# Hoffman on Espresso



## vintagecigarman (Aug 10, 2009)

Spotted a link to this on another forum - but I'm posting it here because I think it will arouse both interest and discussion:

http://nordicbaristacup.com/2011/08/nbc-2011-talks-james-hoffmann-reinventing-espresso/

I've thoroughly enjoyed watching it.


----------



## ChiarasDad (Mar 21, 2010)

I watched this last night. Really excellent.


----------



## seeq (Jul 9, 2011)

Interesting watch. I can see why it's hard to agree with his vision of the future. I see where he's coming from, but the fact espresso is difficult is what makes it an art and the main reason many of us are interested in it. Under his image of the future I think it would cheapen things and lose the interest in producing good coffee.


----------



## JohnnieWalker (Aug 24, 2011)

I can see where he's coming from, as a newbie here maybe I find it easier to find faults with the equipment currently available, most of this will be due to lack of knowledge and understanding, however there's a chance that by asking some basic questions about what, why and how things are currently done that the may be more innovation.

Whilst I'm sure many here would be horrified at the thought of a machine that could do a better job than you are able to do, consistently and at the touch of a button, there are many who would welcome such a machine.

It's why there are still classic car clubs, after all in the last 100 years or so, cars now are so much better at what they do than they used to be, ie transport the occupants from a to b, that there really is no logical explanation for people owning classic cars, it's just that people enjoy owning and using an outdated piece of technology that requires a great deal of time effort and money to use and own.

As a Web Designer, I choose to use a Mac because it is, in my opinion, the best tool for the job, and as a link between the ideas in my brain and the final product I don't want any obstacles, or annoyances preventing the low of creativity from reaching fruition.

To me the classic car equivalent of a computer is the windows PC, there are less stable, have flashing lights and noisy fans to distract the user and regularly require the user to click a button to confirm that you either agree, disagree, allow, disallow or merely acknowledge that you have seen and read ( although possibly not understood why ) the message has appeared on your screen, they are constantly trying to alert you to their inner workings with their hard drive activity lights and such.

I really don't care and certainly don't want to be interrupted or distracted by such things, it's not that I don't understand how computers work, just that I shouldn't need to know when the computer is doing something as normal as getting warm or accessing data from the hard drive, unless it is going to impede me from doing what I'm currently doing then why should I care.

I was explaining to a friend that I was awaiting the arrival of my first ever proper espresso machine and attempted to explain the basic requirements of making an espresso when I saw his eyes glaze over and his thoughts started to drift away. I remember thinking to myself, this does sound complicated for a cup of coffee, maybe there should be a better way.

Listening to his thoughts on an improved coffee grinder made me realise how little development has been achieved in this area considering the amount of time available.


----------



## seeq (Jul 9, 2011)

I would definately agree on the grinder part. It's a hideous thought that comercially, during a busy period that your grinder effectively is ruining your product. The only way to resolve this is by both keeping an eye on the extraction as well as taste testing periodically. How many espresso's can you or your staff taste during a busy period? and how often can you afford to hold up production to tune the grinder? Obviously the more you spend on the grinder the less noticeable the difference would be. But it is a concern that over the years there has been very little improvement overall.


----------



## 20Eyes (Mar 16, 2011)

Very interesting and entertaining presentation. I know it wasn't really within the brief of the talk, and would like to have heard him expand on it, but it was interesting to hear him point out that espresso was initially created simply to provide a faster means of providing a cup of coffee - the implication being that it's not necessarily/automatically the 'best' method or leads to the 'best' results, something which a lot of people don't seem to even consider.


----------



## Fran (Dec 27, 2010)

I watched this, and agreed with most of it. However, I don't agree on his points about Italian coffee. I've spent many many Summer holidays in our family home in Sicily, and the quality of the coffee, across the board, is better than England. If you were to offer me an espresso from a random coffee shop from Italy or England, I would chose Italy every single time.

I consider Italian espresso to be a completely different beast to 3rd wave artisan espresso - it doesn't have subtlety, it needs sugar, is made from old beans and is ~10-20% Robusta. But does it still taste superb? Yes it can. I don't think that it, or the Italian coffee industry, quite deserved the grilling it got from James. Does the espresso taste as good as 3rd wave espresso? For me, I think that I can enjoy it as much as 3rd wave, if not, sometimes, more.


----------



## MikeHag (Mar 13, 2011)

I always enjoy JH presentations. The guy's just really watchable. He seems to have had a bee in his bonnet about grinder and burr technology for a while now, based upon some of his blog posts. I'm a little surprised that he chose to make such a publicly damning statement about grinder manufacturers, rather than kick off another project with (for example) Marco to create the ultimate grinder.


----------



## CoffeeMagic (Aug 7, 2011)

I sometimes wonder if we are just getting a bit anal about the whole subject of delivery these days







. Now I am not trying to incite mass hysteria, but there are valid points raised above and also subtleties that could be read in JH's presentation. Are we becoming more demanding of perfection for the sake of it? Does it make the coffee taste better? Have we been consuming substandard coffee for years because grinders are inadequate?

When you consider that much of the process, before it gets to the barista, is based on experience and good judgement (farming, roasting, cupping) why are we demanding such precision in delivery?


----------



## vintagecigarman (Aug 10, 2009)

Fran said:


> I watched this, and agreed with most of it. However, I don't agree on his points about Italian coffee. I've spent many many Summer holidays in our family home in Sicily, and the quality of the coffee, across the board, is better than England. If you were to offer me an espresso from a random coffee shop from Italy or England, I would chose Italy every single time.


I don't think that he was having a go at the Italian espresso tradition - merely putting the development of espresso in historical context.

I've always thought that the rapid spread of the espresso machine through Italy is a very interesting social dynamic. At a time of financial difficulty and political instability, within the space of a few years virtually every coffee establishment in Italy managed to find the money to invest in a new-fangled, very expensive piece of kit. And I'm convinced that the drivers behind that were speed of service and profit.

That said, I'm with you on the overall quality of coffee in Italy, and I'm always amazed by the quality in high-volume places like railway stations and airports. (I've had some pretty poor espressos as well - but they have been few and far between.) Quality may be different to the best of UK espressos, but overall I'd be with you on Italian quality from a random selection of coffee houses being far better. What never ceases to amaze me is that when the teenage daughter of some friends from Milan visits us, she always makes a bee-line for Starbucks - but I put that down to an aberration of youth!


----------



## RoloD (Oct 13, 2010)

Fascinating. But annoying at the same.

I happen to love classic Italian espresso - I've seldom had a bad cup of coffee in Italy. I also love many of Square Mile's roasts (although not particularly the current summer espresso which I find moderately unpleasant). Whatever the historical reasons for Italian espresso machines to evolve the way they did, they ended up creating a classic drink that millions enjoy. To me, there is not much wrong with it, any more than there is much wrong with Scotch whisky or French cognac or British ale. There is a subtext that you really ought to prefer the lighter roast, more acidic coffees - but why?

There are also many contradictions there; he has a go a Schomer, but, really, many of the criticisms he makes of Schomer could be applied to himself. His point about increasing the amount of coffee doesn't not increasing the strength was nonsense - of course it makes the coffee stronger if you are delivering the same total volume - it's no different from him saying he could make the coffee stronger by putting less water through. He critisises what he sees as gimmicky innovations in brewing techniques but, at the same time, is keen to try out many of his own. He seemed to want to attack the whole institution of the espresso machine - and why should you stick with them if you don't like classic espresso? - yet of course the large part of his business is founded on supplying coffee for them.

In short, I found him arrogant and posturing, driven more by one-upmanship than an actual love of coffee.


----------



## vintagecigarman (Aug 10, 2009)

+1 on everything that you've said there. He's a fascinating watch, but there are some flaws.


----------



## MikeHag (Mar 13, 2011)

I can see your point Rolo. Personally the only problem I have with his presentation is that when you look at the content rather than the delivery he didn't actually say very much. He could have just put one slide up saying "we need better grinders" and it would have covered all the meaningful points. It was more of an entertainment piece than an educational one.

But there's something to be said for a presentation like Hoffman's that is light on content and heavy on toastmaster skills - especially if you compare it with one that is heavy on content but poorly presented. Just try watching the two presentations on the chemistry of coffee on the NBC vimeo channel. There's lots of really important information there, but it's almost impossible to watch without two matchsticks for your eyes.


----------



## crispy (Jun 6, 2011)

Hmm.. some interesting things indeed...

Aluminium does indeed expand when heated - for every degree F of temperature increase though, it expands one 12 millionth of an inch / .000012 per degree, converted to cm that is .00003048... is this really sufficient expansion to have an effect on a grinder / it's collar..?

If heat is a massive issue with grinders, why don't we liquid cool / refrigerate grinders as we can do to computers?

Also, the only way to get better coffee is to buy better beans... what qualifies as better to each individual person?

With regards to extraction of 14g versus 18g, I see this as a play on words...

If the rate of flow through the each weight is identical, then it is not that one coffee will be 'stronger' - instead 18g will yield a greater volume of coffee that is of an identical strength, eg, double versus triple espresso..

14g x 50% extraction = 7g,

18g x 50% extraction = 9g :

although total volume of coffee varies, both remain at a 50% extraction / concentration therefore an equal strength)

I suppose this has more impact when mixing the espresso with milk /water using the same 8oz cup size

7g/8oz = 0.875g / ounce ,

9g/8oz = 1.125g / ounce (different concentration / strength)

I do agree with his mention of timing, although I am sure a number of individuals go on yield weight instead due to variance in tamping consistency, humidity +other factors...

the subjective 'blonding' issue I agree with, something only each individual can control with their own subjective parameters... surely you would have to use a colour chart to consistently define this, although this colour chart when viewed by each individual would look different...

Indeed lots of questions raised, but kind of in a pretentious manner... never seen him before but I am sure he holds his own opinion in a high regard (maybe justifiably so) although this is not unlike a number of food critics and other connoisseurs...

would be interesting to see how many people would throw away their grinders and machines tomorrow if he said this was the next step forward...


----------



## RoloD (Oct 13, 2010)

Yes, the 14g/18g thing is a word game - put more coffee in the basket and the coffee is going to come out either stronger for the same volume or a larger volume for the same strength, all things being equal (which, of course, they are not, since surely flow rate would be reduced with a tighter packed basket?). Anyway, that's all pretty irrelevant.

I'm all in favour of demystifying coffee and challenging its fetishisation but I thought his scorn of Schomer was cheap - Schomer's book (I've only read the one) is well-researched and well-argued - you might not agree with everything he says but he seems far less attention-seeking than Hoffman, whatever his choice of neckwear. Schomer also has more respect for the Italian origins of espresso.

It does strike me as strange to dismiss Italian coffee when almost all the technology of espresso is Italian designed (or derived from Italian machines) and has been developed over decades to deliver that particular style (and not all Italian style coffee, by the way, contains robusta). Of course it is in Hoffman's interest that we all buy 'third wave artisan coffee' and keep searching for new flavours and novelty - it's not worth his while competing in the traditional Italian market where there is too much competition and the profit margins lower.

Of course Square Mile makes some wonderful coffee - some of the best I've tasted. It's also expensive and a little over-hyped and they do get it wrong sometimes. And because a coffee is 'complex and interesting' doesn't mean you have to like it. Yes, lighter roasting might bring out more flavours, but I don't particularly like a lot of those flavours. Suggesting high roasting was developed to compensate for low quality beans is a bit like saying curry was developed to obscure the taste of rotten meat - possibly true, but I don't care. I like higher roasts and I love curry.


----------



## 20Eyes (Mar 16, 2011)

RoloD said:


> Suggesting high roasting was developed to compensate for low quality beans is a bit like saying curry was developed to obscure the taste of rotten meat - possibly true, but I don't care. I like higher roasts and I love curry.


Excellent analogy, and one I completely agree with. The other negative I came away with after the full presentation was that, in essence, he seemed to be saying, "Give me a perfect coffee bean, perfectly roasted, a perfect grinder and a perfect machine/brewing method with which to make the drink - ideally with one press of a button - and everything'll be great". I mean, yes, but isn't that rather stating the obvious to Biblical proportions?

And are grinders really that bad? Surely any half-decent seller who fears that overuse of the grinder may be ruining their drinks would simply install a couple more grinders for use during busy periods?


----------



## RoloD (Oct 13, 2010)

> really[/i] that bad? Surely any half-decent seller who fears that overuse of the grinder may be ruining their drinks would simply install a couple more grinders for use during busy periods?


Yes, are coffee shops owners banging their heads against the wall because their Mazzers aren't up to the job? Hoffman says there's been no innovation in grinders over the last few decades but... well, their job is pretty simple really, isn't it? Grinding up beans into a powder. In engineering terms, that seems a very straightforward task.

I'd preferred it if Hoffman had talked more about the beans and the blends themselves; that's his business and that's what he's good at.


----------



## 20Eyes (Mar 16, 2011)

Agreed. Hoffman appears to make the conclusion that because grinder 'technology' hasn't changed much in the last 50 years it must mean that progress stopped before its time and buyers are being deprived of superior products. That is one way of looking at it. The other way of looking at it is that grinding, as a process, has been around for many thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of years and is a very, very simple process - arguably the simplest process in food/drink preparation as it can be done with far less specific tools than chopping and cutting - and therefore it didn't take long for manufacturers to deliver products that did the job as well as needed (and were possibly massively over-specified in real terms).

I suspect that once you get up to machines such as the Mazzer Royal, you could almost certainly 'better' it if you had limitless finances to play with but there must come a point where the law of diminishing returns essentially means that electric coffee grinders got to the point where no advances were going to make a significant difference in about... well, a fair few decades ago.


----------



## MikeHag (Mar 13, 2011)

Taking Monsieur Hoffman out of the firing line a little, I wonder whether there exist any methods other than grinding that the scientific world already uses to produce powders, particles and 'grinds', and that could feasibly be applied to coffee bean on a commercial basis.

My dad in law's a brew chemist. Think I'll quiz him.


----------



## vintagecigarman (Aug 10, 2009)

...mmm. Coffee beans precision cut to just the right size particles by laser, perhaps? ;>)))

Edit: Just had a thought: why not go the other way? An espresso machine working under such high pressure it will operate with whole beans?


----------



## Danielowenuk (Aug 12, 2011)

I think his point about grinders is valid given the context of his presentation, it was after all based on the evolution of expresso, and if grinders are the same as was being used 50 years ago then that's surely a sign of technology not keeping pace.

For a newbie it was an interesting presentation if not a little over my head.


----------



## RoloD (Oct 13, 2010)

Danielowenuk said:


> I think his point about grinders is valid given the context of his presentation, it was after all based on the evolution of expresso, and if grinders are the same as was being used 50 years ago then that's surely a sign of technology not keeping pace.


Well, coffee cups haven't changed much either - is that a problem? A grinder has to grind beans into a powder with a consistent but adjustable degree of granularity without heating them. What else do we want it to do? What is the grinder supposed to be keeping pace with?

I suppose someone may come along and say what if instead of grinding the beans into granules it sliced them into tiny microthin discs creating a larger surface area for each particle? And then we find more flavour can be extracted from the same amount of coffee and the world of coffee is transformed. Well, if that happens I'll just have to humbly apologise for my lack of foresight. Until then I'll stick to my opinion that Hoffman is a bit of a tosser who roasts some great coffee.


----------



## garydyke1 (Mar 9, 2011)

Name one 'perfect' grinder......it doesnt exist. Hence WDT, Stockfleth etc etc have been developed to overcome grinder shortfalls. Clearly technology hasnt kept up with us, has it?

The Versalab M3 comes close - doserless, clumpless, neat nearly perfect pile of coffee in portafilter. However, it doesnt come cheap, isnt easily available and doesnt deal with by the gram dosing. It also requires modding on the belt drive to prevent slipping with lighter roasts.

You should in this day and age be able to by a grinder for sub £500 which is a lot better than the versalab! Christ , look at what kind of TV £500 can buy you compared to 15 years ago!!!


----------



## RoloD (Oct 13, 2010)

OK, I stand corrected on grinders. I didn't realise professional baristas found them so frustrating.

I had a look at the Versalab site. Jesus! Gas powered tampers for $445! It reminded me of a specialist/fetish hi-fi site, you know, one of the ones that maintains cables only work properly in one direction...

Of course, all these things do make a difference. I just wonder whether they make a significant difference.


----------

