Minggu, 31 Mei 2015

From Precocious Love to Crowdfunding Controversy: The Invergo Story

The Invergo coffee machine

Invergo Founder and Designer Cameron Hughes estimates he was roughly 12 when he first fell in love with coffee — the smell of it, anyway. The hot brown brew never seemed to taste as good as it smelled, until a few years later in high school when he discovered Café Grumpy.

“They make some really amazing coffee,” Hughes says, citing Grumpy’s Chelsea, N.Y., location, which opened his eyes and awakened his palate to the potential of coffee. Currently rounding the ripe old age of 21, Hughes has already wed his precocious love of excellent coffee to his appliance design acumen with the Invergo, an automated home pourover machine currently in pre-manufacturing and funded in part by a successful recent Kickstarter campaign.

The past few years have seen a spate of small drip brewing machines hit the home market that strive to automate manual pourover methods. A couple even come from the respected makers of classic manual pourover equipment, such as the Hario V60 Coffee King and the Chemex Ottomatic. Yet no machine currently available promises the same functionalities as the Invergo: Deliver water in a spiral — or in the Invergo’s case, “dynamic hypotrochoid” — pattern; customize the bloom and overall brewing time; set water temperature anywhere from 195-205F with PID control; adjust the volume of brewing from five to 50 fluid ounces; work with the user’s choice of vessel and cone; and start on a timer. It also has a slow-dripping cold brew function.

the invergo spiral pattern

Other machines that promise this scope of functionality in the emerging automatic pourover race exist largely on the commercial front. Machines like the Otfes commercial spiral drip machine and the Poursteady, both of which, like the Invergo, made splashy appearances at the recent SCAA 2015 show in Seattle.

“I did look at that patent,” Hughes says of the Otfes, “and they use some sort of linear part for their gearing. I spoke to my lawyer and it’s definitely different from what we’re doing, so there shouldn’t be any problem with that.” He adds, “That machine’s also $6000.”

Consumers can currently pre-order the Invergo on Invergo’s website for $199.95. At such a home-friendly price point, it would seem to be smooth sailing ahead for the Invergo, although the seas to this point have been undeniably choppy from the winds of a tempestuous Kickstarter kickback.

The version of Kickstarter’s Terms of Use that was active at the time of the Invergo campaign’s launch made no requirement of explicit fiscal forthrightness on the part of a creator’s campaign. The Terms of Use were later updated to forbid any “material misrepresentations,” while the platform’s Creator Handbook has always clearly instructed, “Meeting your goal ensures that you’ll have the funds you need to complete your project and deliver rewards to your backers. Your funding goal should be the minimum amount needed to complete the project and fulfill rewards.”

Though the Invergo campaign remains governed only by the terms active at the time of its launch, it’s an awkward coincidence that the updated Terms of Use went into effect on October 19th, 2014, and Invergo’s fifth project update was posted on October 20th, which is exactly where things got a bit hairy.

Visible to backers only, the update was titled “SXSW and Opening Up Our Seed Round.” With the matter-of-fact manner of a routine briefing, it discussed an invitation to speak at SXSW and closed with a few lines about a search for angel investors. It candidly stated that without more money, Invergo would not be able to afford manufacturing, but that the successful Kickstarter campaign had provided the “traction” to take the important step of securing further capital.

Backers were upset. A heated comment-section melee promptly ensued. Speculation flurried. Accusations flew.

While most of Invergo’s communiques have been over a month apart, the sixth came just two days after the fifth, under the banner “Clarity and Transparency.” In it, Hughes — privately, for backers — provided a complete rundown of Invergo’s finances, expenses, and actual goals. “The reason we didn’t tell you about the external funding,” the update admitted, “is we honestly thought that because the goal was set relatively low that you would assume that the money from Kickstarter would not be the sole funding source. This is our mistake and we should have disclosed the need for additional capital in the Kickstarter.”

invergo spiral

Some commenters appreciated the earnest, if belated, disclosure. Others felt only more justified in their condemnation of what was in their view a violation of Kickstarter rules and of the public trust.

What many backers were also putting together for the first time was that this was not the Invergo’s first whack at Kickstarter. It was no secret that in the fall of 2013, Hughes set a $250,000 fundraising goal on the project and failed, roping in just shy of $28,000, although to learn this you’d have to have done some clicking around. It was in the following summer that the project launched anew with a goal exactly one tenth the size of the original, setting the bar for success lower than what had already been achieved. This second campaign is what passed with flying colors, garnering the desired splash of positive press and three times as many backers as the first. It surpassed its modest goal by more than $10,000, yet it made no mention of the fact that without substantial additional funding, “The First Automated Pour Over Coffee System” would never see the light of day.

Tensions run high anywhere money and faith are involved. As such, crowdfunding services like Kickstarter and IndieGoGo are a dicey proposition no matter how you cut them. Aspirants put their projects and their good names on the line; patrons place their bets on products that don’t yet exist, as well as on individuals and companies that might also not be who they say they are. In return, backers expect a constant, detailed flow of total transparency, such as might be problematic for an inexperienced company navigating financial negotiations on the business front for the first time. And as noted in the recent New York Times article, “ZPM Espresso and the Rage of the Jilted Crowdfunder,” if backers get to a point of feeling crossed, things can take a dynamic hypotrochoidal nosedive in a hurry.

Creators, meanwhile, never know what sort of power or influence their backers might be capable of wielding should they be so inclined. Mark Prince, founder of the hugely popular coffee forum CoffeeGeek, is among the Invergo’s backers, for example. (Full disclosure: Howard Bryman, author of this article, is also a backer. Neither Bryman nor Roast Magazine benefit in any way, financially or with perks of any kind, in exchange for or as a result of this article.)

Invergo booth at SCAA

In the silence from Invergo that followed update number six, discontented backer Mark Prince decided to re-post the fifth and sixth updates, along with another very articulate backer’s reaction, publicly on Google Plus. Commenters started communicating with one another, apparently organizing towards retribution of some kind. Considering the crater still smoldering where the ZPM once brewed promise, the Invergo affair was on the precipice of true ugliness.

“It was totally my fault,” Hughes told Daily Coffee News in a recent phone conversation. “I didn’t understand what I was doing. It didn’t go well, with that. I did apologize to [the backers]. I should have been more transparent.”

But then a funny thing happened on Cameron’s way to the factory — nothing. While backers lamented — and continue to bemoan — a lack of communication, Cameron has continued his work on the Invergo. Machiavellian though the plan might seem to some, the good news is that it also seems to be working, and, at any rate, there’s no turning back. “Now we’re in a situation that [backers] are definitely going to get their units,” Hughes reports. “But I’m sorry for putting them in that position.”

There are huge and obvious differences between the ZPM debacle and Invergo’s missteps, chief among them being that Invergo is actually poised to cross the finish line and deliver. With ripples largely relaxed in the wake of his more heartening recent transmissions, Hughes has indicated some success in further fundraising and recalibrated the production plan to jibe with the reality of his resources. He did speak on a panel at SXSW and manned an Invergo booth at the SCAA Event, and through it all has been a full-time student of industrial design, interaction design, and entrepreneurship at Syracuse University. “I’m actually still in school,” says Hughes. “I’m doing both at the same time. It’s been very stressful.”

At the time of his last elucidation on Kickstarter, Hughes conveyed that beta units would be shipping in October. As of our conversation at the end of April, Hughes reported that the betas will actually ship sooner, although this news has yet to appear in an official Kickstarter update. The campaign’s promised delivery date was December, 2014; an actual delivery date less than one year later would, in Kickstarter time, still be a considerable success. The resolute Invergo helmsman took a few minutes from what can only be a mind-bending schedule to bring us up to date on all things Invergo. Here’s what he had to say.

We’re doing well, we’re in pre-manufacturing right now. We’re finishing up with the second revision of the PCB and we’re almost done with the first initial tooling, so we’re going to send that off and it will take about 60 to 75 days to get the aluminum tooling done. We’re going to get about 50 units from that, and that’s going to be sent out to the UL for approval, as well as some beta testers that signed up.

We have enough money to do the steel tooling and the first initial production run. That’s money that was not from Kickstarter. That was from other investors. Non-web-related channels. [The steel] tooling lasts up to 500,000 pieces each, but we’re only going to do an initial run of 5,000 pieces. We’re probably going to ship them actually in August, and the final units are going to be shipping in the end of the November. They’re going to be out for the holiday season — that’s what our plan is.

SXSW was nice. It was nice sharing my idea with a bunch of people. There was also a podcast that went really well. SCAA went really, really well. I feel like everyone that came up to the booth was really excited about the product. It was great to see people’s reaction when they used it and had a sample from it. Everyone left with a smile on their face, a few people gave me high-fives. There was actually a lot of interest from cafes, as well as from people for home use. Our plan for next year is to release a plumbed-in, NSF-certified version.

No, we’re not. We designed the unit to be built modularly, so we just change out a few parts and the tooling process, and it’ll be ready for use in cafes.

It’s been a little rough, communicating with my backers, because this has been like a personal thing as well as a business venture. I’m dealing directly with my customers, and it’s been really great getting their feedback, especially like when I did the PCB and I sent out the user interface. I sent out a working copy of the user interface that the backers could use, and they gave me their feedback on what they wanted changed and a few features that they wanted added, and I went right back and I was able to add that to the preproduction specifications for the unit. So that was actually really helpful. It’s been really helpful, but it’s also been a little bit difficult communicating with them.

To this just being my first business venture and my not understanding how to deal with customers, and that’s been completely my fault. But I’ve been learning along the way, and I think now my communication skills with my backers are much better, and they’re really excited about getting the product.

No one’s been asking for a refund now. I feel like I made up with them, and that they’re excited about the product now. They did ask for it, but once I clarified what’s going on and showed them our progress more transparently, they were excited about the project and they still want their coffee machine.

Actually I have quite a bit of ideas, for hardware, as well as some software. These will add some functionality, as well as some other coffee accessories, and different kinds of machines.

There might be. We are actually considering an online service that would be like a marketplace, for your coffee beans and the Invergo. Someplace where you can share your recipes with other users of the Invergo, so you can get the best possible extraction from the coffee that you’re using. Post the coffees you’ve gotten from different roasters, and then post the settings your using.

I’m really excited about finally shipping it this winter.


View the original article here

Where is Coffee Hot in 2015: By Country

World Map - World Coffee Conference

In 2013, we shared some Coffee Review readership data in a piece titled “Who Cares about Coffee Anyway.” It proved popular so we updated and expanded the information in a series of blog posts in early 2014 that looked at readership by city, state, and country.

We’ve updated the data with a quick look at reader data in early 2015.  As in the past, we looked at the data three ways: overall readership, per capita readership adjusted for population, and year-over-year percentage growth. Because we launched a new website in 2014, which had a dramatic impact on page views, this year we’re ranking the data by page views instead of traffic and we’re looking at a 2-month snapshot from January and February 2015 versus 2014.

Ranking by Overall Readership

Overall readership by country in 2015, as measured by page views, was largely predictable and consistent with traffic data from past years.  Countries with large English-speaking populations tend to rank higher on the list. In fact, the top three countries on the list – United States, Canada, and United Kingdom – remain unchanged from 2014 to 2015.   They all have significant English speaking populations, well developed coffee cultures, strong purchasing power, as well as high Internet access and literacy rates.

As we noted in the past, English-speaking population may not be as big of a factor as one thinks. I was surprised by the countries that have the largest English-speaking populations: 1) United States; 2) India; 3) Pakistan; 4) Nigeria; 5) United Kingdom.  Canada is tenth on the list.  Australia is 13th.  View the full list on Wikipedia.

With that in mind, it’s notable that Taiwan leapfrogged Australia into the No. 4 spot on the list.  This is remarkable though not terribly surprising to those who are already aware that the coffee market in Taiwan is vibrant and growing rapidly.  Coffee Review even has a page dedicated to coffees roasted in Taiwan.  Watch out U.K.!

Two other big moves…. China, which obviously has a huge population and was No. 1 in growth rate in 2013, dropped from the No. 7 spot to No. 12, as growth simply didn’t keep pace with other countries in the top 10.  We’re not sure how to explain the explosive growth in page views from Bulgaria, jumping from No. 49 in 2014 to No. 19 in 2015.  It may be a genuine market change or, perhaps just as likely, a statistical anomaly that has to do with the relatively short snapshot and the relatively small base of readers in 2014.

Ranking by Page Views (2014 rank in parentheses):

1. United States (1)

2. Canada (2)

3. United Kingdom (3)

4. Taiwan (5)

5. Australia (4)

6. Thailand (6)

7. India (8)

8. Malaysia (9)

9. South Korea (11)

10. Philippines (10)

11. Indonesia (14)

12. China (7)

13. Hong Kong (12)

14. Singapore (13)

15. Greece (17)

16. Netherlands (16)

17. Germany (15)

18. Turkey (30)

19. Bulgaria (49)

20. Japan (18)

Ranking by Per Capita Readership

When we look at per capita data, we see a different picture, one that is not driven by population and English-speaking population.  Countries with smaller populations are not fundamentally disadvantaged in the rankings.

The top 5 spots on a per capita basis remained the same: United States, Canada, Singapore, Hong Kong, and Taiwan.  As we noted earlier, Bulgaria jumped from the No. 29 position in 2014 to No. 6 in early 2015.  The population of Bulgaria is about 7.5 million so, statistically, it’s easier to make a big jump with a relatively small increase in readership.

Ranking by Per Capita Page Views (2014 rank in parentheses):

1. United States (1)

2. Canada (2)

3. Singapore (3)

4. Hong Kong (4)

5. Taiwan (5)

6. Bulgaria (29)

7. Australia (6)

8. Ireland (7)

9. United Kingdom (9)

10. Greece (11)

11. Puerto Rico (16)

12. New Zealand (7)

13. Finland (20)

14. Denmark (12)

15. Norway (10)

16. United Arab Emirates (15)

17. Netherlands (18)

18. Panama (19)

19. Malaysia (17)

20. Slovakia (14)

Ranking by Percentage Growth

Finally, we again looked at percentage growth from early 2014 to 2015, where smaller countries have an advantage because their readership is growing off of a smaller base.  So, while the United States may have the most page views and most page views per capita, it tends to grow more slowly than other smaller countries.

One might argue that this list is the best gauge of “Where Coffee is Hot,” as positioning can quickly change over the course of a single year. Bulgaria topped the list with year-over-year readership growth of more than 500%.  We included 23 countries on this list, as they all showed growth in page views of more than 40% over 2014.

Ranking by Percentage Growth from 2014 to 2015:

1. Bulgaria

2. Hungary

3. Panama

4. Turkey

5. Israel

6. United Arab Emirates

7. Puerto Rico

8. Finland

9. Greece

10. Thailand

11. Poland

12. Pakistan

13. Romania

14. Colombia

15. Japan

16. Indonesia

17. India

18. Norway

19. Saudi Arabia

20. Sweden

21. United States

22. Netherlands

23. Malaysia

Tomorrow, we’ll post a piece on “Where Coffee in Hot in the U.S.”

Ron Walters, co-founder of Coffee Review, manages business operations, including CoffeeReview.com, marketing, and social media. He conceived of and helped pioneer the development of 100-point reviews in the specialty coffee industry. For the past twenty years, he has been engaged in strategy, marketing, and management of specialty food and beverage businesses.

View the original article here

The Everyday Exceptional: Macro-Lots 2015

Coffees that attract a high rating on Coffee Review are often produced from very small, or “micro” lots of green coffee, specially selected for quality and distinctiveness, precisely described in regard to botanical variety and other details, and not likely to be available for more than a couple of months before they’re sold out. And usually (though not always) they cost considerably more than other, more generically described coffees from the same origin or region.

For this month’s article (I am lifting some language from our “macro-lots” article from 2010) we tried to tilt the playing field away from rare and expensive coffees toward everyday staple coffees. We required that any coffee we consider for review come from a single lot of a green, unroasted coffee of at least 100 bags, or around 13,000 to 15,000 pounds. For very large roasters, of course, 100 bags is nothing, a bean in a bucket of beans. On the other hand, committing to buying at least 100 bags of a coffee for a smaller roaster implies (we hope) a sufficient commitment to that coffee to suggest that it will be available to consumers for some months and represents the sort of everyday, staple offering we are looking for this month rather than specially selected “now or never” micro-lots with equally special pricing.

Pure, Complete and Balanced

We ended up cupping thirty-two samples. Among those thirty-two were some very impressive coffees. True, most were not the sort of startlingly different coffees we often receive when we set up cuppings using criteria that encourage small lots of fancy coffees. The best of the high-rated coffees from this month’s larger lots tended to stand out simply because they were deliciously pure, complete and balanced rather than startlingly different. Most were produced from respected, though not particularly rare or precious varieties of Arabica. All but three of the thirty-two samples we tested were processed by the standard wet or washed method rather than by more unusual methods like the dried-in-the-fruit or honey methods often applied to smaller, fancier lots of coffees.

Macro-Lot Ratings

Nevertheless, the ratings for this month’s samples from larger lots were impressive – thirty-two samples averaged a rating of 89.7, with a remarkable fifteen of the thirty-two samples generating ratings of 90 or higher. This is a much better record than achieved by our last macro-lot cupping in 2010, when forty-three samples averaged a lackluster 85.5 and only three of the forty-three rated 90 or higher.

Four Years of Change

I can think of at least one reason for the striking improvement in ratings generated by this set of macro-lot coffees compared to the ratings achieved by the coffees we sourced in 2010: The medium-roasting, green-coffee-first coffee culture, sometimes shorthanded as the “third wave,” has grown in size and influence over the past four years. Four years ago two of the companies that sent us stand-out medium-roasted coffees for this month’s cupping were mostly producing darker-roasted versions of mainly generically sourced green coffees. Several of the roasters with coffees reviewed at 91 or better this month didn’t even exist four years ago, while other smaller roasters born out of the so-called third wave have grown larger and are buying larger lots of coffee.

Fair Trade/Organic Stand-Outs

Another interesting result of the cupping: A perhaps surprising percentage of all of the tested macro-lot samples – and a particularly high percentage of the highest-rated among them – were either certified organically grown or certified Fair Trade, or both. What this perhaps suggests is that the more everyday, mainstream coffees offered by small- to medium-sized roasters tend to present certification as one of their differentiating selling points, whereas certification may simply be a side issue or bonus when those same roasters are selling elite micro-lots like the ones that often dominate our reviews.

The frequently heated debate between the more outspoken supporters of Fair Trade (“the only quality that matters is quality of life for producers”) and detractors (“Fair Trade is a misguided effort to prevent market forces from rewarding coffee quality, which is the only thing that matters”), has abated. It should be clear by now to any except the most stubborn free-trade ideologues that the Fair Trade movement can produce excellent coffees, while supporters of Fair Trade appear to have become more sanguine in their support, chastened both by schisms within the Fair Trade movement and by the complex results of increasingly sophisticated, statistic-based efforts to determine the impact of Fair Trade programs on rural poverty. (An excellent summary of that research can be found in the article “The Economics of Fair Trade” at thecosa.org).

Twelve at 91 or Higher

Returning to the coffees themselves, we offer reviews of twelve of the fourteen samples that attracted ratings of 91 or higher. We omitted a 93-rated Fair Trade/organic Ethiopia from Olympia Coffee Roasting and 91-rated samples from two companies, Courier Coffee and Thanksgiving Coffee, because each of these companies already had contributed a higher-rated coffee to the reviews. We added a coffee from the large, family-owned Rogers Family Company because it represented an unusual opportunity to taste a dark-roasted version of the rare Gesha variety, in this case the San Francisco Bay Reserve 100% Panama Bay Gesha (89).

Ethiopias at the Top, As Usual

Predictably, perhaps, the two highest-rated coffees in the cupping were Ethiopias that benefited from the familiar Ethiopia edge: They were produced from varieties of coffee tree native to Ethiopia, varieties that contribute the engagingly distinctive flower, citrus and cacao notes characteristic of the best Ethiopia coffees. Nevertheless, both the Olympia Ethiopia Biloya Organic (95) and the Kickapoo Organic Ethiopian Worka (94) were conventional coffees in the sense that they were processed by the meticulous wet or washed method traditional for fine Ethiopia coffee, netting a striking layered and intricate profile for the Olympia and a cleanly nectar-like lushness for the Kickapoo. By contrast, the two Ethiopia Yirgacheffe Arichas reviewed here, the Water Avenue (93) and the CafeTaster (92), were processed by the currently fashionable but unorthodox dried-in-the-fruit or natural method. Both displayed variations on the shifty, often unpredictable impact of natural processing on the Ethiopia profile, in this case a crisp, dryish pungency that complicated the more predictable sweet floral and cidery fruit tendencies of the type.

Colombias, Burundis, More

On the other hand, the highest-rated Colombias, the Reunion Island Colombia Las Hermosas (93) and the Topéca Alto del Obispo Colombia (92) were absolutely classic coffees in the mode more familiar to the Americas: sweetly bright, impressive in their balance, displaying a complete if not intricate set of aroma and flavor notes. The Equator Peru Cajamarca Fair Trade/Organic was another very pure coffee, sweetly crisp, gently bright, a classically fine coffee in the subtle Peru mode.

We received a surprisingly large turnout of coffees from the Great Lakes Region of Central Africa. Two Burundis scored very well; the Drift Away Burundi Buhorwa (93) showed a lovely version of the characteristic Great Lakes juxtaposition of sweet and savory, in this case incorporated in complex nut and floral notes. The Courier Coffee Tkana Cooperative Dukorere Burundi (also 93) was suavely balanced, sweet and round, with only a hint of savory. Also from the Great Lakes Region, the Thanksgiving Coffee Rwanda Musasa Fair Trade (92) was exceptionally immaculate and sweet, in this case showing none of the typical Great Lakes savory edge, only a lovely, lyric sweetness.

Finally, samples from two origins that seldom find their way to our cupping table rated well. The Bootstrap Papua New Guinea Ulya Wahgi Valley (93) displayed, like so many of this month’s high-rated coffees, delicacy, poise and aromatic completeness. The Korean roaster Namusairo offered a coffee that, although representing one of the most widely used coffee types in the world, is seldom offered by North American roasters as a single origin: a dried-in-the-fruit or natural Brazil (91). Like many of this month’s high-rated coffees, it was a graceful and characteristic expression of its type: in this case, sweet, nut-toned, with a quiet but vibrant acidity.

What about Prices?

When we compare prices for the macro-lot coffees reviewed this month to prices for coffees reviewed for two recent cuppings that were heavy on fancy microlots, a considerable value edge for the macro-lots emerges. The average for the reviewed coffees in this month’s macro-lot cupping was almost exactly $17.00 per 12 ounces, whereas the average price for the coffees reviewed for a single-varieties article (Geshas and the Rest: Single-Variety, Single-Lot Coffees, November 2014) was a daunting $36.00 per 12 ounces, and the average price for Honey and Natural Coffees, Central America 2014, September 2014 was about $25.00 per 12 ounces. A fairer comparison can be gotten if we remove the very expensive Gesha coffees from all three sets of reviews, plus omit a couple of atypical outliers, in which case we obtain what is probably a more normative comparison: $15.50/12 ounces for this month’s macro-lot coffees, $19.00/12 ounces for the single-variety coffees (again, omitting the Geshas), and $18.50/12 ounces for the honey- and natural-process Central Americas.

A Last Caution

Finally, one caution on these results. In the large picture this month’s results still tend to support the idea that genuine microlots, when one can find them and afford them, offer not only a more distinctive coffee experience but also arguably a more consistently high quality experience. A few of the larger lot coffees we cupped this month that we did not review betrayed mild but clear quality issues, ranging from apparent fading from being held too long or suffering during transport, to a couple of samples that were outright tainted, including one Rwanda that startled us with a cup displaying the infamous and unmistakable potato defect.

Producers and buyers of microlot coffees typically are too aware of their reputation to risk either fading during transport or even the very mildest of processing taints. Microlot coffees, for example, are typically transported in sealed moisture-and-gas resistant 50-pound bags rather than in the larger more familiar (and perhaps more romantic) burlap or jute bags, and are often air-shipped from origin to avoid possible deterioration during long ocean transport.

Kenneth Davids is a coffee expert, author and co-founder of Coffee Review. He has been involved with coffee since the early 1970s and has published three books on coffee, including the influential Home Roasting: Romance and Revival, now in its second edition, and Coffee: A Guide to Buying, Brewing and Enjoying, which has sold nearly 250,000 copies over five editions. His workshops and seminars on coffee sourcing, evaluation and communication have been featured at professional coffee meetings on six continents.

View the original article here

Open Source Espresso Blends

Close up of espresso brewing

With this espresso tasting we focus on what appears to be a new trend in espresso blending – the open disclosure to customer and competitor of the identity of the specific green coffees that compose a blend, as opposed to the deliberate secrecy around blending that has prevailed in the coffee industry for decades. The old approach to blending implied secret mastery of arcane coffee knowledge that only the blend master possessed, a mystification basically aimed at convincing consumers that a proprietary blend, with its evocative name and mysterious contents, was a singular sensory opportunity that could only be could be had through one company, the blender’s company, and not through any other. A collateral advantage to secret blend formulas might be saving money by slipping in some cheaper coffees along with the better ones while still maintaining the fundamental character of the blend.

On the other hand, when the components of a blend are openly disclosed, as they are in the twenty blends we tested for this article, the goal of blending is partly stripped of its branding and cost-savings functions. It becomes more clearly a creative sensory act, aimed at creating a coffee experience that has never existed before in quite the same way, one in which hopefully the sensory whole of the blend transcends the contributions of its parts. This is an idealistic coffee goal, but a worthy one.

Farther long in this piece I discuss some the trends and strategies suggested by the selection of green coffees in the blends we tested. But what I had not quite anticipated was how evocative overall these twenty blends would be in mapping some of the larger trends and polarizations in contemporary espresso blend design, at least as they are playing out in North America with a short detour through one coffee-loving East Asian country, Taiwan.

Co-Taster Ethan Hill, Barista Benjamin Roberts and the La Marzocco Lab

My co-taster for this survey was Ethan Hill, Head of Production at Victrola Coffee. (Victrola Coffee did not have coffees involved in the tasting, of course.) Ethan is a licensed Q-grader who proved to be an experienced and incisive taster and describer of espresso. See the end of this article for Ethan’s impressive bio. We conducted the tasting at the La Marzocco North America laboratory in Seattle, Washington, with shots pulled by the very experienced Victrola barista, Benjamin Roberts. We ended up tasting twenty “open source” espresso blends, seventeen from leading North American roasters ranging from very large to very small, and three from Taiwan-based roasting companies. We sourced over thirty blends, but were forced to limit our tasting to twenty owing to time constraints. Some blends we eliminated because roasters did not send us the minimum of sixteen ounces we need to calibrate the grinder, produce the shots, and take roast color readings afterwards. In other cases we made arbitrary inclusions or exclusions based on how interesting or original the blends sounded based on their constituent coffees.

The Crucial Starbucks Entry

One blend we did include was extremely important, I think, in understanding the entire exercise: the Starbucks Reserve Pantheon Blend No.1. This is a flagship blend roasted in very limited quantities on the small-batch roasting machine prominently displayed on the top level of the spectacular new Starbucks Reserve Roastery facility in Seattle. Like almost everything else involved in the new Starbucks showplace roastery, the Pantheon Blend displays a detailed, almost textbook-like understanding of the latest trends in specialty coffee. The Pantheon is clearly intended as a transparent, open-source blend of the newer kind. The blend name itself implies that this is the first in a series of seasonal blends (Pantheon Blend No. 1; presumably as green coffee opportunities change through the year we will have Pantheon Blends No. 2, No. 3, and so on). Furthermore, the constituents of this version #1 are revealed in considerable detail, in some cases in more detail than revealed by some of the smaller and presumably trendier roasters that produced other blends in the tasting.

Revelation by Contrast

However, as it turned out, the Starbucks blend differed in one dramatic way from all the other nineteen blends we tested: It was darker roasted than any of the others. Not nearly as dark roasted as some Starbucks coffees, but considerably darker roasted than any of the other nineteen samples in our tasting.

And by its mildly roasty presence in the mix the Pantheon Blend dramatized through contrast how relatively bright and high-toned most other high-end North American espresso blends have become in recent years. High-toned brightness obviously can be promoted in a couple of ways; first through a lighter roast style and second through incorporating bright, acidy coffees into blends: bright, floral wet-processed coffees from Ethiopia were one of the favorites in this set of blends, for example, as were wet-processed coffees from a variety of origins in Latin America. Balancing these brighter coffees were everyone’s favorite for achieving smoothness in espresso blends: nutty, chocolaty dried-in-the-fruit or “natural” coffees from Brazil. But also very important in many of these blends were the fruitier, sweeter style of dried-in-the-fruit coffees, particularly those from Ethiopia, which tend to add a juicy, sometimes slightly fermenty fullness to espresso blends. Now and then a robust, presumably earth- or cedar-toned wet-hulled Sumatra put in an appearance as a foil to the brighter wet-processed coffees, but there were far fewer Sumatras than there might have been some years ago when espresso blends were roasted darker and the pungent, woodsy contribution of Sumatras was more valued.

Favored Sweet Spots in the Roast

In respect to final degree or darkness of roast there appeared to be two main “sweet spots” for the creators of these blends. One was just at the very first hint of the “second crack” which signals the transition from medium to darker roast. Of the eleven blends we reviewed at 92 or higher, three were brought to this subtly pivotal point in roast development. Two of them were roasted in Taiwan – Simon Hsieh’s Proud Goat Espresso Blend (93) and the Mellow Coffee Dawning Espresso (92) – and one in the States, the Tony’s Coffees & Teas Ganesha Espresso (92).

However, it appears that the favorite settling spot for final roast color among the North American blends we reviewed was a classic medium roast, roughly where sugars and aromatics are well developed but before any hint of pungent roast taste puts in an appearance. Six of the eleven 92-plus blends, including the top-rated Taiwanese Bignose Espresso (94), roughly fell into the classic medium-roast category.

Roast-Level Outliers

The two outliers in roast development among the eleven reviewed coffees were the Starbucks Pantheon Blend, which showed a distinct dark roast pungency and which by machine reading of roast color was brought to the cusp between dark and medium dark, and the Bonlife Top Shelf Espresso, which, for an espresso, was very light roasted, medium-light to light.

My co-taster Ethan generally appeared to take a more critical position toward the impact of roast than I did; he was considerably more critical of the Starbucks than I was, for example, although he still assigned it a rating of 91. Three or four of the blends that we did not review struck him as too sharp, bitter and/or tart; in these cases my ratings often came in modestly higher than his did.

A New North-American Norm?

At any rate, these espresso blends did suggest a certain overall trend, a new norm perhaps for North American espresso blends: bright but not too bright, medium-roasted, with a balance of moderately acidy wet-processed coffees, round, nut-toned Brazils, and juicy natural, dried-in-the-fruit Ethiopias. Although they did not appear to be optimized for drinking as a cappuccino or other short milk drink, most did show well in cappuccino-scaled milk, softening but maintaining character. And, of course, given the new openness around blend communication, we now have an opportunity to know and appreciate some of the coffee thinking that went into their production and subtle differences.

Final Thanks To …

Co-taster Ethan Hill, Victrola barista Benjamin Roberts, who skillfully dialed in and pulled every espresso shot for the tasting, and La Marzocco North America for the use of its superb lab and equipment, including the support of KEXP Project Manager Amy Hattemer and her staff (not to mention their excellent recommendations for lunch).

About this Month’s Co-Cupper

Ethan Hill is the Head of Production and Quality Control at Victrola Coffee Roasters in Seattle, WA. He was raised on a six-acre coffee farm in the Puna district of the Big Island of Hawaii. He co-founded Puna Moon Estate Coffees in 1995 and the Hilo Coffee Mill – East Hawaii’s first full-service roastery and coffee mill – in 1999. He has over ten years of roasting experience, having served as Production Roaster for Hilo Coffee Mill, Head Roaster for Rimini Coffee Inc. in Salt Lake City, Utah, and Head of Production for Victrola Coffee Roasters. He has taught coffee-related courses on a variety of topics for the University of Utah and the Specialty Coffee Association of America. He is a licensed Q-Grader.  He reports: “I was thrilled to serve as a sensory analyst for Coffee Review’s Open-Source Espresso Blends article, and to contribute my thoughts and impressions to the article. It was exciting to see such a wide range of flavor profiles in the espresso submissions. I was particularly struck by how blends that ended up scoring the same rating were so dramatically different from one another.”

Kenneth Davids is a coffee expert, author and co-founder of Coffee Review. He has been involved with coffee since the early 1970s and has published three books on coffee, including the influential Home Roasting: Romance and Revival, now in its second edition, and Coffee: A Guide to Buying, Brewing and Enjoying, which has sold nearly 250,000 copies over five editions. His workshops and seminars on coffee sourcing, evaluation and communication have been featured at professional coffee meetings on six continents.

View the original article here

New Advertiser Specials Extended

Coffee Review is fortunate to work with numerous long-time advertisers who support our goal of providing readers with interesting and informative tasting reports and reviews every month.

We’re pleased to welcome some new advertisers who have taken advantage of starter programs that we began offering in 2015.  These popular programs, which offer new advertisers discounts of more than 50% off our normal monthly rates, were scheduled to end on March 31.  However, quite a few folks at SCAA in Seattle told us they needed more time so we’ve extended our deadline to April 30.

If you’re interested in finding out more about these fantastic opportunities that cost as little as $495 for 3 months of advertising, contact ron@CoffeeReview.com or download the Coffee Review 2015 media kit.

Ron Walters, co-founder of Coffee Review, manages business operations, including CoffeeReview.com, marketing, and social media. He conceived of and helped pioneer the development of 100-point reviews in the specialty coffee industry. For the past twenty years, he has been engaged in strategy, marketing, and management of specialty food and beverage businesses.

View the original article here

Sabtu, 30 Mei 2015

Seeking Wet-hulled Indonesias

Map of Indonesia

Roasters offering wet-hulled coffees from Indonesia (wet-hulled coffees is a category that includes most Sumatras, most Sulawesis, most smaller island Indonesia coffees except Bali naturals) are invited to submit one or more samples for our April 2015 tasting report and reviews.  The deadline for arrival has been extended to Thursday, March 26.

Ron Walters, co-founder of Coffee Review, manages business operations, including CoffeeReview.com, marketing, and social media. He conceived of and helped pioneer the development of 100-point reviews in the specialty coffee industry. For the past twenty years, he has been engaged in strategy, marketing, and management of specialty food and beverage businesses.

View the original article here

Elegant Earth: Wet-Hulled Sumatras and One Sulawesi

Wet hulling in Sumatra - Photo courtesy of Crop to Cup Coffee

Wet-hulling is not an obscure Olympics sailing event nor (at least to my knowledge) a special trick in waterskiing or wakeboarding. It is a fruit removal and drying variation that contributes much of the distinct character of traditional Indonesia coffees, particularly those from Sumatra and Sulawesi. It is also practiced on other Indonesian islands, almost everywhere in Indonesia where small holders produce the coffee. In Sumatra it is called “giling basah” in local Batak languages.

Recall that in traditional wet-processing, the skin and pulp of the coffee fruit is removed from the “beans” or seeds in several stages after which the beans are dried to about 12.5% moisture, whereupon they are stored encased in the remaining dry, crumbly “parchment skin” until they are ready to be shipped. It is only at that point, well after drying has been completed, that the parchment skins are removed.

In the wet-hulling variation of wet-processing the soft fruit residue is removed by small producers as it is elsewhere, by removing the skins from the fruit, loosening the sticky fruit flesh through fermentation, then washing the loosened flesh off the beans. However, in the wet-hulling variation the parchment skins are removed in the middle of the drying process, when the beans still retain somewhere between 20% to 40% moisture. The beans are dried the rest of the way, to 12% to 13%, after parchment removal. This atypical practice is additionally complicated by an unusual supply chain in Indonesia, one in which the fruit removal and a first drying is usually performed by small producers, after which collectors bring the partly dried coffee to a mill where it is dried a bit more before being hulled at 20% to 40% moisture. Final drying to 12% to 13% moisture may take place at the mill or in the port before the coffee is shipped.

Contributing Depth without Domination

Somewhere along the line, probably during the prolonged serial steps in drying, the beans pick up a slight mustiness that contributes the characteristic fruit-toned “earthiness” for which Sumatras are famous. Up to ten or twelve years ago the problem was finding specific lots of Sumatra that expressed this accidental flavor complex sweetly and pleasingly rather than harshly; in other words, finding lots that tasted richly earthy rather than overbearingly musty.

Over the past ten years the wet-hulling process has been refined, particularly in Sumatra, to the point that the earth note is backgrounded and transformed, bringing a rich, sweet pungency that deepens and grounds profiles without dominating them. At times one can call this sensation earthy in the sense that it suggests sweet humus or moist fresh-fallen leaves; just as often it provokes associations like pipe tobacco, fresh-cut cedar or fir, or spice notes like pink peppercorn and clove. Influenced by this pungent base are fruit and floral suggestions, with the whole aromatic package usually supported by a cleanly expressed structure of sweet-toned acidity and silky to syrupy mouthfeel.

Ten Good Ones

This month we review ten such wet-hulled coffees, nine from Sumatra and one from Sulawesi, all expressing refined variations on this sweetly pungent, wet-hulled theme. Four additional samples, all Sumatras, attracted ratings of 90 through 91, but are not reviewed here. The disappointing news, perhaps, is the absence of wet-hulled samples from islands other than Sumatra and Sulawesi. I would guess that the probably costly efforts to refine the wet-hulled process are only worth the focus and investment when an exporter is working with an already well-known and celebrated origin like Sumatra, or at the very least, Sulawesi.

Consult the Fine Print

Those readers interested in exploring the sensory character of these coffees would do well to look at the blind assessment paragraphs of the ten reviews associated with this article carefully. Although several reviews make allusion to hints of moist, fresh-fallen leaves or deploy similar foresty descriptors, specific profiles differ greatly, dramatically even. Details of wet-hulling vary, lot by lot, and botanical variety, although only beginning to be reflected in market descriptors in Sumatra, may be at work in the background as well, along with the even less-understood impact of subtly varying terroirs. Plus, of course, roast is crucial in differentiating these samples, perhaps even more crucial than it is in respect to influencing the character of more conventional coffee profiles.

The PT’s Silimakuta AAA Sumatra (93) displays perhaps the most explicit (though still quietly integrated) earth notes of the ten reviewed samples; the fusion of this gently stated suggestion with more conventional chocolate and apricot- and raisin-like fruit notes nets an engaging expression of the wet-hulled style. By comparison, neither the top-rated Papa Lin’s Lake Toba Peaberry (94) nor the Equator Sumatra Ulos Batak (94) appear to exhibit explicit earth-related notes, yet both display variations that in my experience reflect the impact of wet-hulling: the particularly zesty and pungently grapefruity character of the Equator, and the spice and herb innuendoes complicating the softly lush, floral and stone-fruit of the Papa Lin’s. Other reviewed samples range from the more delicate, nutty and crisp (the Bird Rock Sumatra Ulos Batak, 93, for example) to the Kenya-like dry berry, citrus and chocolate of the Seattle Coffee Works Sumatra Ulos Batak (93).

A Little Farther Back in the Pack

Of course, not all of the wet-hulled Sumatras we sampled were quite as successful as the ten reviewed here, or the additional four not reviewed that rated 90 to 91. The complex set of processing procedures involved with wet-hulling, performed in different places by different parties, must make achieving consistency difficult. Ever since the new, more refined style of wet-hulled Sumatras started appearing on the market a decade or so ago I’ve been amazed by the achievement of cooperative leaders, exporters and others in achieving the consistency represented by the best of these engaging and original coffees.

Returning to the samples not reviewed here, we tasted only one outright tainted sample, although several more showed mild inconsistencies from cup to cup. We sampled a couple of the more generic style of “Mandheling” Sumatras displaying the older style of explicit earthiness that can come across as broodingly rough and robust in darker roast styles, but in the currently fashionable medium roasts simply comes across as, well, rough. Other samples seemed to have suffered during green coffee storage and transport (always an issue with Indonesia coffees) and showed up tasting a bit dull and woody.

Two Good Bets

Some well-known green coffee names representing the new refined style of Sumatra were absent from this cupping, perhaps because of timing or availability issues. Of those green coffee names or brands that did appear in our lab this month and rated well, the two most frequent to appear were the “Ulos Batak” branded Lintong-region coffees from the cooperative exporter Klasik Beans, and two excellent samples (both certified organically grown) from the Ketiara Cooperative located in the Aceh growing region at the far northwestern tip of Sumatra.

* Photo courtesy of Crop to Cup Coffee

Kenneth Davids is a coffee expert, author and co-founder of Coffee Review. He has been involved with coffee since the early 1970s and has published three books on coffee, including the influential Home Roasting: Romance and Revival, now in its second edition, and Coffee: A Guide to Buying, Brewing and Enjoying, which has sold nearly 250,000 copies over five editions. His workshops and seminars on coffee sourcing, evaluation and communication have been featured at professional coffee meetings on six continents.

View the original article here