# Dark and light



## jamfit (Apr 27, 2015)

This could be a stupid question but I'm going to put it out there anyway.

i have been buying my coffee from the Algerian Coffee Store in London, working through there vast range, occasionally using the supermarkets when necessary.

recently I have been getting a by-monthly subscription from the fabulous Bean Brothers, my question is why dose one seem to roast the beans light and the other dark?

again sorry for what is probably silly question


----------



## Drewster (Dec 1, 2013)

One of which?

Do you mean one Bean brother dark the other light...

The Bean Brothers light (or dark) and the Algerian dark (or light)....

Or the Brothers and the Algerians dark and the supermarket light......


----------



## jamfit (Apr 27, 2015)

Sorry it was clear in my head;

Algerian is dark

Bean Brothers is light

with the supermarket ones somewhere in the middle and a bit waxed by the look of them


----------



## Mrboots2u (May 10, 2013)

They roast to develop the taste they want to from the beans

Bean Brothers aren't really that light

Algerian store is pretty dark dark ....


----------



## Drewster (Dec 1, 2013)

I would imagine that Algerian would tend towards "traditional" roasts (ie fairly dark)... Think Turkish, Arab type coffee and you certainly aren't in the light roast arena...

Bean Brothers would be a bit more trendy/Third Wave/Hipster (or whatever you might call it)...

Supermarkets are a bit of a red herring as they almost certainly won't be fresh roasted beans (wether light or dark).... and will tend to be more "generic" coffee than specialist.


----------



## Drewster (Dec 1, 2013)

Drewster said:


> My waffle


Yeah what Boots said


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

It depends how the roaster is trying to present the beans. Darker roasts are what the general population are more used to, more bittersweet flavours, high intensity of flavour (without being technically "stronger", think Guinness vs Becks?). Some roasters prefer to roast lighter as they feel that the flavours can be more representative of origin, less 'generic coffee' flavour? More sweetness & fruitiness?

Too dark and the coffee may simply taste of ash, too light & it may be bland, woody, herby?

The same bean, but more developed will be easier to extract, so often we grind darker roasts coarser & lighter roasts finer to compensate.


----------



## Mrboots2u (May 10, 2013)

Drewster said:


> Yeah what Boots said


Taste , as is colour of roast is subjective

Ive tried both roasters

Bean brothers aren't really " third wave orange juice roasters " not at least the blends i tried - they do have beards

Algerian is darth vader territory


----------



## jamfit (Apr 27, 2015)

What would be a example of a lighter roast ?

Would I be right in thinking that the same bean roasted by different companies to different levels would result in different taste?


----------



## garydyke1 (Mar 9, 2011)

Oh god. Tin hats on


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

jamfit said:


> What would be a example of a lighter roast ?
> 
> Would I be right in thinking that the same bean roasted by different companies to different levels would result in different taste?


Yes, but there would be a range of roasts where the origin of the bean (being a product of its environment) would shine through, at extremes of either end it may just be generic.


----------



## Mrboots2u (May 10, 2013)

garydyke1 said:


> Oh god. Tin hats on


Brewed and ready


----------



## garydyke1 (Mar 9, 2011)

Dont try to make a Brazil PN bright and zingy and dont try to make an Ethiopian or Kenyan chocolately


----------



## Obnic (Jan 14, 2014)

garydyke1 said:


> Dont try to make a Brazil PN bright and zingy and dont try to make an Ethiopian or Kenyan chocolately


I've had an Ethiopian Yirgacheffe that started blueberry muffin but finished dark cocao nibs. Really yummy. Was very sad when roaster's supply ran out. Following year just wasn't the same.


----------



## garydyke1 (Mar 9, 2011)

Obnic said:


> I've had an Ethiopian Yirgacheffe that started blueberry muffin but finished dark cocao nibs. Really yummy. Was very sad when roaster's supply ran out. Following year just wasn't the same.


That'll be a natural quite rare for there to be chocolate notes. My point is roast for the individual bean/origin not for the sake of a style of roasting


----------



## Obnic (Jan 14, 2014)

^ Agreed


----------



## hotmetal (Oct 31, 2013)

Mrboots2u said:


> Algerian is darth vader territory


Lol! "You don't know the power of the Dark(er) Side (of life)"


----------



## jamfit (Apr 27, 2015)

garydyke1 said:


> My point is roast for the individual bean/origin not for the sake of a style of roasting


Dose that mean that the bean should dictate the level of roast, not the coffee roasters imposing a default level to create a brand or style... Might have the wrong end of the wrong stick but I'll get there .


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

jamfit said:


> Dose that mean that the bean should dictate the level of roast, not the coffee roasters imposing a default level to create a brand or style... Might have the wrong end of the wrong stick but I'll get there .


No, because there's a range of subjective preference ...the roasters have customers who come back for more of the same, so swinging from one end of the scale to the other would be tricky for their customers & probably make for inconsistent product. That said, roasts from a roaster may vary some, as well as batches of the same bean.


----------



## jjprestidge (Oct 11, 2012)

There's not much range for a bean's optimum roast. Traditional roasters almost always over develop the beans. Speciality roasters sometimes under develop, but the good ones are more hit than miss.

I don't believe roast is that subjective - there are good and bad roasts objectively; some people like bad roasts because they've become accustomed to the flavours they produce. That's their prerogative, but it doesn't mean the roast is good - it just means that they like those flavours. To use an analogy, some people like very sweet, light wines, like white zindandel, but I don't think many would argue that these wines are objectively good.

JP


----------



## garydyke1 (Mar 9, 2011)

jjprestidge said:


> There's not much range for a bean's optimum roast. Traditional roasters almost always over develop the beans. Speciality roasters sometimes under develop, but the good ones are more hit than miss.
> 
> I don't believe roast is that subjective - there are good and bad roasts objectively; some people like bad roasts because they've become accustomed to the flavours they produce. That's their prerogative, but it doesn't mean the roast is good - it just means that they like those flavours. To use an analogy, some people like very sweet, light wines, like white zindandel, but I don't think many would argue that these wines are objectively good.
> 
> JP


I think specialty is creeping away from 'as light as possible to preserve nature' to 'as soluble as possible without introducing undesirable flavours'. Two very different things, however there is more to it :

You can take an amazing washed Ethiopian and roast it 'medium' but to the same profile as a Brazilian coffee and it will be as boring as hell. Not dark, developed yes & soluble yes but boring and not highlighting the amazing acidity which African coffee is famous for .


----------



## jjprestidge (Oct 11, 2012)

garydyke1 said:


> I think specialty is creeping away from 'as light as possible to preserve nature' to 'as soluble as possible without introducing undesirable flavours'. Two very different things, however there is more to it :
> 
> You can take an amazing washed Ethiopian and roast it 'medium' but to the same profile as a Brazilian coffee and it will be as boring as hell. Not dark, developed yes & soluble yes but boring and not highlighting the amazing acidity which African coffee is famous for .


True, and that's a good thing.

We've just been running a few US roasters in the shop and I've been disappointed with their roastiness, which manifests as a lack of clarity, so there needs to be some balance.

JP


----------



## garydyke1 (Mar 9, 2011)

jjprestidge said:


> True, and that's a good thing.
> 
> We've just been running a few US roasters in the shop and I've been disappointed with their roastiness, which manifests as a lack of clarity, so there needs to be some balance.
> 
> JP


Ive yet to be wow'd by any US coffee and we've cupped a lot of it. Seems to be roasty or under developed and /or boring.


----------



## jjprestidge (Oct 11, 2012)

garydyke1 said:


> Ive yet to be wow'd by any US coffee and we've cupped a lot of it. Seems to be roasty or under developed and /or boring.


Only good one was Ben Put's WBC coffee (Canada not US, but close enough). That was exceptional.

JP


----------



## Drewster (Dec 1, 2013)

jjprestidge said:


> There's not much range for a bean's optimum roast. Traditional roasters almost always over develop the beans. Speciality roasters sometimes under develop, but the good ones are more hit than miss.
> 
> I don't believe roast is that subjective - *there are good and bad roasts objectively*; some people like bad roasts because they've become accustomed to the flavours they produce. That's their prerogative, but it doesn't mean the roast is good - it just means that they like those flavours. To use an analogy, some people like very sweet, light wines, like white zindandel, but I don't think many would argue that these wines are objectively good.
> 
> JP


Really? How do you define objective in this context?

Taste preference is subjective....


----------



## Mrboots2u (May 10, 2013)

Drewster said:


> Really? How do you define objective in this context?
> 
> Taste preference is subjective....


You cant get the coffee out.....


----------



## Drewster (Dec 1, 2013)

Mrboots2u said:


> ...get the coffee out.....


Happily sipping the CC LSOL as we speak


----------



## jjprestidge (Oct 11, 2012)

Drewster said:


> Really? How do you define objective in this context?
> 
> Taste preference is subjective....


Taste preference is unrelated to how good something is. There are many people in the world who would prefer a burger from McDonalds to a dish from one of the world's greatest restaurants, like Noma. You wouldn't argue that the former is equal to the latter, though, would you?

JP


----------



## Spazbarista (Dec 6, 2011)

jjprestidge said:


> Taste preference is unrelated to how good something is. There are many people in the world who would prefer a burger from McDonalds to a dish from one of the world's greatest restaurants, like Noma. You wouldn't argue that the former is equal to the latter, though, would you?
> 
> JP


Depends what qualities you are referring to when you use the word 'good'.


----------



## Xpenno (Nov 12, 2012)

jjprestidge said:


> Taste preference is unrelated to how good something is. There are many people in the world who would prefer a burger from McDonalds to a dish from one of the world's greatest restaurants, like Noma. You wouldn't argue that the former is equal to the latter, though, would you?
> 
> JP


Apples don't equal oranges. The two can never be equal as they are different however different people can prefer one or the other. Do you like your steak rare or well done? I have a preference but since the measure of success is if you enjoy eating it or not then neither is optimal, no?


----------



## 4085 (Nov 23, 2012)

Coffee Compass quite often take a bean, and roast it to two different levels, usually about medium and then mahogany. Each variety is exceptionally good but you have to accept that to some people brand a will be nicer than brand b. So, theban should not dictate anything at all in my view. It ought to be unto the roaster to sample batch the bean until he is happy with the results.....and I am guessing, that a lot of roasters, especially ones who rely upon computer programmes and not common sense, are seriously missing a trick.


----------



## Mrboots2u (May 10, 2013)

dfk41 said:


> Coffee Compass quite often take a bean, and roast it to two different levels, usually about medium and then mahogany. Each variety is exceptionally good but you have to accept that to some people brand a will be nicer than brand b. So, theban should not dictate anything at all in my view. It ought to be unto the roaster to sample batch the bean until he is happy with the results.....and I am guessing, that a lot of roasters, especially ones who rely upon computer programmes and not common sense, are seriously missing a trick.


Computers allow a degree of consistency and replication

Roasters i know who use them , still taste after


----------



## foundrycoffeeroasters.com (Jun 19, 2014)

The computer just records what you've done, so that you can do the same thing again if the roast turns out well. I'm not aware of any hardware or software that will tell you how a bean should be roasted.


----------



## Spazbarista (Dec 6, 2011)

dfk41 said:


> I am guessing, that a lot of roasters, especially ones who rely upon computer programmes and not common sense, are seriously missing a trick.


Yes, you are guessing.

I've been to a few roasters and I've yet to see one that doesn't studiously sample roast and then tweak tweak tweak.

Computerised systems are expensive, and seem to be used by roasters who are in high demand, have a high turnover and don't have time to stand over every roast with a stopwatch and a thermometer.

That doesn't mean they didn't put the work in, in the first place.


----------



## foundrycoffeeroasters.com (Jun 19, 2014)

When we first started, we didn't use software at all but now I'm not sure how we ever managed without to be honest. Everything affects how the beans interact with the heat. The second roast of the day will run very differently to the 10th. The ambient temperature, humidity etc all affect things on a day to day basis. So even if you make the same adjustments to the gas or airflow at exactly the same time, you won't be able to get the same results at the end. The software merely allows you to see how the bean temp (more accurately the temp inside the drum) developed over the course of the roast that you eventually selected as best suiting the beans.

Once you have this, it's about using your skill to get the roasts to follow this same profile. Then you get the consistency and your customers get beans that are the same at the ones their mates told them all about!


----------



## 4085 (Nov 23, 2012)

Ok, I stand corrected regarding computer programmes. But, does anyone know of any other roasters other than CC who this practice of roasting the same bean differently and getting good results? The reason I ask is that most people you talk to say that the way thy roast the bean is the optimum in their view for it...odd?


----------



## Mrboots2u (May 10, 2013)

dfk41 said:


> Ok, I stand corrected regarding computer programmes. But, does anyone know of any other roasters other than CC who this practice of roasting the same bean differently and getting good results? The reason I ask is that most people you talk to say that the way thy roast the bean is the optimum in their view for it...odd?


Atkinsons used to have a few beans ( 2-3 ) at different roast levels , stopped a while ago though...I just dont think the over counter volume meant it was cost effective and in general they are slammed out roasting each day in larger qtys now


----------



## jonners (Apr 26, 2013)

Redber have several beans available at different roasts.


----------



## Drewster (Dec 1, 2013)

jjprestidge said:


> Taste preference is unrelated to how good something is. There are many people in the world who would prefer a burger from McDonalds to a dish from one of the world's greatest restaurants, like Noma. You wouldn't argue that the former is equal to the latter, though, would you?
> 
> JP


I would argue that how good something was was subjective....

Oh look that's what I did already... you just ignored it!

If I was starving I might think that the sh*te that even Ronald wouldn't serve was the best meal ever..... but it'd be just as subjective!!


----------



## Phil104 (Apr 15, 2014)

Presumably when you are offered a choice of the same beans for espresso or pour over by a roaster (e.g., Cast Iron), they are roasted to a different profile&#8230; are they?


----------



## jjprestidge (Oct 11, 2012)

Drewster said:


> I would argue that how good something was was subjective....
> 
> Oh look that's what I did already... you just ignored it!
> 
> If I was starving I might think that the sh*te that even Ronald wouldn't serve was the best meal ever..... but it'd be just as subjective!!


Subjectivism is such a discredited theory in philosophy that it's tiresome to have an argument about it in other contexts. Taken to it's conclusion it is a ludicrous theory, where Shakespeare could be said to be no better than, say, Enid Blyton.

JP


----------



## Spazbarista (Dec 6, 2011)

jjprestidge said:


> Subjectivism is such a discredited theory in philosophy that it's tiresome to have an argument about it in other contexts. Taken to it's conclusion it is a ludicrous theory, where Shakespeare could be said to be no better than, say, Enid Blyton.


Its inappropriate to have an argument about it in this context.

However, I'll take you on if you want a philosophical discussion of taste. I'm with Kant on this, that the first necessary condition of a judgment of taste is that it is essentially subjective. Judgments of taste are based on a feeling of pleasure or displeasure. This is what distinguishes a judgment of taste from an empirical judgment.


----------



## Daren (Jan 16, 2012)

Enid Blyton rules. End of.


----------



## jjprestidge (Oct 11, 2012)

Spazbarista said:


> Its inappropriate to have an argument about it in this context.
> 
> However, I'll take you on if you want a philosophical discussion of taste. I'm with Kant on this, that the first necessary condition of a judgment of taste is that it is essentially subjective. Judgments of taste are based on a feeling of pleasure or displeasure. This is what distinguishes a judgment of taste from an empirical judgment.


Kant is vastly overrated; obfuscation seems to be his trademark. Anyway, this hardly helps our discussion - I don't deny that taste is subjective, I merely say that what is good and bad is unrelated to an individual's taste. Many people like

One Direction, but you wouldn't argue that they're equal to Beethoven, would you?

JP


----------



## Spazbarista (Dec 6, 2011)

jjprestidge said:


> I merely say that what is good and bad is unrelated to an individual's taste.


If it isn't, then what is it related to?


----------



## Daren (Jan 16, 2012)

One Direction rule. End of.


----------



## Xpenno (Nov 12, 2012)

jjprestidge said:


> Kant is vastly overrated; obfuscation seems to be his trademark. Anyway, this hardly helps our discussion - I don't deny that taste is subjective, I merely say that what is good and bad is unrelated to an individual's taste. Many people like
> 
> One Direction, but you wouldn't argue that they're equal to Beethoven, would you?
> 
> JP


So are you saying that a bean roasted to your preference is unarguably better than one roasted to someone else's preference?


----------



## coffeechap (Apr 5, 2012)

jjprestidge said:


> . Many people like
> 
> One Direction, but you wouldn't argue that they're equal to Beethoven, would you?
> 
> JP


That all depends on the perspective of the listener


----------



## jjprestidge (Oct 11, 2012)

Spazbarista said:


> If it isn't, then what is it related to?


If you're going to question that, then you first need to address my question: if subjectivism holds true then how is it that Shakespeare isn't equated with Archer?

JP


----------



## Daren (Jan 16, 2012)

Must hold tongue....


----------



## Obnic (Jan 14, 2014)

I'm with Spaz.

Taste is by definition subjective. And context influences taste. I don't like Enid Blyton but my children do. But then I do like reading Famous Five to them at bedtime.

What's 'good' is simply a consensus over time. Arguably context has a bearing on this too. Van Gough sold nothing during his lifetime because his art did not fit the aesthetes' zeitgeist. Over time people have concluded he is genius.

Incidentally, his work is also to my taste but not to those awarding the Turner prize for art. They prefer grubby sheets.


----------



## Mrboots2u (May 10, 2013)

Brian Cant?


----------



## Obnic (Jan 14, 2014)

I'm also with Daren on One Direction! And Archer's novels too actually - good airplane read, drop in bin before clearing baggage reclaim.


----------



## Obnic (Jan 14, 2014)

Mrboots2u said:


> Brian Cant?


Finger bobs! Genius.


----------



## Daren (Jan 16, 2012)

Brian can't what?



Mrboots2u said:


> Brian Cant?


----------



## Mrboots2u (May 10, 2013)

Daren said:


> Brian can't what?


Play away


----------



## jjprestidge (Oct 11, 2012)

Xpenno said:


> So are you saying that a bean roasted to your preference is unarguably better than one roasted to someone else's preference?


No - I'm saying that there is a narrow range of profiles that work for a particular bean, and that some people have weird taste and therefore have preferences that are clearly wrong.

I can see that this is going to become a tiresome argument, so this is it for me.

JP


----------



## urbanbumpkin (Jan 30, 2013)

Mrboots2u said:


> Play away


Even if Yoffy lifted a finger?


----------



## Drewster (Dec 1, 2013)

jjprestidge said:


> Subjectivism is such a discredited theory in philosophy that it's tiresome to have an argument about it in other contexts. Taken to it's conclusion it is a ludicrous theory, where Shakespeare could be said to be no better than, say, Enid Blyton.
> 
> JP


Could I just say that that is just pretentious b0ll0cks!

There is no genuinely objective measure of best in any of your examples - you may be able to quote all sorts of highbrow philosophy and to talk condescendingly about how tiresome and how ludicrous it is. I would wager that there are millions of people in the world who would argue that Enid Blyton is better than Shakespeare - I am not saying they are right or wrong... because it is their subjective opinion not an objective measure.

You can carry on with your pretentiousness as much as you like - I am done.


----------



## coffeechap (Apr 5, 2012)

jjprestidge said:


> .
> 
> I can see that this is going to become a tiresome argument, so this is it for me.
> 
> JP


get bogged down, even though you are the main protagonist then get out when the weight of the masses does not agree with you!


----------



## Mrboots2u (May 10, 2013)

coffeechap said:


> get bogged down, even though you are the main protagonist then get out when the weight of the masses does not agree with you!


Are you calling me fat


----------



## Jon (Dec 3, 2010)

jjprestidge said:


> I can see that this is going to become a tiresome argument


Become!?!

Bit late there mate.

Or is this objectively not tiresome already - I just subjectively think it is?


----------



## Xpenno (Nov 12, 2012)

jjprestidge said:


> No - I'm saying that there is a narrow range of profiles that work for a particular bean, and that some people have weird taste and therefore have preferences that are clearly wrong.
> 
> I can see that this is going to become a tiresome argument, so this is it for me.
> 
> JP


Ok, trying to make this more productive then. When you say work with a bean, how do you define that? Are you using extraction? Taste? Help us understand instead of simply saying everything else is wrong.


----------



## Spazbarista (Dec 6, 2011)

jjprestidge said:


> If you're going to question that, then you first need to address my question: if subjectivism holds true then how is it that Shakespeare isn't equated with Archer?
> 
> JP


I already have. I'm with Kant on this. See my last but one post.

I'm far more interested that you have invoked philosophy to discuss taste, especially as you have what seems to be a very unconventional view and not one I encountered when writing my thesis of Aesthetics. I'd like you to expand on this:



> I merely say that what is good and bad is unrelated to an individual's taste.


As we are talking about coffee, which is appreciated purely by gustatory and olefactory means, I am fascinated to know how a judgement of good or bad can be unrelated to an 'individual's taste'. If not then to whose taste is it related, and if it is unrelated to taste then to what is it related?


----------



## garydyke1 (Mar 9, 2011)

The only way to resolve this is a mass cupping session. Its amazing what tastes great or poor in isolation can suddenly be amazing / terrible along side other coffees


----------

