coffee-forum.net
Promoting coffee discussion.

Main
Date: 13 Sep 2006 09:49:08
From: Jack Denver
Subject: NY Times Article on Espresso today
Article in today's Dining section:


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/13/dining/13coff.html?ex=1315800000&en=bd8a339e42fbf17b&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

No registration required for this link.

Better than most articles in the popular press - no really glaring errors
that I could see.

The author seems to be a little fixated on the tatoos that many of the
baristas have, in a slightly creepy way, but other than that, pretty good I
thought. Shout outs for gimme, cofeegeek , 9th St. Espresso, Synesso,
Espresso Vivace, etc. If the author doesn't get it 100%, he can at least
name the players who do.







 
Date: 19 Sep 2006 06:04:50
From: daveb
Subject: Re:jack's loathing of Starbucks --- Whew!
WOW! big hard-on for Starbucks!! did they pee in your coffee one
time. "Jack'?

Dave
117

Jack Denver wrote:
> charging more, not less that *$. If
> Starbies can charge $3 for a cup full of burned swill spit out by a robot
> and people line up for it, . . . ."



 
Date: 18 Sep 2006 14:20:42
From: Flasherly
Subject: Re: NY Times Article on Espresso today

Jack Denver wrote:
> It seems to me that they should be charging more, not less that *$. If
> Starbies can charge $3 for a cup full of burned swill spit out by a robot
> and people line up for it, then paying $3 for a hand made quality cappa made
> with fresh high quality beans and latte art is a bargain.

I looked them up - Starbucks' advertising staff. Think Disneyland -
they're after 'world-class entertainment'. Starbuck's advertising
communications CEO is ranked 12th in the world for her abilities. I've
seen people line up at Disneyland - by the boxcars. Never been to a
Starbucks - burnt swill, couldn't be worse than Duncan Doughnuts. Come
to think of it, the coffee is the only thing recall enjoying at
Disneyland - had this place setup with a ton of countries, and a
particular coffee for each and every one of them. See'ya. Can't say
how many cups I drank before realizing I'd had way too much. Sure did
enjoy myself while sampling them, though.



 
Date: 18 Sep 2006 07:17:18
From: Leo95se
Subject: Re: NY Times Article on Espresso today
the good news, maybe NYC will get some decent coffee for once. i know,
there are a few shops downtown and in brooklyn, but nothing in midtown,
uptown, etc.

the bad news, we will most likely be to honored to pay starbucks prices
to enjoy the privelege of this newfound good coffee :/


Jack Denver wrote:
> Article in today's Dining section:
>
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/13/dining/13coff.html?ex=1315800000&en=bd8a339e42fbf17b&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
>
> No registration required for this link.
>
> Better than most articles in the popular press - no really glaring errors
> that I could see.
>
> The author seems to be a little fixated on the tatoos that many of the
> baristas have, in a slightly creepy way, but other than that, pretty good I
> thought. Shout outs for gimme, cofeegeek , 9th St. Espresso, Synesso,
> Espresso Vivace, etc. If the author doesn't get it 100%, he can at least
> name the players who do.



  
Date: 18 Sep 2006 16:28:37
From: Jack Denver
Subject: Re: NY Times Article on Espresso today
It seems to me that they should be charging more, not less that *$. If
Starbies can charge $3 for a cup full of burned swill spit out by a robot
and people line up for it, then paying $3 for a hand made quality cappa made
with fresh high quality beans and latte art is a bargain.


"Leo95se" <leo.zick@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1158589038.470466.137510@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> the bad news, we will most likely be to honored to pay starbucks prices
> to enjoy the privelege of this newfound good coffee :/
>




 
Date: 17 Sep 2006 18:36:43
From: Flasherly
Subject: Re: NY Times Article on Espresso today
jim schulman wrote:
> On 16 Sep 2006 08:40:07 -0700, "Flasherly" <gjerrell@ij.net> wrote:
>
> > I suppose its a
> >play within pluralities for subjectivity to objectify collective
> >consciousness, within such ambience as then is capable of being
> >perceived, most of all, in order to amplify a single-most, suitable
> >representative receptive audiences embody [to me, as it were]
>
> It's beginning to sound familiar. I think the poor fellow has sniffed
> one to many "Theory" seminar.

Too far. I took a direct rip on a coffee cupper posting from another
thread. Conditioning himself to ignore personal preferences, his goal
is to objectify for others aesthetic experience as one measurably
discrete and sufficient to common agreement. Seeming a sensible
extension, why not setup and task the reviewer upon the same premise -
which appears to work in context, so long as the ambience of the group
is contained within a technicality of coffee implements and origins.
Where it doesn't, is when focus is seen wandering from an object
detail, for a barista's appearance to transpire and detract from a
truer objectified ambience -- apart from engravings on a particularly
fine machine, or what method drying beans directly embody -- again, in
a truer, immediate sense. The ambient aethestic is that which is then
most directly related to a means the taste of coffee objectifies.
Other, potential factors yet remain unestablished, aesthetic ends, I
suspect, yet within a relative scope of ambience to intersect at any
number of reactants theoretical coffeehouses might contain. . . In so
many standards to apply to models, such as busy businesses and
successful coffeehouses.



  
Date: 17 Sep 2006 22:21:18
From: jim schulman
Subject: Re: NY Times Article on Espresso today
On 17 Sep 2006 18:36:43 -0700, "Flasherly" <gjerrell@ij.net > wrote:

>jim schulman wrote:
>> On 16 Sep 2006 08:40:07 -0700, "Flasherly" <gjerrell@ij.net> wrote:
>>
>> > I suppose its a
>> >play within pluralities for subjectivity to objectify collective
>> >consciousness, within such ambience as then is capable of being
>> >perceived, most of all, in order to amplify a single-most, suitable
>> >representative receptive audiences embody [to me, as it were]
>>
>> It's beginning to sound familiar. I think the poor fellow has sniffed
>> one to many "Theory" seminar.
>
>Too far. I took a direct rip on a coffee cupper posting from another
>thread. Conditioning himself to ignore personal preferences, his goal
>is to objectify for others aesthetic experience as one measurably
>discrete and sufficient to common agreement. Seeming a sensible
>extension, why not setup and task the reviewer upon the same premise -
>which appears to work in context, so long as the ambience of the group
>is contained within a technicality of coffee implements and origins.

I didn't think my syntax was quite that tortured. In any case, it's
quite tedious to twist every sentence's gram to show one's evidence
doesn't meet platonic standards, whether the twisting is in
Heidegerian or Carnapian style. There's a reason Wilkins's perfect
language never caught on -- it sounds too much like this.

>Where it doesn't, is when focus is seen wandering from an object
>detail, for a barista's appearance to transpire and detract from a
>truer objectified ambience -- apart from engravings on a particularly
>fine machine, or what method drying beans directly embody -- again, in
>a truer, immediate sense. The ambient aethestic is that which is then
>most directly related to a means the taste of coffee objectifies.
>Other, potential factors yet remain unestablished, aesthetic ends, I
>suspect, yet within a relative scope of ambience to intersect at any
>number of reactants theoretical coffeehouses might contain. . . In so
>many standards to apply to models, such as busy businesses and
>successful coffeehouses.

Jack was objecting to the reporter's going on about the tattoos. He
didn't comment on how they fit into the emerging espresso aesthetic.

To me, they seemed almost to extend the latte art up the pourer's arm,
so didn't strike me as particluarly transgressive. Now, baristas in
lab coats with clipboards; that would be transgressive.


   
Date: 18 Sep 2006 00:25:53
From: Jack Denver
Subject: Re: NY Times Article on Espresso today
From what I can tell it is a generational thing - for a 20 something of
either gender to have tattoos nowadays is not at all unusual, especially
those with "artistic" inclinations. When I was growing up, I associated
tattoos with sailors, skid row types, etc. The only women I ever saw that
had tattoos were in the circus (except for my aunt who had a serial number
tattooed on her arm, but she didn't have any choice in the matter). Now I
see them all over the place (literally) so as far as I can tell they
signify nothing much other than "membership" in generation Y or whatever
generation we're on now - I've lost track. That's why it struck me as
strange that the NY Times guy made such a big deal of it.

"jim schulman" <jim_schulman@ameritech.net > wrote in message
news:c93sg299ck9n6cfmaj8qgp54i1945mq3nj@4ax.com...
> On 17 Sep 2006 18:36:43 -0700, "Flasherly" <gjerrell@ij.net> wrote:
>
>>jim schulman wrote:
>
> To me, they seemed almost to extend the latte art up the pourer's arm,
> so didn't strike me as particluarly transgressive. Now, baristas in
> lab coats with clipboards; that would be transgressive.




 
Date: 17 Sep 2006 07:37:50
From: Flasherly
Subject: Re: NY Times Article on Espresso today

Omniryx@gmail.com wrote:

> Flasherly wrote:

> >I suppose its a
> > play within pluralities for subjectivity to objectify collective
> > consciousness, within such ambience as then is capable of being
> > perceived, most of all, in order to amplify a single-most, suitable
> > representative receptive audiences embody [to me, as it were].
>
> (And a great deal more in the same vein)

writer (rI-tuhr) N.
1. Instrument to open a vein, in effect, between artery and arson;- to
an end, see art.
[< Greek - Poetics, Aristotle.]



 
Date: 17 Sep 2006 06:18:14
From: Omniryx@gmail.com
Subject: Re: NY Times Article on Espresso today
Mr. Flasherly has begun trolling. Respond accordingly.


Flasherly wrote:
> Who knows - Gnosticism may affect different people differently;- not
> that I'm up on Thirdwave Movements, I'm sorry to say. I suppose its a
> play within pluralities for subjectivity to objectify collective
> consciousness, within such ambience as then is capable of being
> perceived, most of all, in order to amplify a single-most, suitable
> representative receptive audiences embody [to me, as it were].

(And a great deal more in the same vein)



 
Date: 16 Sep 2006 08:40:07
From: Flasherly
Subject: Re: NY Times Article on Espresso today

Jack Denver wrote:
> "Flasherly" <gjerrell@ij.net> wrote in message
> news:1158331808.697403.268130@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> > I was making light of Mr. Denver's
> > observations, which are within some reason, as Mr. White then kindly
> > took a moment to draw within their proper context. ... I'm
> > sure Mr. Denver's penchant for ambient settings are no less idealistic
> > than a good many might share.
> >
> Y'know Mr. Flasherly, I have a couple of very fancy diplomas on my wall
> from high priced top-ten universities, and yet I have no friggin' idea what
> you just said.

"The author seems to be a little fixated on the tatoos that many of the
baristas have, in a slightly creepy way . . . " -Mr. JD

Who knows - Gnosticism may affect different people differently;- not
that I'm up on Thirdwave Movements, I'm sorry to say. I suppose its a
play within pluralities for subjectivity to objectify collective
consciousness, within such ambience as then is capable of being
perceived, most of all, in order to amplify a single-most, suitable
representative receptive audiences embody [to me, as it were]. What
factors assuage, specifically, a silver-lining over groups, and what
discernable empahasize effects a sovereign entity coffeehouses cater to
as thematic motif. The picture of immediacy to a ideogram strung and
once hung over the door into one. . . Contintental coffeehouse of the
last century most certainly had such thematic entities, denizens of
literary or financial coffeehouses once frequented, which served no
less a familiar function, allocating interests derived, then, for
abstractions consequent to a thematic motif;- In the present tense,
were it taken for greater context technicality is given by way of
capably illustrating $9,500US espresso machines. . . . Therein is
overlap, other than that, perhaps little more. As a degreed sort, I
obviously wouldn't think of you as tattooed, either. Interesting,
though, you should think so many are. You see, I've never sat even
once with one.



  
Date: 17 Sep 2006 16:08:38
From: jim schulman
Subject: Re: NY Times Article on Espresso today
On 16 Sep 2006 08:40:07 -0700, "Flasherly" <gjerrell@ij.net > wrote:

> I suppose its a
>play within pluralities for subjectivity to objectify collective
>consciousness, within such ambience as then is capable of being
>perceived, most of all, in order to amplify a single-most, suitable
>representative receptive audiences embody [to me, as it were]

It's beginning to sound familiar. I think the poor fellow has sniffed
one to many "Theory" seminar.

"Crackle: and this is your mind on Heidegger and de Mann"


  
Date: 17 Sep 2006 19:33:32
From: Espressopithecus (Java Man)
Subject: Re: NY Times Article on Espresso today
In article <1158421207.145218.315710@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com >,
gjerrell@ij.net says...
> You see, I've never sat even
> once with one.
>
Nor have I, as I always sit slightly ahead or behind.

Rick


  
Date: 17 Sep 2006 11:20:10
From: Jack Denver
Subject: Re: NY Times Article on Espresso today
I rest my case.

"Flasherly" <gjerrell@ij.net > wrote in message
news:1158421207.145218.315710@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
> Jack Denver wrote:
>> "Flasherly" <gjerrell@ij.net> wrote in message
>> news:1158331808.697403.268130@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>> > I was making light of Mr. Denver's
>> > observations, which are within some reason, as Mr. White then kindly
>> > took a moment to draw within their proper context. ... I'm
>> > sure Mr. Denver's penchant for ambient settings are no less idealistic
>> > than a good many might share.
>> >
>> Y'know Mr. Flasherly, I have a couple of very fancy diplomas on my wall
>> from high priced top-ten universities, and yet I have no friggin' idea
>> what
>> you just said.
>
> "The author seems to be a little fixated on the tatoos that many of the
> baristas have, in a slightly creepy way . . . " -Mr. JD
>
> Who knows - Gnosticism may affect different people differently;- not
> that I'm up on Thirdwave Movements, I'm sorry to say. I suppose its a
> play within pluralities for subjectivity to objectify collective
> consciousness, within such ambience as then is capable of being
> perceived, most of all, in order to amplify a single-most, suitable
> representative receptive audiences embody [to me, as it were]. What
> factors assuage, specifically, a silver-lining over groups, and what
> discernable empahasize effects a sovereign entity coffeehouses cater to
> as thematic motif. The picture of immediacy to a ideogram strung and
> once hung over the door into one. . . Contintental coffeehouse of the
> last century most certainly had such thematic entities, denizens of
> literary or financial coffeehouses once frequented, which served no
> less a familiar function, allocating interests derived, then, for
> abstractions consequent to a thematic motif;- In the present tense,
> were it taken for greater context technicality is given by way of
> capably illustrating $9,500US espresso machines. . . . Therein is
> overlap, other than that, perhaps little more. As a degreed sort, I
> obviously wouldn't think of you as tattooed, either. Interesting,
> though, you should think so many are. You see, I've never sat even
> once with one.
>




 
Date: 16 Sep 2006 07:01:07
From: Flasherly
Subject: Re: NY Times Article on Espresso today

Andy Schecter wrote:
> Flasherly wrote:
> > Just a few vague and intriguingly amusing thoughts.
>
> Vague, yes. But intriguing and amusing? Don't flatter yourself. :-)

I'd vaguely agree, being I wouldn't think complicities within editorial
oversight, or behaviorial traits especially flattering either. Just
vaguely interesting.



 
Date: 15 Sep 2006 14:40:27
From: Omniryx@gmail.com
Subject: Re: NY Times Article on Espresso today

Jack Denver wrote:
> Y'know Mr. Flasherly, I have a couple of very fancy diplomas on my wall
> from high priced top-ten universities, and yet I have no friggin' idea what
> you just said.

So do I, Jack, and nor do I, Mr. Flasherly.

Don't ask him why he writes that way, though. The last person who did
that was subjected to two screens of absolute gibberish.

Eschew obfuscation, Mr. F.



 
Date: 15 Sep 2006 14:08:50
From: CoffeeKid
Subject: Re: NY Times Article on Espresso today

Mike White wrote:

> If I remember correctly Peter Meehan was indeed assigned the project
> (he also writes a popular weekly column entitled $25 and Under) by his
> editor with the idea being the corellation between baristas and
> tattoos. It was due to his own personal efforts that the focus was
> able to shift (for the most part) from the tattoos to coffee and the
> "third wave" movement instead, but obviously the orginal theme did
> carry over. Peter does have some backround in coffee appreciation,
> hence his motivation for the shift. It is his intention to continue
> writing columns about coffee and coffee appreciation in much the same
> way that there are columns dedicated to wine in the same paper. I think
> one of the most important (and rarely seen) aspects of this piece was
> the level of respect that he approached it with. Clearly this is open
> to debate, as is everything else in a public forum. During one of his
> visits to our shop we joked about what dangerous territory he was
> entering, and he was well aware of the amount of flak he was in risk of
> receiving. All in all I think that the online response in both the
> forums and blogosphere has been overwhelming positive. A rare event
> when dealing with mainstream journalism in this industry.

I had a nice talk with Peter after the article came out too, and I can
echo what Mike said - he was well aware that he was "putting himself
out there" to the community, to alt.coffee, to coffeed, to coffeegeek,
to home-barista, and worried that he would get flak in return for the
article.

But he was also undaunted - he seems very serious about trying to
convince the Times to make this kind of coverage a frequent thing -
coverage of cutting edge, true quality coffee, presenting coffee and
espresso as culinary.

Lemme tell you, it was music to my ears :D I think the article was
great for what it was - letting the public know something better exists
out there than the typical "cuppajoe" they have in the morning, and in
a way, it was a wake up call for New Yorkers about espresso coming of
age in that city. I was really glad to see that most of the feedback
about this article was glowingly positive, once people got over
snickering about a couple of typos (which were unfortunate for Albina
Press and Counter Culture).

k



 
Date: 15 Sep 2006 07:50:08
From: Flasherly
Subject: Re: NY Times Article on Espresso today
Just a few vague and intriguingly amusing thoughts. There's no need
read farther, really - my initial take on Mr. Meehan's article skims
along well enough, that I'd likely not even noticed the reference to
chrome and tattoos, otherwise. I was making light of Mr. Denver's
observations, which are within some reason, as Mr. White then kindly
took a moment to draw within their proper context. Kindly note my use
of 'mild-mannered'. I'm saying Mr Peyton appears a nice looking sort,
overall, for a barista, no doubt with an equitable disposition and a
friendly fellow;- though admittedly, the Dutch reference to tattoo is
rather quaint. Trashing. . . Lord no, far from it, Mr. shall. I'm
sure Mr. Denver's penchant for ambient settings are no less idealistic
than a good many might share.

Regards,
Mr. Flasherly

> Wow. You know nothing about this writer. Yet from the anonymity of the
> Internet you feel comfortable trashing him and his writing. For what
> it is worth, the forums where serious baristas post show they are
> delighted with this article (which I think is about the best of its
> kind that I have seen).
>
> For years we have complained on alt.coffee that the general press
> isn't getting out the word on what makes a great cup of espresso. This
> is one of the few times it has happened, and it happened in the
> newspaper whose articles are most widely syndicated around the world.
>
> I don't know what you are looking for Mr. Flasherly, but I can assure
> you that posts like yours have driven many people away from
> alt.coffee.
>
> shall



  
Date: 16 Sep 2006 12:13:49
From: Andy Schecter
Subject: Re: NY Times Article on Espresso today
Flasherly wrote:
> Just a few vague and intriguingly amusing thoughts.

Vague, yes. But intriguing and amusing? Don't flatter yourself. :-)

--


-Andy S.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/andy_s/sets/


  
Date: 15 Sep 2006 15:24:58
From: Jack Denver
Subject: Re: NY Times Article on Espresso today

"Flasherly" <gjerrell@ij.net > wrote in message
news:1158331808.697403.268130@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> I was making light of Mr. Denver's
> observations, which are within some reason, as Mr. White then kindly
> took a moment to draw within their proper context. ... I'm
> sure Mr. Denver's penchant for ambient settings are no less idealistic
> than a good many might share.
>
> Regards,
> Mr. Flasherly
>
Y'know Mr. Flasherly, I have a couple of very fancy diplomas on my wall
from high priced top-ten universities, and yet I have no friggin' idea what
you just said.





   
Date: 15 Sep 2006 17:12:05
From: notbob
Subject: Re: NY Times Article on Espresso today
On 2006-09-15, Jack Denver <nunuvyer@netscape.net > wrote:

> from high priced top-ten universities, and yet I have no friggin' idea what
> you just said.

It's understandable, more or less. Just a weird writing style, like a
middle management droid that speaks pidgin English. Every time I read
one of his posts, I feel like I'm looking at something composed on a
refrigerator door with one of those magnetic word kit thingies. :\

nb


 
Date: 15 Sep 2006 07:06:33
From: Flasherly
Subject: Re: NY Times Article on Espresso today
Mike White wrote:
> If I remember correctly Peter Meehan was indeed assigned the project
> (he also writes a popular weekly column entitled $25 and Under) by his
> editor with the idea being the corellation between baristas and
> tattoos. It was due to his own personal efforts that the focus was
> able to shift (for the most part) from the tattoos to coffee and the
> "third wave" movement instead, but obviously the orginal theme did
> carry over. Peter does have some backround in coffee appreciation,
> hence his motivation for the shift. It is his intention to continue
> writing columns about coffee and coffee appreciation in much the same
> way that there are columns dedicated to wine in the same paper. I think
> one of the most important (and rarely seen) aspects of this piece was
> the level of respect that he approached it with. Clearly this is open
> to debate, as is everything else in a public forum. During one of his
> visits to our shop we joked about what dangerous territory he was
> entering, and he was well aware of the amount of flak he was in risk of
> receiving. All in all I think that the online response in both the
> forums and blogosphere has been overwhelming positive. A rare event
> when dealing with mainstream journalism in this industry.
>
> -Non Tattooed Mike

What I'd (also) imagined, is he's playing both sides - to an entrenched
corporate structure of coffee drippers, into new upstart, European
influenced crowds, replete with chrome regalia and tattooes. Toss in
some corporate analysts monitoring gourmet coffee habits (and attendant
pricing) for indicator yardsticks into an economy of discretionary
consumer expenditures, and once they start lining up down the blocks to
coffee bistros' doors, Starbucks and Dunkin' Doughnuts - hey, it's time
to load up on smallcaps again. Well - except for a TWM take out of the
blue. Not sure where that's headed. I agree - it's a good approach to
bring out a finer aspect of what goes behind other than clacking down a
rather small saucer and cup, and what all is invovled in minute
servings of foreign essences. Yes, good news and surely wish him all
the best in his endeavours to reach an attentive audience. Public
forums and the net - at times are nicely situated to balance judgements
between formal publications, least while they last and maintain their
integrity. Even saw a stalwart as old John C. Dvorack recently
prophesizing the fall of the Golden Age of IT, worn threadbare from
novelty as commercialism becomes increasingly pervasive. Thanks for
the lowdown. Very interesting.



 
Date: 14 Sep 2006 20:32:37
From: Mike White
Subject: Re: NY Times Article on Espresso today
Flasherly wrote:
> Jack Denver wrote:
> > I still think the tattoos get mentioned way too often - four times plus they
> > are shown in the photos . One mention would have been acceptable as "local
> > color", but by the fourth reference it sounds like the reporter is obsessing
> > over something that really has nothing to do with the main story. What is
> > the subtext here? He calls the tattoos "off putting". Maybe he protests too
> > much and would really like to get to know those "rough and tumble",
> > "pirate-worthy" baristas a little better personally?
>
> The poor guy was assigned an article - trendy and cultural styles -
> isn't especially a coffee aficionado, and had just last weekend, if at
> all that, to read up over at coffeegeeks and its ilk prior to saunting
> up to a local barista with the request to "draw" NYC's progressive
> espresso scene. Training he may have, and should be able to fake it -
> salary for a NYT's reporter can't be that modest. Then, again, maybe
> he's a contributing writer, and mild-mannered looking men at
> 'chromed-out' espresso machines, embellishing tattooed affairs in latte
> work did happen to catch his eye. Or, it could be just a play he's
> making on Dutch syntactical origins, to tattoo, to "taptoe" sailors to
> quarters at night, knowing perfectly coffee was first introduced to
> Western culture by itime Dutchmen.


If I remember correctly Peter Meehan was indeed assigned the project
(he also writes a popular weekly column entitled $25 and Under) by his
editor with the idea being the corellation between baristas and
tattoos. It was due to his own personal efforts that the focus was
able to shift (for the most part) from the tattoos to coffee and the
"third wave" movement instead, but obviously the orginal theme did
carry over. Peter does have some backround in coffee appreciation,
hence his motivation for the shift. It is his intention to continue
writing columns about coffee and coffee appreciation in much the same
way that there are columns dedicated to wine in the same paper. I think
one of the most important (and rarely seen) aspects of this piece was
the level of respect that he approached it with. Clearly this is open
to debate, as is everything else in a public forum. During one of his
visits to our shop we joked about what dangerous territory he was
entering, and he was well aware of the amount of flak he was in risk of
receiving. All in all I think that the online response in both the
forums and blogosphere has been overwhelming positive. A rare event
when dealing with mainstream journalism in this industry.

-Non Tattooed Mike



 
Date: 14 Sep 2006 19:59:57
From: Flasherly
Subject: Re: NY Times Article on Espresso today

Jack Denver wrote:
> I still think the tattoos get mentioned way too often - four times plus they
> are shown in the photos . One mention would have been acceptable as "local
> color", but by the fourth reference it sounds like the reporter is obsessing
> over something that really has nothing to do with the main story. What is
> the subtext here? He calls the tattoos "off putting". Maybe he protests too
> much and would really like to get to know those "rough and tumble",
> "pirate-worthy" baristas a little better personally?

The poor guy was assigned an article - trendy and cultural styles -
isn't especially a coffee aficionado, and had just last weekend, if at
all that, to read up over at coffeegeeks and its ilk prior to saunting
up to a local barista with the request to "draw" NYC's progressive
espresso scene. Training he may have, and should be able to fake it -
salary for a NYT's reporter can't be that modest. Then, again, maybe
he's a contributing writer, and mild-mannered looking men at
'chromed-out' espresso machines, embellishing tattooed affairs in latte
work did happen to catch his eye. Or, it could be just a play he's
making on Dutch syntactical origins, to tattoo, to "taptoe" sailors to
quarters at night, knowing perfectly coffee was first introduced to
Western culture by itime Dutchmen.



  
Date: 19 Sep 2006 09:38:13
From: daveb
Subject: Re: NY Times Article on Espresso heavyosity
wow.

heavy, man.


Dave

Flasherly wrote:


> I don't see that case in absolutes. I started off on a spin from a
> taster's post and measures he'd illustrated in performing his craft. If
> standards are agreed upon, personally, I've no qualms when hearing
> such-and-such coffee is objectively regarded within an this or that
> latitude - the aesthetics as applied to hearing coffee. From there,
> it's a subjective leap of faith into a common conscious and greater
> number that elects such a representative standard.



  
Date: 19 Sep 2006 08:05:50
From: Flasherly
Subject: Re: NY Times Article on Espresso today
jim schulman wrote:

> "Quintessence" is medieval latin for moonshine; twisted syntax is
> justified by having the same effect, and your mash needs a few more
> passes through the still for that.
>
> At least if you want to get others than yourself high on it.

Middle-Latin, Byzantium, the grand-dame Rococo of all dead languages. .
.God forbid - the form most intended to connote intrigue is
resuscitated.

> On the other hand, it is one of the frustrations of the board that we
> can hear about others' coffees, but not taste them. You are so far not
> guilty of causing this form of suffering.

I don't see that case in absolutes. I started off on a spin from a
taster's post and measures he'd illustrated in performing his craft. If
standards are agreed upon, personally, I've no qualms when hearing
such-and-such coffee is objectively regarded within an this or that
latitude - the aesthetics as applied to hearing coffee. From there,
it's a subjective leap of faith into a common conscious and greater
number that elects such a representative standard.



  
Date: 15 Sep 2006 03:45:03
From: Marshall
Subject: Re: NY Times Article on Espresso today
On 14 Sep 2006 19:59:57 -0700, "Flasherly" <gjerrell@ij.net > wrote:

>The poor guy was assigned an article - trendy and cultural styles -
>isn't especially a coffee aficionado, and had just last weekend, if at
>all that, to read up over at coffeegeeks and its ilk prior to saunting
>up to a local barista with the request to "draw" NYC's progressive
>espresso scene. Training he may have, and should be able to fake it -
>salary for a NYT's reporter can't be that modest. Then, again, maybe
>he's a contributing writer, and mild-mannered looking men at
>'chromed-out' espresso machines, embellishing tattooed affairs in latte
>work did happen to catch his eye. Or, it could be just a play he's
>making on Dutch syntactical origins, to tattoo, to "taptoe" sailors to
>quarters at night, knowing perfectly coffee was first introduced to
>Western culture by itime Dutchmen.

Wow. You know nothing about this writer. Yet from the anonymity of the
Internet you feel comfortable trashing him and his writing. For what
it is worth, the forums where serious baristas post show they are
delighted with this article (which I think is about the best of its
kind that I have seen).

For years we have complained on alt.coffee that the general press
isn't getting out the word on what makes a great cup of espresso. This
is one of the few times it has happened, and it happened in the
newspaper whose articles are most widely syndicated around the world.

I don't know what you are looking for Mr. Flasherly, but I can assure
you that posts like yours have driven many people away from
alt.coffee.

shall



 
Date: 14 Sep 2006 18:45:30
From: Ron
Subject: Re: NY Times Article on Espresso today
The dosing reminds me a little of how I play with dosing at home. I
have a 25 gram filter basket and I like to throw it on the gram scale
when I finish tamping. My best results are with a gross weight of 44
grams, i.e. 19 of ground coffee. Sometimes I give 17 a try on a second
shot, holding the grind constant, and the water rushes through too
fast. But, since my eye can't always catch the difference between 19
and 17 grams in the basket, I really like to pull out that gram scale
as insurance. As long as I get the grind right, 19 grams seems to be
the ideal I should shoot for.

Ron

Jack Denver wrote:
> Article in today's Dining section:
>
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/13/dining/13coff.html?ex=1315800000&en=bd8a339e42fbf17b&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
>
> No registration required for this link.
>
> Better than most articles in the popular press - no really glaring errors
> that I could see.
>
> The author seems to be a little fixated on the tatoos that many of the
> baristas have, in a slightly creepy way, but other than that, pretty good I
> thought. Shout outs for gimme, cofeegeek , 9th St. Espresso, Synesso,
> Espresso Vivace, etc. If the author doesn't get it 100%, he can at least
> name the players who do.



 
Date: 14 Sep 2006 17:39:57
From: Mike White
Subject: Re: NY Times Article on Espresso today
IMAWriter wrote:
> Jack Denver wrote:
> > To be honest, I thought it was quite good, but I was concerned that others
> > would find fault with it in some nitpicky way (e.g. when he mentions the
> > most important factors in brewing, he doesn't mention pump pressure at all)
> > and accuse me of overpraising the reporter. Or that he mentions Sidamo and
> > Harar but don't distinguish between dry or wet process Sidamo, or say
> > anything about Yirg, so therefore the reporter is clueless after all and
> > just faking it. I guess you really can't win.
> >
> > I still think the tattoos get mentioned way too often - four times plus they
> > are shown in the photos . One mention would have been acceptable as "local
> > color", but by the fourth reference it sounds like the reporter is obsessing
> > over something that really has nothing to do with the main story. What is
> > the subtext here? He calls the tattoos "off putting". Maybe he protests too
> > much and would really like to get to know those "rough and tumble",
> > "pirate-worthy" baristas a little better personally?
> >
>
> >
> >
> > "shall" <mrfuss@ihatespamearthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:fnfgg2lrrosrds07acscek649vvqarasur@4ax.com...
> > > On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 09:49:08 -0400, "Jack Denver"
> > > <nunuvyer@netscape.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >>Article in today's Dining section:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/13/dining/13coff.html?ex=1315800000&en=bd8a339e42fbf17b&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
> > >>
> > >>No registration required for this link.
> > >>
> > >>Better than most articles in the popular press - no really glaring errors
> > >>that I could see.
> > >>
> > >>The author seems to be a little fixated on the tatoos that many of the
> > >>baristas have, in a slightly creepy way, but other than that, pretty good
> > >>I
> > >>thought. Shout outs for gimme, cofeegeek , 9th St. Espresso, Synesso,
> > >>Espresso Vivace, etc. If the author doesn't get it 100%, he can at least
> > >>name the players who do.
> > >
> > > Jack, what does it take to earn praise from you? I thought they really
> > > got it right this time. This may have been the best general press
> > > article I've ever read on what artisan espresso is about.
> > >
> > > shall
>
> Other than the overly self conscious tatoo references, i thought this
> author did a very nice job explaining what our beloved brew is all
> about...and especially differentiating between a wonderful product and
> the "mermaid' and it's clones. makes me want to brave New York...again.
> Thanks, Jack for bringing it to our/my attention.
> Rob Jason...(don't post here much, enjoy reading though, and hope my
> posting form is proper enough.)


In the interest of full disclosure i'd like to first state that I do
indeed represent the gimme cafe highlighted in this article. I'd also
like to state that i've been an on and off lurking member of this group
for 6 years. I've had the pleasure of meeting a few of you in person
and I'd love to meet more. With that in mind I'd like to extend a long
overdue invitation to any and all of you to come to NY and talk shop.
Naturally we're pleased by the article, but consider it simply a good
opportunity for me to introduce myself to you all once again (you can
search deeply in the archives to find me), not as any form of
advertising or spam. This group was instrumental to my early
development and passion for coffee, and a recent resurgence of said
passion has led me to revisit those that helped to inspire me
originally. NYC may finally getting it's act together, but the
community still has a lot to learn when compared to the one found here.

Mike White



  
Date: 15 Sep 2006 02:31:19
From: Andy Schecter
Subject: Re: NY Times Article on Espresso today
Mike White wrote:
> In the interest of full disclosure i'd like to first state that I do
> indeed represent the gimme cafe highlighted in this article. I'd also
> like to state that i've been an on and off lurking member of this group
> for 6 years. I've had the pleasure of meeting a few of you in person
> and I'd love to meet more. With that in mind I'd like to extend a long
> overdue invitation to any and all of you to come to NY and talk shop.
> Naturally we're pleased by the article, but consider it simply a good
> opportunity for me to introduce myself to you all once again (you can
> search deeply in the archives to find me), not as any form of
> advertising or spam. This group was instrumental to my early
> development and passion for coffee, and a recent resurgence of said
> passion has led me to revisit those that helped to inspire me
> originally. NYC may finally getting it's act together, but the
> community still has a lot to learn when compared to the one found here.

Nice note. I hope to make it down to visit you folks again soon.

--


-Andy S.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/andy_s/sets/


 
Date: 13 Sep 2006 21:50:22
From: IMAWriter
Subject: Re: NY Times Article on Espresso today
Jack Denver wrote:
> To be honest, I thought it was quite good, but I was concerned that others
> would find fault with it in some nitpicky way (e.g. when he mentions the
> most important factors in brewing, he doesn't mention pump pressure at all)
> and accuse me of overpraising the reporter. Or that he mentions Sidamo and
> Harar but don't distinguish between dry or wet process Sidamo, or say
> anything about Yirg, so therefore the reporter is clueless after all and
> just faking it. I guess you really can't win.
>
> I still think the tattoos get mentioned way too often - four times plus they
> are shown in the photos . One mention would have been acceptable as "local
> color", but by the fourth reference it sounds like the reporter is obsessing
> over something that really has nothing to do with the main story. What is
> the subtext here? He calls the tattoos "off putting". Maybe he protests too
> much and would really like to get to know those "rough and tumble",
> "pirate-worthy" baristas a little better personally?
>

>
>
> "shall" <mrfuss@ihatespamearthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:fnfgg2lrrosrds07acscek649vvqarasur@4ax.com...
> > On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 09:49:08 -0400, "Jack Denver"
> > <nunuvyer@netscape.net> wrote:
> >
> >>Article in today's Dining section:
> >>
> >>
> >>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/13/dining/13coff.html?ex=1315800000&en=bd8a339e42fbf17b&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
> >>
> >>No registration required for this link.
> >>
> >>Better than most articles in the popular press - no really glaring errors
> >>that I could see.
> >>
> >>The author seems to be a little fixated on the tatoos that many of the
> >>baristas have, in a slightly creepy way, but other than that, pretty good
> >>I
> >>thought. Shout outs for gimme, cofeegeek , 9th St. Espresso, Synesso,
> >>Espresso Vivace, etc. If the author doesn't get it 100%, he can at least
> >>name the players who do.
> >
> > Jack, what does it take to earn praise from you? I thought they really
> > got it right this time. This may have been the best general press
> > article I've ever read on what artisan espresso is about.
> >
> > shall

Other than the overly self conscious tatoo references, i thought this
author did a very nice job explaining what our beloved brew is all
about...and especially differentiating between a wonderful product and
the "mermaid' and it's clones. makes me want to brave New York...again.
Thanks, Jack for bringing it to our/my attention.
Rob Jason...(don't post here much, enjoy reading though, and hope my
posting form is proper enough.)



 
Date: 13 Sep 2006 10:55:05
From: Mike Farmer
Subject: Re: NY Times Article on Espresso today 9-13-2006

Jack Denver wrote:

> Article in today's Dining section:

>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/13/dining/13coff.html?ex=1315800000&en=bd8a339e42fbf17b&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

>Shout outs for gimme, cofeegeek , 9th St. Espresso, Synesso,
> Espresso Vivace, etc. If the author doesn't get it 100%, he can at least
> name the players who do.

How the heck did Joe the Art of Coffee _not_ make the above cut?



 
Date: 13 Sep 2006 17:27:53
From: Marshall
Subject: Re: NY Times Article on Espresso today
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 09:49:08 -0400, "Jack Denver"
<nunuvyer@netscape.net > wrote:

>Article in today's Dining section:
>
>
>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/13/dining/13coff.html?ex=1315800000&en=bd8a339e42fbf17b&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
>
>No registration required for this link.
>
>Better than most articles in the popular press - no really glaring errors
>that I could see.
>
>The author seems to be a little fixated on the tatoos that many of the
>baristas have, in a slightly creepy way, but other than that, pretty good I
>thought. Shout outs for gimme, cofeegeek , 9th St. Espresso, Synesso,
>Espresso Vivace, etc. If the author doesn't get it 100%, he can at least
>name the players who do.

Jack, what does it take to earn praise from you? I thought they really
got it right this time. This may have been the best general press
article I've ever read on what artisan espresso is about.

shall


  
Date: 18 Sep 2006 05:32:38
From: BenB
Subject: Re: NY Times Article on Espresso today
I think if I cross my eyes a bit and down a handful more 'spros, I
might almost be at the same operating speed speed...can everyone else
see the pink elephants?

Flasherly wrote:
> jim schulman wrote:
> > I didn't think my syntax was quite that tortured. In any case, it's
> > quite tedious to twist every sentence's gram to show one's evidence
> > doesn't meet platonic standards, whether the twisting is in
> > Heidegerian or Carnapian style. There's a reason Wilkins's perfect
> > language never caught on -- it sounds too much like this.
>
> I could not or ought not say. . . really? Heideggerian and Carnapian,
> interesting formal constructs, no doubt.
>
> I see syntax as variables for alignment. Direct with unequivocal
> meaning, as you say. Meaning which, at times, ought directly signify
> practical intent. Here, I can follow -- but no further. I'd rather
> twist words to exemplify coffee quintessentially. Quintessential from
> the Latin five to sense. Coffee rendered by elementals. Mouth to touch
> and mouth to taste. See the crema and telltale events in creating
> coffee. Smell the two former instances and touch the resulting warmth.
> All for coffee you or I experience.
>
> But wait. . . I haven't yet heard coffee. Therein lacks what
> conclusively defines a fifth element to coffee. [Here comes the
> twist.] Just to say, instead, coffee were something to be heard. . .
>
> Since I like rarefied coffee essences, may as well listen. I like
> finding complex syntactic structure worthy by rote means to circumvent.
> I like hearing a NYT editor direct a reporter to draw corallaries from
> Third Wave movements. That may mean, as well, that I can like coffee
> as it's spoken of from Village coffeehouses in NYC. Which is neither
> to say, simply enough, a contigency you ought to exists.



  
Date: 18 Sep 2006 02:27:26
From: Flasherly
Subject: Re: NY Times Article on Espresso today
jim schulman wrote:
> I didn't think my syntax was quite that tortured. In any case, it's
> quite tedious to twist every sentence's gram to show one's evidence
> doesn't meet platonic standards, whether the twisting is in
> Heidegerian or Carnapian style. There's a reason Wilkins's perfect
> language never caught on -- it sounds too much like this.

I could not or ought not say. . . really? Heideggerian and Carnapian,
interesting formal constructs, no doubt.

I see syntax as variables for alignment. Direct with unequivocal
meaning, as you say. Meaning which, at times, ought directly signify
practical intent. Here, I can follow -- but no further. I'd rather
twist words to exemplify coffee quintessentially. Quintessential from
the Latin five to sense. Coffee rendered by elementals. Mouth to touch
and mouth to taste. See the crema and telltale events in creating
coffee. Smell the two former instances and touch the resulting warmth.
All for coffee you or I experience.

But wait. . . I haven't yet heard coffee. Therein lacks what
conclusively defines a fifth element to coffee. [Here comes the
twist.] Just to say, instead, coffee were something to be heard. . .

Since I like rarefied coffee essences, may as well listen. I like
finding complex syntactic structure worthy by rote means to circumvent.
I like hearing a NYT editor direct a reporter to draw corallaries from
Third Wave movements. That may mean, as well, that I can like coffee
as it's spoken of from Village coffeehouses in NYC. Which is neither
to say, simply enough, a contigency you ought to exists.



   
Date: 19 Sep 2006 04:45:42
From: jim schulman
Subject: Re: NY Times Article on Espresso today
On 18 Sep 2006 02:27:26 -0700, "Flasherly" <gjerrell@ij.net > wrote:

>I see syntax as variables for alignment. Direct with unequivocal
>meaning, as you say. Meaning which, at times, ought directly signify
>practical intent. Here, I can follow -- but no further. I'd rather
>twist words to exemplify coffee quintessentially. Quintessential from
>the Latin five to sense. Coffee rendered by elementals. Mouth to touch
>and mouth to taste. See the crema and telltale events in creating
>coffee. Smell the two former instances and touch the resulting warmth.
>All for coffee you or I experience.

"Quintessence" is medieval latin for moonshine; twisted syntax is
justified by having the same effect, and your mash needs a few more
passes through the still for that.

At least if you want to get others than yourself high on it.

On the other hand, it is one of the frustrations of the board that we
can hear about others' coffees, but not taste them. You are so far not
guilty of causing this form of suffering.


    
Date: 19 Sep 2006 10:24:26
From: Coffee for Connoisseurs
Subject: Re: NY Times Article on Espresso today
"Quintessence" is actually an alchemist's term for the "fifth essence", the
final distillation which rendered the "Philosopher's Stone" into its purest
form. Possession of the stone "which is not a stone, but of stone, and he
that hath wit will understand" (Albertus Magnus) enabled the alchemist to
turn lead into gold, and was the first step to immortality, via the Elixir
of Life.


--
Alan

alanfrew@coffeeco.com.au
www.coffeeco.com.au




     
Date: 19 Sep 2006 07:24:02
From: jim schulman
Subject: Re: NY Times Article on Espresso today
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 10:24:26 GMT, "Coffee for Connoisseurs"
<alanfrew@coffeeco.com.au > wrote:

>"Quintessence" is actually an alchemist's term for the "fifth essence", the
>final distillation which rendered the "Philosopher's Stone" into its purest
>form. Possession of the stone "which is not a stone, but of stone, and he
>that hath wit will understand" (Albertus Magnus) enabled the alchemist to
>turn lead into gold, and was the first step to immortality, via the Elixir
>of Life.

Actually "pente oussia," ether, the fifth element added by Aristotle
to earth, water, air and fire, out of which heavenly bodies were
purportedly made. The greek was latinized into "quinta essentia." For
neo-platonists, the fifth element was anima, "spiritus" in latin, and
because of that, quintessence was also the term used for high proof
brandies by the 12th century.

Most alchemical and magical texts ascribed to Albert are from the 15th
and 16th centuries. According to the OED, this is also the time
quintessence is first used to mean the highest and purest expression
of something, rather than the fifth element.

Albert did write on alchemy, but in terms of Arabic chemistry, and was
the first person to isolate a new element, arsenic, since classical
times. He almost certainly didn't write the line you quote; being a
thorough going Aristototleian rationalist, he wrote 150 odd books
explaining just about everything, at length and in detail, to the
witless. He did, however, get quite a reputation as a magician, even
in his own lifetime.

Amazon sells a lot morey of the alchemical tracts ascribed to him as
they do any of his actual works. A sad twist of fate for a writer.


      
Date: 19 Sep 2006 08:52:46
From: Jack Denver
Subject: Re: NY Times Article on Espresso today
Alchemy was at one time not as disreputable as it is today - as late as
Newton's time, people (Newton) were still working on alchemical experiments.
If you go back to Albert's time, well before the birth of modern science,
there was no bright line between what we would call "chemistry" and
"medicine" and consider reputable and the disreputable "alchemy".

"jim schulman" <jim_schulman@ameritech.net > wrote in message
news:1olvg2tlpetqj69famst351aocg5h7ak68@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 10:24:26 GMT, "Coffee for Connoisseurs"
> <alanfrew@coffeeco.com.au> wrote:
>
>>"Quintessence" is actually an alchemist's term for the "fifth essence",
>>the
>>final distillation which rendered the "Philosopher's Stone" into its
>>purest
>>form. Possession of the stone "which is not a stone, but of stone, and he
>>that hath wit will understand" (Albertus Magnus) enabled the alchemist to
>>turn lead into gold, and was the first step to immortality, via the Elixir
>>of Life.
>
> Actually "pente oussia," ether, the fifth element added by Aristotle
> to earth, water, air and fire, out of which heavenly bodies were
> purportedly made. The greek was latinized into "quinta essentia." For
> neo-platonists, the fifth element was anima, "spiritus" in latin, and
> because of that, quintessence was also the term used for high proof
> brandies by the 12th century.
>
> Most alchemical and magical texts ascribed to Albert are from the 15th
> and 16th centuries. According to the OED, this is also the time
> quintessence is first used to mean the highest and purest expression
> of something, rather than the fifth element.
>
> Albert did write on alchemy, but in terms of Arabic chemistry, and was
> the first person to isolate a new element, arsenic, since classical
> times. He almost certainly didn't write the line you quote; being a
> thorough going Aristototleian rationalist, he wrote 150 odd books
> explaining just about everything, at length and in detail, to the
> witless. He did, however, get quite a reputation as a magician, even
> in his own lifetime.
>
> Amazon sells a lot morey of the alchemical tracts ascribed to him as
> they do any of his actual works. A sad twist of fate for a writer.




  
Date: 13 Sep 2006 15:21:13
From: Jack Denver
Subject: Re: NY Times Article on Espresso today
To be honest, I thought it was quite good, but I was concerned that others
would find fault with it in some nitpicky way (e.g. when he mentions the
most important factors in brewing, he doesn't mention pump pressure at all)
and accuse me of overpraising the reporter. Or that he mentions Sidamo and
Harar but don't distinguish between dry or wet process Sidamo, or say
anything about Yirg, so therefore the reporter is clueless after all and
just faking it. I guess you really can't win.

I still think the tattoos get mentioned way too often - four times plus they
are shown in the photos . One mention would have been acceptable as "local
color", but by the fourth reference it sounds like the reporter is obsessing
over something that really has nothing to do with the main story. What is
the subtext here? He calls the tattoos "off putting". Maybe he protests too
much and would really like to get to know those "rough and tumble",
"pirate-worthy" baristas a little better personally?




"shall" <mrfuss@ihatespamearthlink.net > wrote in message
news:fnfgg2lrrosrds07acscek649vvqarasur@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 09:49:08 -0400, "Jack Denver"
> <nunuvyer@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>>Article in today's Dining section:
>>
>>
>>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/13/dining/13coff.html?ex=1315800000&en=bd8a339e42fbf17b&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
>>
>>No registration required for this link.
>>
>>Better than most articles in the popular press - no really glaring errors
>>that I could see.
>>
>>The author seems to be a little fixated on the tatoos that many of the
>>baristas have, in a slightly creepy way, but other than that, pretty good
>>I
>>thought. Shout outs for gimme, cofeegeek , 9th St. Espresso, Synesso,
>>Espresso Vivace, etc. If the author doesn't get it 100%, he can at least
>>name the players who do.
>
> Jack, what does it take to earn praise from you? I thought they really
> got it right this time. This may have been the best general press
> article I've ever read on what artisan espresso is about.
>
> shall




 
Date: 13 Sep 2006 17:10:12
From: Bill Satterthwaite
Subject: Re: NY Times Article on Espresso today
In article <wuGdnU8eVPPIkZXYnZ2dnUVZ_qidnZ2d@comcast.com >,
Jack Denver <nunuvyer@netscape.net > wrote:
>Article in today's Dining section:
>
>
>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/13/dining/13coff.html?ex=1315800000&en=bd8a339e42fbf17b&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
>
>
>If the author doesn't get it 100%, he can at least
>name the players who do.
>

Except nowhere is Joe mentioned.

Had the best ristretto of my life at Joe E.13th last time I was in NYC, and their Waverly
outlet has a monster Moka Pot (is this for real, or just plastic?) in their display window.

One of these days, I have to get over to Bklyn to try some of the others on the list...

Bill in Seattle




 
Date: 13 Sep 2006 10:03:09
From: DavidMLewis
Subject: Re: NY Times Article on Espresso today

Jack Denver wrote:
> Better than most articles in the popular press - no really glaring errors
> that I could see.
>
> The author seems to be a little fixated on the tatoos that many of the
> baristas have, in a slightly creepy way, but other than that, pretty good I
> thought. Shout outs for gimme, cofeegeek , 9th St. Espresso, Synesso,
> Espresso Vivace, etc. If the author doesn't get it 100%, he can at least
> name the players who do.

That is nice. It's particularly striking to see that someone's trying
to do it in a restaurant context, where things like wildly varying duty
cycles and having to get it all the way to a table in a timely fashion
make the task particularly challenging.

Best,
David