PRODUCT REVIEW: Lavazza Gold Selection Coffee

I recently reviewed Lavazza's SUper Crema coffee and found it to be very good. It is an excellent and affordable "every day" espresso blend. Lavazza also sells their Gold Selection as espresso-ready coffee, and since it is a bit more expensive than the Super Crema, I have high hopes.

As with everything Lavazza, the beans are in good shape and well-roasted. I like Italian coffees because they aren't as blasted as North American companies' beans as they chase Starbucks. The aroma from the beans isn't terribly impressive, but it is inoffensive.

Getting right to the espresso, there is a similar amount of crema from the Gold Selection as with the Super Crema, which means that they are either the same coffee or Lavazza was totally lying about their Super Crema blend being super... crema... yeah.

The crema is pale and good, with good oily stability. There is more sourness to the aroma than the Super Crema, but I didn't find that this translated to the tongue all that much.

The Gold Selection is very similar to the Super Crema. It is rich and earthy with a stronger toasted note. The taste is just a bit more complex than Super Crema and has a more pronounced chocolate to it, although it still isn't what I would call a primary flavor. Forgive the plebeian nature of this comment, but the Gold Selection does taste a bit more expensive than the Super Crema.

Is it worth the extra cash? Not for me. I like the Super Crema and since I'm looking for an every day coffee that I can serve in large amounts to friends without breaking the bank, value enters my equation in a big way. Gold Selection is about 25% more, and if I was willing to spend that, I would buy specialty roasts from North American roasters for a bit more money.

That said, this is a very good coffee. It's a massive upgrade if you are buying grocery store coffee and even most Starbucks beans. Moreover, Gold is different enough from the cheaper Super Crema that you may find yourself definitely preferring the Gold Selection in a taste test. You can only easily buy these coffees in 1kg bags, so I would recommend buying one of each, comparing, and then giving the other beans to someone else.

Otherwise, if you want to take my word for it, buy the Super Crema. It's great.

Lavazza Gold Selection: RECOMMENDED

P.S.
Make sure to buy an Airscape to store your beans. They will last for weeks and weeks.

PRODUCT REVIEW: Planetary Design Airscape Canister

Don't bother reading to the end of the review. Go out and buy one immediately.

Still reading? I'll assume that you've already placed your order and are now reading to find out how awesome your canister is going to be when it arrives, because it is going to be awesome.

There are very few products out there that I would call a necessity for the average tea or coffee lover. The Airscape is a necessity. It will keep your tea and coffee fresh for as long as you need it to be fresh.

One of the biggest problems with both tea and coffee is getting it. You have to open the canister to retrieve the leaves or beans. Even if you use an air-tight canister, every time you open it, you are letting in new air. That air will, time after time, degrade your tea and coffee.

For most of us, this degradation is only apparent when we go from the last of the old stuff to a new package. The differences are so stark as to be detectable by even the most uncaring.

For me, the Airscape is a godsend because espresso amplifies the effects of aging beans. I am aware of it from day to day, even hour to hour.

In my old canister, my first couple of days of espresso shots were smooth, accurate, crema-filled cups of pure heaven. But after that, the shots failed increasingly frequently, the crema disappeared, and the rich chocolates and caramels went bye-bye. To compensate for this, I bought coffee in very small amounts — sometimes as little as an eighth of a pound.

The Airscape eliminates the need to do this. I can buy coffee in bulk, store the majority of it in another sealed container and keep my Airscape filled. The act of pressing the air out every time prevents the coffee beans from ever being exposed to new air for a long period of time.

The effects of this are so significant that I barely if at all have to alter my grind settings on my grinder as time passes. The ambient temperature and humidity levels become far more important for determining grind than the age of the beans. That is a revelation.

Tea is more sensitive to aging than coffee. My wife, a tea aficionado of the highest order, can taste the degradation of loose-leaf tea as time goes by. This canister eliminates that entirely. Your tea will always be fresh, punchy, and delicious. Once you determine your ideal steep temperature and time, you will never have to adjust that as the leaves age. You need this.

There are a number of other vacuum canisters out there, but none of them are as good as the Airscape's simple design. The Beanvac is impressive as it automatically sucks out all of the air surrounding the beans. The bad part is that it is battery-powered, thus requiring replacements, costs more, and doesn't do any better a job. There are also a number of other canisters that require you to manually pump the air out. None of these achieve the easy simplicity of merely pressing the cap down until it reaches the beans. It is not a pure vacuum, but it comes so close as to make no difference.

Buy the Airscape. You will not regret it.

Planetary Design Airscape: HIGHLY RECOMMENDED

PRODUCT REVIEW: Lavazza Super Crema Coffee

I love espresso, as I'm sure any regular reader of this website knows. I drink two shots per day: one to begin it, the other to end it... which makes it sounds like I drug my own coffee.

Espresso is an exceptionally demanding mode of coffee preparation. Not only must the beans be good, they must be well-roasted and exceptionally fresh. If anything is off, your shot will come out poorly.

As such, my quest for the perfect espresso roast/blend is neverending. I love Black Cat in all the ways that man should love coffee, and even a few ways that he shouldn't. It's flavor is without peer. Sadly, its crema levels are very low. If you are pouring small amounts of milk for lattes and cappuccinos, this isn't too big of a deal, but if you like to pull triples into a big cup and be heavy on the milk, the crema layer is pushed too far and your latte art suffers.

It may seem absurd to desire a coffee purely for its ability to accept milk designs, but espresso is more than just taste; it's everything involved. As such, I went on the hunt for a coffee that provides thick, rich crema into which I can pour art.

Lavazza's Super Crema fits the bill, as the name would imply. Does it live up to the promise?

Yes. Mostly. For one thing, it is a very good price. $25-$27 will get you 1 kilo (2.2lbs) of coffee. With shipping, Black Cat costs over $20 for a pound. This also works out cheaper than high-quality grocery brands like Starbucks while also being better.

I can also say with confidence that the beans are very fresh and of high quality. As I said, espresso is very demanding. If anything is wrong with the beans, the fault may not necessarily show up in drip coffee. Espresso makes everything apparent. Even under this microscope, Super Crema shines.

The flavor is good. Not great, but good. There is certainly nothing wrong with it, and it more than stands up to other major brands, but after having finely tuned works of art like Black Cat, it does lose a bit of its luster.

It has a very earthy flavor and is low on chocolate and caramel notes. It is very "coffee" flavored, if that makes any sense. It takes very well to flavoring with cocoa and vanilla. This mellow flavor makes shots of espresso go down like water. It holds up better than you would expect under heavy milk. It tastes very good in a cortado, almost as though the blend was created specifically for that purpose.

But what about the name?! Does the crema stand up to scrutiny? I can safely say that yes, it does. Lavazza is not lying. This coffee will produce huge amounts of crema for your latte artistic ambitions. And if you keep it stored in a good vacuum canister like the Airscape, it will produce perfect crema right to the last bean.

To give you an idea of the quality, here's a drink that I poured.

Not the best art that I've ever poured, but not bad. Besides, all drinks end up looking like this anyhow.

As you can see, you get a thick, stable layer of crema and foam that has excellent definition and contrast between the brown and white.

If the coffee was more interesting in flavor, it would easily win my high recommendation. As it stands, it gets close, but not quite there. If you care about your latte art and don't have a nearby roaster, this is a very good purchase. But similarly, if you don't care about that, you aren't missing too much. This is a good coffee, for a good price, that produces great crema.

Lavazza Super Crema: RECOMMENDED

UPDATE: Bonus latte art.

This one is much better.

Trader Joe's Milk Is Crappy For Steaming and Lattes/Cappuccinos

I found a few mentions of this online, but I wanted to make a large, explicit post for any of those interested: Trader Joe's milk sucks for milk steaming. Do not try to make lattes or cappuccinos out of this. You will not get microfoam. You will get vaguely good-looking foam that disintegrates after nothing more than a single tap on the carafe.

I've encountered this before in other milks as well, but never with the consistency of Trader Joe's. I have never gotten a gallon of milk that worked. Other brands, be they Garelick, Hood, or Rhody Fresh, have had the odd bad jug, but by and large, they're fine.

I read one theory that is associated with the age of the milk. I know the basics of milk steaming chemistry, and had never heard of age having a significant effect on milk steaming performance. This also didn't line up with my experiences of Rhody Fresh, which as the name says, is fresh. Namely, I have had more bottles of Rhody Fresh than any other brand that simply would not steam.

I think it has to do with the pasteurization process. Trader Joe's milk, as with most supermarket milks, is pasteurized. That means that the milk is raised to a temperature of about 150 degrees Fahrenheit for about thirty seconds. The temperature isn't high enough to cause breaks in the proteins and lactose, meaning that after it cools down, it should steam up just fine.

What I suspect happens sometimes is the milk doesn't cool down as they expect, the temperature gets too high, or they heat the milk for too long, thus causing the proteins to break, thus making smoothly steamed milk impossible. I don't know why Trader Joe's is more affected by this than other brands. Moreover, I don't even know if it's just my Trader Joe's locations. I'd imagine that different farms provide milk to different stores.

So if you buy a lot of milk at Trader Joe's, and you've found that your ability to steam has fallen off a cliff, it's not in your head. It's actually the milk. Just go buy something else.

This Is Coffee

It certainly is.

PRODUCT REVIEW: Archer Farms Colombia La Floresta Coffee

Target continues its march up-market with its own line of "gourmet" food stuffs. And no gourmet selection would be complete without coffee. I had tried a couple of Target's whole bean varieties in the past and found them completely acceptable, but not much worth mentioning.

Target has relatively recently started carrying special blends of coffee that come in their own tins. Their 2011 "Cup of Excellence" winner is a Colombian, and while Cup Of Excellence might be a bit of an overstatement (It was at the bottom of the award winner list) it's still good coffee.

The beans don't have a very good smell. They are tart with little mellow pleasantness that most will expect from roasted beans. The roast is very light and the beans are quite healthy. All good signs. They didn't provide preparation recommendations, so I erred on the side of caution with a standard grind and a 3:30 steep in a Clever Coffee Dripper.

The bloom is surprisingly good. This photo is after it had eased for about thirty seconds. I would say that the full extent of the bloom is among the best, if not the best, grocery store shelf coffee bloom that I have seen.

The nose is incredibly pleasant. It has a very slight tang to the scent with the primary smell of burning wood. To me, it smells like Christmas. As the coffee cools, other notes become apparent, but that roasted wood scent always remains front and center.

The coffee hits right where I expected it to. At full temperature, fruit and roast are the primary flavors. As the temperature decreases, the body evens out while toasted bread, wine, and an apple-y fruitiness become apparent. It has a very mild astringency and light finish. Actually, the best way to describe the coffee is very Colombian.

Overall, it is a good coffee. I like Colombian coffees because they're so damned bulletproof and this variety seems no different. Understeep, oversteep, your cup will come out alright. If you like light-roasted coffee, and your only option is the grocery store shelf, this is an excellent choice.

Archer Farms Colombia La Floresta Coffee: RECOMMENDED

The Coolest Starbucks On Earth

The Starbucks made entirely from recycled shipping containers is super-cool, but this is even cooler.

Starbucks recently opened a location in Japan that needed to blend in with the surrounding milieu while simultaneously being "Starbucky." The solution is as elegant as it is attractive.

It's still not as cool as my favorite cafe (as regards design) in the world, Tinderbox in the UK, which has a seemingly endless number of little nooks into which you can tuck yourself as you get buzzed.

Go go gadget, caffeine.

Espresso Gasket

Make sure to replace your portafilter gasket once in awhile. Because, man, it lets you know.

PRODUCT REVIEW: Starbucks Blonde Roast

Starbucks is making a big deal out of their first light roast, and rightfully so. This is far and away the lightest roast that they have ever produced. In fact, I think that they went further than they needed. Most people would have been happy with a coffee that was merely not charred to a crisp.

This shift in strategy is coming in response to huge pressure from McDonald's and Dunkin Donuts, both of whom offer lighter coffee that, in many taste tests, is significantly preferred over Starbucks house roast, and, as near as I can tell, universally preferred over Pike Place. I have never been a fan of the 'Bucks' blasted house roast, and Pike Place is too bland. Blonde, specifically the Willow Blend, is much better.

The light brown appearance and healthy, undamaged beans bode well.

The roast is such that there is little-to-no oil on the surface of the bean and has a very light-brown color. Compare this to oily-as-hell and nearly black beans of Starbucks' usual selection.

This bloom is slightly down from its peak. Not bad.

I liked that the beans appeared to be fresh, with a much better scent and bloom during brewing. I don't know how well the beans will hold up after sitting on a grocery shelf for awhile, but perhaps Starbucks was forced to use fresher beans because they couldn't hide low quality with an obscene roast.

The nose is significantly better than anything else Starbucks makes, both from the beans, grounds, and final brew. Talking about flavor notes in the coffee is not an academic affair like with everything else at Starbucks because the terroir of the beans has not be cruelly executed.

The initial flavor profile is obviously very similar to Starbucks' ordinary roast, but there's more of it there. Notes of toasted bread, berries, and small amounts of caramel, peanut butter, and chocolate are all noticeable. It is a much more interesting and pleasant roast to drink.

There is a huge caveat to this, though. The coffee brewed in Starbucks locations is weak, watery, and lacking all punch. The Veranda blend is partly to blame: it isn't as punchy as the Willow blend; but that's only part of the story.

Both home preparation methods produced wildly superior cups to what I got at-location. The siphon-pot (3:30 heat, no cold compress) brought out acidity to the detriment of the coffee. It gave it way too much bite and an astringency on the finish that was not hidden by milk. I didn't bother with an espresso double, but the espresso single worked well. I certainly would not opt for this method, but it wasn't bad.

The sweet spot was hit with pour-over, specifically the Clever Coffee Dripper (4-minute steep). It brought out every drop of rich flavor from the beans and produced none of the biting acidity of the siphon pot. There is much more body hidden in these beans than Starbucks' preparation method would indicate.

The brew at Starbucks is not something that I would buy. It is adequate, but compared to the drip coffee available from smaller cafes, and even sometimes McDonald's, it doesn't justify its higher price. The whole beans in a bag, on the other hand, are something that I would certainly buy. While, as always, I recommend finding a local roaster for maximum freshness and quality, both critical for good coffee, blonde is some of the best coffee that you can buy on the shelf. It more than earns its recommendation.

Starbucks Blonde Roast: RECOMMENDED

PRODUCT REVIEW: Rancilio Rocky Coffee Grinder

PRODUCT REVIEW: Starbucks Anniversary Roast 2011

Starbucks coffees are really hit or miss, what with their massive supply line, and I briefly pondered whether the drastic increases in coffee prices would affect their quality. First, I can safely say that Starbucks quality is generally in-tact. I was surprised by the number of broken beans in the bag, but that could be a result of rough handling by anyone in the supply chain. Prices are significantly higher, though. The half-pound bag was nine dollars, and that makes the proposition of buying coffee from a local roaster all the more attractive. But this is neither here nor there. Neither over hill, nor over dale.

The 2011 Anniversary Blend is the annual release of a blend onto which they slap a brand. I haven't tried earlier versions, but I suspect that the blends are whatever is available in large amounts, and since the anniversary comes out at the same time every year, the blends are undoubtedly similar.

I like the new blend. I'm a bit disappointed by the level of the roast, as I usually am with Starbucks. Instead of relying on my grind level, I'm going to start referencing how much the beans weigh per level tablespoon of unground beans. Most roasts are in the 6-8g range, while Anniversary 2011 is 4.5-5g. That is quite dark indeed.

Luckily, unlike the incredibly disappointing Tribute Blend, Anniversary retains some flavor. It's dark, roasty, very mellow, and goes wonderfully in an espresso double. It's still darker than I would have liked, and the age of the beans is very apparent when extracting a shot: the crema is thin, thin, thin. While these would have been deal-breakers in most circumstances, Anniversary is perfectly balanced and such a good "standard" coffee, that I can't help but give it a thumbs up.

I finally have a siphon pot and pour-over setup, so I can give you more rounded reports of the flavor. Unfortunately for these beans, both pour over and siphon amplify their shortcomings. Espresso does very, very well with rich, simple blends. Truly, in most espresso cases, the simpler the blend, the better. The slow extraction of pour over make the most of vibrant, complex, lightly-roasted coffees. The age of the beans is again apparent with a near-nonexistent bloom. Still, as with the espresso, it's very good "standard"-tasting coffee. Complex? No, but it's leagues better than Folgers.

So while I was disappointed by the roast level, and thus the pour-over extraction, the rich espresso and good basic flavor make up for it. My only serious reservation is the price, and it's the reason why I'm hesitant to recommend it. Nine dollars for half-a-pound is a LOT of money, especially when you can buy excellent coffee fresh from local roasters like Updike's Newtowne or Coffee Exchange for less money. Worse still, prices might get higher, rendering Starbucks a non-option (Starbucks Reserve coffees, at $30 per pound, are already the domain of lunatics).

Price aside, though, it's a good coffee. I just hope that bean prices don't get any higher, or only a maniac would buy Starbucks.

Starbucks Anniversary Blend 2011: RECOMMENDED

A Series Of Latte Art

Latte art is always popular, probably because it looks cool, so here is a series of my latte art creations taken over the course of a few days. Cafes only ever show you photos of the best art they've ever done, which only one guy can do. This is how lattes should look every single time.

From The Watery Gourmet

From The Watery Gourmet

From The Watery Gourmet

From The Watery Gourmet

From The Watery Gourmet

From The Watery Gourmet

From The Watery Gourmet

Steaming Frozen Milk

When making a latte, I like to stick my milk-filled carafe in the freezer for a couple of minutes to get the temp down. Well, today, I forgot that I had done that and went about my business for about 45 minutes.

The milk was, as wouldn't surprise anyone, half-frozen. I tried to break it up with a spoon to not much avail. So, I figured, what the hell. I jammed my steam wand into the milky little arctic ocean and turned it on.

The ice faded very quickly, the whirlpool whipped up, and about twenty seconds later, I had a perfectly-steamed carafe of milk. It worked! Delicious.

So, yes. If you ever accidentally freeze your milk, don't worry. Just jam that wand into the frozen mess and turn that mofo on. There's no need to cry over frozen milk.

PRODUCT REVIEW: Starbucks Three Regions Blend

Starbucks is back. Last month they released their Tribute Blend, which was a disaster. It was a blasted mess of a bean, with nearly all of the terroir charred from the bean by an aggressive roast. I was doubly disappointed because I had just had Casi Cielo for the very first time, which was a fantastic blend. Starbucks has completely made up for it, though, with Three Regions Blend.

Open the bag and you're hit with a very strong bouquet of fudge and brownies. It's funny, since very little of this initial smell gets to the palate. Also nice, Starbucks' description of the coffee is rather accurate. It's a very toasty coffee, with a lot of bread, mellow roast, and just a small amount of spice. It does better the lighter your serving. A heavy espresso double was blowing out the flavors and delivering too much roast. A light double was good, and an espresso single was very good. Moreover, this isn't a very cremariffic coffee, so there's no real reason to use a double.

I'd imagine that drip coffee will simply blast the beans, since I found that they tasted best with a cooler brew. In this quest, pour-over, or my chosen brewing method, Aeropress are ideal. My favorite method was far and away the espresso single, which drew out all of the best flavors. There was a lot more terroir than in many other Starbucks blends and beans, which was probably helped by a comparably light roast. As I always mention, Starbucks usually needs a low grind on my Rancilio Rocky, sometimes as low as 3, with most good espresso blends needing a 9 or 10.

As far as Starbucks beans go, Three Regions blend is visibly lighter. There's a smaller amount of oil on the surface, and the color has more brown to it. Casi Cielo, still Starbucks' only legitimately impressive blend, required a 9. Three Regions needs around an 8. Still, the roast is more than light enough to give the beans character.

Three Regions Blend is a definite buy. It tastes fresh, and does very well in an Aeropress and a single. Just avoid making any doubles with it.

Starbucks Three Regions Blend: RECOMMENDED

Peet's Coffee WTF?!

I just went to Peet's Coffee for the very first time. I read a lot about coffee, go to a lot of cafes, and drink more than his healthy. I can say pretty definitively that Starbucks is the target of buttloads of animosity and is referenced derisively as Charbucks more often than not, while the other major chain, Peet's, is always spoken of in not-so-quiet reverence. The phrasing of this criticism is usually how only idiots go to Starbucks, and those who really know coffee will always go to Peet's instead.

Well all I can say to that is WTFUCK?! Their food selection was quite good. Better than Starbucks' currently is, even though the selection at the 'Bucks is a bit wider. If Peet's food has always been this good, then yes, their food was much better than Starbucks before they changed all of their recipes and food selections.

But it's the coffee that matters at a coffee shop, and it's here that had me shocked. For one, I was blown away, literally blown away! It was Boston. I was shot while waiting in line. But after getting out of the hospital a couple of months later, I returned and picked up the latte that I had ordered. It was a bit old, so I ordered a new one.

First off, Starbucks is lampooned by those in the know for using what are known as super-auto machines. These are the machines that grind, tamp, espress, and almost automatically steam milk. The problem with these machines is that while they can be operated by a trained chimp, the espresso is never as good as from a traditional grinder/machine setup, and the milk foam is never anywhere close. So color me surprised when I walked up to the counter and saw two super-auto machines pumping away behind the counter.

It was a Schaerer, a brand of which I know, but have never seen one in actual use. At least it's not the Frankes that Panera Breads use. Panera has some truly awful espresso. The espresso itself tasted alright. The machine was obviously well-calibrated and clean. The problem, though, is that a latte from Starbucks, when (...when) their machines are well-calibrated, they taste just as good. Worse still, just like Starbucks rather frequently, the milk foam was atrocious. Look at it!


That's terrible foam! I don't get commercial super-auto machines. I owned a Jura Capresso Z5 for years, and while it took a little tweaking, I was able to squeeze out some really good milk foam and espresso. These are commercial machines that frequently cost eight times as much and the product is either only comparable or inferior. Just compare that Peet's latte to this one, made with the $3,000 Jura Capresso Z5, and the next one, which was made with a $2,000 semi-auto espresso machine.




Peet's coffee is so far behind those two examples as to be akin to putting Jessie Owens in the Special Olympics. If Peet's Coffee is like this at every location, then I can safely say that those who mock Starbucks and espouse Peet's are the ones who actually know nothing about coffee. You can work yourself into a self-important, anti-corporate rage all you want; Starbucks isn't too bad.

PRODUCT REVIEW: Starbucks Tribute Coffee

Starbucks' new Tribute coffee, celebrating forty years of life, is ironically appropriate. But before I get to that, a peeve. Starbucks has not been around for forty years. Yes, the very first Starbucks was founded in 1971, but it is so distantly related to the current permutation of Starbucks as to be significant in name only. They didn't sell drinks until 1987, when Howard Schultz bought the chain from the founders and rebranded his own burgeoning coffee chain, Il Giornale, as Starbucks. Thus, the Starbucks of today is actually Il Giornale with a different name. I've posted the original logo so you can see the strong similarity between it and Starbucks' current logo. Basically, the Starbucks name is forty years old. Starbucks as it is is only twenty-four.

Now on to the coffee. After my last roast review of Casi Cielo was such a success, I came into this one with high hopes. Sadly, I have had my hopes run through a grinder like so many coffee beans. I said that this coffee is ironically appropriate, and by that I mean it is ironic that a company that has been so known for burnt coffee as to earn the moniker Charbucks should celebrate its anniversary with a blend that is burnt indeed. It is further ironic that a company that made its name and fortune with expensive espresso drinks should celebrate with a roast that doesn't go terribly well in espresso.

As a semi-objective measurement of roast level, I use my grinder, a Rancilio Rocky, and the required grind to get a perfect espresso shot. Most good espresso grinds like Black Cat require grinds in the area of 10 on my grinder. Casi Cielo required a 9, the darkest Starbucks I've ever had required a 4, with most Starbucks coffees requiring a 5. Tribute requires a grind of 5-6, so it's right in line with their other offerings. Amazingly, it tastes darker than this would indicate. I can taste almost nothing but roast. Smooth, yes, but roast nonetheless.

I'm left with some confusion. Until Casi Cielo, I always assumed that Starbucks was actually incompetent, but I now know that they aren't. They can produce an excellent roast if they want to, which means that this coffee is a conscious choice. Why would a company knowingly create a dark, blasted husk of a bean (I mean that in general, not to Tribute specifically)? What flavor profile are they shooting for? To what demographic are they trying to appeal? I'm very confused. Regardless, this was a disappointing coffee. Their standard espresso roast is much better for espresso, and I've had better pour over with a multitude of their other blends and single origins. It's certainly not disgusting, and in less-gourmet times, I might give a thumbs up. But in the face of stiff competition from local roasters and even Starbucks' own selection, I can't recommend this coffee.

Starbucks Tribute Coffee: NOT RECOMMENDED

PRODUCT REVIEW: Starbucks Casi Cielo Coffee

I just bought a half-pound of Starbucks to get me through the snowstorm and gave their seasonal roast, Casi Cielo, a shot. I am legitimately impressed. I knew I was in for something different when the usual setting of "4" on my grinder was way too fine. The darker the roast, the finer the grind, and Starbucks ain't called Charbucks for nothing.

After two blown shots, I was amazed to find the coffee requiring a grind in the "8-9" range. Holy crap! So, I knew it was going to be different, but good? I was about to find out.

It's good! Like, really good! This is easily the best Starbucks coffee that I've ever tasted in espresso. Whereas other times, I bought Starbucks because my Black Cat hadn't arrived in time, or I was unable to make it to Updike's Newtowne or Coffee Exchange, with this, I don't feel as though I'm missing out by drinking it. It's very rich and smooth, always good for espresso, but actually has some fruity bite to it. It's an excellent choice for espresso, be it doubles or singles. I haven't tried a triple, but if it works in a double, it usually does well in a triple, too.

Now, I know that I'm late to the game with this. Starbucks introduced Casa Cielo over three years ago. But that knowledge only leaves me more confused. If Starbucks knows enough to make this, why haven't they applied this to their other coffees? Or their in-house espresso? While I still prefer my favorites (UpTowne, CofEx, and B-Cat), this is a legitimately good coffee and everything Starbucks makes should be like this.

Starbucks Casi Cielo Coffee: RECOMMENDED

P.S.

And just for fun, here's a picture of some latte art that I poured into a cup of Casi Cielo. It was tasty.

PRODUCT REVIEW: Black Cat Espresso

Black Cat espresso is the flagship product of the now officially world-class cafe, Intelligentsia. Because of its fame, widespread availability, and quality, I think that calling it the bar by which other espresso blends are measured is not an exaggeration. I'm a big fan of Black Cat and buy it quite frequently and this product review has been something of a late comer.

First thing that someone coming from Starbucks or grocery store coffees will notice is how light the roast of Black Cat is. I'm not entirely sure what it was, but for whatever reason, America has grown accustomed to super-dark coffee roasts. This has benefits and detriments, of course. Dark roasted beans can make anything taste acceptable, so that's good, but it does that by erasing the terroir of the beans, which for good beans is bad.

The best espresso roasts are loaded with sweetness, chocolate, caramel, with the roasting process creating not char, but the flavor of lightly toasted bread. You don't ruin this with a dark roast! Go try local roasters and their espresso roasts. You'll find that many of them, if not most, will have espresso roasts in the city to full-city range, with some even including roasts as light as half-city. Again, the exaggerated flavor of the espresso process brings out everything the beans have to give, so more so than any other process, espresso demands good beans.

Black Cat is a case study in this. It's rich and smooth, and even when you screw up shots it tastes pretty good. When you get it right, it tastes amazing. I must admit to preferring my espresso a bit richer than Intelligentsia shot for. They obviously want a bit more complexity, which they openly admit, whereas I am totally happy to have espresso marked almost exclusively by chocolate and caramel. This is not a knock against it, obviously, since they are skilled roasters shooting for a specific flavor profile and they achieve that goal with aplomb.

That being said, there is one thing that pisses me off about this roast and that is how easy it is to screw up. It's a very light roast and this means that your espresso machine is going to be hyper-finicky with it, frequently side-channeling and wanting you to change your grind level from day to day. It can be a major pain. It's aggravated if you have an already pissy machine, like my La Spaziale Vivaldi II.

But that's my problem, and yours if you choose to use BC, and the only thing that is a true knock against the beans are the price. They are rather expensive at well over $1 per ounce. You can buy them cheaper from other retailers (Like NeedCaffeine.com) than through Intelligentsia... for some reason... but it's still far more expensive than other famous blends, like Stumptown's Hair Bender or local blends like that which can be had (in Rhode Island) from Updike's Newtowne or New Harvest.

To put a point on this whole discussion, Black Cat is a high-quality espresso. It's worthy of its fame, and, while expensive, tastes fantastic. You would be well-served to drink this if you like espresso.

Black Cat Espresso: Highly Recommended

http://www.intelligentsiacoffee.com/about/black-cat-project

PRODUCT REVIEW: Kicking Horse Espresso

Well, this is sorta' a product review; Kicking Horse makes many varieties. I discussed my disappointment after opening my 1kg (2.2lb) bag of espresso, which lists as a medium roast, to find it very dark indeed. Just to give you an idea, lighter espresso roasts like Black Cat or New Harvest require a grind setting of 9-10 on my grinder. Darker roasts are lower. Crappy supermarket coffee is usually so dark and dry that it requires a setting of 2-3. Starbucks is usually 4-5 and, drumroll, Kicking Horse is 6. A 3-4 grind difference from other medium espresso roasts reveals just how much of a chasm there is.

So it came as no surprise to find that the espresso also tastes very dark. There's more there than Starbucks, but not too much. Very roasty. It's not terrible, and if you prefer darker roasts for your espresso, this is quite good, but if this is medium, what the hell are their dark roasts? A bag of black powder? I'm drinking it, and enjoying it, but I think that calling this a medium roast is an inaccuracy. It makes me hesitant to recommend it even though I will because it is a good dark roast. If you buy, expect it dark, because it is.

Kicking Horse Espresso: RECOMMENDED

Latte Art Wallpaper

I uploaded a Latte art wallpaper at my fō-tō-gră-fē blog. I'm re-posting it here in case anyone would like some beautiful coffee forever tempting them on their desktop.

4:3 ratio

From fō-tō-gră-fē Wallpapers

16:10 ratio

From fō-tō-gră-fē Wallpapers