MarkPrince Moderator Joined: 19 Dec 2001 Posts: 5,462 Location: Vancouver, BC Expertise: Professional
Espresso: KvdW Speedster Grinder: Compak K10 WBC Vac Pot: A bit too many Drip: Clive Coffee Drip Stand Roaster: Hario Glass Retro Roaster
Posted Mon Oct 15, 2007, 4:21am Subject: Re: Battle North America vs. Italy - The Results by Mark Prince
Actually, as much as I like scotch and whiskey myself, would you guys mind keeping the discussion on topic? ;) The Off Topics forum is a good place to pick up the scotch and whiskey discussions (hint hint)
JasonBrandtLewis Senior Member Joined: 9 Dec 2005 Posts: 6,098 Location: Berkeley, CA Expertise: I live coffee
Espresso: Elektra T1 - La Valentina -... Grinder: Mahlkönig K30 Vario -... Vac Pot: Yama 5-cup Drip: CCD, Chemex Roaster: No, no, not another...
Posted Mon Oct 15, 2007, 7:18am Subject: Re: Battle North America vs. Italy - The Results by Mark Prince
Philosopher Said:
If you want to say that certain conditions like a fresh roast are only important to extraction as a matter of opinion but not fact but you're experience doesn't include adjusting your grind for extraction, temp surfing, dose/distribution/tamp experimentation and a good bit of research into very good espresso extraction, no offense, but how can you honestly or with any credibility suppose that? I never said this - but Ken did not adjust and most of his readers probably did not care - but CGs may
And thus the distinction! Again, back to the world of wine for an example . . .
People who read wine magazines are but a small percentage of the total number of wine drinkers. (This is true, of course, the world over, but let's limit this to the U.S. and U.S.-based publications.) The readers are already "into" wine enough -- more so tha the average drinker -- to pick up the publication in the first place. Subscribers are even more into it, and are but a small percentage of the percentage of readers. That said, the subscription base of the Wine Spectator dwarfs that of Robert Parker's The Wine Advocate. Unavailable on newstands, you have to be much more "serious" about wine to subscribe to Parker. Parker's subscribers represent a range of interests and a range of knowledge, but on the whole are much more knowledgable than those who subscribe and/or read only the Wine Spectator. And while the "Spec" covers many of the same wines as Parker does, it also covers food and "lifestyle issues," and is more like Bon Appetit or Food & Wine turned inside out: rather than a food magazine with wine articles, it's a wine mag with articles on food. The "Spec" is aimed at a much broader base -- still, a small segment of the overall number of wine drinkers, but a much broader segment than Parker.
In this analogy, Kenneth Davids' Coffee Review is, of course, the "Spec" -- aimed at a broader consumer market (though still, a more "into it" segment of coffee drinkers than those who might read the occasional article on coffee in Bon Apetit or Gourmet -- while CG is aimed at a significantly smaller percentage . . . the top nth of one percent . . . .
JasonBrandtLewis Senior Member Joined: 9 Dec 2005 Posts: 6,098 Location: Berkeley, CA Expertise: I live coffee
Espresso: Elektra T1 - La Valentina -... Grinder: Mahlkönig K30 Vario -... Vac Pot: Yama 5-cup Drip: CCD, Chemex Roaster: No, no, not another...
Posted Mon Oct 15, 2007, 11:02am Subject: Re: Battle North America vs. Italy - The Results by Mark Prince
mrgnomer Said:
I agree that it's frustrating to read the review of a roast that isn't readily availble to me so I can try it out for myself. I still don't think that roast shouldn't be reviewed and compared. If it's reviewed maybe a demand will make it available.
I concur that small, so-called "micro-roasters" should be reviewed . . . by the appropriate regional review . . . presuming, of course, that such regional reviews become a reality . . . eventually. The problem, however, with your idea that demand will/may make it available, we're back to the freshness issue: can you -- in, say, Toronto -- get a pound (a kilo) of that 98-point espresso blend from that coffee roaster in New Zealand a) while it's still fresh, and b) without paying $50+ for FexEx overnight delivery?
mrgnomer Said:
Regional evaluations make sense as well. What do you think? Road trips for a core of baristas to hit a roasting region for an evaluation, contacting the region's roasters and express posting roasts for evaluation or drawing on local barista talent, if it exists, for recommendations and the evaluation?
I think regional coffees are reviewed by regional baristas/writers. Not many people are going to pay for you or I, or even Mark, to spend a month in Australia tasting various freshly roasted coffees -- nice though that may sound -- only to write them up back in Canada. If it's not a "homegrown" coffee-obsessed induvidual creating the website and reviewing the coffees from Down Under, Mark -- are you listening Mark? -- could eventually open up sections of THIS site for regional coffee reviews by "qualified professionals."
Posted Mon Oct 15, 2007, 2:26pm Subject: Re: Battle North America vs. Italy - The Results by Mark Prince
MarkPrince Said:
Actually, as much as I like scotch and whiskey myself, would you guys mind keeping the discussion on topic? ;) The Off Topics forum is a good place to pick up the scotch and whiskey discussions (hint hint)
gime2much Senior Member Joined: 10 Dec 2004 Posts: 1,965 Location: Sunny S Fl Expertise: I love coffee
Espresso: La Pavoni, Astoria comm, 2... Grinder: La Pavoni Zip, Bunn... Drip: Bunn comm Roaster: Popcorn popper (air),co/ufo
Posted Mon Oct 15, 2007, 2:44pm Subject: Re: Battle North America vs. Italy - The Results by Mark Prince
MarkPrince Said:
Actually, as much as I like scotch and whiskey myself, would you guys mind keeping the discussion on topic? ;) The Off Topics forum is a good place to pick up the scotch and whiskey discussions (hint hint)
Posted Mon Oct 15, 2007, 2:45pm Subject: Re: Battle North America vs. Italy - The Results by Mark Prince
JasonBrandtLewis Said:
I think regional coffees are reviewed by regional baristas/writers. Not many people are going to pay for you or I, or even Mark, to spend a month in Australia tasting various freshly roasted coffees -- nice though that may sound -- only to write them up back in Canada. If it's not a "homegrown" coffee-obsessed induvidual creating the website and reviewing the coffees from Down Under, Mark -- are you listening Mark? -- could eventually open up sections of THIS site for regional coffee reviews by "qualified professionals."
I'd be concerned about regional baristas varying in skill or experience. I'd think it would be difficult for the reviews to be consistent from region to region using local baristas unless the baristas were very good.
But you could have fun with it in a two for one sort of way. Have two regions head to head, one ships the other their roasts and the two regions evaluate and compare their own and each other's roasts. The baristas need to be similar in experience. You could have a WBC ranked barista or two, if they're available, leading the evaluation and directing geek barista(s) and maybe a casual barista(s). Yeah, shipping charges bring up the cost but what can you do.
I'm sure there would be a way to justify writing off a road trip. It would be advancing coffee and coffeegeek, wouldn't it?
JasonBrandtLewis Senior Member Joined: 9 Dec 2005 Posts: 6,098 Location: Berkeley, CA Expertise: I live coffee
Espresso: Elektra T1 - La Valentina -... Grinder: Mahlkönig K30 Vario -... Vac Pot: Yama 5-cup Drip: CCD, Chemex Roaster: No, no, not another...
Posted Mon Oct 15, 2007, 3:02pm Subject: Re: Battle North America vs. Italy - The Results by Mark Prince
mrgnomer Said:
I'd be concerned about regional baristas varying in skill or experience. I'd think it would be difficult for the reviews to be consistent from region to region using local baristas unless the baristas were very good.
What is Mark, but a well-educated geek and somoneone who passed the WBC Judge's Exam? IF there is a standard, shouldn't a WBC "approved" judge be of sufficient caliber to pass judgement? After all, they judge the performance of a barista . . . .
mrgnomer Said:
But you could have fun with it in a two for one sort of way. Have two regions head to head, one ships the other their roasts and the two regions evaluate and compare their own and each other's roasts . . .
It would be better if Region "A" ships to Region "B" AND Region "B" ships to Region "A" -- that way each "set" of judges have the same (e.g.) six coffees from each region to review. The effects of shipping could be mitigated by comparing the reviews of Region A's judges with those of Region B's.
mrgnomer Said:
I'm sure there would be a way to justify writing off a road trip. It would be advancing coffee and coffeegeek, wouldn't it?
Write-offs always sound better than they actually are. ;^)
Besides, knowing that this Australian roaster is better than that one remains in the "fun-to-know-but-essentially-useless-tidbit" to readers outside of Australia (OK, and maybe New Zealand) . . . just as knowing that Ecco Caffe placed 1st and Allegro placed 6th is to Derek . . . UNLESS I am planning to visit there, or he's planning on coming here. Either way, that info I can get from people who participate in CG's regional forums already.
Taste = body balance, sweetness balance, acidity balance, aftertaste (40%)
Other = with milk (10%)
Final assessment = judge score (10%), barista score (20%)
Perhaps more information in the tasting notes:
Look = colour/hue crema, intensity of crema, volume of crema, persistence of crema,
Smell = variety of aromas, intensity of aroma, faults that can be detected
With regard to 'taste'
Should acid and sweetness balance be assessed separately? Or just one score for the primary balance of sweet/acid/bitter. The tasting notes can then specifically mention the things which dominate.
Body should be followed by mention of complexity and concentration and then a reference to 'balance' of flavours. e.g. 'Overpoweringly fruity, too much chocolate'. Again tasting notes can specify the dominant characteristics.
Lastly, length, aftertaste then faults - burnt, ashy etc etc
With regard to 'with milk'
Should the score for this be omitted and a comment made only in the tasting notes e.g. "v good/excellent with milk, gets lost in milk"
With regard to 'judges score'
With an more elaborate marking system perhaps the judges score can be omitted completely.
With regard to 'barista' score
Should we omit the score but reserve comments for the notes section?
In the end, the final result is most important but we should then warn readers how much their mileage may vary
More comments please - recommended dose/tamp/temp, ease to work with, reproducibility on prosumer machine e.g. 'needs higher temp to work well, very good results on Silvia'
Final conclusions:
The final score should reflect the best espresso that can be achieved with the blend under ideal conditions
However, the tasting notes can then elaborate on how easy it is to achieve it for the average prosumer and whether it is similarly well suited for milk drinks
Philosopher Senior Member Joined: 13 Feb 2007 Posts: 188 Location: Australia Expertise: I like coffee
Espresso: Silvia Grinder: Rocky
Posted Mon Oct 15, 2007, 9:07pm Subject: Re: Battle North America vs. Italy - The Results by Mark Prince
GaryH Said:
I copied the espresso ranking data into Excel and made a chart showing each category. As the overall ratings increase, typically the individual ratings for each category also increase. The higher scoring blends also have a higher barista score so looks like a better blend is more forgiving.
Good work with the analysis. Eyeballing the data indicates both Barista and Judge's score correlates well with final score (except for a few exceptions).
Since you have already got the data on your spreadsheet could you try this analysis:
Compute total score but omitting the Barista/Judge/Milk scores and adjust up for a percentage score. Compare this with MP's original results.
Can we show that the component evaluation is adequate for an evaluation?
Symbols: = New Posts since your last visit = No New Posts since last visit = Newest post
Forum Rules: No profanity, illegal acts or personal attacks will be tolerated in these discussion boards. No commercial posting of any nature will be tolerated; only private sales by private individuals, in the "Buy and Sell" forum. No cross posting allowed - do not post your topic to more than one forum, nor repost a topic to the same forum. Who Can Read The Forum? Anyone can read posts in these discussion boards. Who Can Post New Topics? Any registered CoffeeGeek member can post new topics. Who Can Post Replies? Any registered CoffeeGeek member can post replies. Can Photos be posted? Anyone can post photos in their new topics or replies. Who can change or delete posts? Any CoffeeGeek member can edit their own posts. Only moderators can delete posts. Probationary Period: If you are a new signup for CoffeeGeek, you cannot promote, endorse, criticise or otherwise post an unsolicited endorsement for any company, product or service in your first five postings.
= No New Posts since last visit 