| |
Main
Date: 05 Nov 2006 11:53:49
From: FAROUK
Subject: Moka pot vs. espresso machine?
|
I am somewhat of a newbie re espresso and cappuccinos and drinks like
that. Can someone explain to me what the difference is between the
coffee made with a moka pot and an espresso machine? Isn't espresso
what you get from the moka pot? Also the pros and cons of using the
moka pot?
Thanks,
O Farouk
|
|
| |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 12:21:11
From: John S.
Subject: Re: Moka pot vs. espresso machine?
|
Moka Java wrote:
> John S. wrote:
> >
> > Brewed coffee itself contains emulsified products, regardless of
> > whether a head (crema) is present or not.
>
> OK, so espresso is nothing special. Or maybe your espresso is nothing
> special. Serious question: have you ever had properly made espresso?
Arrrghh!!!!!! You are missing the point entirely. Espresso is a fine
drink if made properly, and getting it right is no easy task. But it
would help is we all understood how to use terms like emulsification
correctly and if we could realize what delicious crema is - foam made
of tiny bubbles of emulsified coffee oils and solids.
>
> >
> > Look closely at the "head" on a demitasse of espresso. It is a foam of
> > tiny bubbles all of which contain air. And just like the soap bubbles
> > a child might blow they will all ultimately pop and go flat.
> >
>
> Not my espresso, it doesn't sit around that long.
>
> R "but what about the espresso bubbles that line the cup and stay there,
> looking very bubble like, not at all like black coffee, even when dry
> and hard, until I either lick the cup or scrub them out?" TF
|
| |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 06:27:01
From: John S.
Subject: Re: Moka pot vs. espresso machine?
|
Moka Java wrote:
> Patricia wrote:
> > "John S." <hjsjms@cs.com> wrote in message
> > news:1163007340.839201.103510@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >>Jack Denver wrote:
> >>
> >>><snippety snip>
> >
> >
> >>>You're the one who is quibbling. While technically all brew processes
> >>>create some emulsification, only pump machines create significant amounts
> >>>of
> >>>the crema that is the k of true espresso.
> >>
> >>You are confusing terms and yourself in the process. Emulsification is
> >>a process of combining two substances that don't normally combine
> >>easily. And that is all it is. Creating bubbles or it's fancy
> >>equivalent crema is separate process. Crema or bubbles can be
> >>supported in espresso because it has been concentrated and thickened by
> >>oil and solids that have been emulsified.
> >>
> >
> >
> > ... and that's important, because remember above all that no matter what
> > emulsification or other quibblable chemical or physical processes take
> > place, there ain't no way you're going to get crema without air.
> > P.
> >
> >
>
> I've never been inside of a portafilter but I can assure you that at 9
> BAR (~135 psi) there ain't no room for air.
Listen carefully to an espresso being brewed. The bubbling and
sputtering is the result of air and liquid interacting. Also remember
there is air between the grounds.
> I would suggest to you that
> crema is produced because of pressure which creates an emusifacation of
> the oils and other stuff in the coffee. There may be an emulsion
> involved in other coffee brewing processes but it is the pressure that
> differentaiatea espresso.
>
Brewed coffee itself contains emulsified products, regardless of
whether a head (crema) is present or not.
Look closely at the "head" on a demitasse of espresso. It is a foam of
tiny bubbles all of which contain air. And just like the soap bubbles
a child might blow they will all ultimately pop and go flat.
|
| | |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 15:00:07
From: Moka Java
Subject: Re: Moka pot vs. espresso machine?
|
John S. wrote:
>
> Brewed coffee itself contains emulsified products, regardless of
> whether a head (crema) is present or not.
OK, so espresso is nothing special. Or maybe your espresso is nothing
special. Serious question: have you ever had properly made espresso?
>
> Look closely at the "head" on a demitasse of espresso. It is a foam of
> tiny bubbles all of which contain air. And just like the soap bubbles
> a child might blow they will all ultimately pop and go flat.
>
Not my espresso, it doesn't sit around that long.
R "but what about the espresso bubbles that line the cup and stay there,
looking very bubble like, not at all like black coffee, even when dry
and hard, until I either lick the cup or scrub them out?" TF
|
| |
Date: 08 Nov 2006 09:35:41
From: John S.
Subject: Re: Moka pot vs. espresso machine?
|
Jack Denver wrote:
> >
> > Consider that the water is being pushed both up and through tightly
> > packed coffee beans before saying the pressure required to do so is de
> > minimis.
>
> Up is not a big deal. You're only talking about a few inches of lift. Just
> the expansion of hot air would be enough to force the water up, as in a vac
> pot (the water starts going up even before boiling starts). As for thru,
> mokas should NOT be tightly packed. In any case we know roughly what
> pressures are achieved in a moka pot - they are generally low - in the range
> of 1 bar gauge or so. If you go much above that, the brew water will be so
> hot that the coffee will be bitter and undrinkable.
>
>
> Most espresso makers force the water downward through
> > grounds.
>
> Again gravity is a minor force compared to pressure.
>
>
> As far as the importance of emulsification, that process
> > occurs with the brewing of any coffee under any circumstance. That is a
> > minor point to quibble over imho.
>
> You're the one who is quibbling. While technically all brew processes
> create some emulsification, only pump machines create significant amounts of
> the crema that is the k of true espresso.
You are confusing terms and yourself in the process. Emulsification is
a process of combining two substances that don't normally combine
easily. And that is all it is. Creating bubbles or it's fancy
equivalent crema is separate process. Crema or bubbles can be
supported in espresso because it has been concentrated and thickened by
oil and solids that have been emulsified.
|
| | |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 13:26:36
From: Patricia
Subject: Re: Moka pot vs. espresso machine?
|
"John S." <hjsjms@cs.com > wrote in message
news:1163007340.839201.103510@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Jack Denver wrote:
>> >
>> <snippety snip>
>>
>> You're the one who is quibbling. While technically all brew processes
>> create some emulsification, only pump machines create significant amounts
>> of
>> the crema that is the k of true espresso.
>
> You are confusing terms and yourself in the process. Emulsification is
> a process of combining two substances that don't normally combine
> easily. And that is all it is. Creating bubbles or it's fancy
> equivalent crema is separate process. Crema or bubbles can be
> supported in espresso because it has been concentrated and thickened by
> oil and solids that have been emulsified.
>
... and that's important, because remember above all that no matter what
emulsification or other quibblable chemical or physical processes take
place, there ain't no way you're going to get crema without air.
P.
|
| | | |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 20:18:22
From: JT
Subject: Re: Moka pot vs. espresso machine?
|
Patricia wrote:
>
> there ain't no way you're going to get crema without air.
> P.
>
>
...and Carbon Dioxide (CO2) wouldn't do the trick? There's lot's of it
on fresh coffee.
Recent article on coffeegeek about crema:
http://www.coffeegeek.com/opinions/barista/10-14-2006
|
| | | |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 08:04:35
From: Moka Java
Subject: Re: Moka pot vs. espresso machine?
|
Patricia wrote:
> "John S." <hjsjms@cs.com> wrote in message
> news:1163007340.839201.103510@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
>>Jack Denver wrote:
>>
>>><snippety snip>
>
>
>>>You're the one who is quibbling. While technically all brew processes
>>>create some emulsification, only pump machines create significant amounts
>>>of
>>>the crema that is the k of true espresso.
>>
>>You are confusing terms and yourself in the process. Emulsification is
>>a process of combining two substances that don't normally combine
>>easily. And that is all it is. Creating bubbles or it's fancy
>>equivalent crema is separate process. Crema or bubbles can be
>>supported in espresso because it has been concentrated and thickened by
>>oil and solids that have been emulsified.
>>
>
>
> ... and that's important, because remember above all that no matter what
> emulsification or other quibblable chemical or physical processes take
> place, there ain't no way you're going to get crema without air.
> P.
>
>
I've never been inside of a portafilter but I can assure you that at 9
BAR (~135 psi) there ain't no room for air. I would suggest to you that
crema is produced because of pressure which creates an emusifacation of
the oils and other stuff in the coffee. There may be an emulsion
involved in other coffee brewing processes but it is the pressure that
differentaiatea espresso.
R "and the mooon is made of green cheese" TF
|
| |
Date: 08 Nov 2006 05:14:57
From: John S.
Subject: Re: Moka pot vs. espresso machine?
|
Moka Java wrote:
> John S. wrote:
>
> > Consider that the water is being pushed both up and through tightly
> > packed coffee beans before saying the pressure required to do so is de
> > minimis. Most espresso makers force the water downward through
> > grounds. As far as the importance of emulsification, that process
> > occurs with the brewing of any coffee under any circumstance. That is a
> > minor point to quibble over imho.
> >
>
> I'm not sure that emulsification occurs in any coffee brewing process
> other than espresso. The pressure is what creates creama and the
> thicker mouth feel of espresso. Maybe my response to the OP wasn't as
> perfect and complete as you would have it but I'm not the one quibbling
> here.
Emulsification is the process of combining two liquids that don't
combine readily. The oils in coffee and water would be one example.
Oils are extracted and mixed in campground coffee boiled in a dented
Ecko coffee pot or espresso made in a multi-thousand dollar Gaggia
machine. However the resulting products taste very differently for a
number of reasons including the bean and roast, fineness of the grind,
brewing time, temperature control, etc.
The espresso process extracts oil and solid material from fine grounds
and concentrates it in a relatively small amount of water resulting in
the thick full of flavor sensation we all enjoy. But the moka pot,
drip and boiled coffee methods do as well but in different
concentrations.
|
| |
Date: 07 Nov 2006 15:21:08
From: John S.
Subject: Re: Moka pot vs. espresso machine?
|
Moka Java wrote:
> John S. wrote:
>
> > Moka Java wrote:
> >
> >>John S. wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Moka Java wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Espresso is an extraction of coffee made under pressure. The pressure
> >>>>extracts and emulsifies the oils and other goodness from the beans in a
> >>>>way unlike any other coffee brewing method. A moka pot makes strong
> >>>>coffee.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Both machines extract oils and goodness from ground beans using heated
> >>>water under pressure.
> >>>
> >>
> >>So if you don't notice a difference then you can save yourself a whole
> >>lot of money and trouble.
> >
> >
> >
> > Oh, there is a huge difference in taste. But it is incorrect to imply
> > that a moka pot doesn't produce coffee that is extracted under pressure
> > from ground up beans.
> >
>
> My exact words were "The pressure extracts and emulsifies the oils and
> other goodness from the beans in a way unlike any other coffee brewing
> method." You left out the word "emulsifies" when you paraphrased me.
> IMO the pressure produced in a moka pot is de minimis and you can get
> substantially the same product from finely ground coffee brewed through
> a screen filter or press pot.
Consider that the water is being pushed both up and through tightly
packed coffee beans before saying the pressure required to do so is de
minimis. Most espresso makers force the water downward through
grounds. As far as the importance of emulsification, that process
occurs with the brewing of any coffee under any circumstance. That is a
minor point to quibble over imho.
>
> R "it's only coffee" TF
|
| | |
Date: 08 Nov 2006 11:10:05
From: Jack Denver
Subject: Re: Moka pot vs. espresso machine?
|
>
> Consider that the water is being pushed both up and through tightly
> packed coffee beans before saying the pressure required to do so is de
> minimis.
Up is not a big deal. You're only talking about a few inches of lift. Just
the expansion of hot air would be enough to force the water up, as in a vac
pot (the water starts going up even before boiling starts). As for thru,
mokas should NOT be tightly packed. In any case we know roughly what
pressures are achieved in a moka pot - they are generally low - in the range
of 1 bar gauge or so. If you go much above that, the brew water will be so
hot that the coffee will be bitter and undrinkable.
Most espresso makers force the water downward through
> grounds.
Again gravity is a minor force compared to pressure.
As far as the importance of emulsification, that process
> occurs with the brewing of any coffee under any circumstance. That is a
> minor point to quibble over imho.
You're the one who is quibbling. While technically all brew processes
create some emulsification, only pump machines create significant amounts of
the crema that is the k of true espresso.
>
|
| | |
Date: 07 Nov 2006 22:23:29
From: Moka Java
Subject: Re: Moka pot vs. espresso machine?
|
John S. wrote:
> Consider that the water is being pushed both up and through tightly
> packed coffee beans before saying the pressure required to do so is de
> minimis. Most espresso makers force the water downward through
> grounds. As far as the importance of emulsification, that process
> occurs with the brewing of any coffee under any circumstance. That is a
> minor point to quibble over imho.
>
I'm not sure that emulsification occurs in any coffee brewing process
other than espresso. The pressure is what creates creama and the
thicker mouth feel of espresso. Maybe my response to the OP wasn't as
perfect and complete as you would have it but I'm not the one quibbling
here.
R "I can't stop you from being disingenuous but I can point it out" TF
|
| |
Date: 07 Nov 2006 11:15:28
From: John S.
Subject: Re: Moka pot vs. espresso machine?
|
Moka Java wrote:
> John S. wrote:
>
> > Moka Java wrote:
> >
> >>FAROUK wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>I am somewhat of a newbie re espresso and cappuccinos and drinks like
> >>>that. Can someone explain to me what the difference is between the
> >>>coffee made with a moka pot and an espresso machine? Isn't espresso
> >>>what you get from the moka pot? Also the pros and cons of using the
> >>>moka pot?
> >>>
> >>>Thanks,
> >>>O Farouk
> >>
> >>Espresso is an extraction of coffee made under pressure. The pressure
> >>extracts and emulsifies the oils and other goodness from the beans in a
> >>way unlike any other coffee brewing method. A moka pot makes strong
> >>coffee.
> >
> >
> >
> > Both machines extract oils and goodness from ground beans using heated
> > water under pressure.
> >
>
> So if you don't notice a difference then you can save yourself a whole
> lot of money and trouble.
Oh, there is a huge difference in taste. But it is incorrect to imply
that a moka pot doesn't produce coffee that is extracted under pressure
from ground up beans.
>
> R "there. that's simple" TF
|
| | |
Date: 07 Nov 2006 14:38:08
From: Moka Java
Subject: Re: Moka pot vs. espresso machine?
|
John S. wrote:
> Moka Java wrote:
>
>>John S. wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Moka Java wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Espresso is an extraction of coffee made under pressure. The pressure
>>>>extracts and emulsifies the oils and other goodness from the beans in a
>>>>way unlike any other coffee brewing method. A moka pot makes strong
>>>>coffee.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Both machines extract oils and goodness from ground beans using heated
>>>water under pressure.
>>>
>>
>>So if you don't notice a difference then you can save yourself a whole
>>lot of money and trouble.
>
>
>
> Oh, there is a huge difference in taste. But it is incorrect to imply
> that a moka pot doesn't produce coffee that is extracted under pressure
> from ground up beans.
>
My exact words were "The pressure extracts and emulsifies the oils and
other goodness from the beans in a way unlike any other coffee brewing
method." You left out the word "emulsifies" when you paraphrased me.
IMO the pressure produced in a moka pot is de minimis and you can get
substantially the same product from finely ground coffee brewed through
a screen filter or press pot.
R "it's only coffee" TF
|
| |
Date: 07 Nov 2006 08:30:11
From: John S.
Subject: Re: Moka pot vs. espresso machine?
|
Moka Java wrote:
> FAROUK wrote:
>
> > I am somewhat of a newbie re espresso and cappuccinos and drinks like
> > that. Can someone explain to me what the difference is between the
> > coffee made with a moka pot and an espresso machine? Isn't espresso
> > what you get from the moka pot? Also the pros and cons of using the
> > moka pot?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > O Farouk
>
> Espresso is an extraction of coffee made under pressure. The pressure
> extracts and emulsifies the oils and other goodness from the beans in a
> way unlike any other coffee brewing method. A moka pot makes strong
> coffee.
Both machines extract oils and goodness from ground beans using heated
water under pressure.
|
| | |
Date: 07 Nov 2006 14:02:50
From: Moka Java
Subject: Re: Moka pot vs. espresso machine?
|
John S. wrote:
> Moka Java wrote:
>
>>FAROUK wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I am somewhat of a newbie re espresso and cappuccinos and drinks like
>>>that. Can someone explain to me what the difference is between the
>>>coffee made with a moka pot and an espresso machine? Isn't espresso
>>>what you get from the moka pot? Also the pros and cons of using the
>>>moka pot?
>>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>O Farouk
>>
>>Espresso is an extraction of coffee made under pressure. The pressure
>>extracts and emulsifies the oils and other goodness from the beans in a
>>way unlike any other coffee brewing method. A moka pot makes strong
>>coffee.
>
>
>
> Both machines extract oils and goodness from ground beans using heated
> water under pressure.
>
So if you don't notice a difference then you can save yourself a whole
lot of money and trouble.
R "there. that's simple" TF
|
| |
Date: 05 Nov 2006 19:11:20
From: RoughJaw
Subject: Re: Moka pot vs. espresso machine?
|
On Sun, 05 Nov 2006 11:53:49 -0500, FAROUK wrote:
> I am somewhat of a newbie re espresso and cappuccinos and drinks like
> that. Can someone explain to me what the difference is between the
> coffee made with a moka pot and an espresso machine? Isn't espresso
> what you get from the moka pot? Also the pros and cons of using the
> moka pot?
>
> Thanks,
> O Farouk
But, Farouk, Nosey Nanci, k, and all the other people dancing around
your head... You've been reading and posting here for several years now.
You've even owned a variety of machines. How could you NOT know the answer
to this?
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | |
Date: 05 Nov 2006 21:14:41
From: Jack Denver
Subject: Re: Moka pot vs. espresso machine?
|
One of the thinks I love about alt.coffee is that you can have interesting
discussions even when answering a troll. The nature of usenet is that a lot
of people, not just the original troll, get to see the answer and then
others chime in ( like Refolo) and the thread goes off in a different
direction and the troll is forgotten.
"RoughJaw" <rj@gmail.invalid > wrote in message
news:454e3758$0$12070$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
> On Sun, 05 Nov 2006 11:53:49 -0500, FAROUK wrote:
>
>> I am somewhat of a newbie re espresso and cappuccinos and drinks like
>> that. Can someone explain to me what the difference is between the
>> coffee made with a moka pot and an espresso machine? Isn't espresso
>> what you get from the moka pot? Also the pros and cons of using the
>> moka pot?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> O Farouk
>
> But, Farouk, Nosey Nanci, k, and all the other people dancing around
> your head... You've been reading and posting here for several years now.
> You've even owned a variety of machines. How could you NOT know the
> answer
> to this?
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
>
|
| |
Date: 05 Nov 2006 18:45:32
From: A.G.McDowell
Subject: Re: Moka pot vs. espresso machine?
|
In article <e95sk25vtpgguagseljn558elp746sc0mq@4ax.com >, FAROUK
<ferrante276-farouk@yahoo.com > writes
>I am somewhat of a newbie re espresso and cappuccinos and drinks like
>that. Can someone explain to me what the difference is between the
>coffee made with a moka pot and an espresso machine? Isn't espresso
>what you get from the moka pot? Also the pros and cons of using the
>moka pot?
>
>Thanks,
>O Farouk
What comes out of a Moka pot will not taste like what comes out of an
espresso machine because the espresso process involves a higher pressure
than that produced in any Moka pot. There are two main cons of using a
Moka pot:
1) There is a certain amount of hassle involved in getting it set up,
and some of this hassle involves you getting very close to very hot
water and very hot metal.
2) If you don't whip the Moka pot off the heat soon enough the coffee is
ruined (gets burnt - rubbery taste).
Alternatives to the Moka pot are French Press and AeroPress. For single
cups at home I'm very pleased with the AeroPress - it won't duplicate
espresso either, but it's fast and easy to use, and the filter is very
fine so you get little or no grounds in the cup.
--
A.G.McDowell
|
| | |
Date: 05 Nov 2006 14:34:34
From: Jack Denver
Subject: Re: Moka pot vs. espresso machine?
|
I prefer espresso machines but I can't say that moka pots are all that hard
to work with once you get a little practice. Millions of blearly eyed
people use them every morning in Italy and all over the world without
injuring themselves. I suppose if you tried hard enough you could hurt
yourself with a aeropress too but if you observe elementary care around hot
water you should survive unscathed.
"A.G.McDowell" <mcdowella@nospam.co.uk > wrote in message
news:R28cQLAMFjTFFwmo@mcdowella.demon.co.uk...
> In article <e95sk25vtpgguagseljn558elp746sc0mq@4ax.com>, FAROUK
> <ferrante276-farouk@yahoo.com> writes
> 1) There is a certain amount of hassle involved in getting it set up,
> and some of this hassle involves you getting very close to very hot
> water and very hot metal.
|
| |
Date: 05 Nov 2006 13:23:22
From: Jack Denver
Subject: Re: Moka pot vs. espresso machine?
|
Espresso machines make coffee at high pressure (9 bar) using a pump to
force water that is below boiling thru the coffee (there are also
inexpensive "steam espresso machines" which are glorified moka pots). Moka
pots make coffee at much lower pressure (around 1 bar) and higher
temperature using steam pressure (which also tends to "burn" the coffee).
The result lacks "crema" - the foam that is on top of a properly made pump
espresso.
Many people around here would say that what a moka pot makes is not espresso
in the modern sense but in popular terminology it is often called that. At
one time (50+ years ago) before the invention of the pump machine, all
"espresso" was essentially moka style coffee. When the (then) new pump
machines were introduced, they thought it better (probably for keting
reasons) to keep calling the new drink "espresso" even though it was
distinctly different than non-pump (moka style) coffee. So now we are left
in a state of confusion, especially among the public. Ideally the two
distinctive tasting and appearing drinks would have different names but in
common usage they often don't.
Pros- moka pots are cheap and easy to maintain. Cons - no facility for
steaming milk, the product is not the same as (many would say not as good
as) "real" (pump machine) espresso. A moka pot makes a given sized batch
(they only work well when full) so you have to have a pot that is sized to
the amount you plan to drink in one sitting. If you have a full size
espresso machine plugged in at all times, you can "walk up" to it and have a
coffee in around a minute. The cycle time for setting up a moka and brewing
is much longer.
"FAROUK" <ferrante276-farouk@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:e95sk25vtpgguagseljn558elp746sc0mq@4ax.com...
>I am somewhat of a newbie re espresso and cappuccinos and drinks like
> that. Can someone explain to me what the difference is between the
> coffee made with a moka pot and an espresso machine? Isn't espresso
> what you get from the moka pot? Also the pros and cons of using the
> moka pot?
>
> Thanks,
> O Farouk
|
| | |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 00:32:28
From: Refolo
Subject: Re: Moka pot vs. espresso machine?
|
On Sun, 5 Nov 2006 13:23:22 -0500, "Jack Denver"
<nunuvyer@netscape.net > wrote:
>one time (50+ years ago) before the invention of the pump machine, all
>"espresso" was essentially moka style coffee. When the (then) new pump
It was not espresso. It was caffè, coffee.
The first espresso machine was 1901.
Moka came after.
Before was in use the Napoletana.
The espresso is only done with the espresso machine.
Moka is made with moka, and coffee neapolitan art with the napoletana.
Usually, Moka and Napoletana are used more often at home.
Moka is widely used in North Italy (invented by Bialetti in North West
Italy), napoletana in the South.
Espresso at its best in the bar.
>machines were introduced, they thought it better (probably for keting
>reasons) to keep calling the new drink "espresso" even though it was
The new coffee drink was called espresso because it was faster to
prepare having a pump machine available.
No keting, no name to keep.
>in a state of confusion, especially among the public. Ideally the two
>distinctive tasting and appearing drinks would have different names but in
>common usage they often don't.
In Italy we call caffè (coffee) the one prepared with the moka or the
napoletana, and caffe' espresso (fast coffee) or, shorter, espresso
the one done with a pump machine.
So, you see, no confusion at all.
>Pros- moka pots are cheap and easy to maintain. Cons - no facility for
>steaming milk, the product is not the same as (many would say not as good
unless you have the latest Bialetti Moka, Mukka, to prepare cappuccino
:-)
Espresso is not better, it is a matter of personal taste.
>as) "real" (pump machine) espresso. A moka pot makes a given sized batch
>(they only work well when full) so you have to have a pot that is sized to
full to the valve, not more. We italians have at home a lot of Moka,
they are very inexpansive.
So we have a 1 cup moka, a 2 cups, a 3, a 5, and so on.
If I am alone, prepare a 1 cup moka. Many friends? A bigger one.
>espresso machine plugged in at all times, you can "walk up" to it and have a
>coffee in around a minute. The cycle time for setting up a moka and brewing
>is much longer.
That's why the espresso is called express.
BTW, MOka is faster than Napoletana.
|
| | | |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 16:39:51
From: Danny
Subject: Re: Moka pot vs. espresso machine?
|
Refolo wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Nov 2006 13:23:22 -0500, "Jack Denver"
> <nunuvyer@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>
>>one time (50+ years ago) before the invention of the pump machine, all
>>"espresso" was essentially moka style coffee. When the (then) new pump
>
>
> It was not espresso. It was caffè, coffee.
>
> The first espresso machine was 1901.
>
> Moka came after.
>
> Before was in use the Napoletana.
>
> The espresso is only done with the espresso machine.
>
> Moka is made with moka, and coffee neapolitan art with the napoletana.
>
> Usually, Moka and Napoletana are used more often at home.
>
> Moka is widely used in North Italy (invented by Bialetti in North West
> Italy), napoletana in the South.
>
> Espresso at its best in the bar.
>
>
>>machines were introduced, they thought it better (probably for keting
>>reasons) to keep calling the new drink "espresso" even though it was
>
>
> The new coffee drink was called espresso because it was faster to
> prepare having a pump machine available.
>
> No keting, no name to keep.
>
>
>>in a state of confusion, especially among the public. Ideally the two
>>distinctive tasting and appearing drinks would have different names but in
>>common usage they often don't.
>
>
> In Italy we call caffè (coffee) the one prepared with the moka or the
> napoletana, and caffe' espresso (fast coffee) or, shorter, espresso
> the one done with a pump machine.
>
> So, you see, no confusion at all.
>
>
>>Pros- moka pots are cheap and easy to maintain. Cons - no facility for
>>steaming milk, the product is not the same as (many would say not as good
>
>
> unless you have the latest Bialetti Moka, Mukka, to prepare cappuccino
> :-)
>
>
> Espresso is not better, it is a matter of personal taste.
>
>
>>as) "real" (pump machine) espresso. A moka pot makes a given sized batch
>>(they only work well when full) so you have to have a pot that is sized to
>
>
> full to the valve, not more. We italians have at home a lot of Moka,
> they are very inexpansive.
> So we have a 1 cup moka, a 2 cups, a 3, a 5, and so on.
>
> If I am alone, prepare a 1 cup moka. Many friends? A bigger one.
>
>
>>espresso machine plugged in at all times, you can "walk up" to it and have a
>>coffee in around a minute. The cycle time for setting up a moka and brewing
>>is much longer.
>
>
> That's why the espresso is called express.
> BTW, MOka is faster than Napoletana.
>
Cremonesi > Pavoni > Gaggia, 1946, spring lever machine, first true
espresso (brewed at high pressure, not high temp) = first espresso,
surely? Pump machines (Faema) came later...
By the way, welcome!
Do you know of Trucillo? If so, what is your opinion? I run an
espresso bar in the UK and import Trucillo (from Salerno) in
preference to the other major brands here - Segafreda, Illy, Lavazza etc.
--
Regards, Danny
http://www.gaggia-espresso.com (a purely hobby site)
http://www.malabargold.co.uk (UK/EU ordering for Malabar Gold blend)
|
| | | | |
Date: 07 Nov 2006 09:07:10
From: Refolo
Subject: Re: Moka pot vs. espresso machine?
|
On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 16:39:51 +0000, Danny
<danny@nospam.gaggia-espresso.com > wrote:
>Cremonesi > Pavoni > Gaggia, 1946, spring lever machine, first true
>espresso (brewed at high pressure, not high temp) = first espresso,
http://www.espressomadeinitaly.com/libro.htm
November 1901, bezzera espresso machine invented in Milan.
http://www.g.bezzera.it/storia2.html
http://www.g.bezzera.it/home_ing.html
In Milan they are always in a hurry :-)
Moka is from 1933, invented by Bialetti, www.bialetti.it
Napoletana is oldest, very old. I have one but use not very often.
>By the way, welcome!
Nice to meet you!
>Do you know of Trucillo? If so, what is your opinion?
No, sorry, I see on google it is from Campania, in the South. I live
in the North West and never saw it on sale here.
However, consider we are 60 millions people drinking coffee and there
are really many brands available. (And every brand has at least 3 or 4
tifferent types on sale).
I believe I could drink a different coffee every day of my life.
In the city of Biella, you have the Torrefazione Graglia, they have at
least 20 different types on sale: only arabica, only robusta, some mix
of the 2, only costa Rica, only Brasil, only Guatemala, different
mixes of them, more or less toasted, and so on.
For example, in the only city of Milan, there are the following
"torrefazione" (place where the coffee is toasted):
http://www.paginegialle.it/pg/cgi/pgsearch.cgi?btt=1&ts=1&l=1&cb=0&ind=&nc=&qs=torrefazione&dv=milano&x=0&y=0
From our yellowpages, of course. Just type a different city name in
the form "dove" and then hit "cerca" to look for another city.
Or hit "en" to have an english interface.
And this is if you look for torrefazione on italian google:
http://www.google.it/search?q=torrefazione&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:it:official&client=firefox-a
|
| | | |
Date: 05 Nov 2006 21:01:03
From: Jack Denver
Subject: Re: Moka pot vs. espresso machine?
|
Welcome. As shall said, we don't get many Italians though we have had
contributors from all over the world.
I agree with most of what you say, but some authorities believe that the
true meaning and origin of the word "espresso" is not coffee that is made
"fast" but coffee that is made expressly for the customer at the time it is
served - "just for you".
.
"Refolo" <refolo@refolo.it > wrote in message
news:atvsk29lq2vsnc3o349l8jk3ri79tiii1u@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 5 Nov 2006 13:23:22 -0500, "Jack Denver"
> <nunuvyer@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>>one time (50+ years ago) before the invention of the pump machine, all
>>"espresso" was essentially moka style coffee. When the (then) new pump
>
> It was not espresso. It was caffè, coffee.
>
> The first espresso machine was 1901.
Wait you just said it was NOT espresso , it was caffe' - make up your mind.
Anyway these machines used only steam pressure so the drink they made was
similar to moka coffee. Obviously they did not call it that, but around
here, we sometimes use "moka" to refer to steam pressure brewed coffee for
lack of a better name.
>
> Moka came after.
Yes, Bialetti's moka was 1933, but there had been small steam coffee brewing
devices even before Bezerra's 1901 machine.
>
> Before was in use the Napoletana.
>
> The espresso is only done with the espresso machine.
>
> Moka is made with moka, and coffee neapolitan art with the napoletana.
I tend to agree with you, but a lot of people, at least in American, call
what comes from a moka "espresso".
>
> Usually, Moka and Napoletana are used more often at home.
>
> Moka is widely used in North Italy (invented by Bialetti in North West
> Italy), napoletana in the South.
>
> Espresso at its best in the bar.
Unless you have a bar machine in your house (as many of us in this group do)
and a bar grinder and even better roast the beans at home too - then it is
better at home. If you don't believe me, you're invited to my house for
coffee next time you're in the US. We did all this not because we are crazy
(though we are) but because it's cheaper than flying to Rome when you want a
cup of coffee. Except for a handful of special places, you have zero chance
of getting a good coffee in a bar in the US. Actually a bar in the US is
where you go to drink liquor, not coffee, but that's another story.
One reason why we don't get many Italians on this group is that it's so easy
for you to leave it to the professionals - in much of the rest of the world
if you want a good coffee your only choice is to make it yourself.
>
>>machines were introduced, they thought it better (probably for keting
>>reasons) to keep calling the new drink "espresso" even though it was
>
> The new coffee drink was called espresso because it was faster to
> prepare having a pump machine available.
I'm not sure that Gaggia's new pump machines were any faster than the old
1901 style steam machines like Pavoni/Bezzera - maybe a few seconds. Better
but not much faster. Anyway, "espresso" has nothing to do with fast.
>
> No keting, no name to keep.
>
>>in a state of confusion, especially among the public. Ideally the two
>>distinctive tasting and appearing drinks would have different names but in
>>common usage they often don't.
>
> In Italy we call caffè (coffee) the one prepared with the moka or the
> napoletana, and caffe' espresso (fast coffee) or, shorter, espresso
> the one done with a pump machine.
>
> So, you see, no confusion at all.
Lucky you. In America confusion reigns. I suppose in Italy you save
confusion for when you are driving. :-)
>
>>Pros- moka pots are cheap and easy to maintain. Cons - no facility for
>>steaming milk, the product is not the same as (many would say not as good
>
> unless you have the latest Bialetti Moka, Mukka, to prepare cappuccino
> :-)
>
Whether a mukka makes "cappuccino" is another question. I'd say NO.
>
|
| | | | |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 09:58:29
From: Refolo
Subject: Re: Moka pot vs. espresso machine?
|
On Sun, 5 Nov 2006 21:01:03 -0500, "Jack Denver"
<nunuvyer@netscape.net > wrote:
Hi jack, nice to meet you.
>true meaning and origin of the word "espresso" is not coffee that is made
>"fast" but coffee that is made expressly for the customer at the time it is
>served - "just for you".
Well, maybe you are right. In italian espressamente means "right for
you in request", but maybe every coffee is made espressamente if I ask
for, is'n it?
And not every coffee is made in a few seconds.
In the beginning of 1900, the fast train was an Espresso.
We had the Locale (local train), the Espresso, the Rapido (Rapid), the
Diretto (Direct from here to there).
From 10-15 year we have now the Regional, Interregional, Intercity
and Eurocity.
Must say I do not understand the use of anglosaxon names where there
is no anglosaxon heritage, prefer the old Diretto than a Eurocity :-)
But, who knows?
|
| | | | | |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 18:04:37
From: Mud Pup
Subject: Re: Moka pot vs. espresso machine?
|
Refolo wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Nov 2006 21:01:03 -0500, "Jack Denver"
> <nunuvyer@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>>true meaning and origin of the word "espresso" is not coffee that is made
>>"fast" but coffee that is made expressly for the customer at the time it is
>>served - "just for you".
>
> Well, maybe you are right. In italian espressamente means "right for
> you in request", but maybe every coffee is made espressamente if I ask
> for, is'n it?
Both seem to fit Burger King's definition of "fast" food.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 07 Nov 2006 08:37:11
From: Refolo
Subject: Re: Moka pot vs. espresso machine?
|
On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 18:04:37 GMT, Mud Pup
<mudpup@retriever.dyndns.org > wrote:
>Both seem to fit Burger King's definition of "fast" food.
That's why I prefer to spend some time to grind my beans to get a good
moka :-)
|
| | | | | |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 10:13:45
From: Jack Denver
Subject: Re: Moka pot vs. espresso machine?
|
"Just for you" meaning brewed freshly one cup at a time. The alternative,
which mostly prevailed in the North (in the USA to this day), was to brew
the coffee in advance in large urn or pot, keep it heated and serve it
stale.
I think it is a fair trade between languages - we get the lovely words
"espresso" and "cappuccino" and you get our nonsense words invented by
bureaucrats, like "Eurocity".
"Refolo" <refolo@refolo.it > wrote in message
news:4e1uk2hpmbed0gvsnjlokkfreqv4rrnqf6@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 5 Nov 2006 21:01:03 -0500, "Jack Denver"
> <nunuvyer@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> Hi jack, nice to meet you.
>
>>true meaning and origin of the word "espresso" is not coffee that is made
>>"fast" but coffee that is made expressly for the customer at the time it
>>is
>>served - "just for you".
>
> Well, maybe you are right. In italian espressamente means "right for
> you in request", but maybe every coffee is made espressamente if I ask
> for, is'n it?
>
> And not every coffee is made in a few seconds.
>
> In the beginning of 1900, the fast train was an Espresso.
>
> We had the Locale (local train), the Espresso, the Rapido (Rapid), the
> Diretto (Direct from here to there).
>
> From 10-15 year we have now the Regional, Interregional, Intercity
> and Eurocity.
>
> Must say I do not understand the use of anglosaxon names where there
> is no anglosaxon heritage, prefer the old Diretto than a Eurocity :-)
>
> But, who knows?
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 07 Nov 2006 08:35:56
From: Refolo
Subject: Re: Moka pot vs. espresso machine?
|
On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 10:13:45 -0500, "Jack Denver"
<nunuvyer@netscape.net > wrote:
>I think it is a fair trade between languages - we get the lovely words
>"espresso" and "cappuccino" and you get our nonsense words invented by
>bureaucrats, like "Eurocity".
Eurocity is a nonsense, I get baseball, whiskey, bar, sport, pullover,
gladly, even apple pye instead of torta di mele if it is done the
american way and recipe, but I find really stupid Eurocity, Intercity,
and so on :-)
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 18:04:24
From: Marshall
Subject: Re: Moka pot vs. espresso machine?
|
On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 10:13:45 -0500, "Jack Denver"
<nunuvyer@netscape.net > wrote:
>"Just for you" meaning brewed freshly one cup at a time. The alternative,
>which mostly prevailed in the North (in the USA to this day), was to brew
>the coffee in advance in large urn or pot, keep it heated and serve it
>stale.
>
>I think it is a fair trade between languages - we get the lovely words
>"espresso" and "cappuccino" and you get our nonsense words invented by
>bureaucrats,....
You mean "Eurocrats."
shall
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 07 Nov 2006 08:36:21
From: Refolo
Subject: Re: Moka pot vs. espresso machine?
|
On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 18:04:24 GMT, shall
<mrfuss@ihatespamearthlink.net > wrote:
>You mean "Eurocrats."
Right, you have amerocrats.
|
| | | |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 01:29:14
From: Marshall
Subject: Re: Moka pot vs. espresso machine?
|
On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 00:32:28 GMT, Refolo <refolo@refolo.it > wrote:
Welcome, welcome, welcome!
This newsgroup is international, but has never attracted many
Italians. In fact, I can not remember any in my 5 years or so.
Especially since we discuss espresso more than anything else, we hope
you will stay and continue to contribute your perspective.
shall
|
| | | | |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 09:51:57
From: Refolo
Subject: Re: Moka pot vs. espresso machine?
|
On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 01:29:14 GMT, shall
<mrfuss@ihatespamearthlink.net > wrote:
>Welcome, welcome, welcome!
Thanks so much!
>Especially since we discuss espresso more than anything else, we hope
The only espresso I drink is at work :-)
We have there a bar opened 07.30-08.45 and at lunch time.
We have an automatic Espresso machine at the work floor too.
Usually, a moka cofee at home just after wake up, a second coffee just
arrived, and a third one after lunch.
Unless we must have a lot of informal talk, so maybe a fourth and a
fifth coffee standing in front of the machine :-)
I find home espresso machines expansive, tall, and worse than a real
espresso at the bar.
Or maybe it is just a cultural problem, I associate espresso with
something I always drink outside home.
I believe however more and more home machines are selling here in
Italy too.
About the coffee beans, I like Lavazza, Vergnano (from Piedmont),
Elena (from Liguria, small factory, hand toasted with wood),
Cremcaffe' and Illy (from Friuli Venezia Giulia).
But, since hundreds of different varieties are available it is not
exhaustive :-)
I have a couple Bialetti Moka aluminium, a Bialetti Venere Moka in
steel, and now I am going to buy a steel ILSA Moka.
To grind beans at the moment (more aroma) I got a Girmi electric
grinder (a remake of a 50's model, wonderful, made in Italy, not
China) and I am going to get a 3 Spade (3 swords) one too, from a
small ancient factory, a manual model in use at the beginning of last
century.
Yes, maybe I am a retroman but I think I don not need an electric
engine to grind my beans until I am in the 90's or later.
I remember when I was young :-) my mother toasting coffee beans at
home, and the aroma smell all over the house.
Wish I have enought time to taste the joy of life: more coffee,
friends and love.
And remember, coffee must be hot like Hell, dark like night, pure like
an angel and sweet like love.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 10:27:01
From: Jack Denver
Subject: Re: Moka pot vs. espresso machine?
|
"Refolo" <refolo@refolo.it > wrote in message
news:n30uk2trq6v8561ivlidd5vl7e28cngid2@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 01:29:14 GMT, shall
> <mrfuss@ihatespamearthlink.net> wrote:
>
> To grind beans at the moment (more aroma) I got a Girmi electric
> grinder (a remake of a 50's model, wonderful, made in Italy, not
> China) and I am going to get a 3 Spade (3 swords) one too, from a
> small ancient factory, a manual model in use at the beginning of last
> century.
Many here (not me - I have a Rossi bar grinder) recommend the German
Zassenhaus hand cranked grinder highly. I prefer to get my exercise
elsewhere.
>
> Yes, maybe I am a retroman but I think I don not need an electric
> engine to grind my beans until I am in the 90's or later.
>
> I remember when I was young :-) my mother toasting coffee beans at
> home, and the aroma smell all over the house.
It doesn't have to be a memory only - you can still do this. The easiest way
is to start with a "hot air popcorn popper". I realize these are not exactly
popular items in Italy, but if you look around you might be able to find
one, and some green coffee to roast. I'd recommend roasting outside in the
yard or on the balcony, not inside the house unless you have a powerful
exhaust fan or want the "memory" to linger for many days. It's a lot of fun
though, if you are a "retro" kind of guy, and you get to drink the results.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 07 Nov 2006 08:42:35
From: Refolo
Subject: Re: Moka pot vs. espresso machine?
|
On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 10:27:01 -0500, "Jack Denver"
<nunuvyer@netscape.net > wrote:
I googled: nice german product!
This is the 3 spade:
http://www.facem.com/en/prodotti/reg_macinacaffe.html
I am afraid Rossi grinder is not Italian.
Rossi is for us like Smith for you. Maybe the producer just got a name
for keting?
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 07 Nov 2006 07:56:57
From: Jack Denver
Subject: Re: Moka pot vs. espresso machine?
|
Don't be silly. Gino Rossi is one of the main manufacturers of bar grinders
in Italy. Their company also make the "Brasilia" line of espresso machines
and ULKA pumps. Many of their grinders are re-labeled for other espresso
manufacturers. I have the RR45 on the left:
http://www.siennacoffee.com.au/ginorossigrinders.htm
but it is labeled as a Nuova Simonelli.
Here is a fragment of an interview with Giampiero Rossi:
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-1159771/Talking-with-the-electric-Mr.html
"Refolo" <refolo@refolo.it > wrote in message
news:dhh0l2han6chs0nvnl1rlle5j25s3bi526@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 10:27:01 -0500, "Jack Denver"
> <nunuvyer@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> I googled: nice german product!
>
> This is the 3 spade:
> http://www.facem.com/en/prodotti/reg_macinacaffe.html
>
> I am afraid Rossi grinder is not Italian.
>
> Rossi is for us like Smith for you. Maybe the producer just got a name
> for keting?
|
| | | | | |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 19:43:25
From: Patricia
Subject: Re: Moka pot vs. espresso machine?
|
"Refolo" <refolo@refolo.it > wrote in message
news:n30uk2trq6v8561ivlidd5vl7e28cngid2@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 01:29:14 GMT, shall
> <mrfuss@ihatespamearthlink.net> wrote:
>
<snip >
>
> And remember, coffee must be hot like Hell, dark like night, pure like
> an angel and sweet like love.
Is it incredibly inappropriate in this friendly and light-hearted group to
continue to the, "I like my coffee like my men ..."? If not, I like mine
hot and sweet and on the kitchen table. :-)
Patsy.
|
| |
Date: 05 Nov 2006 13:17:15
From: Moka Java
Subject: Re: Moka pot vs. espresso machine?
|
FAROUK wrote:
> I am somewhat of a newbie re espresso and cappuccinos and drinks like
> that. Can someone explain to me what the difference is between the
> coffee made with a moka pot and an espresso machine? Isn't espresso
> what you get from the moka pot? Also the pros and cons of using the
> moka pot?
>
> Thanks,
> O Farouk
Espresso is an extraction of coffee made under pressure. The pressure
extracts and emulsifies the oils and other goodness from the beans in a
way unlike any other coffee brewing method. A moka pot makes strong
coffee.
R "does anyone have the link to the FAQ?" TF
|
|
