| |
Main
Date: 13 Jun 2006 02:12:05
From: hbuchtel
Subject: How did tamping become popular in the US?
|
I'm just curious if anybody knows how using a heavy tamp became the
normal method of making espresso in the US.
Was there a mass immigration of baristas from a certain heavy-tamping
part of Italy? :)
Or (more seriously) was there one person in particular who popularized
this way of making espresso?
Henry
|
|
| |
Date: 13 Jun 2006 04:34:25
From: DavidMLewis
Subject: Re: How did tamping become popular in the US?
|
hbuchtel wrote:
> I'm just curious if anybody knows how using a heavy tamp became the
> normal method of making espresso in the US.
>
> Was there a mass immigration of baristas from a certain heavy-tamping
> part of Italy? :)
>
> Or (more seriously) was there one person in particular who popularized
> this way of making espresso?
>
The group contains far more authoratative historians than I am, but my
money is on David Schomer's 1991 article, reproduced here:
<http://www.espressovivace.com/archives/9103col.html >. In that piece he
cites Illy as recommending a 50 lb tamp, but gives no footnote.
Best,
David
|
| |
Date: 13 Jun 2006 20:17:57
From: CoffeeKid
Subject: Re: How did tamping become popular in the US?
|
Ed Needham wrote:
> I think it was Barry's fault.
No, Barry is only responsible for the headstand tamps, the ones that
make us all look like a one sided Popeye ;)
Mark
PS... actually, I first heard of serious tamping from Barry too - way
back in the 90s days of alt.coffee. But he's my sensei, so that only
makes sense.
|
| | |
Date: 14 Jun 2006 09:28:04
From: Andy Schecter
Subject: Re: How did tamping become popular in the US?
|
CoffeeKid wrote:
> No, Barry is only responsible for the headstand tamps, the ones that
> make us all look like a one sided Popeye ;)
Uh, Mark, Barry is responsible for the HANDstand tamps.
I've never seen a HEADstand tamp done, but I'm thinking of flying to Vancouver
just to see you do one! Did Reg make you a special flat tamper handle to make
it easier to balance? :-)
--
-Andy S.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/andy_s/sets/
http://tinyurl.com/eh0x
|
| |
Date: 13 Jun 2006 19:59:57
From: Ed Needham
Subject: Re: How did tamping become popular in the US?
|
I think it was Barry's fault.
--
*********************
Ed Needham®
"to absurdity and beyond!"
ed at homeroaster dot com
(include [FRIEND] in subject line to get through my SPAM filters)
*********************
"hbuchtel" <henry.buchtel@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1150189925.831656.226410@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> I'm just curious if anybody knows how using a heavy tamp became the
> normal method of making espresso in the US.
>
> Was there a mass immigration of baristas from a certain heavy-tamping
> part of Italy? :)
>
> Or (more seriously) was there one person in particular who popularized
> this way of making espresso?
>
> Henry
>
|
| |
Date: 14 Jun 2006 10:03:34
From: hbuchtel
Subject: Re: How did tamping become popular in the US?
|
Heat + Beans wrote:
> Is it possible that it's easier for a less-than-fully-competent
> barrista to get a consistent pack at 30+ lbs than to use a "light"
> tamp?
It seems like it is also the standard in the commercial coffee world
(as well as the online communities), could both have the same origin?
There is a fair bit of overlap between the two (Barry, for example).
Henry
|
| | |
Date: 14 Jun 2006 17:11:52
From: Barry Jarrett
Subject: Re: How did tamping become popular in the US?
|
On 14 Jun 2006 10:03:34 -0700, "hbuchtel" <henry.buchtel@gmail.com >
wrote:
>Heat + Beans wrote:
>> Is it possible that it's easier for a less-than-fully-competent
>> barrista to get a consistent pack at 30+ lbs than to use a "light"
>> tamp?
>
>It seems like it is also the standard in the commercial coffee world
>(as well as the online communities), could both have the same origin?
>
>There is a fair bit of overlap between the two (Barry, for example).
it's so long ago that i don't even remember....
i remember using the convex plastic tamper that came with our
brasilia...
i remember using the built-in tamper on our fiorenzato t-80 grinder...
i remember going through a variety of "special" tampers before
settling in with reg barber's tampers a long time ago...
i remember the whole 30lb thing, and i remember guessing at 30lbs only
to find out later, after i'd bought a scale, that my "30lbs" was
really 90lbs...
--barry "GRUNT tamp"
|
| |
Date: 14 Jun 2006 09:14:25
From: Heat + Beans
Subject: Re: How did tamping become popular in the US?
|
Is it possible that it's easier for a less-than-fully-competent
barrista to get a consistent pack at 30+ lbs than to use a "light"
tamp? That's my observation (based on my personal n of 1). I'd never
claim that a heavy tamp was superior, but if I were training barristas
for my shop, I'd make 30 lbs a rule.
Martin (who has no plans for a shop-----didn't mean to frighten you)
hbuchtel wrote:
> I'm just curious if anybody knows how using a heavy tamp became the
> normal method of making espresso in the US.
>
> Was there a mass immigration of baristas from a certain heavy-tamping
> part of Italy? :)
>
> Or (more seriously) was there one person in particular who popularized
> this way of making espresso?
>
> Henry
|
| | |
Date: 14 Jun 2006 11:29:09
From: Johnny
Subject: Re: How did tamping become popular in the US?
|
"Heat + Beans" <heatgunroast@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1150301665.314048.273590@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Martin (who has no plans for a shop-----didn't mean to frighten you)
ohhh, but "Heat + Beans" is a fun name for a shop :-)
|
| |
Date: 14 Jun 2006 07:00:06
From: daveb
Subject: Re: How did tamping become popular in the US?
|
how did reg barber get to be so popular??
Andy Schecter wrote:
> CoffeeKid wrote:
> > No, Barry is only responsible for the headstand tamps, the ones that
> > make us all look like a one sided Popeye ;)
>
> Uh, Mark, Barry is responsible for the HANDstand tamps.
>
> I've never seen a HEADstand tamp done, but I'm thinking of flying to Vancouver
> just to see you do one! Did Reg make you a special flat tamper handle to make
> it easier to balance? :-)
>
>
> --
>
>
> -Andy S.
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/andy_s/sets/
> http://tinyurl.com/eh0x
|
| | |
Date: 14 Jun 2006 10:31:41
From: pltrgyst
Subject: Re: How did tamping become popular in the US?
|
On 14 Jun 2006 07:00:06 -0700, "daveb" <davebobblane@gmail.com > wrote:
>how did reg barber get to be so popular??
He was the first one to date (tampa) Sylvia here in alt.coffee, and the usual
alt.coffee bandwagon reaction took it from there.
-- Larry
|
| |
Date: 14 Jun 2006 12:59:49
From: CoffeeKid
Subject: Re: How did tamping become popular in the US?
|
Andy Schecter wrote:
> CoffeeKid wrote:
> > No, Barry is only responsible for the headstand tamps, the ones that
> > make us all look like a one sided Popeye ;)
>
> Uh, Mark, Barry is responsible for the HANDstand tamps.
>
> I've never seen a HEADstand tamp done, but I'm thinking of flying to Vancouver
> just to see you do one! Did Reg make you a special flat tamper handle to make
> it easier to balance? :-)
Shhhs. That's a secret. Can't talk about it.
Mark "The Typo" Prince.
|
| |
Date: 17 Jun 2006 02:43:36
From: hbuchtel
Subject: Re: How did tamping become popular in the US?
|
hbuchtel wrote:
> On the ESI website it says Kent Bakke first started visiting Italy (and
> La Marzocco, in Florence) in '78 or so.
Hm! in this article-
http://www.franke-cs.com/de/firmen/franke_kaffeemaschinen_ag/news/docs/kents_article_-_barista_magazine_may_2005.pdf
(warning- PDF file!)
Kent Bakke sez he learned espresso making from Piero Bambi, who carried
on the traditions of his father Giuseppe Bambi, one of the founders of
La Marzocco.
Getting closer! (maybe :)
Henry
|
| |
Date: 17 Jun 2006 02:23:59
From: hbuchtel
Subject: Re: How did tamping become popular in the US?
|
DavidMLewis wrote:
> The group contains far more authoratative historians than I am, but my
> money is on David Schomer's 1991 article, reproduced here:
> <http://www.espressovivace.com/archives/9103col.html>. In that piece he
> cites Illy as recommending a 50 lb tamp, but gives no footnote.
David, I just came across this article
http://www.lucidcafe.com/cafeforum/schomertable18.html
which says Schomer first learned packing from Kent Bakke, apparently
one year before visiting Illy, as far as I can tell.
On the ESI website it says Kent Bakke first started visiting Italy (and
La Marzocco, in Florence) in '78 or so. Is Florence considered to be
in Northern Italy? (culturally speaking, that is.)
Henry
|
| |
Date: 17 Jun 2006 01:48:26
From: hbuchtel
Subject: Re: How did tamping become popular in the US?
|
Barry Jarrett wrote:
> i remember the whole 30lb thing, and i remember guessing at 30lbs only
> to find out later, after i'd bought a scale, that my "30lbs" was
> really 90lbs...
Barry, who/ where did you learn this from? Was Schomer much of an
influence?
At that time were there also people talking seriously about light
tamps?
Henry
|
| | |
Date: 17 Jun 2006 14:11:10
From: Barry Jarrett
Subject: Re: How did tamping become popular in the US?
|
On 17 Jun 2006 01:48:26 -0700, "hbuchtel" <henry.buchtel@gmail.com >
wrote:
>Barry, who/ where did you learn this from? Was Schomer much of an
>influence?
i really don't remember... this was in the early '90s. i know i sat
in on one of david's sessions at the scaa conference, but i don't
remember when that was. it might have come from face-to-face
discussions with others at one conference or other.
i think we had a pressure regulated clicking tamper by '94. the staff
hated it, and it eventually fell apart.
>
>At that time were there also people talking seriously about light
>tamps?
not a whole lot of folks were talking about tamps, at all.
|
| | | |
Date: 17 Jun 2006 14:40:31
From: Robert Harmon
Subject: Re: How did tamping become popular in the US?
|
I think they became popular when the gals found out they could swim while
using them.
;o
Robert
"Barry Jarrett" <barry@rileys-coffee.com > wrote in message
news:q13892hc5c6j40vapeiql8jl8bn1hep738@4ax.com...
> On 17 Jun 2006 01:48:26 -0700, "hbuchtel" <henry.buchtel@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Barry, who/ where did you learn this from? Was Schomer much of an
> >influence?
>
> i really don't remember... this was in the early '90s. i know i sat
> in on one of david's sessions at the scaa conference, but i don't
> remember when that was. it might have come from face-to-face
> discussions with others at one conference or other.
>
> i think we had a pressure regulated clicking tamper by '94. the staff
> hated it, and it eventually fell apart.
>
>
>
>>
> >At that time were there also people talking seriously about light
> >tamps?
>
> not a whole lot of folks were talking about tamps, at all.
>
|
| |
Date: 17 Jun 2006 12:16:05
From: CoffeeKid
Subject: Re: How did tamping become popular in the US?
|
hbuchtel wrote:
> hbuchtel wrote:
> > On the ESI website it says Kent Bakke first started visiting Italy (and
> > La Marzocco, in Florence) in '78 or so.
>
> Hm! in this article-
>
> http://www.franke-cs.com/de/firmen/franke_kaffeemaschinen_ag/news/docs/kents_article_-_barista_magazine_may_2005.pdf
>
> (warning- PDF file!)
>
> Kent Bakke sez he learned espresso making from Piero Bambi, who carried
> on the traditions of his father Giuseppe Bambi, one of the founders of
> La Marzocco.
Hrmmm considering that we got some pretty stellar shots from Piero just
a couple of weeks ago (me, Andrew Barnett, Nick Cho), I'd say that's a
good learning point.
Ironically enough though, Andrew and I, both fresh off judging at the
WBC, were sly-snickering and giving Piero 1.5s on technique in his prep
for his pulls... then 5s on the taste. I was in awe.
Mark
|
| | |
Date: 17 Jun 2006 21:48:13
From: Andy Schecter
Subject: Re: How did tamping become popular in the US?
|
CoffeeKid wrote:
> Ironically enough though, Andrew and I, both fresh off judging at the
> WBC, were sly-snickering and giving Piero 1.5s on technique in his prep
> for his pulls... then 5s on the taste. I was in awe.
Which highlights the difficulty in creating meaningful technical standards.
Many of the best people in specialty coffee have labored on the standards, yet
your experience in Italy shows how much farther we have to go (and apparently,
how little we truly understand).
--
-Andy S.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/andy_s/sets/
http://tinyurl.com/eh0x
|
| | | |
Date: 18 Jun 2006 02:41:19
From: Paul Monaghan
Subject: Re: How did tamping become popular in the US?
|
Paging Michael Teahan, hello? Hello?
On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 21:48:13 GMT, Andy Schecter
<schecter@remove.me.rochester.rr.com > wrote:
>CoffeeKid wrote:
>> Ironically enough though, Andrew and I, both fresh off judging at the
>> WBC, were sly-snickering and giving Piero 1.5s on technique in his prep
>> for his pulls... then 5s on the taste. I was in awe.
>
>Which highlights the difficulty in creating meaningful technical standards.
>Many of the best people in specialty coffee have labored on the standards, yet
>your experience in Italy shows how much farther we have to go (and apparently,
>how little we truly understand).
|
| | | |
Date: 17 Jun 2006 21:56:19
From: Simpson
Subject: Re: How did tamping become popular in the US?
|
In article <xM_kg.47614$8G3.14325@twister.nyroc.rr.com >,
schecter@remove.me.rochester.rr.com says...
> CoffeeKid wrote:
> > Ironically enough though, Andrew and I, both fresh off judging at the
> > WBC, were sly-snickering and giving Piero 1.5s on technique in his prep
> > for his pulls... then 5s on the taste. I was in awe.
>
> Which highlights the difficulty in creating meaningful technical standards.
> Many of the best people in specialty coffee have labored on the standards, yet
> your experience in Italy shows how much farther we have to go (and apparently,
> how little we truly understand).
>
So perhaps we should let the 'technical' standards go hang and just rate
the resultant shots on agreed-upon criteria, delivered in an agreed-upon
time schedule. To me, any criteria other than time/taste/texture etc of
the final product AND just basically keeping a food safe work area seem
unreasonable and unproductive and MAY be drawing attention away from
those variables which actually matter.
So let the barista do any damn thing they please consistent with a food
safe work environment to produce their product in a set time. Then judge
the effing product, and nothing else. No tamping criteria, no flushing
the group criteria, no NOTHING criteria, only rule is that they can't
tamp with their butt. If their procedures are ineffectual ("I layer each
coffee grain in place in the basket with these tweezers for maximum
quality. Your coffee will be available in one week.") or disconnected
from product quality ("I smudge each customer with sweetgrass to ensure
a spiritually cleansed palate. Therefore, your coffee will taste like
sweetgrass.") then those procedures will fall by the wayside along with
their proponents. The procedures that matter will make themselves known,
too, over time. Increase the degrees of freedom. Decrease the focus on
meaningless and poorly understood dogma. Let experience free the truth
from its shackles.
Make mine a double.
Ted
--
email me at:
tee en jay ess eye em pee ess oh en one-the-number (at) cee oh em cee a
ess tee (dot) en ee tee
ANY other email addie will probably mean I spam-killed your message
unread, by accident, really.
|
| | | | |
Date: 18 Jun 2006 03:40:08
From: Andy Schecter
Subject: Re: How did tamping become popular in the US?
|
Simpson wrote:
> So let the barista do any damn thing they please consistent with a food
> safe work environment to produce their product in a set time. Then judge
> the effing product, and nothing else. No tamping criteria, no flushing
> the group criteria, no NOTHING criteria, only rule is that they can't
> tamp with their butt.
I was going right along with you until that last part. It just so happens that
with lots of practice, my butt tamp has been improving lately.
Seriously, Ted, I think I understand exactly where you're coming from. But
again, the folks who developed the tech standards are among the best baristas
in specialty coffee. Far be it from me to suggest that the work they put in
should be scrapped.
It'll take time, but this stuff will get worked out.
--
-Andy S.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/andy_s/sets/
http://tinyurl.com/eh0x
|
| | | | | |
Date: 17 Jun 2006 22:17:10
From: Ken Fox
Subject: Re: How did tamping become popular in the US?
|
"Andy Schecter" <schecter@remove.me.rochester.rr.com > wrote in message
news:sW3lg.33517$3B.26191@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> >
> I was going right along with you until that last part. It just so happens
> that with lots of practice, my butt tamp has been improving lately.
>
Butt tamping was a fad; no one does that anymore. I do like to clean the
tamper piston in my armpits every few shots, however.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 18 Jun 2006 08:04:02
From: Simpson
Subject: Re: How did tamping become popular in the US?
|
In article <4fk2bvF1iig14U1@individual.net >,
morceaudemerdeThisMerdeGoes@hotmail.com says...
> "Andy Schecter" <schecter@remove.me.rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:sW3lg.33517$3B.26191@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> > >
> > I was going right along with you until that last part. It just so happens
> > that with lots of practice, my butt tamp has been improving lately.
> >
> Butt tamping was a fad; no one does that anymore. I do like to clean the
> tamper piston in my armpits every few shots, however.
>
>
>
And I didn't rule that out, did I?
--
email me at:
tee en jay ess eye em pee ess oh en one-the-number (at) cee oh em cee a
ess tee (dot) en ee tee
ANY other email addie will probably mean I spam-killed your message
unread, by accident, really.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 18 Jun 2006 22:08:55
From: Danny
Subject: Re: How did tamping become popular in the US?
|
Simpson wrote:
> In article <4fk2bvF1iig14U1@individual.net>,
> morceaudemerdeThisMerdeGoes@hotmail.com says...
>
>>"Andy Schecter" <schecter@remove.me.rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
>>news:sW3lg.33517$3B.26191@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>>
>>>I was going right along with you until that last part. It just so happens
>>>that with lots of practice, my butt tamp has been improving lately.
>>>
>>
>>Butt tamping was a fad; no one does that anymore. I do like to clean the
>>tamper piston in my armpits every few shots, however.
>>
>>
>>
>
> And I didn't rule that out, did I?
And I use the outside thigh of my jeans...
--
Regards, Danny
http://www.gaggia-espresso.com (a purely hobby site)
http://www.malabargold.co.uk (UK/EU ordering for Malabar Gold blend)
|
| | | | |
Date: 18 Jun 2006 03:09:59
From: Marshall
Subject: Re: How did tamping become popular in the US?
|
On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 21:56:19 -0400, Simpson <nospam@nospam.spam >
wrote:
>So perhaps we should let the 'technical' standards go hang and just rate
>the resultant shots on agreed-upon criteria, delivered in an agreed-upon
>time schedule. To me, any criteria other than time/taste/texture etc of
>the final product AND just basically keeping a food safe work area seem
>unreasonable and unproductive and MAY be drawing attention away from
>those variables which actually matter.
>
>So let the barista do any damn thing they please consistent with a food
>safe work environment to produce their product in a set time. Then judge
>the effing product, and nothing else. No tamping criteria, no flushing
>the group criteria, no NOTHING criteria, only rule is that they can't
>tamp with their butt. If their procedures are ineffectual ("I layer each
>coffee grain in place in the basket with these tweezers for maximum
>quality. Your coffee will be available in one week.") or disconnected
>from product quality ("I smudge each customer with sweetgrass to ensure
>a spiritually cleansed palate. Therefore, your coffee will taste like
>sweetgrass.") then those procedures will fall by the wayside along with
>their proponents. The procedures that matter will make themselves known,
>too, over time. Increase the degrees of freedom. Decrease the focus on
>meaningless and poorly understood dogma. Let experience free the truth
>from its shackles.
Or we make it more entertaining and audience-friendly:
http://tinyurl.com/p37ge
Disclosure: they are clients.
Marshall
|
| | | | |
Date: 17 Jun 2006 23:09:05
From: Ed Needham
Subject: Re: How did tamping become popular in the US?
|
Gasp! Aaaaaaaaaaaaahhh! Oh no!
C'mon Ted. That's ridiculous. Insane. Almost treasonous.
You should 'never' make that much sense here on alt.coffee
--
*********************
Ed Needham®
"to absurdity and beyond!"
ed at homeroaster dot com
(include [FRIEND] in subject line to get through my SPAM filters)
*********************
"Simpson" <nospam@nospam.spam > wrote in message
news:MPG.1efe7ccfd6e8deb2989739@newsgroups.comcast.net...
> So perhaps we should let the 'technical' standards go hang and just rate
> the resultant shots on agreed-upon criteria, delivered in an agreed-upon
> time schedule. To me, any criteria other than time/taste/texture etc of
> the final product AND just basically keeping a food safe work area seem
> unreasonable and unproductive and MAY be drawing attention away from
> those variables which actually matter.
>
> So let the barista do any damn thing they please consistent with a food
> safe work environment to produce their product in a set time. Then judge
> the effing product, and nothing else. No tamping criteria, no flushing
> the group criteria, no NOTHING criteria, only rule is that they can't
> tamp with their butt. If their procedures are ineffectual ("I layer each
> coffee grain in place in the basket with these tweezers for maximum
> quality. Your coffee will be available in one week.") or disconnected
> from product quality ("I smudge each customer with sweetgrass to ensure
> a spiritually cleansed palate. Therefore, your coffee will taste like
> sweetgrass.") then those procedures will fall by the wayside along with
> their proponents. The procedures that matter will make themselves known,
> too, over time. Increase the degrees of freedom. Decrease the focus on
> meaningless and poorly understood dogma. Let experience free the truth
> from its shackles.
> Make mine a double.
> Ted
|
| | | | |
Date: 18 Jun 2006 22:07:48
From: Danny
Subject: Re: How did tamping become popular in the US?
|
Simpson wrote:
> In article <xM_kg.47614$8G3.14325@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
> schecter@remove.me.rochester.rr.com says...
>
>>CoffeeKid wrote:
>>
>>>Ironically enough though, Andrew and I, both fresh off judging at the
>>>WBC, were sly-snickering and giving Piero 1.5s on technique in his prep
>>>for his pulls... then 5s on the taste. I was in awe.
>>
>>Which highlights the difficulty in creating meaningful technical standards.
>>Many of the best people in specialty coffee have labored on the standards, yet
>>your experience in Italy shows how much farther we have to go (and apparently,
>>how little we truly understand).
>>
>
> So perhaps we should let the 'technical' standards go hang and just rate
> the resultant shots on agreed-upon criteria, delivered in an agreed-upon
> time schedule. To me, any criteria other than time/taste/texture etc of
> the final product AND just basically keeping a food safe work area seem
> unreasonable and unproductive and MAY be drawing attention away from
> those variables which actually matter.
>
> So let the barista do any damn thing they please consistent with a food
> safe work environment to produce their product in a set time. Then judge
> the effing product, and nothing else. No tamping criteria, no flushing
> the group criteria, no NOTHING criteria, only rule is that they can't
> tamp with their butt. If their procedures are ineffectual ("I layer each
> coffee grain in place in the basket with these tweezers for maximum
> quality. Your coffee will be available in one week.") or disconnected
> from product quality ("I smudge each customer with sweetgrass to ensure
> a spiritually cleansed palate. Therefore, your coffee will taste like
> sweetgrass.") then those procedures will fall by the wayside along with
> their proponents. The procedures that matter will make themselves known,
> too, over time. Increase the degrees of freedom. Decrease the focus on
> meaningless and poorly understood dogma. Let experience free the truth
> from its shackles.
>
> Make mine a double.
>
> Ted
>
Well done - agreed. That's exactly why I wouldn't enter a local
competition run by Brasilia - too much emphasis on signature drink.
procedures, uniform etc, and too little on the actual espresso.
--
Regards, Danny
http://www.gaggia-espresso.com (a purely hobby site)
http://www.malabargold.co.uk (UK/EU ordering for Malabar Gold blend)
|
| | |
Date: 17 Jun 2006 19:29:41
From: Barry Jarrett
Subject: Re: How did tamping become popular in the US?
|
On 17 Jun 2006 12:16:05 -0700, "CoffeeKid" <Coffeekid@gmail.com >
wrote:
>Ironically enough though, Andrew and I, both fresh off judging at the
>WBC, were sly-snickering and giving Piero 1.5s on technique in his prep
>for his pulls... then 5s on the taste. I was in awe.
just an illustration of how most of the tech criteria are based in
"myth and legend".
|
| |
Date: 18 Jun 2006 08:33:05
From: hbuchtel
Subject: Re: How did tamping become popular in the US?
|
> Henry, I'm very curious --- if competing "baristi" were to use the same
> amounts of the same coffee and water, and used the same or similar espresso
> machines to produce their demitazzi of espresso, what "technique of
> preparation" could possibly be employed which could render the final product
> unqualified to be defined as "espresso"?
I was specifically thinking about lower pressure or different pressure
profiles, but in the particular competition we are talking about all
baristas use the same equipment, and there are a limited amount of ways
to produce a good tasting drink from it.
I think that Simpson is suggesting that the equipment be the *only*
limiting factor.
As usual, I've gotten myself in over my head! More questions then
answers . . .
How did the Italian INEI arrive at their definition of espresso?
Henry
|
| | |
Date: 18 Jun 2006 17:48:56
From: Alan
Subject: Re: How did tamping become popular in the US?
|
"hbuchtel" wrote
(alan wrote)
>> Henry, I'm very curious --- if competing "baristi" were to use the same
>> amounts of the same coffee and water, and used the same or similar
>> espresso
>> machines to produce their demitazzi of espresso, what "technique of
>> preparation" could possibly be employed which could render the final
>> product
>> unqualified to be defined as "espresso"?
>
> I was specifically thinking about lower pressure or different pressure
> profiles, but in the particular competition we are talking about all
> baristas use the same equipment, and there are a limited amount of ways
> to produce a good tasting drink from it.
>
> I think that Simpson is suggesting that the equipment be the *only*
> limiting factor.
>
> As usual, I've gotten myself in over my head! More questions then
> answers . . .
>
> How did the Italian INEI arrive at their definition of espresso?
>
> Henry
If you're asking *how* the INEI arrived at their definition, I'd say it's a
safe bet that it was done by arbitrary consensus. If, on the other hand,
you're asking *what* their definition of espresso is, have a look at:
http://espressoitaliano.org/doc/EIC%20-%20Eng%20-%20LQ.pdf (page 7).
The "quality requirements" they list are as follows:
". Necessary portion of ground coffee 7 g ± 0,5
. Exit temperature of water from the unit 88°C ± 2°C
. Temperature of the drink in the cup 67°C ± 3°C
. Entry water pressure 9 bar ± 1
. Percolation time 25 seconds ± 2,5 seconds
. Viscosity at 45°C > 1,5 mPa s
. Total fat > 2 mg/ml
. Caffeine < 100 mg/cup
. Millilitres in the cup (including foam) 25 ml ± 2,5"
And while they state that :
"It is indeed the operator who selects and manages the equipment and the
blend, adjusts the equipment to the properties of the blend, and controls
every step of the preparation process to make excellent espresso", the only
operator "technique" that is discussed on their site has to do with control
of the "percolation time". The emphasis, quite sensibly, is on measuring
the input, circumscribing the means of production, and assessing the
output, according to the objective guidelines above, as well as according to
subjective taste guidelines which are described in that same document (page
7).
Not only does INEI not mention weight of the tamp, they do not mention
tamping at all.
Since I've never been to a "baristo" competition, Henry, I'd be interested
to see a list of "techniques" which are felt to be essential in judging.
Thank you.
|
| |
Date: 18 Jun 2006 05:49:16
From: hbuchtel
Subject: Re: How did tamping become popular in the US?
|
Simpson wrote
>. Both Andy and you note that we have the
> tech standards because they were thought at one time by excellent
> practitioners to be related to quality in the cup. The problem is that
> these practices become reified and valued FOR THEMSELVES, and that is
> not what the business is about, is it? [snip] Who gives a rat's rear if Jodie
> tamps with 30 lbs 3 and 3/4 ozs or doesn't tamp at all? If their coffee
> is elixir, so be it.
> Ted
If you get rid of all the standards for preparation, you might get many
drinks that taste great but which you would be hard put to define as
espresso.
Henry
|
| | |
Date: 18 Jun 2006 14:37:56
From: Alan
Subject: Re: How did tamping become popular in the US?
|
"hbuchtel" <henry.buchtel@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1150634956.642066.197540@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Simpson wrote
>>. Both Andy and you note that we have the
>> tech standards because they were thought at one time by excellent
>> practitioners to be related to quality in the cup. The problem is that
>> these practices become reified and valued FOR THEMSELVES, and that is
>> not what the business is about, is it? [snip] Who gives a rat's rear if
>> Jodie
>> tamps with 30 lbs 3 and 3/4 ozs or doesn't tamp at all? If their coffee
>> is elixir, so be it.
>> Ted
>
> If you get rid of all the standards for preparation, you might get many
> drinks that taste great but which you would be hard put to define as
> espresso.
>
> Henry
Henry, I'm very curious --- if competing "baristi" were to use the same
amounts of the same coffee and water, and used the same or similar espresso
machines to produce their demitazzi of espresso, what "technique of
preparation" could possibly be employed which could render the final product
unqualified to be defined as "espresso"?
|
| |
Date: 18 Jun 2006 02:38:48
From: hbuchtel
Subject: Re: How did tamping become popular in the US?
|
CoffeeKid wrote:
> Hrmmm considering that we got some pretty stellar shots from Piero just
> a couple of weeks ago (me, Andrew Barnett, Nick Cho), I'd say that's a
> good learning point.
>
> Ironically enough though, Andrew and I, both fresh off judging at the
> WBC, were sly-snickering and giving Piero 1.5s on technique in his prep
> for his pulls... then 5s on the taste. I was in awe.
>
> Mark
Mark, can you describe Piero's technique?
Henry
|
| |
Date: 18 Jun 2006 00:47:34
From: CoffeeKid
Subject: Re: How did tamping become popular in the US?
|
Simpson wrote:
> So perhaps we should let the 'technical' standards go hang and just rate
> the resultant shots on agreed-upon criteria, delivered in an agreed-upon
> time schedule. To me, any criteria other than time/taste/texture etc of
> the final product AND just basically keeping a food safe work area seem
> unreasonable and unproductive and MAY be drawing attention away from
> those variables which actually matter.
>
> So let the barista do any damn thing they please consistent with a food
> safe work environment to produce their product in a set time. Then judge
> the effing product, and nothing else. No tamping criteria, no flushing
> the group criteria, no NOTHING criteria, only rule is that they can't
> tamp with their butt. If their procedures are ineffectual ("I layer each
> coffee grain in place in the basket with these tweezers for maximum
> quality. Your coffee will be available in one week.") or disconnected
> from product quality ("I smudge each customer with sweetgrass to ensure
> a spiritually cleansed palate. Therefore, your coffee will taste like
> sweetgrass.") then those procedures will fall by the wayside along with
> their proponents. The procedures that matter will make themselves known,
> too, over time. Increase the degrees of freedom. Decrease the focus on
> meaningless and poorly understood dogma. Let experience free the truth
> from its shackles.
>
Personally, and in judging, I'd be very happy with this. I do think
judging performance is important, but taste is paramount.
However, it's important to remember something - the comps were first
set up to establish a "standard" in espresso prep. Technical used to be
worth a lot more too, IIRC, than it is now. The concept of the comps
was, make sure they follow a set standard in prep, then judge the
taste. It was as much to educate baristas on what was perceived as a
proper preparation standard (which is kind of elitist, I know), as it
was evaluating performance overall and on taste in the cup.
The argument today is, the craft of the Barista has advanced so much in
the last five years (ironically enough, in due part to competitions),
that is tech judging really necessary any longer.
Since I generally suck at tech judging, I'd be fine seeing it move to
much more weighted on taste in the cup and some performance overall.
Mark
|
| | |
Date: 18 Jun 2006 08:19:23
From: Simpson
Subject: Re: How did tamping become popular in the US?
|
In article <1150616854.816654.178080@r2g2000cwb.googlegroups.com >,
Coffeekid@gmail.com says...
snip
> However, it's important to remember something - the comps were first
> set up to establish a "standard" in espresso prep. Technical used to be
> worth a lot more too, IIRC, than it is now. The concept of the comps
> was, make sure they follow a set standard in prep, then judge the
> taste. It was as much to educate baristas on what was perceived as a
> proper preparation standard (which is kind of elitist, I know), as it
> was evaluating performance overall and on taste in the cup.
>
> The argument today is, the craft of the Barista has advanced so much in
> the last five years (ironically enough, in due part to competitions),
> that is tech judging really necessary any longer.
>
> Since I generally suck at tech judging, I'd be fine seeing it move to
> much more weighted on taste in the cup and some performance overall.
>
> Mark
>
>
Mark, no offense intended but it just doesn't MATTER why we do voodoo,
we need to know when we are in the business of bullshit and when we are
in the business of beefsteak. Both Andy and you note that we have the
tech standards because they were thought at one time by excellent
practitioners to be related to quality in the cup. The problem is that
these practices become reified and valued FOR THEMSELVES, and that is
not what the business is about, is it? Who gives a rat's rear if Jodie
tamps with 30 lbs 3 and 3/4 ozs or doesn't tamp at all? If their coffee
is elixir, so be it. If the excellent practitioners and their disciples
want to espouse a procedure, spiffy, let them. But don't screw up and
start to imagine that the procedure is the point of the exercise. That
locks in one old way of doing things and prevents growth and change. It
is sad that a barista may be forced to do something ON THE COMPETITION
FLOOR that they learned ONLY for that venue, only to meet an arbitrary
tech standard for judging purposes, and would otherwise never do at
work.
Coffee, coffee, coffee. That is ALL it is about. Only the coffee. The
ritual is just so much window dressing. It may be cool to have somebody
do this, that and the other for the visual pleasure of the judges OR to
keep themselves centered and on task and those behaviors are OK. But
don't have meaningless procedures, or at least procedures that no one is
certain of insofar as they may be the actual gold standard of producing
quality in the cup or not, become an issue in who wins and who loses. Do
that and it becomes about the business of competing, not the coffee.
Ted
--
email me at:
tee en jay ess eye em pee ess oh en one-the-number (at) cee oh em cee a
ess tee (dot) en ee tee
ANY other email addie will probably mean I spam-killed your message
unread, by accident, really.
|
| | | |
Date: 18 Jun 2006 11:40:12
From: North Sullivan
Subject: Re: How did tamping become popular in the US?
|
On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 08:19:23 -0400, Simpson <nospam@nospam.spam >
wrote:
>Coffee, coffee, coffee. That is ALL it is about. Only the coffee. The
>ritual is just so much window dressing. It may be cool to have somebody
>do this, that and the other for the visual pleasure of the judges OR to
>keep themselves centered and on task and those behaviors are OK. But
>don't have meaningless procedures, or at least procedures that no one is
>certain of insofar as they may be the actual gold standard of producing
>quality in the cup or not, become an issue in who wins and who loses. Do
>that and it becomes about the business of competing, not the coffee.
>
>Ted
Amen
North Sullivan
(seriously)
|
| | | |
Date: 19 Jun 2006 03:22:36
From: Andy Schecter
Subject: Re: How did tamping become popular in the US?
|
Simpson wrote:
> Mark, no offense intended but it just doesn't MATTER why we do voodoo,
> we need to know when we are in the business of bullshit and when we are
> in the business of beefsteak. Both Andy and you note that we have the
> tech standards because they were thought at one time by excellent
> practitioners to be related to quality in the cup. The problem is that
> these practices become reified and valued FOR THEMSELVES, and that is
> not what the business is about, is it? Who gives a rat's rear if Jodie
> tamps with 30 lbs 3 and 3/4 ozs or doesn't tamp at all? If their coffee
> is elixir, so be it. If the excellent practitioners and their disciples
> want to espouse a procedure, spiffy, let them. But don't screw up and
> start to imagine that the procedure is the point of the exercise. That
> locks in one old way of doing things and prevents growth and change. It
> is sad that a barista may be forced to do something ON THE COMPETITION
> FLOOR that they learned ONLY for that venue, only to meet an arbitrary
> tech standard for judging purposes, and would otherwise never do at
> work.
>
> Coffee, coffee, coffee. That is ALL it is about. Only the coffee. The
> ritual is just so much window dressing. It may be cool to have somebody
> do this, that and the other for the visual pleasure of the judges OR to
> keep themselves centered and on task and those behaviors are OK. But
> don't have meaningless procedures, or at least procedures that no one is
> certain of insofar as they may be the actual gold standard of producing
> quality in the cup or not, become an issue in who wins and who loses. Do
> that and it becomes about the business of competing, not the coffee.
I strongly disagree. I think it's incredibly short-sighted to believe that in
a barista competition, "coffee, coffee, coffee is ALL that it is about."
I think the competitions are about developing a corps of baristas that are
skilled, creative, and "professional" in the best sense of that word. These
baristas must be knowledgeable about food safety, work station organization,
efficiency, equipment care, non-wastage of materials, respect for the
customer, and a dozen other important skills.
In YOUR barista competition, where "the coffee is ALL that it's about," the
barista shows up at the last minute wearing filthy clothing. He just came from
the bathroom and didn't bother to wash his hands on the way out. After cursing
the previous competitor for leaving the station in less-than-neat condition,
he proceeds to wack the crap out of the portafilters, slams the doser lever,
leaves the steam wands crusted with milk, leaves abrasive grinds on the lips
of the baskets before locking them in place, etc, etc. He overdoses so heavily
that the shower screens are ruined. He has a cold, and wipes his runny nose
with his hand. He leaves a heap of wasted coffee all over the counter, spills
half a gallon of milk, doesn't bother to clean it up. When the sensory judges
are through he throws their cups in a bucket and breaks a couple. He leaves
the steam wands sitting in milk so the milk gets sucked back up into the
boiler. When he's done the workstation is like a pig sty.
Why should he bother developing good work habits? He wants to win the
competition, and by your rules, nothing matters but the taste of the coffee.
Over the past few years, I'm pretty sure that you, like many of us, have made
posts lamenting the abysmal skills of the "person behind the counter" at the
typical independent coffeeshop. Conducting barista competitions by your rules
would mean that "champions" could be crowned with no respect for the craft
they are practicing. It would ensure that we'll have a lot more PBTCs like the
imaginary competitor above.
I don't doubt that there are technical standards in the barista comps that
need revision. But I gotta believe that your insistence that nearly all tech
standards be abandoned is a huge mistake, as well as being hugely
disrespectful to the people who have labored on them.
-Andy S.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/andy_s/sets/
http://tinyurl.com/eh0x
|
| | | | |
Date: 19 Jun 2006 04:41:26
From: Marshall
Subject: Re: How did tamping become popular in the US?
|
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 03:22:36 GMT, Andy Schecter
<schecter@remove.me.rochester.rr.com > wrote:
<snip >
>I don't doubt that there are technical standards in the barista comps that
>need revision. But I gotta believe that your insistence that nearly all tech
>standards be abandoned is a huge mistake, as well as being hugely
>disrespectful to the people who have labored on them.
Being protective of the industry is a sure sign that an altie has
crossed over from hobbyist to professional. I think I crossed about
two years ago.
Marshall
|
| | | | | |
Date: 18 Jun 2006 22:53:30
From: Ken Fox
Subject: Re: How did tamping become popular in the US?
|
"Marshall" <mrfuss@ihatespamearthlink.net > wrote in message
news:kkac9210mjin0g19mmioh5h81pq4qt3ri3@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 03:22:36 GMT, Andy Schecter
> <schecter@remove.me.rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>>I don't doubt that there are technical standards in the barista comps that
>>need revision. But I gotta believe that your insistence that nearly all
>>tech
>>standards be abandoned is a huge mistake, as well as being hugely
>>disrespectful to the people who have labored on them.
>
> Being protective of the industry is a sure sign that an altie has
> crossed over from hobbyist to professional. I think I crossed about
> two years ago.
>
> Marshall
no, it was the nose-picking barista in Charlotte who pushed Andy over the
edge.
ken
|
| | | | |
Date: 19 Jun 2006 04:18:04
From: Donn Cave
Subject: Re: How did tamping become popular in the US?
|
Quoth Andy Schecter <schecter@remove.me.rochester.rr.com >:
...
|
| | | | |
Date: 19 Jun 2006 21:25:49
From: Simpson
Subject: Re: How did tamping become popular in the US?
|
In article <0Molg.18100$W97.6313@twister.nyroc.rr.com >,
schecter@remove.me.rochester.rr.com says...
snip
> I strongly disagree. I think it's incredibly short-sighted to believe that in
> a barista competition, "coffee, coffee, coffee is ALL that it is about."
>
> I think the competitions are about developing a corps of baristas that are
> skilled, creative, and "professional" in the best sense of that word. These
> baristas must be knowledgeable about food safety, work station organization,
> efficiency, equipment care, non-wastage of materials, respect for the
> customer, and a dozen other important skills.
>
> In YOUR barista competition, where "the coffee is ALL that it's about," the
> barista shows up at the last minute wearing filthy clothing. He just came from
> the bathroom and didn't bother to wash his hands on the way out. After cursing
> the previous competitor for leaving the station in less-than-neat condition,
> he proceeds to wack the crap out of the portafilters, slams the doser lever,
> leaves the steam wands crusted with milk, leaves abrasive grinds on the lips
> of the baskets before locking them in place, etc, etc. He overdoses so heavily
> that the shower screens are ruined. He has a cold, and wipes his runny nose
> with his hand. He leaves a heap of wasted coffee all over the counter, spills
> half a gallon of milk, doesn't bother to clean it up. When the sensory judges
> are through he throws their cups in a bucket and breaks a couple. He leaves
> the steam wands sitting in milk so the milk gets sucked back up into the
> boiler. When he's done the workstation is like a pig sty.
Of course that is unacceptable, but if not being a lout has to be
enforced by rigid rules, you don't have much quality in your
competitors. Nowadays, if you have to instruct surgeons to wash their
hands between bowel movement and surgery, the profession has died (along
with the patient). I think your example is kind of sad, and if I were a
barista, I would be offended by it.
Empty tech standards are what I am talking about, not failures in
personal hygiene or poor social judgement.
If the manual at arms of a professional's demonstration of skill has to
include a generic cafe's 3-ring binder of work space maintenance
requirements then the problem is the profession deserves only the
minimum wage that haunts it and the whole jumped up exercise is as
absurd as it sounds. I think otherwise. I think you should be able to
say to these young pros, "Do what you do best. Make us coffee that
lights up our world and do it in a professional fashion to the highest
of standards."
If it turns out that you can't do that, then really, we are describing a
non-event.
Ted
--
email me at:
tee en jay ess eye em pee ess oh en one-the-number (at) cee oh em cee a
ess tee (dot) en ee tee
ANY other email addie will probably mean I spam-killed your message
unread, by accident, really.
|
| | |
Date: 19 Jun 2006 02:23:47
From: Barry Jarrett
Subject: Re: How did tamping become popular in the US?
|
On 18 Jun 2006 00:47:34 -0700, "CoffeeKid" <Coffeekid@gmail.com >
wrote:
>Since I generally suck at tech judging, I'd be fine seeing it move to
>much more weighted on taste in the cup and some performance overall.
i'm generally very good at tech judging, and i'd be fine with the
judges being behind a screen or in a different room, with competitors
identified only by random numbers.
--barry "it's in the cup, or it isn't"
|
| | | |
Date: 19 Jun 2006 04:38:01
From: Marshall
Subject: Re: How did tamping become popular in the US?
|
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 02:23:47 GMT, Barry Jarrett
<barry@rileys-coffee.com > wrote:
>On 18 Jun 2006 00:47:34 -0700, "CoffeeKid" <Coffeekid@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
> >Since I generally suck at tech judging, I'd be fine seeing it move to
> >much more weighted on taste in the cup and some performance overall.
>
>i'm generally very good at tech judging, and i'd be fine with the
>judges being behind a screen or in a different room, with competitors
>identified only by random numbers.
>
>
>--barry "it's in the cup, or it isn't"
I don't really have a position on the technical issues that have been
hotly debated recently. But, I firmly believe that, if the
competitions do not become more accessible and entertaining to the
audience, their promotional value to the industry will disappear
(along with the sponsors).
Blind judging is great for cuppings and orchestra auditions. I don't
see how it can work as show biz.
Marshall
|
| | | | |
Date: 19 Jun 2006 05:36:39
From: Barry Jarrett
Subject: Re: How did tamping become popular in the US?
|
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 04:38:01 GMT, Marshall
<mrfuss@ihatespamearthlink.net > wrote:
>Blind judging is great for cuppings and orchestra auditions. I don't
>see how it can work as show biz.
i agree, but there are ways of doing things blind and yet still in
full view of an audience. it would even be possible to do the judging
blind, in front of an audience, with real-time display of judges'
scoring.
--barry "the dating game"
|
| | | | | |
Date: 19 Jun 2006 19:49:32
From: Marshall
Subject: Re: How did tamping become popular in the US?
|
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 05:36:39 GMT, Barry Jarrett
<barry@rileys-coffee.com > wrote:
>On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 04:38:01 GMT, Marshall
><mrfuss@ihatespamearthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >Blind judging is great for cuppings and orchestra auditions. I don't
> >see how it can work as show biz.
>
>i agree, but there are ways of doing things blind and yet still in
>full view of an audience. it would even be possible to do the judging
>blind, in front of an audience, with real-time display of judges'
>scoring.
>
>--barry "the dating game"
And maybe some dramatic music while the barista sweats the decision.
Marshall
|
| |
Date: 18 Jun 2006 16:03:32
From: CoffeeKid
Subject: Re: How did tamping become popular in the US?
|
Danny wrote:
> Well done - agreed. That's exactly why I wouldn't enter a local
> competition run by Brasilia - too much emphasis on signature drink.
> procedures, uniform etc, and too little on the actual espresso.
Dunno if Jimmy would agree with you on that one ;) Considering he had
some nice CoE coffees in his blend. But he is totally into food science
as well, and was showing it in his signature drink. All around though,
his shot pulls were fantastic.
Mark
|
| |
Date: 18 Jun 2006 12:06:49
From: CoffeeKid
Subject: Re: How did tamping become popular in the US?
|
hbuchtel wrote:
>
> Mark, can you describe Piero's technique?
Trying to remember it now. Nick was there too, maybe he can jump in and
correct things I missed or remember wrong - it happened so quick ;)
That's the point - it was very, very quick. I remember I was dosing
roughly 19, 20g into a LM double, bouncing on the fork to settle the
pack as I loaded up the filter basket. Grinder adjusted accordingly.
Nick was dosing 18g or so, no bounce, grinder adjusted accordingly.
Piero when he stepped up to the machine made jokes about the grinder
being so coarse, because his first prep pack in the filter basket - he
looked at it and said it was too coarse! So he adjusted, and was doing
what looked like barely 15g in the basket, using a black plastic
tamper, very quick, very uneven (to my eye), no real polish or
concentration on it, just very quick, and he'd lock it in the machine.
Tons of porcelain on top of the FB80 (the latest LM machine), but no,
he grabs plastic espresso cups. Andrew and I got the results of his
third dose - his first, he dumped cuz the coarse grind. His second was
a dial in shot, his third, he served to us. Colour was blonder than
what Nick or I were pulling. We weren't sure how it would taste,
because, it was blond, it was low in coffee dosing, etc. But it was
fantastic. I remember looking up at Andrew (he's a tall guy) and going
with my eyes - holy shit dude... and Andrew giving me the same look. He
says "five...?" And I said, hell yah, fives on this - great espresso!!!
The old guy certainly beat the taste I got on my own shots with that
coffee, and I had pulled about 8 or 10 doubles at that point.
Mark
|
| |
Date: 18 Jun 2006 11:19:12
From: hbuchtel
Subject: Re: How did tamping become popular in the US?
|
Alan wrote:
> > Henry
> If you're asking *how* the INEI arrived at their definition, I'd say it's a
> safe bet that it was done by arbitrary consensus.
yes, "how." I was assuming that they were basing the definition on
what was actually required to produce a specific type of drink.
> Since I've never been to a "baristo" competition, Henry, I'd be interested
> to see a list of "techniques" which are felt to be essential in judging.
> Thank you.
I've also never been to a barista competition, I've just seen pictures
on the internet :)
If, as you said, "competing "baristi" were to use the same
amounts of the same coffee and water, and used the same or similar
espresso
machines to produce their demitazzi of espresso" then in my esteemed
opinion the preparation does not matter.
If, as Ted said "Who gives a rat's rear if Jodie tamps with 30 lbs 3
and 3/4 ozs or doesn't tamp at all? If their coffee is elixir, so be
it." then I would list the same limitations ("techniques essential in
judging") that you did. It is quite possible that I misunderstood what
Ted wrote, but my original reply was based on this understanding,
namely that the drink that tastes best to the judges will win, whether
or not it fits the current definition of espresso.
I'd rather not write more till I know if I did misunderstand him, so
I'd like to wait for his reply, if you don't mind.
Henry
|
| |
Date: 20 Jun 2006 06:51:48
From: Omniryx@gmail.com
Subject: Re: How did tamping become popular in the US?
|
> If the manual at arms of a professional's demonstration of skill has to
> include a generic cafe's 3-ring binder of work space maintenance
> requirements then the problem is the profession deserves only the
> minimum wage that haunts it and the whole jumped up exercise is as
> absurd as it sounds. I think otherwise. I think you should be able to
> say to these young pros, "Do what you do best. Make us coffee that
> lights up our world and do it in a professional fashion to the highest
> of standards."
Bravo for the triumph of common sense!
Actually, the leadership has to decide what it wants. If the desire is
for meticulous compliance with a lengthy set of technical standards and
rules, then this is like a dressage competition in the horse world.
If the desire is for a compelling spectator sport that demonstrates
daring levels of achievement, then this is like open jumping.
At the summer olympics, tickets for the open jumping are sold out
months in advance. For dressage, one can find a seat in the front row
on the day of the finals. Trust me on this, I've been there more than
once.
So decide what you want, barisiti...
Will
|
| | |
Date: 20 Jun 2006 14:31:47
From: Marshall
Subject: Re: How did tamping become popular in the US?
|
On 20 Jun 2006 06:51:48 -0700, "Omniryx@gmail.com" <Omniryx@gmail.com >
wrote:
>Actually, the leadership has to decide what it wants. If the desire is
>for meticulous compliance with a lengthy set of technical standards and
>rules, then this is like a dressage competition in the horse world.
>
>If the desire is for a compelling spectator sport that demonstrates
>daring levels of achievement, then this is like open jumping.
>
>At the summer olympics, tickets for the open jumping are sold out
>months in advance. For dressage, one can find a seat in the front row
>on the day of the finals. Trust me on this, I've been there more than
>once.
>
>So decide what you want, barisiti...
>
>Will
Good analogies. There were also the "figures" in figure skating.
Missed by specialists, but not the television audience.
Marshall
|
| | | |
Date: 21 Jun 2006 02:39:00
From: Barry Jarrett
Subject: Re: How did tamping become popular in the US?
|
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 14:31:47 GMT, Marshall
<mrfuss@ihatespamearthlink.net > wrote:
>Good analogies. There were also the "figures" in figure skating.
>Missed by specialists, but not the television audience.
i always liked that bit, and generally ignored the jumping and leaping
and spinning.
|
| | | | |
Date: 20 Jun 2006 22:11:30
From: Ken Fox
Subject: Re: How did tamping become popular in the US?
|
"Barry Jarrett" <barry@rileys-coffee.com > wrote in message
news:0tkg9219vv601uc5evhjqj59uut07l426q@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 14:31:47 GMT, Marshall
> <mrfuss@ihatespamearthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >Good analogies. There were also the "figures" in figure skating.
> >Missed by specialists, but not the television audience.
>
> i always liked that bit, and generally ignored the jumping and leaping
> and spinning.
>
The increased jumping has contributed a much higher rate of skater injury
than in the past. The skating boots being used now are almost unchanged
from those used decades ago when there wasn't as much jumping.
Style and precision has gone out the window, and athleticism alone has taken
over. Some of this is because jumps are much easier to score, and a lot of
finesse stuff was hard to score objectively. Recent and not so recent
judging scandals have caused the entire judging system to be overhauled.
The result is the skating we see today, because all the top competitors
skate for the most points they can get.
ken
|
| | | | | |
Date: 21 Jun 2006 04:40:35
From: Robert Harmon
Subject: Re: How did tamping become popular in the US?
|
Heavens, athletes that must display their athleticism to win? Avery
Brundidge must be rolling over in his grave just thinking about 'athletic'
events in today's Olympics - ice dancing, rhythmic gymnastics, etc. Give me
an event like the 100 or 200 meter; now that's sports! Or a good card of
three round amateur boxing matches.
At the very least they should keep the pansy-assed 'sports' in the Winter
Olympics where they belong.
Robert (ciao) Harmon
"Ken Fox" <morceaudemerdeThisMerdeGoes@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:4frv7iF1j31r9U1@individual.net...
> "Barry Jarrett" <barry@rileys-coffee.com> wrote in message
> news:0tkg9219vv601uc5evhjqj59uut07l426q@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 14:31:47 GMT, Marshall
>> <mrfuss@ihatespamearthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Good analogies. There were also the "figures" in figure skating.
>> >Missed by specialists, but not the television audience.
>>
>> i always liked that bit, and generally ignored the jumping and leaping
>> and spinning.
>>
>
> The increased jumping has contributed a much higher rate of skater injury
> than in the past. The skating boots being used now are almost unchanged
> from those used decades ago when there wasn't as much jumping.
>
> Style and precision has gone out the window, and athleticism alone has
> taken over. Some of this is because jumps are much easier to score, and a
> lot of finesse stuff was hard to score objectively. Recent and not so
> recent judging scandals have caused the entire judging system to be
> overhauled. The result is the skating we see today, because all the top
> competitors skate for the most points they can get.
>
> ken
>
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 20 Jun 2006 23:01:15
From: Ken Fox
Subject: Re: How did tamping become popular in the US?
|
"Robert Harmon" <r_h_harmon@Zhotmail.com > wrote in message
news:754mg.9042$o4.2310@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Heavens, athletes that must display their athleticism to win? Avery
> Brundidge must be rolling over in his grave just thinking about 'athletic'
> events in today's Olympics - ice dancing, rhythmic gymnastics, etc. Give
> me an event like the 100 or 200 meter; now that's sports! Or a good card
> of three round amateur boxing matches.
>
> At the very least they should keep the pansy-assed 'sports' in the Winter
> Olympics where they belong.
>
> Robert (ciao) Harmon
>
Completely off topic, however:
Women skaters are all washed up by the time they hit their mid 20s; the men
can last a little bit longer but by 30 it is unlikely they will win major
events.
In order to compete at these young ages the young girls and boys start many
years beforehand. I wouldn't support the notion that the legions of kids
who train for these sports (of whom only a very few ever attain any name
recognition) benefit much from risking serious future and in many cases
permanent orthopedic problems.
The sport as it exists now is unduly dangerous for the participants, most of
whom will never win any medals but many of whom will have life-altering
injuries anyway, often as teenagers.
ken
|
| | |
Date: 21 Jun 2006 02:45:12
From: Andy Schecter
Subject: Re: How did tamping become popular in the US?
|
Omniryx@gmail.com wrote:
> Actually, the leadership has to decide what it wants. If the desire is
> for meticulous compliance with a lengthy set of technical standards and
> rules, then this is like a dressage competition in the horse world.
C'mon, Will. No one wants that, and that's not what we presently have. There
undoubtedly are too many tech specs on the score sheets, but even as is, the
sensory evaluation comprises 2/3 of the points.
> If the desire is for a compelling spectator sport that demonstrates
> daring levels of achievement, then this is like open jumping.
You haven't been paying attention. The desire is NOT for a compelling
spectator sport. It's about the coffee, coffee, coffee, that's ALL it's about.
To wit: each butt-tamping, nose-picking barista silently prepares his or her
beverages backstage. Then a black-hooded waiter (carefully selected to be free
of distracting body odor) rushs them out to the waiting sensory judges (who
sit behind a curtain so as not to be distracted by the immense partisan crowd).
This procedure ensures that the judges can concentrate on the COFFEE COFFEE
coffee, NOT technique, showmanship, musical selection, personality, tattoos,
or really cool hair.
> So decide what you want, barisiti...
Indeed. :-)
BTW, the official USBC site says:
> WHAT ARE THE JUDGES LOOKING FOR IN A US CHAMPION?
> One who has a mastery of technical skills, craftsmanship, and who is
> passionate about their profession.
> High quality beverages served.
> One who has a broad understanding of coffee knowledge.
> One who may serve as a role model and a source of inspiration for
> others.
Apparently, the folks who came up with this were looking for more than just a
coffee savant or entertainer.
Score sheets and more at: http://www.scaa.org/about_usbc.asp
--
-Andy S.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/andy_s/sets/
http://tinyurl.com/eh0x
|
| | | |
Date: 21 Jun 2006 03:03:29
From: Paul Monaghan
Subject: Re: How did tamping become popular in the US?
|
On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 02:45:12 GMT, Andy Schecter
<schecter@remove.me.rochester.rr.com > wrote:
>BTW, the official USBC site says:
>
>> WHAT ARE THE JUDGES LOOKING FOR IN A US CHAMPION?
>> One who has a mastery of technical skills, craftsmanship, and who is
>> passionate about their profession.
>> High quality beverages served.
>> One who has a broad understanding of coffee knowledge.
>> One who may serve as a role model and a source of inspiration for
>> others.
>
>Apparently, the folks who came up with this were looking for more than just a
>coffee savant or entertainer.
Hey Andy,
Makes sense to me except for that loaded term "technical skills," of
course, which if overemphasized would tend to produce savants, which I
think is the whole point of your opposition in this thread...
Best,
Paul "still envying YO BATF"
|
|
