coffee-forum.net
Promoting coffee discussion.

Main
Date: 22 Feb 2007 12:13:36
From: Danny Joe
Subject: Schomer in businessweek
Look!

He really DID use PID first!

http://images.businessweek.com/ss/07/02/0216_vivace/index_01.htm

Danny (history buff) JOe





 
Date: 24 Feb 2007 09:43:20
From: daveb
Subject: Re: Schomer in businessweek
On Feb 24, 10:47 am, "Jack Denver" <nunuv...@netscape.net > wrote:
> I disagree with this - courtesy has no boundaries. A true gentleman (look
> in the dictionary and you'll see a picture of Don S. under the definition)
> treats everyone with respect, not just people who are flashing wads of
> bills, and gives credit to others for his accomplishments - people prefer
> modesty over arrogance any day of the week. You never know who you are
> dealing with - the person who is "just a consumer" might be opening a chain
> of shops tomorrow or maybe he is Howard Schultz's nephew. If you truly
> don't have time (and that's rarely true - spending a minute or two talking
> to someone never killed anyone) there are ways of being polite without being
> condescending or arrogant.
>
> I've seen Schomer's type many times before - his true genius is in being the
> media's "go to" guy on a particular topic, in this case espresso. Once the
> media latches on to someone like this, they can ignore everyone else - the
> media herd looks in its collective rolodex when it's time for another
> espresso article and Schomer's name is there (maybe if Dr. Illy is not
> available). For wine you call Parker, for beer you call Jackson, etc. This
> buys the designated hitter a lot of free advertising but you know you're in
> trouble when you start to believe your own press clippings.
>
***************

I find this hostile and angry rant sadly in character, 'Jack'.

I do recall you arguing with John H. in Philly, over the most minute
issues.

John who runs possibly the best coffee establishment I've ever visited
and who has lived and breathed coffee professionally for over 20
years.

Please look inward and think about what you are saying. [this is NOT
the holocaust.]

dave

www.hitechespresso.com



  
Date: 24 Feb 2007 18:38:41
From: Barry Jarrett
Subject: Re: Schomer in businessweek
On 24 Feb 2007 09:43:20 -0800, "daveb" <davebobblane@gmail.com > wrote:

>John who runs possibly the best coffee establishment I've ever visited
>and who has lived and breathed coffee professionally for over 20
>years.
>

john is very good at what he does, but he doesn't know everything.


--barry "neither do i"



   
Date: 28 Feb 2007 14:42:13
From: daveb
Subject: Re: Schomer in businessweek
On Feb 28, 3:38 pm, "Jack Denver" <nunuv...@netscape.net > wrote:
> You'd have to tare the scale for the weight of the cup. If you always used
> the same cup type you'd only have to do this once, otherwise every time you
> switched cups.
>
> It would be relatively trivial to implement - there are cheap postal scales
> w/ RS232 or USB output that cost maybe $40
>
> http://scalesusa.zoovy.com/product/SE20Iand old PC's are basically free.
>
> "Barry Jarrett" <b...@rileys-coffee.com> wrote in message
>
> news:im2au2p5l70ucf8taq6beeaot36g4f6e0d@4ax.com...
>
> > On 27 Feb 2007 20:24:39 -0800, "daveb" <davebobbl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> Use a scale w/ a digital output and then cut off the pump automatically
> > >> when
> > >> the target shot weight is reached.
>
> > >NOW I have heard everything -- Jesus.
>
> > it's really not any more bizarre than having a little device that
> > senses light flashes or magnetic pulses and sends that signal to a
> > microprocessor in order to control shot volume.
>
> > it might even be easier to implement, and maybe cheaper, too, given
> > the price of "brains" for commercial machines.

time to git one together, Jack!



   
Date: 24 Feb 2007 16:38:49
From: Jack Denver
Subject: Re: Schomer in businessweek
I have dave killfiled so I had to go to google to see what he had said. He
had promised to refrain from attacking me personally (and vice versa) but I
guess promises don't mean much to dave. I had what I thought was a
respectful dialog with John on various coffee related issues. John is
certainly a skilled barista but I've pulled a few shots myself. You don't
learn without questioning - at least I don't. For example, John was not in
favor of bottomless portafilters - I thought this was a valid topic of
discussion and didn't find his argument against them at all persuasive.

I've found that professionals (athletes, chefs, baristas) are often quite
superstitious - they do what works for them and sometimes don't question why
it works or sometimes make false connections between cause and effect. When
you have a line of customers out the door, or an opposing batter across the
plate, you don't have time to think about such philosophical issues - you do
what works for you and don't dare deviate or analyze what parts are
necessary and what are extraneous. k Bittman did a TV series and a book
called " Bittman takes on America's Chef's" where he talks about this - he
had an argument with a famous Spanish chef who said something to the effect
that Spanish salt was saltier than American salt and no amount of scientific
evidence could change the chef's mind. Bittman sees himself as a dedicated
amateur who is not in the same league as the famous chefs he cooks with but
still able to hold his own reasonably well, in part because he is willing to
take a un-superstitious, non tradition bound, scientifc approach to dishes.
I (and a lot of alt.coffee folks, I think) see myself the same way in the
coffee dept (except I don't have a TV series - Jack takes on America's
Baristas).

As for Schomer, I'm not at all bitter about him - I respect people who have
the kind of skills that make them media icons. Usually such people at least
started out with some real core skills in their field - this is how they
become media icons in the first place - you can't fake it completely. And
being able to get that kind of press is itself a terrific skill. But I've
known enough of these types personally to know that there is usually also an
element of windbag and egotist to them and that there are people out there
who are much more modest and less credit grabbing who are every bit as good
as or better than the media hogs are. And the latter type are usually
better humans to boot. If I was stuck in a car that was sinking into a lake
and I could only make one call - say Schomer and Barry, I know whose number
I would dial and it wouldn't be Schomer's.

"Barry Jarrett" <barry@rileys-coffee.com > wrote in message
news:ag11u2ddbajbvnkfpee19i2s5vrbqkqmdr@4ax.com...
> On 24 Feb 2007 09:43:20 -0800, "daveb" <davebobblane@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >John who runs possibly the best coffee establishment I've ever visited
> >and who has lived and breathed coffee professionally for over 20
> >years.
> >
>
> john is very good at what he does, but he doesn't know everything.
>
>
> --barry "neither do i"
>




    
Date: 24 Feb 2007 20:27:30
From: Andy Schecter
Subject: Re: Schomer in businessweek
Jack Denver wrote:
> For example, John was not in
> favor of bottomless portafilters - I thought this was a valid topic of
> discussion and didn't find his argument against them at all persuasive.

Quite a few folks are vocally anti-bottomless. I don't get it: what is it
about the flavor of hot brass that excites them so?

> k Bittman did a TV series and a book
> called " Bittman takes on America's Chef's" where he talks about this - he
> had an argument with a famous Spanish chef who said something to the effect
> that Spanish salt was saltier than American salt and no amount of scientific
> evidence could change the chef's mind.

Spanish salt could be "saltier." When you evaporate sea water, there are many
other minerals besides sodium chloride (eg, magnesium choride) that begin to
crystallize out of solution. If you leave a certain percentage of them in, you
get a salt that is more punchier and "saltier" than your run-of-the-mill
American table salt.

> Bittman sees himself as a dedicated
> amateur who is not in the same league as the famous chefs he cooks with but
> still able to hold his own reasonably well, in part because he is willing to
> take a un-superstitious, non tradition bound, scientifc approach to dishes.

Yeah, but I sometimes think the "scientific" approach is shallow and
oversimplified. The salt situation cited above is perhaps one example of this.

> If I was stuck in a car that was sinking into a lake
> and I could only make one call - say Schomer and Barry, I know whose number
> I would dial and it wouldn't be Schomer's.

Come on, Jack, this is disingenuous. You don't HAVE Schomer's number. :-)
--


-Andy S.

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


     
Date: 24 Feb 2007 22:10:10
From: Ken Fox
Subject: Re: Schomer in businessweek
"Andy Schecter" <schecter@remove.me.rochester.rr.com > wrote in message
news:45e0e5ec$0$16978$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> >
> > If I was stuck in a car that was sinking into a lake
>> and I could only make one call - say Schomer and Barry, I know whose
>> number
>> I would dial and it wouldn't be Schomer's.
>
> Come on, Jack, this is disingenuous. You don't HAVE Schomer's number. :-)
> --
>
>
> -Andy S.
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/andy_s/sets/

You're both disingenuous; I'd call 911




      
Date: 25 Feb 2007 20:09:52
From: Barry Jarrett
Subject: Re: Schomer in businessweek
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 22:10:10 -0800, "Ken Fox"
<morceaudemerdeSnipThis@hotmail.com > wrote:

>
>You're both disingenuous; I'd call 911
>

june's infamous quote from a 911 call when we were stuck in a swamp
and the dispatcher said, "well, hon, what do you want me to do about
that?": "IF THIS WAS 'RESCUE 911' AND YOU WERE WILLIAM SHATNER, YOU'D
HAVE US OUT OF HERE BY NOW!!!"




     
Date: 24 Feb 2007 22:59:08
From: Jack Denver
Subject: Re: Schomer in businessweek

"Andy Schecter" <schecter@remove.me.rochester.rr.com > wrote in message
news:45e0e5ec$0$16978$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>
> Yeah, but I sometimes think the "scientific" approach is shallow and
> oversimplified. The salt situation cited above is perhaps one example of
> this.

Cooking (and espresso brewing) is not just chemistry (or rather it is
incredibly complex chemistry - coffee has a zillion compounds in it ) but it
has chemistry (and other science) in it. If you ignore that aspect of it and
rely only on tradition/superstition then you sometimes end up arguing in
favor of dumb things. Sometimes the traditions are "ster" than science
because they take into account variable that science ignores (all the
chlorides other than sodium in your example) , but sometime they are just
indefensible prejudices that don't stand up to the light of scrutiny (e.g.
the bottomless argument).
>
> > If I was stuck in a car that was sinking into a lake
>> and I could only make one call - say Schomer and Barry, I know whose
>> number
>> I would dial and it wouldn't be Schomer's.
>
> Come on, Jack, this is disingenuous. You don't HAVE Schomer's number. :-)

1-800- VIVACE? Oh damn, one digit short and the water level is rising.
Gurrugugugglel.
> --
>
>
> -Andy S.
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/andy_s/sets/




      
Date: 25 Feb 2007 07:21:29
From: Andy Schecter
Subject: Re: Schomer in businessweek
Jack Denver wrote:
> Sometimes the traditions are "ster" than science
> because they take into account variable that science ignores (all the
> chlorides other than sodium in your example) , but sometime they are just
> indefensible prejudices that don't stand up to the light of scrutiny (e.g.
> the bottomless argument).

It's not that "science" ignores the extra variables, it's that closed-minded
"pseudoscientists" think they know it all and haven't made the effort to
discover the unknown variables.

Einstein, to name a counter example, was no slouch as a scientist, but he put
a pretty big emphasis on keeping an open mind.

There are various credible, "scientific" reasons why people might prefer the
espresso from a spouted portafilter (reduced crema volume, cooling effect,
less oxidation, etc).

Every once in a while I try out the spouts again, but I always find myself
going back to the bottomless. Personal taste, I guess.

--


-Andy S.

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


       
Date: 25 Feb 2007 16:17:56
From: Steve Ackman
Subject: Re: Schomer in businessweek
In <45e17f49$0$24790$4c368faf@roadrunner.com >, on Sun, 25 Feb 2007
07:21:29 -0500, Andy Schecter wrote:

> Einstein, to name a counter example, was no slouch as a scientist, but he put
> a pretty big emphasis on keeping an open mind.

Even then... the mere mention of quantum physics
was enough to make the veins in his temples bulge.
Einstein may have advocated open mindedness, but
that didn't extend to the "obviously ridiculous."



        
Date: 25 Feb 2007 17:10:27
From: Andy Schecter
Subject: Re: Schomer in businessweek
Steve Ackman wrote:
> Even then... the mere mention of quantum physics
> was enough to make the veins in his temples bulge.
> Einstein may have advocated open mindedness, but
> that didn't extend to the "obviously ridiculous."

Well, of course we all KNOW when something is "obviously ridiculous." LOL!


--


-Andy S.

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


       
Date: 25 Feb 2007 12:21:05
From: Jack Denver
Subject: Re: Schomer in businessweek

"Andy Schecter" <schecter@remove.me.rochester.rr.com > wrote in message
news:45e17f49$0$24790$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>
> It's not that "science" ignores the extra variables, it's that
> closed-minded "pseudoscientists" think they know it all and haven't made
> the effort to discover the unknown variables.
>

Recently I read the obituary of the man who invented "Coffee Rich" nondairy
coffee creamer. He at one point predicted that dairy products would be made
in factories by blending together the correct chemicals and that cows would
be considered obsolete, unsanitary and inefficient relics you'd visit at the
zoo. It didn't turn out that way and one sip of "Coffee Rich" will tell you
that they never even came close with their ersatz product. BTW, the guy
hedged his bets - in addition to owing the company that makes Coffee Rich,
he also owned a large dairy.





        
Date: 25 Feb 2007 15:58:29
From: Andy Schecter
Subject: Re: Schomer in businessweek
Jack Denver wrote:
> Recently I read the obituary of the man who invented "Coffee Rich" nondairy
> coffee creamer. He at one point predicted that dairy products would be made
> in factories by blending together the correct chemicals and that cows would
> be considered obsolete, unsanitary and inefficient relics you'd visit at the
> zoo. It didn't turn out that way and one sip of "Coffee Rich" will tell you
> that they never even came close with their ersatz product. BTW, the guy
> hedged his bets - in addition to owing the company that makes Coffee Rich,
> he also owned a large dairy.

That's a great story, including the kicker at the end. :)

I'm sure you know, Jack, that there are really three different things going on
here. First, the ability to analyze all the different compounds in a dairy
product to come up with a "recipe." Second, the ability to synthesize all of
them. And third, the ability to synthesize them at an AFFORDABLE PRICE. Just
because you can make a "synthetic cow" doesn't mean you can compete with
biological cows in the ketplace.

Recently I looked up quinine as a source of bitter flavor for the "taste test
kit" thread. Turns out that several techniques have been developed to make it
synthetically, but none of them can compete economically with the natural
extract of bark from the cinchona tree.

Or at least that's what I read on Wikipedia...who knows if it's true? :-)

--


-Andy S.

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


         
Date: 25 Feb 2007 18:23:11
From: Jack Denver
Subject: Re: Schomer in businessweek
I'm sure that in his (unrealized) plan, it would have been cheaper to make
"artificial milk" - the dairy protein was to be replaced by soy protein and
the butterfat replace by soy oil and the lactose by sucrose. It's much more
efficient and inherently cheaper to feed soybeans directly to humans than it
is to feed them to cows to produce milk. Of course they never came close to
truly realizing steps 1 and 2 in terms of taste and mouth feel - soy protein
and oil taste very different than the animal products (not to mention
whatever trace ingredients that are in milk beyond protein, fat and sugar).
The closest they ever got was only a very crude approximation that was
ginally passable as a coffee whitener and a whipped topping but nothing
you'd want to drink by the glass. Of course this was a more optimistic time
when Tang was going to replace orange juice, Corfam would replace leather,
etc.

There are a lot of complex compounds that are cheaper to just grow than to
synthesize. If something is going to be a food, you almost always have to
start with something that is grown one way or the other. Now with genetic
engineering a lot of the science is going in the other direction,where you
get the bacteria to grow the complex molecule you need by the vat. But even
today I don't think we are up to synthesizing butterfat (although not
surprisingly it is not all that different than beef fat). Developments in
"artificial dairy" have also been hamstrung by a very vigorous agricultural
lobby that have always fought imitation products with legislation and in the
courts, including "Coffee Rich". And coffee (to bring this back on point) is
waaay beyond being truly synthesized with it multitudinous components -
"artificial coffee flavor" doesn't come close to the complexity of the real
thing and most coffee flavorings start with a base of real coffee.








"Andy Schecter" <schecter@remove.me.rochester.rr.com > wrote in message
news:45e1f873$0$28161$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> That's a great story, including the kicker at the end. :)
>
> I'm sure you know, Jack, that there are really three different things
> going on here. First, the ability to analyze all the different compounds
> in a dairy product to come up with a "recipe." Second, the ability to
> synthesize all of them. And third, the ability to synthesize them at an
> AFFORDABLE PRICE. Just because you can make a "synthetic cow" doesn't mean
> you can compete with biological cows in the ketplace.
>
> Recently I looked up quinine as a source of bitter flavor for the "taste
> test kit" thread. Turns out that several techniques have been developed to
> make it synthetically, but none of them can compete economically with the
> natural extract of bark from the cinchona tree.
>
> Or at least that's what I read on Wikipedia...who knows if it's true? :-)
>
> --
>
>
> -Andy S.
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/andy_s/sets/




     
Date: 24 Feb 2007 20:56:11
From: Andy Schecter
Subject: Re: Schomer in businessweek
Andy Schecter wrote:
> more punchier

That's embarrassing. I meant to delete the word "more." :-(

--


-Andy S.

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


 
Date: davebobblane@gma
From: Re: Schomer in businessweek
Subject: l.com>
l.com

  
Date: geedubb@qwest.net
From: Re: Schomer in businessweek
Subject: <45df3149$0$13372$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com>
23 Feb 2007 11:24:11

 
Date: 23 Feb 2007 04:20:28
From: daveb
Subject: Re: Schomer in businessweek
On Feb 23, 1:08 am, "Ken Fox" <morceaudemerdeSnipT...@hotmail.com >
wrote:
> "Barry Jarrett" <b...@rileys-coffee.com> wrote in message
>
> news:lmtst2hmn02125v0e38j1tdr48f314g6b3@4ax.com...
>
> > On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 20:23:03 -0800, "Roger Shoaf"
> > <s...@nospamsyix.com> wrote:
>
> > >Excuse me, but the article did not credit Schomer with the idea of a PID
> > >for
> > >controling the temp, ony that he implemented the change to his machine at
> > >that time.
>
> > you are correct. i confess that my objectivity in reading a
> > schomer-centric article mentioning PIDs is skewed by my empirical
> > familiarity with the topic. the tone of the article struck me as one
> > of "david solved these problems", not "david implemented solutions to
> > these problems".
>
> I especially liked the part of the article where it was stated that the
> correct temperature for making espresso was precisely 203.5F, presumably
> also a David Schomer discovery. Perhaps his plonk is more drinkable at that
> temperature, but that's not true for anything I'd voluntarily drink myself.
>
> ken

Carping from some envious minions (fox, jarrett et al) who resent
Schomer's success and well-deserved fame.

good for you, Schomer, I say.

Dave
www.hitechespresso.com



  
Date: 23 Feb 2007 18:50:01
From: Barry Jarrett
Subject: Re: Schomer in businessweek
On 23 Feb 2007 04:20:28 -0800, "daveb" <davebobblane@gmail.com > wrote:

>Carping from some envious minions (fox, jarrett et al) who resent
>Schomer's success and well-deserved fame.
>

grow up, dave. it's way more complex than that. i don't deny schomer
deserves a lot of credit, success, and fame for all his work over the
years. he's come a long way and he's pushed the espresso envelope on
several issues and has been a motivator for others to do the same.
he's earned it.




   
Date: 23 Feb 2007 14:29:26
From: Ken Fox
Subject: Re: Schomer in businessweek
"Barry Jarrett" <barry@rileys-coffee.com > wrote in message
news:d8dut2pl735ggin4vrnd6sr6ouh4qel5om@4ax.com...

> >
>
> grow up, dave.

hope springs eternal




  
Date: 23 Feb 2007 18:34:50
From: Steve
Subject: Re: Schomer in businessweek
On 23 Feb 2007 04:20:28 -0800, "daveb" <davebobblane@gmail.com > wrote:

>Carping from some envious minions (fox, jarrett et al) who resent
>Schomer's success and well-deserved fame.
>
>good for you, Schomer, I say.

You're an idiot.


   
Date: 27 Feb 2007 02:01:11
From: CoffeeKid
Subject: Re: Schomer in businessweek
On Feb 26, 4:22 pm, Barry Jarrett <b...@rileys-coffee.com > wrote:
> On 26 Feb 2007 12:59:06 -0800, "CoffeeKid" <Coffee...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >z) they believe a final "mixing" in the bottom of the pf of the flow
> >before it gets to the spouts is a key ingredient in the espresso's
> >overall taste.
>
> they've never seen it "mix" in the cup?

It's just one of the arguments I've heard from an anti-bottomless PF
(anti)fan.

I'm definitely for the bottomless pf in most cases, though I think,
when it comes to very fresh coffee, a traditional pf can help with
crema retention to a small degree. Maybe because there's less to begin
with in the cup from the spouts.

k



    
Date: 27 Feb 2007 19:30:10
From: Barry Jarrett
Subject: Re: Schomer in businessweek
On 27 Feb 2007 02:01:11 -0800, "CoffeeKid" <Coffeekid@gmail.com >
wrote:

>I'm definitely for the bottomless pf in most cases, though I think,
>when it comes to very fresh coffee, a traditional pf can help with
>crema retention to a small degree. Maybe because there's less to begin
>with in the cup from the spouts.

one needs a shift in brew volume references when using a chopped
portafilter. if a spouted shot is brewed to a 1oz volume and then the
barista switches to a chopped portafilter, the brewed volume needs to
be increased to compensate for the crema normally lost in the
portafilter. the crema in the shot appears to collapse more rapidly
than normal, but i think that's just the volatile stuff that is
usually lost in the portafilter & spouts... the 'baseline' crema
level ought to be approximately the same.

--barry "maybe i'll integrate scales into the drip tray"


     
Date: 27 Feb 2007 19:55:15
From: Jack Denver
Subject: Re: Schomer in businessweek

"Barry Jarrett" <barry@rileys-coffee.com > wrote in message
news:nd19u2tsj3m01qvq5sv2e9894qk75phmen@4ax.com...
>
> --barry "maybe i'll integrate scales into the drip tray"

Use a scale w/ a digital output and then cut off the pump automatically when
the target shot weight is reached.
>




   
Date: 23 Feb 2007 10:53:22
From: Randy G.
Subject: Re: Schomer in businessweek
Steve <not@use.net > wrote:

>On 23 Feb 2007 04:20:28 -0800, "daveb" <davebobblane@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Carping from some envious minions (fox, jarrett et al) who resent
>>Schomer's success and well-deserved fame.
>>
>>good for you, Schomer, I say.
>
>You're an idiot.
>

It was well documented here (by Sr. Gomes, IIRC) that the PID was
discussed here in detail well before Schomer appeared to take credit
for his 'discovery.' Search the archives for the details, as sketchy
as they may be.

There was more then one person I spoke to who had spoken to Mr.
Schomer at one of the SCAA shows (can't remember now if it was Seattle
or Charlotte) and his attitude and manner were described in a negative
way. I wanted to talk to him about the use of PID on my home machine
and his response was received by me as a lot of things, none of them
positive. It just may be his manner, but after his response I had no
more need to talk to him. I really wanted to try to learn something
but his response was not conducive of such a conversation. if I were
to try to put a non-insulting name to it, I would call his attitude
condescending, and that is being kind.

I suppose, for good or bad, you could say that he is a business man
who knows a lot about coffee, and not a coffee person who does well in
business.

Of course, in a positive light, he has never spammed this group, so
I'll applaud him for that!

Randy "not enough patience to like everyone" G.
http://www.EspressoMyEspresso.com




    
Date: 27 Feb 2007 20:24:39
From: daveb
Subject: Re: Schomer in businessweek
On Feb 27, 7:55 pm, "Jack Denver" <nunuv...@netscape.net > wrote:
> "Barry Jarrett" <b...@rileys-coffee.com> wrote in message
>
> news:nd19u2tsj3m01qvq5sv2e9894qk75phmen@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > --barry "maybe i'll integrate scales into the drip tray"
>
> Use a scale w/ a digital output and then cut off the pump automatically when
> the target shot weight is reached.
>
>

NOW I have heard everything -- Jesus.



     
Date: 28 Feb 2007 04:55:39
From: Barry Jarrett
Subject: Re: Schomer in businessweek
On 27 Feb 2007 20:24:39 -0800, "daveb" <davebobblane@gmail.com > wrote:

>> Use a scale w/ a digital output and then cut off the pump automatically when
>> the target shot weight is reached.
>>
>>
>
>NOW I have heard everything -- Jesus.


it's really not any more bizarre than having a little device that
senses light flashes or magnetic pulses and sends that signal to a
microprocessor in order to control shot volume.

it might even be easier to implement, and maybe cheaper, too, given
the price of "brains" for commercial machines.



      
Date: 28 Feb 2007 15:38:28
From: Jack Denver
Subject: Re: Schomer in businessweek
You'd have to tare the scale for the weight of the cup. If you always used
the same cup type you'd only have to do this once, otherwise every time you
switched cups.

It would be relatively trivial to implement - there are cheap postal scales
w/ RS232 or USB output that cost maybe $40

http://scalesusa.zoovy.com/product/SE20I and old PC's are basically free.


"Barry Jarrett" <barry@rileys-coffee.com > wrote in message
news:im2au2p5l70ucf8taq6beeaot36g4f6e0d@4ax.com...
> On 27 Feb 2007 20:24:39 -0800, "daveb" <davebobblane@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Use a scale w/ a digital output and then cut off the pump automatically
> >> when
> >> the target shot weight is reached.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >NOW I have heard everything -- Jesus.
>
>
> it's really not any more bizarre than having a little device that
> senses light flashes or magnetic pulses and sends that signal to a
> microprocessor in order to control shot volume.
>
> it might even be easier to implement, and maybe cheaper, too, given
> the price of "brains" for commercial machines.
>




       
Date: 28 Feb 2007 22:23:08
From: Barry Jarrett
Subject: Re: Schomer in businessweek
On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 15:38:28 -0500, "Jack Denver"
<nunuvyer@netscape.net > wrote:

>You'd have to tare the scale for the weight of the cup. If you always used
>the same cup type you'd only have to do this once, otherwise every time you
>switched cups.
>

measure based on mass delta from T=0. shot stops when
M_detected-M_initial=M_target.


--barry "yep, tare for the cup!"







    
Date: 23 Feb 2007 20:07:25
From: Andy Schecter
Subject: Re: Schomer in businessweek
Randy G. wrote:
> There was more then one person I spoke to who had spoken to Mr.
> Schomer at one of the SCAA shows (can't remember now if it was Seattle
> or Charlotte) and his attitude and manner were described in a negative
> way. I wanted to talk to him about the use of PID on my home machine
> and his response was received by me as a lot of things, none of them
> positive. It just may be his manner, but after his response I had no
> more need to talk to him. I really wanted to try to learn something
> but his response was not conducive of such a conversation. if I were
> to try to put a non-insulting name to it, I would call his attitude
> condescending, and that is being kind.

Randy:

Businesses spend MANY thousands of dollars and a great deal of effort to have
a booth at a trade show. In a small business it's a significant sacrifice in
time and in money.

Exhibitors don't pay this price in order to shoot the sh*t with people who
aren't potential customers. They have every right to decide who to talk to and
who to ignore.

Really.


--


-Andy S.

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


     
Date: 24 Feb 2007 10:47:27
From: Jack Denver
Subject: Re: Schomer in businessweek
I disagree with this - courtesy has no boundaries. A true gentleman (look
in the dictionary and you'll see a picture of Don S. under the definition)
treats everyone with respect, not just people who are flashing wads of
bills, and gives credit to others for his accomplishments - people prefer
modesty over arrogance any day of the week. You never know who you are
dealing with - the person who is "just a consumer" might be opening a chain
of shops tomorrow or maybe he is Howard Schultz's nephew. If you truly
don't have time (and that's rarely true - spending a minute or two talking
to someone never killed anyone) there are ways of being polite without being
condescending or arrogant.

I've seen Schomer's type many times before - his true genius is in being the
media's "go to" guy on a particular topic, in this case espresso. Once the
media latches on to someone like this, they can ignore everyone else - the
media herd looks in its collective rolodex when it's time for another
espresso article and Schomer's name is there (maybe if Dr. Illy is not
available). For wine you call Parker, for beer you call Jackson, etc. This
buys the designated hitter a lot of free advertising but you know you're in
trouble when you start to believe your own press clippings.




"Andy Schecter" <schecter@remove.me.rochester.rr.com > wrote in message
news:45df8fc3$0$8965$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>
> Randy:
>
> Businesses spend MANY thousands of dollars and a great deal of effort to
> have a booth at a trade show. In a small business it's a significant
> sacrifice in time and in money.
>
> Exhibitors don't pay this price in order to shoot the sh*t with people who
> aren't potential customers. They have every right to decide who to talk to
> and who to ignore.
>
> Really.
>
>
> --
>
>
> -Andy S.
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/andy_s/sets/
>




      
Date: 24 Feb 2007 17:19:03
From: Marshall
Subject: Re: Schomer in businessweek
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 10:47:27 -0500, "Jack Denver"
<nunuvyer@netscape.net > wrote:

>I disagree with this - courtesy has no boundaries. A true gentleman (look
>in the dictionary and you'll see a picture of Don S. under the definition)
>treats everyone with respect, not just people who are flashing wads of
>bills, and gives credit to others for his accomplishments - people prefer
>modesty over arrogance any day of the week.

Sorry. This part is "Right. Right. Right."

shall


      
Date: 24 Feb 2007 16:35:28
From: Marshall
Subject: Re: Schomer in businessweek
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 10:47:27 -0500, "Jack Denver"
<nunuvyer@netscape.net > wrote:

>I disagree with this - courtesy has no boundaries. A true gentleman (look
>in the dictionary and you'll see a picture of Don S. under the definition)
>treats everyone with respect, not just people who are flashing wads of
>bills, and gives credit to others for his accomplishments - people prefer
>modesty over arrogance any day of the week. You never know who you are
>dealing with - the person who is "just a consumer" might be opening a chain
>of shops tomorrow or maybe he is Howard Schultz's nephew. If you truly
>don't have time (and that's rarely true - spending a minute or two talking
>to someone never killed anyone) there are ways of being polite without being
>condescending or arrogant.
>
>I've seen Schomer's type many times before - his true genius is in being the
>media's "go to" guy on a particular topic, in this case espresso. Once the
>media latches on to someone like this, they can ignore everyone else - the
>media herd looks in its collective rolodex when it's time for another
>espresso article and Schomer's name is there (maybe if Dr. Illy is not
>available). For wine you call Parker, for beer you call Jackson, etc. This
>buys the designated hitter a lot of free advertising but you know you're in
>trouble when you start to believe your own press clippings.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Schomer is a godfather to shop owners all over
the country. Through his book and video evangelizing he has
demonstrably improved the quality of espresso in this country. Two of
the best espresso shops in L.A. are run by Schomer-trained acolytes.
His contributions are real, and it is a serious underestimation to
describe him as some kind of media cartoon character.

shall


       
Date: 24 Feb 2007 11:00:37
From: Ken Fox
Subject: Re: Schomer in businessweek
"shall" <mrfuss@ihatespamearthlink.net > wrote in message
news:psp0u29euug79qk07cv35bt5gdq12h2svq@4ax.com...
> >
> Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Schomer is a godfather to shop owners all over
> the country. Through his book and video evangelizing he has
> demonstrably improved the quality of espresso in this country. Two of
> the best espresso shops in L.A. are run by Schomer-trained acolytes.
> His contributions are real, and it is a serious underestimation to
> describe him as some kind of media cartoon character.
>
> shall

Honestly, shall, I think you overstate Schomer's impact. He was early,
he got some things right, but he also got a number of things either wrong or
was so rigid about them that he tried to rewrite the rules in a way that
allowed only one way when there are many.

There are a lot of guiding lights in high end espresso these days. He has
one approach and it works if you buy into it. But there are many other
approaches. His stature has gone down over time as it has become clear that
his is but one of many approaches and in some ways his approach is so rigid
that it relegates him to the middle or back of the current pack.

ken




        
Date: 25 Feb 2007 01:47:32
From: Marshall
Subject: Re: Schomer in businessweek
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 11:00:37 -0700, "Ken Fox"
<morceaudemerdeThisMerdeGoes@hotmail.com > wrote:

>"shall" <mrfuss@ihatespamearthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:psp0u29euug79qk07cv35bt5gdq12h2svq@4ax.com...
>> >
>> Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Schomer is a godfather to shop owners all over
>> the country. Through his book and video evangelizing he has
>> demonstrably improved the quality of espresso in this country. Two of
>> the best espresso shops in L.A. are run by Schomer-trained acolytes.
>> His contributions are real, and it is a serious underestimation to
>> describe him as some kind of media cartoon character.
>>
>> shall
>
>Honestly, shall, I think you overstate Schomer's impact. He was early,
>he got some things right, but he also got a number of things either wrong or
>was so rigid about them that he tried to rewrite the rules in a way that
>allowed only one way when there are many.
>
>There are a lot of guiding lights in high end espresso these days. He has
>one approach and it works if you buy into it. But there are many other
>approaches. His stature has gone down over time as it has become clear that
>his is but one of many approaches and in some ways his approach is so rigid
>that it relegates him to the middle or back of the current pack.
>
>ken

Ken, I don't know what you mean by "stature" or whose eyes you have in
mind. I assume alt.coffee or Home-barista.com readers.

I am talking about hands-on training of shop owners-to-be, who are
serious about the craft they are learning. Schomer trains them, then
wholesales coffee to them. They open their shops, and just about
wherever they are, they raise the bar of espresso appreciation. Yes,
other artisan roasters are doing this, too, and reasonable people can
disagree about whose training or roasting is best. But, Schomer is a
powerful influence, and I think for the good.

shall


         
Date: 24 Feb 2007 22:08:18
From: Ken Fox
Subject: Re: Schomer in businessweek
"shall" <mrfuss@ihatespamearthlink.net > wrote in message
news:24q1u25vinive0fff29cka7b4s2bi2oljq@4ax.com...
>>
> Ken, I don't know what you mean by "stature" or whose eyes you have in
> mind. I assume alt.coffee or Home-barista.com readers.
>
> I am talking about hands-on training of shop owners-to-be, who are
> serious about the craft they are learning. Schomer trains them, then
> wholesales coffee to them. They open their shops, and just about
> wherever they are, they raise the bar of espresso appreciation. Yes,
> other artisan roasters are doing this, too, and reasonable people can
> disagree about whose training or roasting is best. But, Schomer is a
> powerful influence, and I think for the good.
>
> shall

shall:

Any roaster who's any good and of any size and who wants to supply other
shops offers barista training as an inducement to get an account. Do you
honestly believe that 30lb tamps and 203.5F and all the rest of that stuff
results in better training than would be given by any of 10 or 20 different
roasters either of us could name? Do you think his coffee tastes good? I'm
not a huge fan, to be honest. But then, I'd don't much care for MM.

"Raising the bar of espresso appreciation" "wherever they are" is a pretty
damn low bar to exceed.

I never said he was a bad influence.

ken




          
Date: 25 Feb 2007 07:22:32
From: Andy Schecter
Subject: Re: Schomer in businessweek
Ken Fox wrote:
> Do you honestly believe that 30lb tamps and 203.5F and all the rest of
> that stuff results in better training than would be given by any of
> 10 or 20 different roasters either of us could name?


After Hines folded, Bronwen Serna worked part-time as a barista at Vivace.
Even though she was a former US Barista Champion, worked at the legendary
Hines, etc, she participated in Vivace's regular barista training sessions.

IIRC, Bronwen said she learned a lot from Vivace's technique and Vivace's
emphasis on detail.

I'd bet a PIDed Cimbali Junior that even YOU, Ken, could learn a lot from
Schomer.

But only if you dropped your crummy attitude about him first.... :-)


--


-Andy S.

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


           
Date: 25 Feb 2007 20:16:35
From: Barry Jarrett
Subject: Re: Schomer in businessweek
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 07:22:32 -0500, Andy Schecter
<schecter@remove.me.rochester.rr.com > wrote:

>After Hines folded, Bronwen Serna worked part-time as a barista at Vivace.
>Even though she was a former US Barista Champion, worked at the legendary
>Hines, etc, she participated in Vivace's regular barista training sessions.
>
>IIRC, Bronwen said she learned a lot from Vivace's technique and Vivace's
>emphasis on detail.
>


switching from sanders to schomer would be like switching from oscar
madison to felix unger. they're both very good at what they do, they
just do it.... differently.




           
Date: 25 Feb 2007 09:25:48
From: Ken Fox
Subject: Re: Schomer in businessweek
"Andy Schecter" <schecter@remove.me.rochester.rr.com > wrote in message
news:45e17f88$0$24790$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> Ken Fox wrote:
>> Do you honestly believe that 30lb tamps and 203.5F and all the rest of
>> that stuff results in better training than would be given by any of
> > 10 or 20 different roasters either of us could name?
>
>
> After Hines folded, Bronwen Serna worked part-time as a barista at Vivace.
> Even though she was a former US Barista Champion, worked at the legendary
> Hines, etc, she participated in Vivace's regular barista training
> sessions.
>
> IIRC, Bronwen said she learned a lot from Vivace's technique and Vivace's
> emphasis on detail.
>
> I'd bet a PIDed Cimbali Junior that even YOU, Ken, could learn a lot from
> Schomer.
>
> But only if you dropped your crummy attitude about him first.... :-)
>
>
> --
>
>
> -Andy S.
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/andy_s/sets/

Bronwen is a star; I even had the great great fortune to drink several of
her drinks at the new Schomer location across from the huge Seattle REI
store. I think Bronwen could make Lavazza taste great.

There are good things to be learned from moving around and seeing different
ways of doing things. I have no doubt that Bronwen learned some things from
Schomer.

Maybe Schomer could learn a few things about blending from Bronwen's old
boss, John Sanders, presently in Vancouver (unless he's moved again).

ken




     
Date: 24 Feb 2007 04:52:03
From: Marshall
Subject: Re: Schomer in businessweek
On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 20:07:25 -0500, Andy Schecter
<schecter@remove.me.rochester.rr.com > wrote:

>Randy G. wrote:
>> There was more then one person I spoke to who had spoken to Mr.
>> Schomer at one of the SCAA shows (can't remember now if it was Seattle
>> or Charlotte) and his attitude and manner were described in a negative
>> way. I wanted to talk to him about the use of PID on my home machine....
>
>Randy:
>
>Businesses spend MANY thousands of dollars and a great deal of effort to have
>a booth at a trade show. In a small business it's a significant sacrifice in
>time and in money.
>
>Exhibitors don't pay this price in order to shoot the sh*t with people who
>aren't potential customers. They have every right to decide who to talk to and
>who to ignore.
>
>Really.

What Andy said. Trade shows ain't like auto shows. I'm sure Schomer
phased out the moment the word "consumer" passed your lips.

shall


      
Date: 24 Feb 2007 07:24:22
From: Randy G.
Subject: Re: Schomer in businessweek
shall <mrfuss@ihatespamearthlink.net > wrote:

>On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 20:07:25 -0500, Andy Schecter
><schecter@remove.me.rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>Randy G. wrote:
>>> There was more then one person I spoke to who had spoken to Mr.
>>> Schomer at one of the SCAA shows (can't remember now if it was Seattle
>>> or Charlotte) and his attitude and manner were described in a negative
>>> way. I wanted to talk to him about the use of PID on my home machine....
>>
>>Randy:
>>
>>Businesses spend MANY thousands of dollars and a great deal of effort to have
>>a booth at a trade show. In a small business it's a significant sacrifice in
>>time and in money.
>>
>>Exhibitors don't pay this price in order to shoot the sh*t with people who
>>aren't potential customers. They have every right to decide who to talk to and
>>who to ignore.
>>
>>Really.
>
>What Andy said. Trade shows ain't like auto shows. I'm sure Schomer
>phased out the moment the word "consumer" passed your lips.
>

It wasn't what he said, it was the condescending way he said it- that,
and I was wearing a media badge. I wouldn't have even mentioned it
except I was not the only one to have that opinion.

There were plenty of other reps, from MUCH larger companies (huge in
comparison), who were glad to take the time to talk to me.

Whatever- we all have our moments.


Randy "" G.
http://www.EspressoMyEspresso.com




       
Date: 25 Feb 2007 18:59:31
From:
Subject: Re: Schomer in businessweek
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 07:24:22 -0800, Randy G. <frcn@DESPAMMOcncnet.com >
wrote:

>It wasn't what he said, it was the condescending way he said it- that,
>and I was wearing a media badge. I wouldn't have even mentioned it
>except I was not the only one to have that opinion.
>
>
>
> Randy "" G.
>http://www.EspressoMyEspresso.com
>
>


Yeah, didnt' the snobby sonuvabitch realize he was talking to St
Randel the Great?

Damn man, your ego must have a hard time fitting in that grotesque
motorhome of yours, no wonder you need such a machine to haul yourself
around.

I've got to agree with dave here. There's so much envy that my screeen
is turning green.






_______________________________________
Please Note: If you find a posting or message from me
offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it.
If you don't know how to ignore a posting, complain to
me and I will be only too happy to demonstrate.


     
Date: 23 Feb 2007 18:40:39
From: Ken Fox
Subject: Re: Schomer in businessweek
"Andy Schecter" <schecter@remove.me.rochester.rr.com > wrote in message
news:45df8fc3$0$8965$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> They have every right to decide who to talk to and who to ignore.
>
> Really.
>
>
> --
>
>
> -Andy S.
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/andy_s/sets/

plus, he was pre-occupied trying to figure out how to make espresso at
5000ft, something he never figured out how to do:-)




 
Date: 22 Feb 2007 12:36:51
From: Danny Joe
Subject: Re: Schomer in businessweek
On Feb 22, 2:13 pm, "Danny Joe" <dpie...@gmail.com > wrote:
> Look!
>
> He really DID use PID first!
>
> http://images.businessweek.com/ss/07/02/0216_vivace/index_01.htm
>
> Danny (history buff) JOe

Here is the whole article:

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_09/b4023448.htm?chan=search

d (sorry about that) j



  
Date: 24 Feb 2007 18:29:19
From: daveb
Subject: Re: Schomer in businessweek

> "that it relegates him to the middle or back of the current pack."
>
> fox

and who sets that ranking ?

dave








  
Date: 23 Feb 2007 03:41:47
From: Barry Jarrett
Subject: Re: Schomer in businessweek

you heard it here, first:

alt.coffee discussing PID controls for espresso machines, summer 2000:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.coffee/browse_thread/thread/c75acc9efdef9829/41c5d62223a901a0?q=PID+group%3Aalt.coffee&lnk=nl&


--barry "PID'd since summer 2001"



   
Date: 27 Feb 2007 01:57:13
From: CoffeeKid
Subject: Re: Schomer in businessweek
On Feb 26, 6:14 pm, Andy Schecter
<schec...@remove.me.rochester.rr.com > wrote:
> CoffeeKid wrote:
> > To be fair to all parties, Bronwen is exceedingly polite, and wouldn't
> > publicly say a bad thing about Vivace or Schomer.
>
> > To be brutally honest now, IMO, David could have learned a thing or
> > two from Bronwen as well, had he given her the chance. But that didn't
> > happen. That in itself was a shame.
>
> You know, part of my long-distance respect for Schomer is that, IIRC, you
> reported that one of the better shots you ever had was from David.
>
> Granted, it was a few years ago and you've probably had many great shots since.

Andy, I didn't mean to impinge on Schomer skills, or his product,
shots, or shops.

>From what I know of the whole situation when a former USBC champ was
working there, I just think the entire situation could have been more
mutually beneficial to both sides than it was, from what I've been
able to glean, mostly second and third hand. Bronwen is, as I said
before, pretty tight lipped about it all and polite about her time
there.

I just know that even if I was one of the pioneers of quality coffee
in the Seattle area myself, and I just hired a cutting edge, 3rd wave
representing, world calibre barista, I'd do more than just have her
washing dishes at the start. As much as I respect and admire David
(and I do, quite a bit), my perception of just that alone was pretty
sour.

k



    
Date: 27 Feb 2007 07:57:52
From: Jack Denver
Subject: Re: Schomer in businessweek
This was clearly just meant to put Bronwen "in her place". Schomer was
saying "I am the alpha dog and you are the lowly barista who has to go thru
the same humiliation as any teenager that I hire". Does the drill sergeant
take instruction from the recruit or does he put the recruit on KP duty? Now
old fashioned pater familias authority figures like this are somewhat out of
style as managers but Schomer apparently think that this works for him and
he seems to have done OK in business. It's of a piece with the rest of his
personality. Being a likable human and being a good businessman are
sometimes not the same thing.

Now I don't agree personally with this management style at all, but it's not
my cafe.


"CoffeeKid" <Coffeekid@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1172570233.679788.78500@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 26, 6:14 pm, Andy Schecter
> <schec...@remove.me.rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>> CoffeeKid wrote:
>> > To be fair to all parties, Bronwen is exceedingly polite, and wouldn't
>> > publicly say a bad thing about Vivace or Schomer.
>>
>> > To be brutally honest now, IMO, David could have learned a thing or
>> > two from Bronwen as well, had he given her the chance. But that didn't
>> > happen. That in itself was a shame.
>>
>> You know, part of my long-distance respect for Schomer is that, IIRC, you
>> reported that one of the better shots you ever had was from David.
>>
>> Granted, it was a few years ago and you've probably had many great shots
>> since.
>
> Andy, I didn't mean to impinge on Schomer skills, or his product,
> shots, or shops.
>
>>From what I know of the whole situation when a former USBC champ was
> working there, I just think the entire situation could have been more
> mutually beneficial to both sides than it was, from what I've been
> able to glean, mostly second and third hand. Bronwen is, as I said
> before, pretty tight lipped about it all and polite about her time
> there.
>
> I just know that even if I was one of the pioneers of quality coffee
> in the Seattle area myself, and I just hired a cutting edge, 3rd wave
> representing, world calibre barista, I'd do more than just have her
> washing dishes at the start. As much as I respect and admire David
> (and I do, quite a bit), my perception of just that alone was pretty
> sour.
>
> k
>




     
Date: 27 Feb 2007 17:06:46
From: Ed T
Subject: Re: Schomer in businessweek
What place would that be? Arguably one of the 10 best baristas in the
country and she is treated as a novice? She should have been teaching an
adavanced class on barista techniques. That just seems dumb. But it does
point out how low on the totem pole baristas can be in the larger scheme of
things. And how some owners fail to recognize the value of their
accomplished employees.

"Jack Denver" <nunuvyer@netscape.net > wrote in message
news:v_CdnX5Gb-NMt3nYnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> This was clearly just meant to put Bronwen "in her place". Schomer was
> saying "I am the alpha dog and you are the lowly barista who has to go
> thru the same humiliation as any teenager that I hire". Does the drill
> sergeant take instruction from the recruit or does he put the recruit on
> KP duty? Now old fashioned pater familias authority figures like this are
> somewhat out of style as managers but Schomer apparently think that this
> works for him and he seems to have done OK in business. It's of a piece
> with the rest of his personality. Being a likable human and being a good
> businessman are sometimes not the same thing.
>
> Now I don't agree personally with this management style at all, but it's
> not my cafe.
>
>
> "CoffeeKid" <Coffeekid@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1172570233.679788.78500@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
>> On Feb 26, 6:14 pm, Andy Schecter
>> <schec...@remove.me.rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>>> CoffeeKid wrote:
>>> > To be fair to all parties, Bronwen is exceedingly polite, and wouldn't
>>> > publicly say a bad thing about Vivace or Schomer.
>>>
>>> > To be brutally honest now, IMO, David could have learned a thing or
>>> > two from Bronwen as well, had he given her the chance. But that didn't
>>> > happen. That in itself was a shame.
>>>
>>> You know, part of my long-distance respect for Schomer is that, IIRC,
>>> you
>>> reported that one of the better shots you ever had was from David.
>>>
>>> Granted, it was a few years ago and you've probably had many great shots
>>> since.
>>
>> Andy, I didn't mean to impinge on Schomer skills, or his product,
>> shots, or shops.
>>
>>>From what I know of the whole situation when a former USBC champ was
>> working there, I just think the entire situation could have been more
>> mutually beneficial to both sides than it was, from what I've been
>> able to glean, mostly second and third hand. Bronwen is, as I said
>> before, pretty tight lipped about it all and polite about her time
>> there.
>>
>> I just know that even if I was one of the pioneers of quality coffee
>> in the Seattle area myself, and I just hired a cutting edge, 3rd wave
>> representing, world calibre barista, I'd do more than just have her
>> washing dishes at the start. As much as I respect and admire David
>> (and I do, quite a bit), my perception of just that alone was pretty
>> sour.
>>
>> k
>>
>
>




   
Date: 26 Feb 2007 15:22:21
From: daveb
Subject: Re: Schomer in businessweek
On Feb 26, 3:59 pm, "CoffeeKid" <Coffee...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 24, 5:27 pm, Andy Schecter
>
> <schec...@remove.me.rochester.rr.com> wrote:
> > Jack Denver wrote:
> > > For example, John was not in
> > > favor of bottomless portafilters - I thought this was a valid topic of
> > > discussion and didn't find his argument against them at all persuasive.
>
> > Quite a few folks are vocally anti-bottomless. I don't get it: what is it
> > about the flavor of hot brass that excites them so?
>
> This discussion comes up quite a bit. The answers range from
>
> a) they don't want people to see how badly channeled some of their
> shots are from improper packing techniques, to
>
> z) they believe a final "mixing" in the bottom of the pf of the flow
> before it gets to the spouts is a key ingredient in the espresso's
> overall taste.
>
> k

Are there ANY coffee houses using bottomless in a production setting?
Why are they not used at the USBC?

dave



    
Date: 27 Feb 2007 00:33:33
From: Barry Jarrett
Subject: Re: Schomer in businessweek
On 26 Feb 2007 15:22:21 -0800, "daveb" <davebobblane@gmail.com > wrote:

>Are there ANY coffee houses using bottomless in a production setting?

yes.

>Why are they not used at the USBC?

1) it's modified equipment, not stock; 2) it's pretty difficult to
split a pour into two shots.




     
Date: 27 Feb 2007 07:17:58
From: Danny
Subject: Re: Schomer in businessweek
Barry Jarrett wrote:
> On 26 Feb 2007 15:22:21 -0800, "daveb" <davebobblane@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Are there ANY coffee houses using bottomless in a production setting?
>
> yes.
>
> >Why are they not used at the USBC?
>
> 1) it's modified equipment, not stock; 2) it's pretty difficult to
> split a pour into two shots.
>
>

Same answer here.

--
Regards, Danny

http://www.gaggia-espresso.com (a purely hobby site)



   
Date: 26 Feb 2007 12:59:06
From: CoffeeKid
Subject: Re: Schomer in businessweek
On Feb 24, 5:27 pm, Andy Schecter
<schec...@remove.me.rochester.rr.com > wrote:
> Jack Denver wrote:
> > For example, John was not in
> > favor of bottomless portafilters - I thought this was a valid topic of
> > discussion and didn't find his argument against them at all persuasive.
>
> Quite a few folks are vocally anti-bottomless. I don't get it: what is it
> about the flavor of hot brass that excites them so?

This discussion comes up quite a bit. The answers range from

a) they don't want people to see how badly channeled some of their
shots are from improper packing techniques, to

z) they believe a final "mixing" in the bottom of the pf of the flow
before it gets to the spouts is a key ingredient in the espresso's
overall taste.

k



    
Date: 26 Feb 2007 21:12:32
From: Andy Schecter
Subject: Re: Schomer in businessweek
CoffeeKid wrote:
> This discussion comes up quite a bit. The answers range from
>
> a) they don't want people to see how badly channeled some of their
> shots are from improper packing techniques, to

No, that could really happen? :-)

> z) they believe a final "mixing" in the bottom of the pf of the flow
> before it gets to the spouts is a key ingredient in the espresso's
> overall taste.

Sounds pretty far-fetched, but who knows? You could get nearly the same effect
by letting a decent bottomless pour run down the side of the demitasse.

--


-Andy S.

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


    
Date: 27 Feb 2007 00:22:15
From: Barry Jarrett
Subject: Re: Schomer in businessweek
On 26 Feb 2007 12:59:06 -0800, "CoffeeKid" <Coffeekid@gmail.com >
wrote:

>z) they believe a final "mixing" in the bottom of the pf of the flow
>before it gets to the spouts is a key ingredient in the espresso's
>overall taste.

they've never seen it "mix" in the cup?



   
Date: 26 Feb 2007 12:53:24
From: CoffeeKid
Subject: Re: Schomer in businessweek
On Feb 25, 4:22 am, Andy Schecter
<schec...@remove.me.rochester.rr.com > wrote:

> After Hines folded, Bronwen Serna worked part-time as a barista at Vivace.
> Even though she was a former US Barista Champion, worked at the legendary
> Hines, etc, she participated in Vivace's regular barista training sessions.
>
> IIRC, Bronwen said she learned a lot from Vivace's technique and Vivace's
> emphasis on detail.

To be fair to all parties, Bronwen is exceedingly polite, and wouldn't
publicly say a bad thing about Vivace or Schomer.

To be brutally honest now, IMO, David could have learned a thing or
two from Bronwen as well, had he given her the chance. But that didn't
happen. That in itself was a shame.

k



    
Date: 26 Feb 2007 21:14:59
From: Andy Schecter
Subject: Re: Schomer in businessweek
CoffeeKid wrote:
> To be fair to all parties, Bronwen is exceedingly polite, and wouldn't
> publicly say a bad thing about Vivace or Schomer.
>
> To be brutally honest now, IMO, David could have learned a thing or
> two from Bronwen as well, had he given her the chance. But that didn't
> happen. That in itself was a shame.

You know, part of my long-distance respect for Schomer is that, IIRC, you
reported that one of the better shots you ever had was from David.

Granted, it was a few years ago and you've probably had many great shots since.

--


-Andy S.

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


     
Date: 26 Feb 2007 22:23:29
From: Jack Denver
Subject: Re: Schomer in businessweek
But the two are not mutually exclusive - Schomer can be both a great barista
and enough of an egotist that he is incapable of learning from others (or at
least incapable of admitting that he has learned and giving proper credit).



"Andy Schecter" <schecter@remove.me.rochester.rr.com > wrote in message
news:45e3941d$0$28083$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> CoffeeKid wrote:
>> To be fair to all parties, Bronwen is exceedingly polite, and wouldn't
>> publicly say a bad thing about Vivace or Schomer.
>>
>> To be brutally honest now, IMO, David could have learned a thing or
>> two from Bronwen as well, had he given her the chance. But that didn't
>> happen. That in itself was a shame.
>
> You know, part of my long-distance respect for Schomer is that, IIRC, you
> reported that one of the better shots you ever had was from David.
>
> Granted, it was a few years ago and you've probably had many great shots
> since.
>
> --
>
>
> -Andy S.
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/andy_s/sets/




   
Date: 26 Feb 2007 08:01:56
From: Omniryx@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Schomer in businessweek
Mr. Schomer has certainly been a good influence on coffee, I don't
think anyone would argue that seriously. That he has a less than
engaging personality seems also to be pretty well accepted. I've had
coffee in his establishment on a number of occasions and I must say
that he approach to customer relations is unlikely to win him any
prizes. More important, to me, is that of the shots I've had there
(Vivace), the poorest ones were pulled by The Himself. That's not to
say they were bad or to take a cheap shot at him. I've never had a
cup there that was bad. My point is that even the very best stumble
occasionally. That is, perhaps, something to keep in mind when
dealing with the great unwashed.



   
Date: 26 Feb 2007 01:12:04
From: Jasonian
Subject: Re: Schomer in businessweek
On Feb 25, 3:17 pm, Steve Ackman <s...@SNIP-THIS.twoloonscoffee.com >
wrote:
> In <45e17f49$0$24790$4c368...@roadrunner.com>, on Sun, 25 Feb 2007
> 07:21:29 -0500, Andy Schecter wrote:
>
> > Einstein, to name a counter example, was no slouch as a scientist, but he put
> > a pretty big emphasis on keeping an open mind.
>
> Even then... the mere mention of quantum physics
> was enough to make the veins in his temples bulge.
> Einstein may have advocated open mindedness, but
> that didn't extend to the "obviously ridiculous."

Whoa, there. Spoken like a true close-minded individual with little
capacity for abstract thought.

I've got a theory of existence that's even more ridiculous than the
notion that there is a second plane of physics in which the classic
laws do not apply.

And, coincidentally, you're in it.



    
Date: 26 Feb 2007 12:32:49
From: Steve Ackman
Subject: Re: Schomer in businessweek
In <1172481124.389547.197830@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com >, on 26 Feb
2007 01:12:04 -0800, Jasonian wrote:
> On Feb 25, 3:17 pm, Steve Ackman <s...@SNIP-THIS.twoloonscoffee.com>
> wrote:
>> In <45e17f49$0$24790$4c368...@roadrunner.com>, on Sun, 25 Feb 2007
>> 07:21:29 -0500, Andy Schecter wrote:
>>
>> > Einstein, to name a counter example, was no slouch as a scientist, but he put
>> > a pretty big emphasis on keeping an open mind.
>>
>> Even then... the mere mention of quantum physics
>> was enough to make the veins in his temples bulge.
>> Einstein may have advocated open mindedness, but
>> that didn't extend to the "obviously ridiculous."
>
> Whoa, there. Spoken like a true close-minded individual with little
> capacity for abstract thought.

Whoa yourself. Spoken like an individual with
little capacity for comprehending what he reads.

Backup. Re-read what I wrote. If you still don't
get it, I explain:

To his dying day, Einstein could never accept the
idea that quantum physics *might* have *some* validity.
In *his* mind, quantum physics was about as valid as
"magick."
And though it should go without saying, I'll key it
in anyway: quantum physics today are every bit as
mainstream as E=mc˛.

> I've got a theory of existence that's even more ridiculous than the
> notion that there is a second plane of physics in which the classic
> laws do not apply.
>
> And, coincidentally, you're in it.

Since you were attributing Einstein's shortcomings
to me, I'll take it that you meant Einstein is in it.


   
Date: 25 Feb 2007 04:51:27
From: ramboorider@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Schomer in businessweek
On Feb 24, 4:38 pm, "Jack Denver" <nunuv...@netscape.net > wrote:
> I have dave killfiled so I had to go to google to see what he had said. He
> had promised to refrain from attacking me personally (and vice versa) but I
> guess promises don't mean much to dave. I had what I thought was a
> respectful dialog with John on various coffee related issues. John is
> certainly a skilled barista but I've pulled a few shots myself. You don't
> learn without questioning - at least I don't. For example, John was not in
> favor of bottomless portafilters - I thought this was a valid topic of
> discussion and didn't find his argument against them at all persuasive.

> As for Schomer, I'm not at all bitter about him - I respect people who have
> the kind of skills that make them media icons. Usually such people at least
> started out with some real core skills in their field - this is how they
> become media icons in the first place - you can't fake it completely. And
> being able to get that kind of press is itself a terrific skill. But I've
> known enough of these types personally to know that there is usually also an
> element of windbag and egotist to them and that there are people out there
> who are much more modest and less credit grabbing who are every bit as good
> as or better than the media hogs are. And the latter type are usually
> better humans to boot. If I was stuck in a car that was sinking into a lake
> and I could only make one call - say Schomer and Barry, I know whose number
> I would dial and it wouldn't be Schomer's.

Good points here. I was at Hornall's shop that day and I was also
interested in the discussion of bottomless portafilters - didn't see
it as an argument as much as a discussion. John had an opinion and
some reasons for it, and Jack and some others questioned him. After
listening to that, I've spent a lot of time trying it both ways and
I'll be damned if it makes a difference in the pours or the taste of
the best shots, but I seem to get more consistent results with the
bottomless and its a lot easier to keep clean. But it was a useful
discussion and not at all antagonistic.

I don't know Schomer or the history at all, but from reading the
various reactions, it sounds like in almost any other field. You have
your tech-head innovators and you have your keters. Then you have
the occasional guy who's not the ultimate techno-geek but is good
enough at the tech to understand it and has an uncanny ability to see
the implications of seemingly small technological advances and figures
out how to ket the hell out of them. Bill Gates comes to mind - you
hear a lot of the same complaints about him that I'm seeing about
Schomer here. There are waaaaay more innovative tech people than
you'll ever see at Microsoft, but nobody sees the potential, refines
the technology, and sells it like Microsoft. And in both cases,
there's a lot of both resentment and respect (grudging or otherwise)
for these guys despite their exploitation of the contributions of
others. The real intense tech-heads tend to have a different skill set
than the guys who can see where it fits into the ket (existing or
imagined) and sell it. Look at Wozniak and Jobs - a perfect pairing of
one guy with insane technical creativity and another guy who could see
where to take it and actually take it there but couldn't write code at
anywhere near the same level as the tech head.

Its sort of like I can't read Andy and Jim's technical papers for more
than two minutes without losing my mind. But I'm REAL glad they're
checking this stuff out and writing them. I rely on people like
Schomer and others of you here to break it down for me so I can USE
it.

-Ray



   
Date: 24 Feb 2007 14:07:44
From: daveb
Subject: Re: Schomer in businessweek
On Feb 24, 1:38 pm, Barry Jarrett <b...@rileys-coffee.com > wrote:
> On 24 Feb 2007 09:43:20 -0800, "daveb" <davebobbl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >John who runs possibly the best coffee establishment I've ever visited
> >and who has lived and breathed coffee professionally for over 20
> >years.
> >
>
> john is very good at what he does, but he doesn't know everything.
>
> --barry "neither do i"


No doubt about that, either.
We all have much we can learn and share.



   
Date: 22 Feb 2007 20:23:03
From: Roger Shoaf
Subject: Re: Schomer in businessweek

"Barry Jarrett" <barry@rileys-coffee.com > wrote in message
news:5fost2t9bj6k3ju9ctmd26492f3h2lc2bj@4ax.com...
>
> you heard it here, first:
>
> alt.coffee discussing PID controls for espresso machines, summer 2000:
>
>
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.coffee/browse_thread/thread/c75acc9efdef9829/41c5d62223a901a0?q=PID+group%3Aalt.coffee&lnk=nl&
>
>
> --barry "PID'd since summer 2001"


Excuse me, but the article did not credit Schomer with the idea of a PID for
controling the temp, ony that he implemented the change to his machine at
that time.


==================== begin quote================
David Schomer had spent 16 years working toward this moment. It was
February, 2001, and Schomer, owner of Espresso Vivace Roasteria in Seattle,
was demonstrating an espresso machine he had fitted with a device that
solved one of the biggest problems in espresso-making: water temperature
fluctuations that can make coffee taste burned or sour. A half-dozen
industry veterans waited eagerly as Schomer pulled the first shots from the
rejiggered machine.The espresso flowed smooth and thick as honey. "I had
tears in my eyes," recalls the wiry, blunt-speaking 50-year-old. "I just
could not believe it."

>

--

Roger Shoaf

About the time I had mastered getting the toothpaste back in the tube, then
they come up with this striped stuff.




    
Date: 23 Feb 2007 05:16:34
From: Barry Jarrett
Subject: Re: Schomer in businessweek
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 20:23:03 -0800, "Roger Shoaf"
<shoaf@nospamsyix.com > wrote:

>Excuse me, but the article did not credit Schomer with the idea of a PID for
>controling the temp, ony that he implemented the change to his machine at
>that time.

you are correct. i confess that my objectivity in reading a
schomer-centric article mentioning PIDs is skewed by my empirical
familiarity with the topic. the tone of the article struck me as one
of "david solved these problems", not "david implemented solutions to
these problems".



     
Date: 22 Feb 2007 23:08:47
From: Ken Fox
Subject: Re: Schomer in businessweek
"Barry Jarrett" <barry@rileys-coffee.com > wrote in message
news:lmtst2hmn02125v0e38j1tdr48f314g6b3@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 20:23:03 -0800, "Roger Shoaf"
> <shoaf@nospamsyix.com> wrote:
>
> >Excuse me, but the article did not credit Schomer with the idea of a PID
> >for
> >controling the temp, ony that he implemented the change to his machine at
> >that time.
>
> you are correct. i confess that my objectivity in reading a
> schomer-centric article mentioning PIDs is skewed by my empirical
> familiarity with the topic. the tone of the article struck me as one
> of "david solved these problems", not "david implemented solutions to
> these problems".
>

I especially liked the part of the article where it was stated that the
correct temperature for making espresso was precisely 203.5F, presumably
also a David Schomer discovery. Perhaps his plonk is more drinkable at that
temperature, but that's not true for anything I'd voluntarily drink myself.

ken




  
Date: 23 Feb 2007 03:21:49
From: Barry Jarrett
Subject: Re: Schomer in businessweek

oh crap, andy's head is going to asplode!!




   
Date: 23 Feb 2007 20:02:08
From: Andy Schecter
Subject: Re: Schomer in businessweek
Barry Jarrett wrote:
> oh crap, andy's head is going to asplode!!

Nah, it's such old news...don't you think that if I were still worked up about
Schomer's PID, I'd be a real ass? :-)

--


-Andy S.

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