Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Peter Tam on June 20, 2008 at 10:02am

That is completely true, except that the coffee in the competition is not so good. I am not quite sure of the WBC champions, but for sure about the champion for China. His coffee is really not good, but so poor. The problem is how he can be the champion?

Most people knows that we announced that our coffee is quite good, confirmed by Italian coffee professionals, and our coffee theory can help people to learn to make good coffee. But, no one, including the organization of WBC, care of it. That is why I asked whether they care of good coffee or not. They pronised yes, but never see what they do about it.

You have got feeling of the coffee industry, and found some of the problems.

It is very true that people know coffee almost only from cafes. The problem is that almost all of cafes do not have good coffee, like in China, people would know from the cafes that "coffee is not good, not drink it". If there were more people can make good coffee, those small group of people will not be able to influence it.

I do not know if I explain it well or not. The English is always a problem for me.

Permalink Reply by Shawn Steiman on June 20, 2008 at 10:23am

Wow, guys, I have so much work to do on my dissertation, yet, I cannot ignore this thread!

There is only one way of looking at quality- objectively. In order to do that, though, you must define what quality is and then score against that. The definition of quality has a bit of subjectivity because people are choosing to measure traits they deem important. Regardless of the process, the person (or people) defining quality need to have a very broad understanding of the range of experiences available, IMO, for the definition to be useful. The problem is that preference always gets in the way. Just because something is considered excellent does not guarantee that I'll like it (c'mon, there are 6 billion people on the planet, we're gonna be different!). (For a better explanation of this, buy my book, released this week. It has a solid section on coffee quality and cupping: The Hawaii Coffee Book)

Consequently, coffee at a barista championship may not be anything most people drink because 1) they don't like it (inexperience is a detriment to quality assessment) or 2) they don't have access to it. The shots and caps at competitions are probably very good. At least, they are good by my definition and the general definition that the coffee community has established. The signature drinks, are of course, more difficult to measure as their requirements are more relaxed. It is challenging to score them but not impossible.

Lastly, to address Peter's statement of bad Chinese coffee... It does not surprise me that this may be true. Remember, though, that competitions are designed to discover the best of what's available, not the best of what can be.

The vast majority of people on this planet do not know the possibilities that exist in the coffee organoleptic experience. They lack the experience. This isn't always their fault. We can't be blamed for ignorance if we don't realize there is anything to know. Most people I educate about coffee do start drinking and buying differently when I'm through with them. The specialty coffee movement has only been blasting at full speed for about 20 years. Coffee quality and access to that coffee has increased dramatically. However, there's still those 6 billion people to educate... Let's be patient and keep educating. Baby steps...

Permalink Reply by Shawn Steiman on December 29, 2009 at 11:04am

Hey Jamie,

Well, the ultimate book on coffee history is "Uncommon Grounds" by Mark Pendergrast. If you've not read it, I encourage you to. Although, like many history books, it has some dry spells... :-) There's also some coffee-movement coverage in the Clarke and Macrae series.

Honestly, though, I think there could be a much better recounting of varieties than there is. Most countries probably have the information somewhere, though it may be hard to find. I'd work on this if it were something I could do from home. :-)

Right now, I'm doing some brewing experiments and processing experiments. The processing work is just for fun, so I squeeze it in when I have time. Otherwise, since I graduated, I do more consulting than research. Sigh.

Thanks for adding to this quiet discussion!
Shawn

Jamie Treby said:

Wow, awful quiet in here! Anybody doing anything interesting? I'm personally interested in the history and spread of coffee, which, to my mind should be trackable. Am I alone in this or does someone else want to help out? A published histroy at the end would be great, but as with most things coffee I'm doing it for the love....

Permalink Reply by Shawn Steiman on December 30, 2009 at 10:05pm

Heya Jamie,

The Clarke and Macrae series is a 1985 multi-book scientific work. I wish I had bought them when I first discovered them over a decade ago. They must be out of print, now. Still, they've got neat stuff in them.

I know of Ukers, well. I've not read it 'cause I'm hoping to stumble upon an original without too high a price. Someday I'll break down and get a new, though. :-)

Right now, I have two sets of experiments I'm working on. First- how do certain brewing parameters affect solid extraction. So, stuff like water quality, grind size, and brew strength. The second, like I mentioned, has to do with processing (dry process, pulped natural and washed) and its relationship to organoleptic quality.

I'm hoping to write some grants this year to follow up on my dissertation work but now sure when that's gonna happen. Of course, I'm always hoping coffee folk will hire me to set up and/or do experiments for them. Some day...

FYI, my past work has been on coffee chemistry x organoleptic quality, the effects of shade on quality, and differentiating roasted and green coffee by a chemical profile. I'm really a horticulturist, even though I have a strong chem background. Oh well. :-)

Have a great turn of the year,
Shawn

Jamie Treby said:

Hey Shawn,
I read Uncommon Grounds a while back and still have it on my shelf.... great book! I also would recommend 'All About Coffee' by William H Ukers for anything to do with coffee, it was reprinted a couple of years ago so doesn't cost hundreds anymore. I'll Google Clarke and Macrae, not heard of them before but sounds interesting so thanks for that!

So what do your experiments involve? I spent a day at a multinational R&D department a while back which was really interesting if a touch super-geeky in all the best ways. :)



Shawn Steiman said:

Hey Jamie,

Well, the ultimate book on coffee history is "Uncommon Grounds" by Mark Pendergrast. If you've not read it, I encourage you to. Although, like many history books, it has some dry spells... :-) There's also some coffee-movement coverage in the Clarke and Macrae series.

Honestly, though, I think there could be a much better recounting of varieties than there is. Most countries probably have the information somewhere, though it may be hard to find. I'd work on this if it were something I could do from home. :-)

Right now, I'm doing some brewing experiments and processing experiments. The processing work is just for fun, so I squeeze it in when I have time. Otherwise, since I graduated, I do more consulting than research. Sigh.

Thanks for adding to this quiet discussion!
Shawn

Jamie Treby said:

Wow, awful quiet in here! Anybody doing anything interesting? I'm personally interested in the history and spread of coffee, which, to my mind should be trackable. Am I alone in this or does someone else want to help out? A published histroy at the end would be great, but as with most things coffee I'm doing it for the love....

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page