| |
Main
Date: 01 Sep 2006 13:54:04
From: Frank103
Subject: Decaf Question
|
Can anyone tell the difference between regular coffee and decaf when using
an espresso machine? Also, do many on this board use organic beans? Just
wondering. I'll probably order my first espresso machine this weekend.
Thanks in advance.
Frank
|
|
| |
Date: 01 Sep 2006 21:22:44
From: Ken Fox
Subject: Re: Decaf Question
|
"Frank103" <frank103@cox.net > wrote in message
news:P51Kg.2675$JR5.1457@dukeread11...
> Can anyone tell the difference between regular coffee and decaf when using
> an espresso machine? Also, do many on this board use organic beans? Just
> wondering. I'll probably order my first espresso machine this weekend.
> Thanks in advance.
> Frank
If you stick around with this ridiculous hobby, you too, will very easily
see that decaf beans present great challenges, no matter what you want to do
with them.
Most people who wander into this interest don't realize the value of
"freshness" when it comes to coffee. What I mean by freshness is how long
has it been since the beans were roasted, not how long since a valve bagged
package was opened. Most people think a bag of coffee from whatever source,
when opened, is fresh; it is almost certainly not "fresh." Valve bags or
any other kind of packaging do not preserve freshness in coffee. The only
thing you can do to prolong freshness in coffee is to freeze it, and that
only works if the coffee is just out of the roaster when you froze it.
If one is coming from the view that a bag of coffee is fresh when opened, it
is easy to see how someone might come to think that decaf beans are easily
serviceable, since all the beans being used are stale, and there is no
worthy comparison. As a result, many here have become home roasters, which
is to say that they roast their own coffee, at home, to ensure a supply of
truly fresh beans. When one home roasts, or when one seeks out truly fresh
coffee from a good roaster, one becomes very aware of the difference between
fresh beans and beans that are not fresh.
Decaf beans are a PITA (pain in the a**) because even the green (unroasted)
beans go bad rather quickly and roasting them is difficult; one has to keep
an eagle eye on them when one roasts or the roast is apt to get away from
you. Even when properly roasted (or sourced) they are good for a few days
out of the roaster and stale (or degrade) very quickly thereafter, at least
twice as fast as regular beans.
If you take truly fresh, well-roasted, decaf beans and use them to make
espresso, at best they are good for a milk drink and acceptable for a
straight shot. The regular beans, on the other hand, are capable of making
terrific shots, assuming the beans themselves are of high quality and the
espresso machine operator knows what he is doing. You will not get results
like this with decaf beans barring some sort of miracle. The flaws in good
decaf beans, however, can often be hidden in milk.
My advice would be to NOT buy any espresso equipment until you have hung
around here and perhaps on some other sites such as www.home-barista.com and
www.coffeegeek.com for long enough to really know what it is that you wish
to accomplish and what you must buy and learn before you can accomplish it.
Any expenditure you make with the knowledge level you appear to possess (at
this point in time) is more likely than not going to be money ill-spent.
Good luck.
ken
|
| |
Date: 01 Sep 2006 19:17:35
From: jim schulman
Subject: Re: How could this possible make espresso?
|
What puzzles me is the style of machine you show usually didn't have
the swan neck connection from boiler to group.
My first reaction looking at the thing was that it was bits off a
retro domestic machine from the 50s.
It takes novelistic talent to think of a possible provenance for a
1910 vintage group finding itsr way into a contemporary faux marble
gew-gaw. The India story seems likeliest.
The interesting thing is the 100% approval rating of the high volume
seller. Chachkes packrats seem easily satisfied.
On Fri, 1 Sep 2006 19:58:12 -0400, "Jack Denver"
<nunuvyer@netscape.net > wrote:
>But not with that style of drip tray and the early appearance that the one
>in the picture has -
>
>The tray looks like it belongs on a machine like this:
>
>
>http://www.lapavoni.com/new/images/popup/1905.gif
>
> or this:
>
>http://www.altravita.de/Espresso/images/bezzera1903.jpg
>
>By the time horizontal boilers came around in the 30s, the styling was much
>more art deco/streamlined than what is in the auction, as your Darth Vader
>machine illustrates.
>
>The auctioned tray and PF looks 1920 ish at the latest and possibly ever
>earlier (if it is real at all). The auction does identify it as 1900-1920.
>I'm also not sure whether this is a "marriage" between a tray from one
>machine and group head (or imaginary group head) from another.
>
>
>
>
>
>"jim schulman" <jim_schulman@ameritech.net> wrote in message
>news:2ibhf2dfbmcai82drl211ump3jg2cvme3a@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 1 Sep 2006 17:04:54 -0400, "Jack Denver"
>> <nunuvyer@netscape.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>All the antique Bezzeras, Pavonis, etc. that I've seen had the group heads
>>>coming off the side of the boiler vertically.
>>
>> I've never seen this group; but there are horizontal boiler steam
>> machines from the 30s and 40s. This one's in fine Mussolini style and
>> could have done a cameo as Darth Vader's espresso machine:
>> http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a240/jim_schulman/macchcaffe.jpg
>
|
| |
Date: 03 Sep 2006 07:23:12
From: Omniryx@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Decaf Question
|
pltrgyst wrote a long rant about "coffee fanatics" which ended with a
smug summary of his alcohol collection...
Pliturgist (You don't mind if I call you that? The lack of vowels has
forced me to be inventive.) If you have been on this list for any time
at all (because I have only been here a few months) you have heard me
criticize the real coffee fanatics. I cannot speak for Ken but there
is no one who knows me here or in the real world who would even
remotely characterize me as a coffee fanatic.
The ability to differentiate the taste of caffeinated from
decaffeinated beans hardly qualifies one for the fanatic category in
that it requires only about a week of drinking coffee in the conscious
state. No, Plity, that doesn't make one a fanatic. That merely
indicates that one is possessed of functional taste buds.
The fanatics are the ones who use four-channel data loggers to capture
brew temperatures at multiple points along the water path; who argue
that 0.01 bar of pressure or 0.1 degree of temparature makes a
discernible difference in flavor; who study grind particles under a
microscope to assess burr efficiency, and who plot curves of the flavor
degradation that occurs within the first sixty minutes after grinding.
Why don't we discuss this over a wee dram? I'll give you a tot of
Royal Lochnagar and another of Glendronach and you can tell me which is
which. After that, we'll compare Bruichladdich with Bunnahabhain to
see if you can discern the difference and, more interestingly, if you
can correctly pronounce either name. Then we'll taste some Dalwhinnie
and I'll listen while you discuss whether it is best described as
having a central highlands character or more closely resembles the
Speyside family.
Then we can talk over the relative merits of Folle Blanche and Ugni
Blanc varieties in the production of armagnac.
That's by way of saying, Plity, that not everyone here is monomaniacal
about coffee. Many of us have diverse interests.
Rather than indulging yourself in lofty, pretentious, and unconvincing
put-downs, why not pour yourself a cup, sit down and chat with us.
Heck, who knows, you might even learn something.
Will
|
| | |
Date: 03 Sep 2006 14:38:49
From: Alan
Subject: Re: Decaf Question
|
<Omniryx@gmail.com > wrote
> pltrgyst wrote a long rant about "coffee fanatics" which ended with a
> smug summary of his alcohol collection...
>
> Pliturgist (You don't mind if I call you that? The lack of vowels has
> forced me to be inventive.)
[ ... ]
I'd assumed it was his personal abbreviation for "poltergeist", but I have
to admit that "Pliturgist" is pretty inventive . . .
|
| | |
Date: 03 Sep 2006 23:05:44
From: pltrgyst
Subject: Re: Decaf Question
|
On 3 Sep 2006 07:23:12 -0700, "Omniryx@gmail.com" <Omniryx@gmail.com > wrote:
>pltrgyst wrote a long rant about "coffee fanatics" which ended with a
>smug summary of his alcohol collection...
Actually, the booze is not mine alone -- it's shared between my wife and myself.
And we're old, and have been accidentally amassing those bottles for a long
time. I mentioned the aggregate simply to support the contention that some
people with strong interests in matters of food and drink, with somewhat
educated palates, do not necessarily find it required -- or even interesting --
to delve all that deeply into the nether world of daily coffee roasting.
>Pliturgist (You don't mind if I call you that? The lack of vowels has
>forced me to be inventive.)
Inventive, perhaps -- but neither phonetically sound nor logical. The
interpretation shouldn't have been much of a challenge. It's akin to the
contortions on vanity license plates, and dates to the early BBS and Internet
days when account names were limited to eight alphanumeric characters.
>If you have been on this list for any time at all...
Yes, I've been on USEnet and its predecessors since their beginning, and
regularly reading this group since the day it began. I rarely post, unless
something rubs me the wrong way (like the Reg Barber idolization, and my own
negative experience with his product).
I didn't mean to criticize the coffee fanatics. Their degree of consumption is
their own business, and I have no quarrel with them; everyone needs one or more
hobbies. My intention was simply to provide a counterpoint in a thread begun by
someone who seemed to have wandered into the group sort of by accident, and who
seemed to possibly share the "everyman" approach to coffee.
>The fanatics are the ones who use four-channel data loggers to capture
>brew temperatures at multiple points along the water path; who argue
>that 0.01 bar of pressure or 0.1 degree of temparature makes a
>discernible difference in flavor; who study grind particles under a
>microscope to assess burr efficiency, and who plot curves of the flavor
>degradation that occurs within the first sixty minutes after grinding.
I'd say those were the loons, rather than the fanatics.
>Why don't we discuss this over a wee dram? I'll give you a tot of
>Royal Lochnagar and another of Glendronach and you can tell me which is
>which. After that, we'll compare Bruichladdich with Bunnahabhain to
>see if you can discern the difference and, more interestingly, if you
>can correctly pronounce either name.
1) Too simple due to the relative sherry levels, depending on which Glendronach
expression you're offering. And 2) Brook-lah-dee and Bun/Boon-a-hahv-un. You'll
have to do much better than that. 8;)
>Then we'll taste some Dalwhinnie
>and I'll listen while you discuss whether it is best described as
>having a central highlands character or more closely resembles the
>Speyside family.
No, I'll listen (and perhaps drink a second dram) while you lead the discussion.
8;)
>Then we can talk over the relative merits of Folle Blanche and Ugni
>Blanc varieties in the production of armagnac.
Why? It's like discussing each grape's contribution to Champagne. For us, the
point is finding what you like -- and then drinking it.
We'd be more interested in discussing potential marriages between various
whiskies and food. But any time you're in the Washington, DC area,give a shout
and you'd be welcome. We even have an occasional Scotch tasting with a full menu
of dishes featuring whisky.
>That's by way of saying, Plity, that not everyone here is monomaniacal
>about coffee. Many of us have diverse interests.
No, not everyone -- but many of the dominant contributors.
>Rather than indulging yourself in lofty, pretentious, and unconvincing
>put-downs, why not pour yourself a cup, sit down and chat with us.
>Heck, who knows, you might even learn something.
Again, no "put-down" was intended. It's simply that there are many different
levels of involvement with coffee, a good number of which are seldom
represented in the alt.coffee conversation. I learn things all the time here.
That's why I continue reading.
Slainte!
-- Larry
|
| | | |
Date: 04 Sep 2006 00:26:02
From: Ken Fox
Subject: Re: Decaf Question
|
"pltrgyst" <pltrgyst@spamlessxhost.org > wrote in message
news:ic4nf2db154fp33qf5rl792irhgn8d50eo@4ax.com...
> On 3 Sep 2006 07:23:12 -0700, "Omniryx@gmail.com" <Omniryx@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>That's by way of saying, Plity, that not everyone here is monomaniacal
>>about coffee. Many of us have diverse interests.
>
> No, not everyone -- but many of the dominant contributors.
>
>
> -- Larry
I can't speak for any of the "dominant contributors" here, and may not even
be one, but I spend at least several times as much time on other interests
than I do coffee, which include (at the moment) trying to learn French,
outdoor activities including hiking, biking, etc., photography, cooking, and
drinking wine. Although I've done a lot of stuff with my gear and acquired
a fair amount of it, in the end I've been heavily oriented at time
efficiency, roasting multiple 500g batches and freezing much of it for later
use, and more or less automating my flush routine with PID controllers. I
have many other interests that get more of my time each week than coffee.
ken
|
| |
Date: 04 Sep 2006 07:43:42
From: Omniryx@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Decaf Question
|
pltrgyst wrote a second post containing a near-apology and some
misinformation about eastern highlands whisky.
> On 3 Sep 2006 07:23:12 -0700, "Omniryx@gmail.com" <Omniryx@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >pltrgyst wrote a long rant about "coffee fanatics" which ended with a
> >smug summary of his alcohol collection...
Relax, Larry, I'm just funnin' with ya. Don't make yourself such an
easy target. I'm in DC every month or so. Maybe we'll share a dram
some day.
Will
|
| | |
Date: 04 Sep 2006 15:34:55
From: pltrgyst
Subject: Re: Decaf Question
|
On 4 Sep 2006 07:43:42 -0700, "Omniryx@gmail.com" <Omniryx@gmail.com > wrote:
>pltrgyst wrote a second post containing a near-apology and some
>misinformation about eastern highlands whisky.
"Near apology"? Hardly. What a couple of people have taken umbrage at is my
characterizing "people who are willing to go to extraordinary lengths and devote
a significant portion of their waking hours to coffee" as "fanatics." I hardly
think that's either insulting or worthy of an apology.
>Relax, Larry, I'm just funnin' with ya. Don't make yourself such an
>easy target.
I'm always relaxed, as long as I'm not near a tennis or volleyball court. It's a
by-product of being an alcoholic with all that whisky readily available. And
we'll have to debate the "misinformation." 8;)
>I'm in DC every month or so. Maybe we'll share a dram some day.
We're in Alexandria, VA, about 100 yards from a Metro station.
Have you ever attended one of the blending sessions up at The Royal Mile?
Or visited Birds of a Feather up in Baltimore, with their 100+ single malts?
-- Larry (alt.coffee AT tennisbooks DOT com)
|
| |
Date: 04 Sep 2006 06:59:24
From: Flasherly
Subject: Re: Decaf Question
|
Frank103 wrote:
> Can anyone tell the difference between regular coffee and decaf when using
> an espresso machine? Also, do many on this board use organic beans? Just
> wondering. I'll probably order my first espresso machine this weekend.
> Thanks in advance.
Perhaps there's none other than medicinal or diuretic provision. The
premise is then to qualify truth there exists a Brazilian coffeee
strain which contains 10% caffeine, at 40% less caffeine content than
at present is readily procureable, as well from Brazilian origins.
Aside from caffeine, there are additionally several hundred chemical
components to coffee, with half-a-dozen or more methods for singling in
to extract the caffeine. To an end caffeine extraction practically
serves, under hot water dispensed with pressure, without the pressure,
is indistinguisable from a derivative of marketable commodities.
Organic extraction of caffeine is a misnomer, as a substance of organic
materials applied are within a methodology of amalgamates artifically
derived.
|
| |
Date: 04 Sep 2006 17:12:24
From: Richard Reynolds
Subject: Re: Decaf Question
|
Ken Fox wrote:
> I can't speak for any of the "dominant contributors" here, and may not even
> be one,
Be that as it may, Ken , everything you said about decaf espresso in
this thread strikes me as totally on. And as one who's had to give up
the real stuff due to arrhythmia, I've done a lot of experimenting
(though I have yet to go the home roasting route). It's as you said. If
you get really good beans (Black Cat decaf, Cafe D'arte decaf & Flying
Goats decaf are my favs) really fresh and use them in a milk drink,
you can make a beverage that's pretty damn good. But straight shots
that are really interesting are a real rarity.
--Richard
|
| | |
Date: 05 Sep 2006 13:38:40
From: Brent
Subject: Re: Decaf Question
|
> But straight shots
> that are really interesting are a real rarity.
>
> --Richard
>
maybe a rarity, but they are out there...
|
| | |
Date: 04 Sep 2006 19:18:02
From: Ken Fox
Subject: Re: Decaf Question
|
"Richard Reynolds" <espressomn@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:1157415144.641791.248950@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Ken Fox wrote:
>
>> I can't speak for any of the "dominant contributors" here, and may not
>> even
>> be one,
>
> Be that as it may, Ken , everything you said about decaf espresso in
> this thread strikes me as totally on. And as one who's had to give up
> the real stuff due to arrhythmia, I've done a lot of experimenting
> (though I have yet to go the home roasting route). It's as you said. If
> you get really good beans (Black Cat decaf, Cafe D'arte decaf & Flying
> Goats decaf are my favs) really fresh and use them in a milk drink,
> you can make a beverage that's pretty damn good. But straight shots
> that are really interesting are a real rarity.
>
> --Richard
>
Hey Richard,
Great to see you posting again:-)
I don't know how much you have played around with macchiatos, but in many
ways they are (as I make them) my favorite drink. At the moment, I'm using
standard 3oz espresso cups and pulling double shots about 1.25oz into them,
then pouring frothed whole milk in them in about the same quantity to make a
drink totaling around 2.5oz. I think there is enough milk in there to make
very good decaf more than acceptable, in fact, rather good. I'm not even
sure if I could tell the difference if one started out with a very good
decaf.
(my recollection is that I stole this method of preparation from Jim
Schulman, however he uses milk that has enough fat in it to pickle anyone's
coronary arteries)
I suggest you start home roasting. Since decaf doesn't keep very long there
would be no reason to roast more than a small quantity at a time, so it
wouldn't take you more than maybe 20 minutes twice a week. Unless you have
access to really good roasted decaf right out of the roaster, that sounds to
me like a good compromise.
Hope to see you in LB,
Best,
ken
|
| |
Date: 04 Sep 2006 13:15:41
From: Omniryx@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Decaf Question
|
Aw, Larry, darn it. You spoiled your near apology.
|
| |
Date: 05 Sep 2006 05:43:18
From: Omniryx@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Decaf Question
|
Brent wrote, speaking of great straight shots:
> maybe a rarity, but they are out there...
And, like truffles and Bergerac in the Perigord, well worth seeking.
Will
|
| | |
Date: 06 Sep 2006 09:13:30
From: Brent
Subject: Re: Decaf Question
|
well put!
> Brent wrote, speaking of great straight shots:
>> maybe a rarity, but they are out there...
>
> And, like truffles and Bergerac in the Perigord, well worth seeking.
>
> Will
>
|
|
