# On solubility, roasts and espresso



## robashton (May 9, 2015)

So...

I've bought a lot of coffee since getting the EK and I'm running at about 75 espressos a week (not drinking them all), some observations and an open invitation for people to tell me why this is the way it is, how I'm wrong or otherwise.

It's quite clear that darker coffee is more soluble than light coffee, at least it seems to mean I have to consistently coarsen up on the EK by almost a whole number on the classic dial which I have been told is down to solubility (if this is not the case then everything else in this post is wrong too).

Most of the time this has meant that there are roasty notes as soon as I start to achieve any ordinarily "decent" level of extraction and that's blegh.

I've noticed that there is coffee from some roasters that is "light", but still ridiculously soluble with no roasty elements - I wouldn't describe it as dark - just darker, I assume I'd describe it as "well developed" - I think I have a preference towards this as it's easier to work with and tends to make it easy to get the flavours from the coffee. (think: Square Mile and similar - I'm going to assume that Dogwood and Heart are similar but I've not made anything from there yet, only drank it in shops and it seems there is a lot more to notice at the other side of the espresso machine)

I've also noticed there is coffee from some roasteries that is light and generally needs a far finer grind on the EK - this is harder to work with, harder to get a good extraction and generally means hyper fruity or acidic. I'm not generally sold on this style for spro I don't think (mostly because of it being harder to work with rather than just from flavour - perhaps as Aeropress rather than spro). (Think Has Bean and similar). Generally because it's more fruity I want to tighten up a little to balance this out but because it's less soluble I have less room to do this?

===

Ultimately this leaves me with a couple of roasters I can buy from regularly because most of them fall in the "far too roasty" spectrum or "too hard to work with and I can't be bothered". (Square Mile and Has Bean seem to be the different ends of the acceptable spectrum)

I'm now looking at going outside the UK to see if I can find some more Square Miles (if you're gonna pay that much for coffee then it becomes feasible to import too...)

A few queries then

- Square mile vs Has Bean - what is the reason for this difference? Is there a decision made somewhere for a reason which makes them so significantly different? Is it purely personal preference and in which case what is that preference?

- Solubility: Is this a metric for quality? To be as soluble as possible without introducing "defects" like ashiness, roastiness, etc to the bean? If so - what stops Has Bean and similar from going there? Obviously different beans have different solubility as well as different densities but there is consistency a noticeable difference between various roasters.

- Is there something else I can read to learn more about this and the decisions that have been made? No I'm not wanting another link to Matt Perger's writings.

I genuinely want to learn more about this because understanding it will result in me being able to make more informed decisions about purchases and judgements on quality when reviewing beans,


----------



## garydyke1 (Mar 9, 2011)

robashton said:


> A few queries then
> 
> - Square mile vs Has Bean - what is the reason for this difference? Is there a decision made somewhere for a reason which makes them so significantly different? Is it purely personal preference and in which case what is that preference?
> 
> ...


The answer i think you will find could be linked be water used at each roastery.


----------



## garydyke1 (Mar 9, 2011)

...and wait till you've tried the cupping samples.


----------



## robashton (May 9, 2015)

Is it really going to be that simple for such a huge difference?

I always assumed the water would have an effect but to such a huge extent on the roasting decisions?

That'd mean Square Mile were using RO water without putting much back in? That'd make it work well with the Ashbeck.

I guess Origin from Cornwall might be a good bet then, based on what I know about their water?


----------



## robashton (May 9, 2015)

garydyke1 said:


> ...and wait till you've tried the cupping samples.


You say that only one of them is "right", but with the water that we use we might pick something else?


----------



## robashton (May 9, 2015)

Also your water is "hyper insanity calcium" - do you tone that down in the roastery? I thought you'd have RO in to acceptable levels.


----------



## garydyke1 (Mar 9, 2011)

robashton said:


> Is it really going to be that simple for such a huge difference?


Given that the difference between the end of 1st and the start of 2nd crack is a matter of seconds / opinion then yes water does have a huge impact.

Take an imaginary coffee , having been cupped after sample roasting .

If SM are using v soft water then will cup it and go ''this is lacking body and sweetness'' so next time would push a little further.

Whereas another roaster using calcium rich water might conclude '' this is full of sweetness and great body, but its still clean and juicy lets keep it where it is , we don't want to introduce a trace of roast flavour''


----------



## garydyke1 (Mar 9, 2011)

robashton said:


> Also your water is "hyper insanity calcium" - do you tone that down in the roastery? I thought you'd have RO in to acceptable levels.


Claris everpure fliters. RO is in the pipeline.

We've cupped our coffees next to others with all sorts of water, ashbeck is generally (comparatively) shockingly bad with all coffee.


----------



## garydyke1 (Mar 9, 2011)

robashton said:


> You say that only one of them is "right", but with the water that we use we might pick something else?


Its unlikely , without giving anything away.

You cant remove roasty flavours with any water


----------



## robashton (May 9, 2015)

garydyke1 said:


> Given that the difference between the end of 1st and the start of 2nd crack is a matter of seconds / opinion then yes water does have a huge impact.''


Yeah I know very little about roasting at all, and only vaguely know that 1st and 2nd crack exist and that I want coffee between the two







- I didn't realise that it was such a tight margin for such a huge difference - it explains why most roasters do a crap job of it.

So if I start using calcium rich stuff for Has Bean I might want to keep the Ashbeck around for SM and Origin.


----------



## robashton (May 9, 2015)

garydyke1 said:


> You cant remove roasty flavours with any water


This makes sense.


----------



## garydyke1 (Mar 9, 2011)

robashton said:


> So if I start using calcium rich stuff for Has Bean I might want to keep the Ashbeck around for SM and Origin.


I dont even brew beer with Ashbeck anymore.

SM will taste better with better water too, you'd just change the grind setting/dose as appropriate


----------



## Xpenno (Nov 12, 2012)

robashton said:


> A few queries then
> 
> - Square mile vs Has Bean - what is the reason for this difference? Is there a decision made somewhere for a reason which makes them so significantly different? Is it purely personal preference and in which case what is that preference?
> 
> ...


1. Different roasters (the people) different roasting styles, different roasters (the machines), different takes on what makes the perfect roast, different water, different brewing styles... literally everything is different.

2. To a degree, maybe more so for espresso imho. Filter can be less developed as you can just as easily enjoy it at lower EY.

3. I believe that this has a lot of info on roasting - http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Coffee-Roasters-COMPANION-SCOTT/dp/1495118193


----------



## robashton (May 9, 2015)

So... what's to stop Has Bean from roasting like how SM do if SM is going to taste just as good with your water?


----------



## garydyke1 (Mar 9, 2011)

robashton said:


> So... what's to stop Has Bean from roasting like how SM do if SM is going to taste just as good with your water?


We've tasted the SM roasts (har har) ; )

The way a roaster roasts coffee isn't going to change based on what someone else is doing. They use their nose, mouths and eyes to judge and cup all the time to confirm .

Half the country has water even harder than ours, you'll never win.


----------



## robashton (May 9, 2015)

garydyke1 said:


> We've tasted the SM roasts (har har) ; ).


Hoho - from what I've had they're not as "interesting" as a lot of the Has Bean stuff - I could guess that perhaps they go too far for some preferences and lose some of the more differentiating characteristics of the bean? I've certainly not tasted any "roastiness" in the beans I've used so far. (It'd be hard to tell unless I had the same bean from the same farm side by side from the two of you)..


----------



## garydyke1 (Mar 9, 2011)

robashton said:


> Hoho - from what I've had they're not as "interesting" as a lot of the Has Bean stuff - I could guess that perhaps they go too far for some preferences and lose some of the more differentiating characteristics of the bean? I've certainly not tasted any "roastiness" in the beans I've used so far. (It'd be hard to tell unless I had the same bean from the same farm side by side from the two of you)..


and every roaster will have off days and amazing days. There is a range of development for each coffee, some are more forgiving than others. El Salvadors and Brazils can be taken much further than say Ethiopians without introducing a roasty edge .

and 'how developed' isn't the be all and end all.

You can stall/bake a roast, or rush it. Sometimes coffee smells amazing when ground but then fails in the cup , it might be amazing green and be properly developed but have been baked or rushed


----------



## jeebsy (May 5, 2013)

garydyke1 said:


> ashbeck is generally (comparatively) shockingly bad with all coffee.


is it the best 'off the shelf' choice?


----------



## garydyke1 (Mar 9, 2011)

jeebsy said:


> is it the best 'off the shelf' choice?


Volvic , waitrose both taste better IMO with the EK.

Spences magic water is better than all of them


----------



## Mrboots2u (May 10, 2013)

Xpenno said:


> 1. Different roasters (the people) different roasting styles, different roasters (the machines), different takes on what makes the perfect roast, different water, different brewing styles... literally everything is different.


This.. One man's sweetness is another man's roasty ( sensory lab espresso blends for a start )


----------



## robashton (May 9, 2015)

Ta chaps, good to know my observations aren't a pile of tosh and to get a bit info on the whys


----------



## robashton (May 9, 2015)

Mrboots2u said:


> This.. One man's sweetness is another man's roasty ( sensory lab espresso blends for a start )


Yeah ah but they're just wrong right?


----------

