I hope a bit of cross posting isn't too annoying. I posted this to AdotC
earlier in a slightly different form, but wanted ya'lls ideas, too.
Have a great Fourth!
Ted
-------- post follows --------------
I've come to the conclusion that espresso blending is one heckuva lot more
complicated than blending for drip/press/etc and that our successes with these
non-espresso blends which we (can) do well lead us to the erroneous conclusion
we can do the same for espresso. I think not. Frankly, I've come to the
conclusion that, for an amateur or even most professionals to put together a
blend of beans and roast that can result in a well-balanced cup of
espresso, is
often an 'infinite number of monkeys, typewriters, and time equals
Shakespeare'
sorta thing.
As I've mentioned before, I compensate to a small degree for my inadequacy by
using a well-crafted blend to which I add varying amounts of a single-origin
coffee. My blending base is Josuma's Malabar Gold, chosen because it suits my
taste in a basic espresso... it is rounded, not edgy, very well balanced and
quite sweet. It's a useful base, I think, because other flavors can stand out
from the flavor and texture that is distinctively the MG's. I mentioned
earlier
that Jill and I have been adding increasing amounts of Harrar to the MG pre-
roast and that we liked this. At least we did until we got to about 30% by
weight of Harrar. The resulting cup was very bitter and way too earthy and
wild.
In retrospect the increase in the Harrar contributions, as we increased its
percentage by weight of the mixture, was predictable and linear. At about
25% we
initially liked the taste but by the time we had gone through a pound the
Harrar
had become cloying, but not yet as off-putting as at 30%. OTOH at 15 to 20%
the
acidy/wild/berry tastes of the Harrar were a perfect foil for the mellow
clarity
of the MG. We will go back to 15% when I roast tomorrow. We've learned
something
important, and what's more we KNOW what we've learned, for sure and
certain. Too
much Harrar results in an unpalatable cup, and the threshold value is
around 25
to 30%. Fact.
That's what I mean by the difficulty/impossibility of amateur espresso
blending.
I made one small series of changes in a known ingredient and went from
delicious
to palatable to swill as a result. Only the fact that all variables but one
were
held constant allowed me to determine what contributed to the change. By the
time you plug in all of the variables of different bases and enhancers and
modifiers (per Gonzo) the chances of blending a tasty cup are very small until
the skill of the blender is very great. In this case 'skill' equals
'knowledgebase'.
So on the one hand I'm agreeing with IVDP and Gonzo that an extensive
cupping or
brewing (per Ken) background is essential for espresso blending, but it is not
sufficient. Then there must be a deep understanding of what the espresso
process
DOES to coffee and the experience to use and compensate for these process
factors in the blend so a generally palatable cup results. Espresso blending
encompasses SO many variables that it becomes a non-trivial enterprise with a
low chance of success at the amateur level, IMHO. I've tasted very little good
espresso so the pros seem to have problems, too.
So for now my stock answer when a new roaster or budding espresso hound
(puppy?)
asks 'what should I blend/roast for my new espresso machine?' I'm going to
suggest they NOT do any such thing. Instead I'll suggest that they choose a
known blend and practice systematically altering and understanding their
espresso process variables, begin to factor in roast variables if they are
a new
roaster, and then add single-origins to their blend a measured smidge at a
time
so they can understand what this does to the taste and texture of a known
product.
So, assuming you are willing to entertain this notion, what constitutes the
qualities that are useful in such an espresso 'blend-base'?
Ted
|