Comments for the other black stuff

Comment on we welcome our new coffee overlords… by Lukas Yun

Lukas Yun — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 15:01:30 +0000

Really enjoyed this post.Thanks Again. Cool.

Comment on confounding variables by Latte Art 101 | New England Brewing

Latte Art 101 | New England Brewing — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 11:34:01 +0000

[...] correlation situations—or, put more fancily as a rhetorical question by David Walsh on his blog The Other Black Stuff: I might observe that cappuccinos that I have received that have latte art on them tend to taste [...]

Comment on Bean Review: James Gourmet Coffee Selection by galina

galina — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 21:08:16 +0000

I’ve read a lot of reviews about the company and take a risk to place an order for coffee. Oops, it’s been 10 days since then – no coffee, even no reply – dead silence… I’m looking forward to tasting their amazing drink. Could I be doing anything wrong?

Comment on the worst of coffee in 2011 by Cris

Cris — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 12:21:20 +0000

As per #3, what did you mean when you said, “..single cup brewing is a good thing in a retail setting.. The way it is commonly done is not (if you value a consistently near-optimal brew).”

When you say “it” in the second sentence, is it a reference to single cup brewing, poor single cup brewing, or something else?

Comment on the worst of coffee in 2011 by ernie whalley

ernie whalley — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 19:55:07 +0000

The advantage wine has is there’s a fixed and definable moment when the critical process starts to take place. Discounting esoteric things like cask samples, the process begins when the cork is removed and a tasting measure poured. The critic, tasting either blind or with the advantage of some pre-knowledge (and there are things to be said for either approach) then noses/tastes/remembers and makes the assessment, subsequently presented to the critic’s marketplace – print/radio/TV/blog/competition or whatever.
To assist in the process (and make a living) the critic organises tastings, gives tutorials/receives bottles /judges competions etc, etc and spends time developing his/her expertise – reading/education/vineyard visits etc.
If coffee critcs are to enjoy similar regard, much the same process has to be put in place.
The early wine critics were mostly rich kids, whose dads (and colleges) had good cellars. A private income and lots of leisure were other requirements. This had two effects, one good, one bad (a) it began a tradition of independence from the producers (b) it gave wine criticism that snob image that Steve alludes to in an earlier post. (a) is a tradition that endures laregly to this day. In my 25 years in Ireland I can only ever think of two critics I’d consider in thrall to the trade (no names, no pack drill…) . I’ve been in the deep doo-doo with the trade on at least two occasions – once when I slammed a cult producer of making over-priced rubbish and again when I described a major player’s new range as being “worse than the one it replaced”. I’d hope the coffee trade could withstand (informed) criticism of this nature.
Well, it’s a blueprint of sorts.

Comment on the worst of coffee in 2011 by Tim Varney

Tim Varney — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 12:52:29 +0000

Thank you David, I wholeheartedly agree with practically everything you’ve said – especially the dishonestly and lack of measured critique in coffee.

And thank you Ernie for your comments.

I can’t wait for the day the coffee world has qualified reviewers/critics, as the wine and restaurant world, i can only imagine, has come leaps and bounds because of the critical appraisal imparted to them.

Way, way too many roasters/cafes/producers get away with murder, and because of this the general public are terribly misinformed.

We need to be kept on our toes; and we need to sort out the pretenders and celebrate those who are the real deal.

Comment on the worst of coffee in 2011 by ernie whalley

ernie whalley — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 10:59:28 +0000

As both a coffee lover who roasts/grinds/brews (mostly espresso & cappuccino) for reguar home consumption and a critic who makes a small living out of QUOTE STEVE “the bitter,sniping,backstabbing,snobby world of wine” I think I should comment.
Firstly, the need for critics and criticism stems from public interest. Which is why there are far more wine critics than coffee, crochet or croquet critics. As an outsider in the coffee world it’s hard to suspend the belief that the general public doesn’t really (a) give a damn or (b) think it’s necessary to learn about coffee. Contrast this with the huge expansion in wine education between 1998-2008.
Secondly Steve’s description of the wine world is unfair and untrue. Parker, for example, did the wine world a lot of good by (a) persuading the industry to make better wines – more and better quality fruit, less green tannins etc (b) he actually democratised wine – there’s a lot wrong with his scoring system but at least it’s relatively easy to comprehend. What’s more a 92 pointer doesn’t need to be a megabucks wine, nor need it come from a famous chateau or domaine. Wine, after Parker is less snobbish, not more. That said, his disciples have rather warped things. Luckily we have people like Hugh Jonson and Jancis to redress the balance. Plus the vast ranks of less feted critics who save the big pronouncements and just carry on with assessing the bottles in front of them, many of whom I know and get on with.
Amongst winemakers worldwide there is now considerable co-operation and exchange of technical info. The Aussies have always been good at this.
Yes, there will be dissention between critics. Hardly surprising because you can divide them (and here I’m hugely generalising) Into (1) Those who see wine as romance, history, lore and legend
(2) Those who see wine as a technical process and judge accordingly
(3) Those who see wine as a collection of flavours.
I’m sure, if coffee criticism developed you’d get a similar schism.
Finally, I’ll be convinced of a ‘need’ for criticism if I ever see Paddy Joe and Mary Jane sending back their big milkfest. Till then let’s, as cynical old Bob (Dylan not Parker) said let’s just “keep on keeping on” at trying to make better coffee. And not play cards too close to chests. And making sure we don’t get bitter, sniping, backstabbing and snobby.
(reading back there are so many more arguments I could make against Steve’s tirade against the wine guys but space and time forfends – I have 56 bottles to review).

Comment on the worst of coffee in 2011 by David

David — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 08:16:50 +0000

meow

Comment on the worst of coffee in 2011 by 123

123 — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 02:54:50 +0000

First trend of 2012: coffee people hypocritically complaining about the lack of honesty by coffee people.

Comment on the worst of coffee in 2011 by Mike Haggerton

Mike Haggerton — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 01:29:03 +0000

Re point 1, I believe there is a place for public criticism, but it should be reserved as a last resort when all attempts at private & constructive feedback and dialogue have failed. However, there is a big difference between
- public criticism (damning and damaging), and
- public critique (sharing both positive and negative experiences, which can be good for everyone)

More of the latter would be good, and IMO would help address the issue of coffee providers using a combination of hyperbole and hero-worship to market coffees that sometimes don’t deserve the lavish praise in the product description/tasting notes. If a coffee doesn’t fulfill the promise of the blurb then I feel there should be more ways to regulate the overblown marketing… and that goes for the shops & roasters, not just the beans themselves. It seems too easy for some coffee providers to make a song and dance about how amazing they are, and makes it difficult for consumers to buy into speciality (/progressive) coffee when so often the product doesn’t match the hype. (A V60 and a bent bit of copper pipe does not a good coffee make.) Forums already enable this critique but we could do better.
But I might balk at a new body of critics. Who will guard the guards?