a good cup of coffee at the six cup level. At least not what I'd call a good cup of coffee. The reason for this is that about 12 ozs. of water remain in the bottom pot. One simply cannot steep a reasonable amount of coffee in 12 ozs of water long enough to get the full benefit of the bean, after it has been diluted with 12 ozs of water.

However, if you are one of those folks who likes your coffee weak, this is the perfect way to get it. Watering down properly made coffee is a much better approach to getting a weaker cup than over-brewing the grinds.

I don't like weak coffee, so I have to go with 32 ozs. To get a good cup this way, I have to up the grounds to water ratio to 12 1.5 tbsp measures per pot (as opposed to 8 in a coffee press or drip maker), and steep for 5 minutes.

Setting my gas stove to 7 (on a scale of 1 to 10), it takes 12 - 15 minutes to heat 32 ozs of water enough to send it up the vacuum chute. I can't explain the time variance. Maybe it's water temperature; maybe it's barometric pressure; maybe the gnomes and pixies are out to drive me crazy.

Once I get the water into the top pot, I have to turn the temp down to 4, to avoid sending jets of air up the chute, which cause a disconcerting roiling of the brew and shaking of the pot. After 5 minutes, I turn off the heat, and about 30 seconds later, the coffee makes it's descent.

Following this method, the vacuum pot makes an excellent cup of coffee. The mixing of brew with water creates a wonderful smoothness, as if the water acts as a palette for the brewed coffee, much as good bread creates a palette for good butter (if you can get it, do try English butter; it's much better than anything made here in the States).

It took me a week to figure this out. Though my morning ritual is now much like a prayer to the coffee gods, I do enjoy both the process and the result.

My coffee flavors of the week are Starbucks Sulawesi; their new Kapalani blend; and my own mixture of Kirkland Signature Decaf blended 2:1 with Sulawesi.

First, if Kirkland's Signature blend is "char for beginners," Sulawesi is "char lovers' char." The "roastiness" is deep, rich and delightful. Beyond that, there is a moderate sweetness and a good, solid earthiness. I love this stuff.

It may also be the perfect full-caf to blend with the Kirkland Signature Decaf. It's full-on char adds just the right touch to the mild char of the Kirkland, making for a very balanced, well rounded, charry brew.

The Kapalani is another thing entirely. It has a fine woody backbone, a just-over-medium sweetness and a fruity top note. The operative word for this blend, though, is "mellow." The woodiness is there but not pronounced. The sweetness easily discerned but not pronounced. The fruitiness present but not pronounced. I can detect no char. If you can imagine sitting on a starlit beach eating mangoes while a driftwood fire crackles in the upwind distance, perfuming the breeze with a pleasant aroma, you'll have some idea of what it's like to enjoy a cup of Kapalani. Put this one on your list. If you don't like it, you may send the unused portions to me.

[dlb]

Due to an unfortunate oversight, this week we have the opportunity to test my descriptive abilities, as well as the ability of Bedir and other Starbucks cognoscenti to discern the differences between the blends. But first, a little rant.

My local Starbucks has to be one of the worst in the entire organization (if you want to crack the corporate whip, Bedir, it's the one on Huffman Mill Road in Burlington, NC). The problem, I think, is that they hire students from Elon University and experience quite a bit of turnover. I know more about their products than most of the folks behind the counter (though there are a couple of full-timers who are very good; one even brings the employees together for afternoon tastings). Some don't know how to make a French Press; others, when I ask for a decaf iced coffee, will tell me it can't be done (technically, I should ask for an iced decaf Americano, but I shouldn't have to remember these things). And others forget to offer the free tall that comes when one purchases a pound.

This week, I bought a half pound of Organic Sumatra-Peru and a half pound of Gold Coast. The kid who bagged them up for me forgot to label the bags. Thus, I don't really know which is which (though I do have my opinions on the matter). For our purposes, I'll call them "Red" and "Blue," after the color of the containers in which I have them stored.

Today, I'm enjoying a French press of Red. The beans are of two colors, one a medium walnut-brown, the other a very dark brown. Freshly ground, this blend has a sweet, orange-chocolate aroma, which comes through in the aroma of the brew.

The coffee has a rich, charry base (not overpoweringly charry, but it's certainly there), a mild woodiness, a hint of cocoa and a nice acidy bite that seems to close off the flavor sensations as you finish each sip. In the aftertaste, that orange-chocolate aroma presents itself one final time.

So, here's what the experience is like: open with a rich, mellow char; bring up a woody backbone with a hint of cocoa; then shut it all down with a crisp, acid bite and finish with soft, orange chocolate flavor. What do you say, Bedir, Sumatra-Peru or Gold Coast?

One last thought: I bet this would make a great iced coffee. The last, lukewarm sip is almost all orange-chocolate. Add some cream and sugar, drop the temp and you'd have something close to a coffee Dreamsicle.

[bedir than average]

Based on your past descriptions I am going to say that must be the Organic Sumatra-Peru.

If you can manage post a pic (even a poor cellphone image) of both of the coffees here and I can verify. Both of these blends have LatinAmerican and Sumatran coffees in them, and that's why I hesitate a little bit.

The key with this, is that though you are describing the coffees in the same way that a retail Starbucks partner would, you have been descriptive enough that I am counting on my ability to translate from dlb-ese to my cupping table. Which being that we have only chatted virtually over these matters can be somewhat problematic.

[dlb]

If you can manage post a pic...

That's a good plan, bedir; but first I want to describe Blue and see if that leads you to greater clarity or confusion.

[apicalbodscan]

Originally Posted by bedir than average

If you can manage post a pic .

Don't you have to print the pic on "scratch and sniff" paper?

[dlb]

Okay, after a busy week in the word mill, I'm finally getting a chance to write down my impressions of the mysterious Blue blend. The beans are fairly uniform in color, ranging from a dark walnut (I'm thinking of the wood finish here, not the nut shell or meat), to the almost-black of a full espresso roast. The freshly ground beans have rich, earthy, roasty (see Bedir, I can use the proper terminology) aroma. Of these, the earthiness comes through most in the aroma of the brewed coffee (today's cup was made in a French press).

As for the flavor of the brewed beverage, this is manly stuff. There are no delicate notes flitting around the palette. It just gets down to business. The flavor is a straight-up, powerful one-two punch of earthiness (imagine the pleasant aroma of decaying tree trunk on the forest floor) and a nicely rounded char.

What's most interesting about this blend is a tension between sweet and bitter. As coffees go, it's not within what I'd consider the sweet range, but there is a mild sweetness right at the base of the flavors. As the char comes on, I feel like I'm about to get attacked by full-on roastiness, but then the sweetness reaches up and gives it a good whack, bringing it back down to earth. It's almost like the blend battles its internal contradictions right there in your mouth, resolving them quite nicely before reaching a simple, well balanced finish.

I like this stuff a lot. I've also found that it blends very nicely with the Starbucks Decaf Espresso (at 1:3). This is the cup you want when you need to strap on your gonads and go to work.

[apicalbodscan]

The newscaster herself didn't pick up on the irony of this stand being at the intersection of Broad and John.

Seattle's Best indeed. Gives a new meaning to "cup size" Although there is no truth to the rumor that you must order your lattes in A, B, C, D or "Feeder" sizes.




Video | KING5.com | News for Seattle, Washington