The Nespresso CitiZ, or how McDonald’s has become the home espresso of the future
Posted by TheShot on 16 Oct 2009 | Tagged as: Beans, Consumer Trends, Home Brew, Machine
A little over two years ago, we lamented the state of populist retail home espresso by reviewing what we thought was one of the better options at the time, the Nespresso C180 Le Cube: The Home Espresso Machine Blues: Rating today’s state of consumer espresso machines. Besides having a name that sounded regrettably familiar to Renault’s Le Car of the late 1970s, we found the Le Cube to be typical of superautomated, pod-based home espresso machines at the time: the overpackaged, overpriced convenience of consistently stale coffee.
Since then we’ve had a whopper of a global recession — and all the mathematically-precise/psychologically-ignorant cost-savings come-ons for home brewing that have followed. With the Fall 2009 release of Nespresso’s new product line, the CitiZ, we wanted to test if the populist retail home espresso situation had changed through all of that.
It’s not an espresso machine, it’s a lifestyle
We first wrote about the new CitiZ line a few months ago in a critique of Nestlé’s recent environmental chest-beating: Nespresso and the definition of greenwashing. If Nestlé’s primary product line goals were to deliberately maximize materials extraction, manufacturing production, and waste by-products with each coffee serving, it’s hard to imagine the Nespresso coming out much differently than it appears today.
As with the Le Cube, we approached one of these new Nespresso beasts in its native habitat: a mainstream kitchenware retailer. Upon entering the Sur La Table, we were accosted with the massive marketing expense of what looked like a cardboard Playland promoting the new CitiZ line. Nestlé is clearly wheeling up dump trucks full of money for their consumer retail marketing campaign. This flash of cash seems like Nespresso’s attempt to convince consumers of its “upscale” ambitions.
Heading to the back of the store, we opted to test with a Nespresso CitiZ & Milk — which sports a built-in milk frother that we had no intention of using. In case you’re not familiar, Nespresso takes a Jelly-Belly-style approach to the coffee varieties in its capsules. Some of these coffee capsules brandish Nespresso’s new, lofty “Grand Cru” designation. However, for consistency, we opted to stick with the scary “flavor” concept known as a Ristretto capsule.
We inserted the capsule and pushed the “espresso” button (represented with an icon of the smaller of two cups). The extraction started out promising enough: a laminar flow of medium-to-dark brown crema from the get-go. We were honestly impressed at first — maybe things have gotten better?
But then the pour kept coming. And coming. And as it did, the richer brown crema turned into a more turbulent flow of what looked like a milky, splotchy hot chocolate with uneven bubbles. Not exactly appetizing. In just several seconds, the shot rapidly turned into the meager espresso we experienced with our 2007 review of the Le Cube.
The Taste Test
Tasting the shot, it had a much frothier and greater amount of crema than we experienced with the Le Cube. But the crema quality was a bit suspect in taste as well as appearance: thin, one-dimensional, and lacking any flavor richness nor depth. The shot was also too large, resulting in a thinner body and making us wonder what diluted mess the Nespresso would have produced if we pushed the “lungo” button.
The espresso itself had a tepid flavor still on par with an average Starbucks and not much better than a McDonald’s. Like most espresso shots made from stale, pre-ground beans packed for weeks in sealed capsules, it has a narrow flavor profile consisting primarily of some mild spices and pepper. And universally, it tastes like it is “missing something” when compared with the real thing. The company and its advocates like to point out the supposed “high-tech” vacuum-sealed freshness of these capsules, but vacuum-sealing ground coffee is a standard practice the likes of Sanka and Maxwell House have been performing since the 1980s.
Our verdict: more crema, but otherwise very little has changed from the last generation of Nespresso machines we tested. At a 5.80 coffee rating, it’s pretty much even with our C180 Le Cube review (a 5.90). We suppose something can be said for consistency. In the meantime, populist retail home espresso still seems stuck in the McDonald’s Dark Ages. (And here the McDonald’s comparison is actually a bit flattering, given that they at least grind to order.)
Read the review of the Nespresso CitiZ & Milk.
76 Comments »
on 16 Oct 2009 at 9:02 am +00:00T 1.Skip said …
5.8 is higher than I would have expected and should be good enough for just about anyone thinking of buying this machine. People who can taste the difference already know better.
on 16 Oct 2009 at 9:05 am +00:00T 2.espressophile said …
Nespresso does have a couple of manual machines (did I just admit to knowing that?), which means you can stop the pour at a more reasonable volume. Not that I’d expect it to be any good even so.
on 16 Oct 2009 at 9:08 am +00:00T 3.TheShot said …
These aren’t bad machines by any stretch of the word. They’re definitely a step above the Krups Dark Ages of the 1990s.
But for a product line to market themselves as a luxury brand, to command subscribers, and to rent retail real estate in some of the world’s most expensive city districts, you honestly have to do better than a meager McDonald’s push-button squirt-in-a-cup.
on 21 Oct 2009 at 11:00 am +00:00T 4.Meghan said …
Please note that the CitiZ does allow you to adjust the amount of water that runs through the brew head for both standard and lungo shots. This is done by holding down the applicable button as the machine brews, then releasing the button when the desired amount of water is reached. This obviously will not improve the overall flavor of the brew, but I noticed that they key complaint was that the pour was too long, destroying otherwise decent crema and water-logging the shot.
I own a CitiZ, and after some adjustments, I find that as a purely automatic capsule-based machine, it’s excellent. Just my two-cents.
on 21 Oct 2009 at 3:44 pm +00:00T 5.TheShot said …
This feature is a nice addition. A big problem with these superautomated machines is that they typically make adequacy routine to a fault.
on 25 Oct 2009 at 5:20 am +00:00T 6.Peter said …
If the CitiZ isn’t good enough, then what machine for the home should I buy? I just bought the citiZ yesterday at Macy’s one day sale at a 40% discount, but have not opened the box, so I can return it if there is a machine that is recommended as much better. Many thanks in advance for any suggestions you may have.
on 25 Oct 2009 at 10:06 am +00:00T 7.TheShot said …
Suggestion-wise, I think you have to start with Skip’s initial comment here: it depends on whether you can taste the difference or not.
These machines offer a great amount of convenience. And a 40% discount sounds like you got a really good deal. However, these machines can be a little like the razor/razor-blades analogy. Meaning: give away the razor for free, and charge for the blades. It’s this exact pricing strategy that is at work with the many Illy deals for discounted machines with coffee subscriptions you might find in magazines, etc.
The problem for many home machine enthusiasts is that we can spend a lot of money in “step-up” mode. If you’re happy with the espresso quality from the CitiZ, then that sounds like a fine purchase. But if you can taste the difference and are looking for something with a darker, richer crema, freshly ground coffee, etc., you might otherwise end up pawning off the Nespresso for something else in short time.
What you might pawn it off for is an open question, as it depends on your tolerance for your own time and skill investment — plus budget constraints. The problem is there is no single answer as to what is someone’s ideal home espresso machine setup, just as there’s no one right answer for the right car for someone. It really depends on what you’re looking for and your budget.
on 24 Jan 2010 at 5:52 am +00:00T 8.Paul McClean said …
If it’s good enough for The Fat Duck, a restaurant with 3 Michelin stars, it’s good enough for me!
on 24 Jan 2010 at 4:54 pm +00:00T 9.TheShot said …
The Fat Duck is a perfect example of an elite restaurant that is either clueless or has given up on making quality espresso. We’ve written a series of posts concerning the sorry state of espresso at high-end restaurants. Unfortunately, it is still exceedingly rare to see the quality of a fine restaurant meal translate all the way to the coffee to finish it.
The Fat Duck thinks it is acceptable to serve its guests pre-ground coffee left oxidizing for weeks after roasting by the world’s largest industrial food processing company. It is unimaginable to think the Fat Duck would accept the same type of sourcing and handling for any of their food items, let alone their wines. Thus the Fat Duck’s use of Nespresso — the boxed wine of the coffee world — is both a cop-out and a double-standard for their customers, given the expectations they otherwise set.
on 23 Feb 2010 at 8:50 pm +00:00T 10.Aussie said …
Pretentious? Moi??!!!
Get over yourself.
on 23 Feb 2010 at 10:56 pm +00:00T 11.TheShot said …
Aussie -
Why the hate against pretension? After all, pretension is what keeps us humans from eating our own feces — unlike dogs.
It’s a gift. Don’t squander it on the same corporation that brought us Taster’s Choice.
on 22 Mar 2010 at 1:55 pm +00:00T 12.Tiffany said …
It’s hard to get past the overwhelming condescension in this post. Honestly, it’s beyond obnoxious.
on 29 Mar 2010 at 9:23 pm +00:00T 13.Terence said …
Why would some ppl think that the capsules are not fresh coffee? They are sealed in the capsules obviously to seal its freshness.
I have this machine and it is very easy to use and clean up. However the capsules are too small therefore I can only make a small cup per capsule.
This is a good machine for ppl who dont want messy high-end espresso machine, ppl who cant finish their beans within a mth and thus stuck with that 1 whole packet before they can try new flavors.
on 29 Mar 2010 at 9:48 pm +00:00T 14.TheShot said …
“Why would some ppl think that the capsules are not fresh coffee?”
Well, Terence, because fresh-roasted coffee is like fresh-baked bread. Fresh-baked bread goes stale in a couple days. Fresh-roasted whole bean coffee goes stale within a couple weeks. And ground coffee, as it is stored in these capsules, exposes as much surface area and oils in the coffee as possible to degrade its freshness as fast as possible: it goes stale like bread, or within a couple days after it is ground.
You know why people don’t buy fresh-baked, pre-sliced, hermetically sealed bread imported from fancy French bakeries? Because it goes stale. Just as pre-ground, imported coffee packaged in capsules goes stale — especially after the weeks (if not months) that the capsules have been sitting on warehouse and store shelves, in transit over long distances from remote Nestlé factories.
And these capsules seal in freshness no better than those vacuum-packed cans of pre-ground, tastes-like-dirt Maxwell House Coffee you could buy on supermarket shelves since the 1980s. Once roasted, and particularly once ground, there’s nothing you can do to stop the coffee from going stale. At best you can slow it down a little.
Just compare the color of the espresso in the two photos shown at the bottom of this Nespresso C180 review:
http://theshot.coffeeratings.com/2007/05/nespresso-c180-review/
Can you guess which one came from a Nespresso capsule and which was produced from coffee roasted fresh by a local roaster and ground to order?
on 12 May 2010 at 5:33 am +00:00T 15.Julien said …
I appreciate that you have a finer taste in coffee than most, and yes, I have heard many times that Nespresso will never be good enough if you are used to real espresso, but the attitude in your writing makes it impossible for me to take you seriously. You’re obnoxious writing is the exact same as an extra-cheery review filled with obvious corporate jargon; it stinks, and it’s painful to read.
I was searching for serious reviews about this product and had a hard time finding negative ones. I was hoping I finally had found one, but after reading this I would prefer to hear from people who don’t have such issues and prejudices that they seem to be unable to hide in their writing of an “objective” article. This is the worst kind of amateur journalism, and as a potential website-viewer, you’ve really turned me—and others, it seems—off of your site.
on 12 May 2010 at 7:29 am +00:00T 16.TheShot said …
You’re welcome, Julien.
Actually, I suggest you just look at the scores with the link at the bottom of this post. And if the obnoxious part came across in our post here, well, I guess we’ve succeeded.
Because it’s one thing for a company to make rather average, un-noteworthy espresso for the home. It’s another obnoxious thing when that company — a company that has made billions of dollars off of Taster’s Choice and Nestlé instant coffee over the years — tries to deceive consumers into believing their pedestrian espresso is God’s gift to coffee, charging premium prices in the process. That kind of fraud pisses us off — and it’s admittedly hard for us to hide it.
on 05 Jul 2010 at 7:46 am +00:00T 17.Millerkidz said …
If this machine doesn’t do the job which one would you recommend? You have doe far more research than I! Thanks
on 06 Jul 2010 at 1:24 am +00:00T 18.TheShot said …
I wouldn’t say that it doesn’t do the job. It depends on what you like. A lot of people turn to home espresso because, for many years, they can produce better espresso at home than in most retail cafés. Others are fine with the espresso standards in the big coffee chains — in which case these machines aren’t any better nor worse.
on 09 Jul 2010 at 7:47 am +00:00T 19.jim duncan said …
Well, my wife just bought a Nespresso, and I have to admit I enjoy the ease of use and cleanup. Absolutely love the frother. And it’s certainly not any worse than what I get at the local Starbucks. The espressos came out looking more like the good picture than the bad one you posted there. While it’s not fresh ground, which would certainly be the best, compared to what you can get for under $200 (it was on sale), I don’t have any major complaints for what you get. Only annoyance is that you have to order the coffee.
on 24 Jul 2010 at 7:15 pm +00:00T 20.Rosscoepcoltrane said …
Just wondering what kind of car you drive? If this is how important coffee is in your life one can only imagine the quality you must demand in an automobile.
on 25 Jul 2010 at 5:11 am +00:00T 21.TheShot said …
@Sheriff Coltrane: I really don’t like cars, so it’s not really a question that carries over from one personal interest to another. To me they are necessary evils. I own a ’92 Nissan Sentra with under 86k miles on it, and I’m adding to it at a rate of about 2k miles/year now. Not exactly deeeeluxe, eh?
on 19 Oct 2010 at 3:51 am +00:00T 22.JB said …
I am not going to lie. I agree that fresh espresso is better and there is a taste difference. However, while it is nice, like any luxury, to indulge in a fine cup of espresso . . . it just isint very practical in the home.
So again, let me clarify, I agree with the statement that espresso from this machine is fair/good at best, not outstanding, nothing to write home about . . . but that being said . . . I wake up in the morning. Shower, shave, brush my teeth, on my way to let my dogs outside I turn the machine on, by the time I am back inside it is ready to go, I throw in a capsule, I push a button, and I am ready to roll. I just like espresso, plain, simple, dark, and strong. I think why people by this, is for ease of use. I cant imagine any espresso experts buying this, and I think people who buy this know, they just want something convenient. So, I think that being said maybe put it into a context . . .
also as a lot of other people pointed out, one of the huge drawbacks is the capsule, you cant control the quantity very well. Yes, you can adjust the amount of water that flows through the capsule, but then, if theres too much, it looks terrible . . . I agree there is a taste difference, but for 200 bucks or whatever I paid for this. I mean. It is easy. Fast. Reliable. Not the best. You get what you pay for and its that simple. My father and I have the same discussion, I prefer french press coffee to drip coffee and while he agrees french press is better . . .it just isint practical for him to wake up every morning and go through the motions. And while he does like quality coffee not maxwell house and while he does like his coffee strong, for sheer convenience sake he settles.
I guess. I just wanted to try and create a picture of the people who buy this. I would be hard pressed for anyone who bought this to say that, “this is the best espresso I have ever had” but theres a reason for these machines, ease of use and convenience, ease of clean up, ease of maintenance. Making a good shot of fresh espresso, takes time, practice, knowledge that most people dont want to put into something every morning or after dinner. You dont need to beat people up about this there are different products for different people. I just hope you understand that. And while I agree your post was a bit over the top. I mean. In most ways you have valid points, maybe tone down the rhetoric and you would get less flack about your style. Just a thought.
Out of curiosity. Because I have considered buying an actual espresso machine for my house . . . any thoughts/recommendations?
on 05 Nov 2010 at 5:42 pm +00:00T 23.chris said …
Your review is both pretentious and obnoxious in its assessment of the Nespresso Citiz machine. I have owned machines ranging from the Jura J series to the stove top Bialetti. I love my Citiz. It is an incredibly popular choice in Europe. France, a country who is rather particular about their espresso ( I would say more so than America) has embraced Nespresso like no other. If you would have done a little research (or at least effective), you would have known to recalibrate the machines flow. If you want to do a “real” review of a particular machine, shell out the money and buy the darn thing. Use it for several weeks, utilizing the instructions, instead of a quick sample from a part-time, unsupervised demonstrator, uncommitted to proper customer service.
on 05 Nov 2010 at 5:54 pm +00:00T 24.TheShot said …
If we wanted office coffee for the home, we’d certainly consider the Nespresso. But there’s no comparison between its pre-ground, oxidized, closed-system coffee to what you can readily produce with ground-to-order, fresh-roasted coffee from a decent Burr grinder and a low-end Rancilio Silvia, for example.
And if we wanted to consume what’s popular, Dunkin’ Donuts coffee is immensely popular. But what tastes better isn’t necessarily decided by a popularity contest. There’s no comparison between Dunkin’ Donuts coffee and some Harens Old Tree Estate coffee served in a press-pot on Hawaii’s Big Island. And let’s also not overlook that the French make notoriously bitter, tarry coffee that’s frequently fawned over by nostalgic American Francophiles with rose-petal-tainted taste buds.
It may be a surprise that we actually like, and have been known to drink, office coffee or even Dunkin’ Donuts coffee. They have their place, and we like a lot of coffee in all its forms. But even aside of Nespresso being the product of the world’s largest mass-production food conglomerate; there is just no rational way to justify office coffee and Dunkin’ Donuts as top-quality luxury brands. Quality matters excessively on this site, and to those ends Nespresso is a non-starter. As a general rule, pod machines are to good coffee what training wheels are to the Tour de France.
Which isn’t to say Nespresso makes bad espresso. Just that you can do so much better than office coffee for the home. A little truth in advertising and a reality check is all we’re asking for. Just as there are people who feel their self-worth is threatened by someone else’s beverage choice, we’re sure knocking Nespresso a few notches down from its consumer pedestal is bound to elicit similar reactions from loyalists seeking affirmation of their good taste.
If we must spell it out: just because you love office coffee doesn’t make you any less of a person.
on 07 Nov 2010 at 3:09 pm +00:00T 25.Indifferent said …
Given your review can you please describe a machine that you do like that produces better, consistent coffee?
on 07 Nov 2010 at 3:37 pm +00:00T 26.TheShot said …
I have a friend whom I saw just a few hours ago. He just moved back to the U.S. from London and has switched appliances a few times due to the electrical standards. He’s been through Kitchen-Aids, Gaggias, La Pavonis, etc.
He just purchased a basic Rancilio Silvia (mentioned in comment #24 above) with a Rancilio Rocky doserless grinder, and he says he’s by far now making the best home espresso of his life.
on 11 Nov 2010 at 9:44 am +00:00T 27.Chris said …
But I believe your last comment proves the point.
My family and I just returned from Sweden (back to the US). Before we left I had the exact setup you mentioned. A Sylvia and a Rocky. We couldn’t take it (due to voltage) so when we arrived we bought an Isomac with an E61 grouphead. In my opinion, the espresso coming out of there was light years better than the espresso I ever made with the Sylvia.
I roast my own beans (Sweet Marias is the best) and I now have an Alex Duetto and MACAP grinder. This is the new “best espresso I have ever had”. But I control everything from the roast to the shot.
To some the Sylvia/Rocky combo will not be good at all. To others, the best. There are so many more items that go into a good espresso shot than the machine and grinder. And any comment on the “best machine” or a “good machine” without taking other items into account is suspect.
The main reason I do not like the Nespresso machines is the fact I have little control over anything. However, I own a Citiz. Why? Because I don’t need to control anything. I can pull a quick coffee before heading to work without any fuss. And it is still better than anything I could stop for on the way in.
I have no idea if your post was arrogant or whatever. But rest assured there are as many opinions as there are people who own machines. I could easily state your last comment consisted of a machine that I find to make inferior coffee. However I cannot possibly argue against the fact he is getting “his best espresso”. But it is not “my best”. That I promise.
The Citiz does what it does well. If you like what it does.
on 09 Dec 2010 at 6:46 am +00:00T 28.Boaz Ariely said …
Very nice review. There is one tricky issue with this machine, and that is that you can find the same machine made by Krups and Magimix. And what do you know, there are some differences in how they look… You can look at the comparison I made here: Nespresso Citiz
on 11 Dec 2010 at 11:26 am +00:00T 29.dave said …
That Silvia is almost $650. I’m not opening a cafe, I just want a decent espresso based coffee before and at work. I have yet to taste an espresso that would compel me to buy a machine that expensive and spend that much time every morning making.
on 12 Dec 2010 at 12:14 am +00:00T 30.Enrico said …
IMHO, I think theshot is trying to say that there are “preferences” for each person towards their coffee.
If I’m a CDS (Caffeine Delivery Sytem)-maniac which prefers to wake up in the morning, knowing there’s already a cup of joe waiting in the kitchen, or simply be able to plunge a pod/capsule/such, switch the button on, go to the toilet for the first “pee-pee of the day” (or waiting for the morning wood to subside, for the bachelors out there), and returning to the kitchen with the coffee/espresso ready on the table… Well yes, devices such as CitiZ and other portable, super-duper-auto home-coffee-machine is good enough for me. Hell, maybe a percolator is good enough!
So it’s not that CitiZ and other machine in the same category is “bad”. For what it was intended to do, it’s good at it. But theshot’s point is, why do the producers of these equipment masked and marketed these products as “exclusive”, as if it’s high end product with high end quality in the coffee world. Well, it’s not.
Once again, IMHO.
kind regards,
Enrico
Republic of Indonesia
on 12 Dec 2010 at 1:12 am +00:00T 31.TheShot said …
What Enrico said (thank you).
on 14 Dec 2010 at 4:50 pm +00:00T 32.Scott said …
I used to live in Italy and love espresso and I think the Nespresso makes better espresso than 90 percent of the cafes in the US. It’s cured me of my Starbucks habit. My only concern is the environmental one. We put our used aluminum pods in the recycle bin.
on 14 Dec 2010 at 6:10 pm +00:00T 33.TheShot said …
@Scott: Unfortunately, the big environmental problem with their aluminum pods isn’t disposing of the pods in the aftermarket. It’s the materials extraction, production, processing, and shipping of them in the first place.
on 26 Dec 2010 at 7:04 am +00:00T 34.Susan said …
Before I dropped one of 50lb bronzes on my foot shattering all the bones I must admit that I hated coffee. For some bizarre reason afterwards I craved it. Beforehand I was an avid tea drinker. Like expresso enthusiasts I sent away for fresh harvested teas and had special timers and teapots made of certain clays for each tea. But I don’t sit down every day and hold a Japanese tea ritual just to enjoy a cup. So most of the time I purchase some good quality loose tea leaves from a tea boutique and just brew a pot.
It seems to me that espressso preparation as with a tea ceremony is an art form. You master it. But it takes time that sometimes we do not have or do not wish to take. So sacrifices are made for quality.
I recently purchased a Citiz machine and for a decent expresso (certainly better than other automatic machines I owned) I do have to recommend it. Still it is a cut above other offerings out there. I am in business and I understand Nespresso advertising is a lot of hoopla…but what advertising isn’t unfortunately ?
So it is not a great machine… Just a good one. I think your review was too harse as it was comparing it to other manual machines rather than other automatics.
on 26 Dec 2010 at 11:17 am +00:00T 35.TheShot said …
Great post, Susan.
To be clear, and not to be pedantic, “automatic” means something different from “superautomatic” — and here you’re mixing the two. A manual machine typically comes with levers that must be pulled by hand to produce water pressure. Most commercial espresso machines in decent cafés (e.g., other than Starbucks) are automatic machines — meaning automatic pressure control. The wave of push-button-operated machines you’re talking about (whether for home or the commercial ones in Starbucks or McDonald’s) are superautomatics.
Note that it’s not like we’ve never compared Nespresso to other superautomatic machines. For example, we roughly considered the Nespresso the best of the bad lot in the The Home Espresso Machine Blues: Rating today’s state of consumer espresso machines post linked at the top of this post.
That said, we’d still only recommend something like the CitiZ for a small subset of people. For anyone looking to spend under $400 on a home espresso setup, we see little reason to spend more than $20 on a Moka Bialetti stove-top maker. The beans are as fresh as you want them, the quality is quite comparable, and you pocket the $200-$300 difference. Is it any wonder why moka pots are so popular among the family homes of Italy?
on 27 Dec 2010 at 3:22 am +00:00T 36.Enrico said …
Under $400? Get a good, middle-range grinder. Get freshly roasted bean. Brew coffee using filter/drip, Moka Pot, aeropress, even french press. And I think it’d worth more that buying a superautomatic machine.
“Is it any wonder why moka pots are so popular among the family homes of Italy?” <– Yeah, but ya wrote it yourself, they're pulling out of Italy :/ Really bad juju…
on 06 Jan 2011 at 7:37 am +00:00T 37.Missy said …
get over yourself! i am glad i have more self-worth in life than trying to make myself feel superior by my coffee taste buds and demeaning those who use prepackaged pods! i’m going to make myself a quick little expresso and say a prayer for people like you. there really is more to life out there–you need to get off this blog and start living it! ciao!
on 06 Jan 2011 at 7:53 am +00:00T 38.Enrico said …
Missy,
First, it’s not expresso. It’s espresso. Maybe similar meaning, but yeah whatever…
Second, from a bunch of articles here that I read, IMO I don’t think Greg is “demeaning” the prepackaged pods user. I think he aim more at the vendor/seller, not the consumer. Because wrapping something that really actually a low-end coffee machine as “exclusive” is a misdirection. For people who notice the vast difference between coffee ground hours before and just-ground, saying that weeks and months-old coffee-in-a-pod as “exclusive” is… I dunno…
But again, everything comes back at the user. You want an espresso in a jiffy, you want it fast, you’re not bothered at the quality of your espresso, then by all means please do buy the super-auto machine.
Theshot/greg wrote many of the articles from his trip report… And he went to a LOT of place, I’ve never made it as far as S.Africa or Azores, but he did. So you’re saying he doesn’t go “out there”?
And if a person makes a living out of coffee related business (roaster, cafe, etc), do you think they are people who are not “living it”? Because they spend A LOT of time “messing up” with coffee… Some of my colleague does..
on 06 Jan 2011 at 9:22 am +00:00T 39.TheShot said …
There are reasons this post has received far and away more comments than any other. One of them has to do with how this post is found on Web searches and the kind of replies it often gets.
Our point was never that people who enjoy drinking espresso made from pods are somehow inferior. To the complete contrary, it’s an acknowledgment that you can only get so far with them in quality and there are much better home espresso options out there. There are also much worse options.
But for some comment posters here, that doesn’t seem good enough. There seems to be a psychological profile that comes for affirmation that there is no better home espresso option than their newly purchased Nespresso — perhaps as a way to refute potential buyers’ remorse? They are angry and offended that anyone might suggest otherwise. That anger being wholly misplaced and saying more about the person who is angry than it says about anything suggested on the blog here.
Perhaps this is like whenever the Wall Street Journal or some other business rag mentions Starbucks’ quarterly financial statements. Invariably, lots of people feel compelled to post comments on the article about how much Starbucks’ coffee tastes burnt or is overpriced, even when the article itself has nothing to do with that.
on 06 Jan 2011 at 10:06 am +00:00T 40.Enrico said …
Well maybe it’s kinda like buying top-of-the-line product of a middle-end car vendor, only to have your neighbor say, “Well, actually for that kind of price, it’s better to buy this middle-line product from a top-end car vendor”…
And again, public image (or more properly, “public propaganda”?) really counts. You dish out “a lot of amount” for something marketed as exclusive. Notice the quotation mark; For people used to only spend dozens of dollars on coffee-related items AND equipments, dishing out hundreds of dollars would seem to be an “investment” in coffee-drinking.
Just a few hours ago my friend posted in a local forum/BB, that he wants to buy a coffee maker machine. He needs recommendation. A member recommends Delonghi for around $200, Krups $300… I asked how much his budget is.. Turns out he wants to start with less than $60 to spend.
So I think, some people were “lost in translation” by your post. It’s not your fault; How people view coffee is shaped a lot by local cultures, media, etc.
You explained your arguments in the replies of the comments here. CMIIW, however most internet users would simply read the article and press END on the keyboard to go to the bottom of the page to reply, missing out on the other comments entirely.
on 06 Jan 2011 at 5:06 pm +00:00T 41.The Kidd said …
Please tell me this is not an American telling us what good coffee is supposed to be! The home of massive disgusting food and drink quality and quantity.
on 06 Jan 2011 at 5:47 pm +00:00T 42.TheShot said …
Actually, The Kidd, the home of massive disgusting food and drink quality and quantity is the world’s largest mass-produced packaged food conglomerate, Nestlé.
Coincidentally, guess who makes Nespresso?
on 11 Jan 2011 at 2:03 pm +00:00T 43.Dianne said …
We purchased the Nespresso CitiZ about two months ago. We do have, on our counter, a conventional espresso machine (sorry if I don’t get the appropriate machine name right). Anyway, we loved our old machine, made cappacinos, lattes, espressos and loved the results – however, and this was a HUGE thing for me personally – after a dinner party with all that needs to been done through the day, shopping for groceries, getting the house in order, selecting wine, cooking, baking, serving appetizers, serving dinner, staying on top of everything in the kitchen and dining room plus still trying to participate in conversation, I have to admit the last thing I felt like doing was creating another mess to clean up. The Nespresso is easy, no mess, no fuss. I know it lacks quality to our handmade espressos, but it’s a great alternative. Also, late in the evening, or early in the morning, it’s quick, easy and no clean up. I’m not lazy by a long shot, in fact, the complete opposite, but once in a while a time-saver is so appreciated. Anyway, I do enjoy the coffee, and seeing as I’m not an aficionado, it’s great.
on 12 Jan 2011 at 7:09 am +00:00T 44.Enrico said …
Then it’s good for you
I think the very basic of any purchase is “how do you use it”. So if you had that busy activities… you’ll need a more automatic machine. Of course you’d sacrifice some degree of quality vis-a-vis a more dedicated espresso machine. If it works for you, it works. But other people may not have the same activities as you do, and they are willing to spend more time and effort to go after the quality they’re looking.
Each segmentation to their own…
on 18 Jan 2011 at 6:15 pm +00:00T 45.Justin said …
An American commenting on coffee? I just returned from a 6.5 week stay in the US. I can not believe how terrible the coffee was there (and the food in general). I had one reasonably good macchiato and the person making it actually warned us that we might not like it as she had received complaints from other customers buying macchiatos! The crap they eat / drink over there is astounding.
on 18 Jan 2011 at 6:27 pm +00:00T 46.TheShot said …
@Justin: I cannot believe how much they love David Hasselhoff in Germany. That said, I’m really not sure how that relates to the Nespresso CitiZ either.
on 26 Jan 2011 at 7:02 am +00:00T 47.Catherine said …
I get the point of this article, and found it very useful. My local options are limited – I live in a small town where the only coffee shop is Tim Horton’s (think Dunkin’ Donuts, if you dropped a cigarette butt in your cup) – but I’ve spent time in Europe and I have known the joy of some truly great espresso. I’d like to have the option of making espresso at home, but to be honest I don’t have the time, energy or (probably) skill to grind & brew fresh every morning. (I do have a stovetop, er, thing, but my stove is not ideal for this).
My question: accepting that I’m looking for the quick, dirty, not-great-but-somewhat-enjoyable, pod-based option, do you know of another set-up that’s better, Tassimo, Keurig, etc?
on 26 Jan 2011 at 7:45 am +00:00T 48.TheShot said …
As if to prove that this piece wasn’t intended as Nespresso-is-the-worst-ever rant: if I had to choose between similar systems, I would get a Nespresso over a Keurig or Tassimo system without hesitation.
on 26 Jan 2011 at 7:55 am +00:00T 49.Enrico said …
Can’t believe it came out from your mouth errr typing, Greg. Related to your latest post, just wait and someone will mis-quote you “accidentally” that you “started to swing toward Nespresso over anything else without hesitation”
on 26 Jan 2011 at 8:29 am +00:00T 50.Catherine said …
Thanks, I appreciate the advice. However not great it is, it can’t be as bad as the coffee brewed in my office. It just… can’t. The laws of physics won’t allow it.
on 26 Jan 2011 at 11:05 am +00:00T 51.Enrico said …
Hey, maybe Isaac Newton himself can’t get any good coffee at his office errr lab. That explains why he went to coffee houses and start doing mathematics there instead…
on 27 Jan 2011 at 10:51 am +00:00T 52.Rab said …
Hey Shot, as a Brit I loved the poke a stick at the patently ridiculous George and John ads that accompany the Nestle product. However as you see over there Kia and Hyundia are marketed as great cars instead of insipid metal junk boxes. Everyone knows that, the guy driving it knows its a piece of crap, he doesn’t or shouldn’t believe its gonna transport him to an open road with no other traffic accompanied by a gorgeous model. He bought it to do a job. He would like a BMW but the car he has will get him to where he’s going, it’ll sit in the same traffic jams, it plays MP3′s and CD’s it has a SAT NAV. The guy in the BMW will swear the experience he gets in those traffic jams listening to the same CD’s or MP3′s is worth the additional $40000 he paid. If both are happy with the product they have hell I don’t care if Hyundai try to tell me their car is a cutting piece of luxury, if it does a job and I’m happy with the product I’m happy, doesn’t mean that for one minute I believe the crap the ad men tell me.
on 16 Feb 2011 at 5:25 pm +00:00T 53.Sarah said …
This is just perfect! (in response to everyone calling TheShot, obnoxious and painfull to read)
Why is it perfect? because everything TheShot is saying is so true.
I’m a barista myself and completely agree with him, excuse us for having a passion and feeling a certain way about the nespresso and the lack of freshness.
Or the lack of businesses in general using real espresso machines/barista’s etc.
The one thing people should appreciate is that he has extensive research on coffee and coffee beans themselves meaning he is at a benefit to you being able to provide you with CORRECT information, rather than rumours or incorrect information.
As much as some may argue the nespresso pods are not fresh and there is no way to justify it whatsoever, if you think it tastes nice than thats your personal taste, but it is noway a high-end restaurant machine but more so a home machine for those who are after convenience and don’t mind stale coffee.
on 13 Apr 2011 at 8:45 am +00:00T 54.Taka said …
Hmm so its fine that you coffee geeks have your passion and want to spread your knowledge. What is CORRECT is really not so simple when you talk about something as subjective as taste. People of different cultures and generations would also have different opinions on what is good and bad coffee, yadda yadda yadda. I guess you get my point. Which is why this review of nespresso being so one sided, draws more criticism than appreciation.. as for somebody looking to buy a machine it has limited information to draw on.
on 13 Apr 2011 at 11:09 am +00:00T 55.TheShot said …
@Taka: Actually, we’d beg to differ that the review is “one sided”. Just look at the net taste score of 5.80 stated above. Now we don’t normally review home espresso machines per se. However, we’ve reviewed thousands of in-café espresso shots. Given that Nespresso forces their machine owners to solely get coffee from their supplies, and the machines are push-button consistent, we believe a comparison of their espresso quality is valid.
If we look at the 1,050 places where we’ve made a formal espresso rating to date (on CoffeeRatings.com for San Francisco plus other coffeeshops around the world), the average rating is 5.816 out of 10 with a standard deviation of 1.562 and a median rating of 6.0.
This places our review of Nespresso almost precisely in the very middle of the pack. In other words, take the best and worst espresso in the world and everything inbetween, and the Nespresso is about the average. Call it a “C” student.
For some people, that evaluation apparently seems “one sided”. For us, it’s about as balanced as balanced gets: you’re just as likely to find better espresso as you are to find worse espresso than the Nespresso offers. It is not upscale, it is not the greatest. It’s not downmarket, and it’s not the worst. It’s just smack in the murky middle of “average”.
on 07 May 2011 at 2:05 pm +00:00T 56.docray said …
The numerical ratings of 1000+ espresso tastings are
meaningless if the tastings are not done in a double-
blind manner and a consistent control taste sample is not used
at each tasting. Any individual’s personal taste preference
cannot remain consistent over 1000+ tastings – too many
other variables are involved over the period of time required
for the taste tests.
on 07 May 2011 at 2:24 pm +00:00T 57.TheShot said …
@docray: I very much agree with the merits of double-blind tastings. But they are absolutely impractical to pull off under the obvious conditions. You just can’t bring over an espresso from A Brasileira in Lisbon and compare it double-blind, side-by-side, with Ritual Roasters in Bayview — for example.
But what gives us faith in the methodology is that we have regularly come across examples where we have used descriptors and ratings of the same place, more than a year between tastings, and were dumbfounded by how consistent and similar they compared with each other. So much so, we’ve questioned how consistent a place can truly be because of it. It may not be completely scientific, but it’s given us a high degree of confidence in the reproducibility of our ratings. (Hence each review has a consistency rating.)
Thus despite the obvious methodology imperfections, there’s enough confidence in the data to suggest a strong fit for, say, the difference between something rated in the 50th percentile from something rated in the 70th or 30th. It may be only one person’s opinion. But it’s a consistent opinion of someone who has sampled thousands, and not just dozens, of different espresso places around the world. And as such, in our humble and honest opinion, the comparison is valid enough to value the conclusions.
Certainly over no comparison at all. You may as well suggest that any wine ratings from Robert Parker are meaningless, because not only does he not double-blind his evaluations, but individual wine bottles can vary with just a few months of aging, with variances in transportation and storage conditions, with variations of cork and its interaction with the contents, etc.
And the comparison is certainly valid over most reviews which don’t even dare attempt to quantify themselves with consistent criteria and methods over a large sample size. And certainly enough to scoff at the suggestion that the ratings are “meaningless” without a double-blind study.
on 01 Dec 2011 at 10:38 am +00:00T 58.Deus said …
Wow! I came here for a review and stepped in a slop of coffee muck!
I heard mention that the company marketing this device as creating god like espresso is wrong. Well, If I like the taste better than I guess it does. Just because a bunch of people sat down to decide what they thought was the perfect espresso, does not make it so for all. If I like my espresso to come out a certain way THAT way is perfect for me. If the company is selling these machines like nuts then maybe consensus has changed what people want from an espresso.
Its unfortunate that it does not line with your views. Guess people just need to find a reviewer that shares similar views and follow them.
on 01 Dec 2011 at 10:52 am +00:00T 59.TheShot said …
Some people prefer Dominos to an authentic Napoli pizza, some people prefer Two Buck Chuck to Opus One. That will always be the case.
But that doesn’t mean Charles Shaw can legitimately claim they’re selling an elite product on par with Opus One. It also doesn’t mean that the relative sales of one versus the other implies that Two Buck Chuck is a much higher quality product.
Nor does it mean people who prefer Two Buck Chuck are inferior. But neither does it suggest Opus One doesn’t exist and can simply be disregarded.
on 01 Dec 2011 at 11:03 am +00:00T 60.Deus said …
The problem with this review and the people reading it is the unavoidable bias.
You are comparing the espresso made with this to espresso made with $$$$ machines and time and effort. People who are reading this are more likely looking for a convenient home machine, not a professional one. And this is not helpful to those specific people.
If someone who does use a full setup is reading this to see if they need that anymore, then this would be helpful….but I don’t think the majority of people this review is drawing are those.
Plain and simple. If you are looking for a home machine, and by “home” I mean not a professional setup cossting $$$$$ and simple to use. Is this the best bet?
on 01 Dec 2011 at 12:10 pm +00:00T 61.TheShot said …
Of course there’s unavoidable bias. If you’ve seen our web site and its hundreds of reviews, we care about nothing but quality. That is our bias.
Which, not to entirely pat ourselves on the back, is quite refreshing — considering the many misleading reviews on sites like Yelp where you often have no idea what is really being scored. Is it quality? Is it how cute the baristas are? Is it because liking the place bestows hipster social cred points on the reviewer? Is it the free WiFi with accessible electrical outlets? Is it some perceived quantification of value — because their $3 latte may taste lame but it comes in a 40-ounce bucket?
People who come to this site may be looking for convenience, but that’s neither the people nor the subject we really care about. We care about quality. If quality isn’t your primary concern, you’re probably looking in the wrong place.
on 21 Dec 2011 at 1:14 am +00:00T 62.dr.neek said …
@theshot: to paraphrase, “dude, you’re not an artist, you’re a BARISTA”.
Get a life, bro. NO-ONE cares about your preternatural coffee palate. The Ferran Adria of espresso, i presume? BWA HA HA.
Not everyone has 30 minutes every morning to clean, warm up, select beans, grind, draw, drink and clean up again…unless they perform it as employment.
After my machine’s (jura) last SERVICE cost more than 25% of its purchase value, I almost gave up. When it lasted less than 3 months before requiring another expenive service, i did give up.
So, as a direct result of the above and your lovely review, I am going out to purchase a nespresso. And, you know what, if it gives me any sh!t I’ll simply return it or purchase a new one (cos, it’s cheap). Net result: i’ll be drinking coffee – instead of flushing cash down a coffee-colored toilet.
But what will I have to eroticise now that i ONLY have a nespresso? Oh, the shame of it…
on 21 Dec 2011 at 8:02 am +00:00T 63.TheShot said …
@dr. neek: Methinks you are lost. This is CoffeeRatings.com, where we focus on coffee quality. It sounds like you were looking for screw-quality-i-need-a-lazymans-espresso-machine.com. You’re clearly in the wrong place.
That said, as a longtime owner of Nestlé stock, I suppose I should personally thank you for the Christmas bonus. I may not like their products nor the corporation, but the business of what puts food on the table is, well, just business.
Though I am sorry to hear about your Jura so quickly turning out to be the landfill it was born to be. But I cannot say I’m surprised, given most superautomatic home espresso machines on the market.
on 15 Jan 2012 at 12:47 pm +00:00T 64.J. Bellemare said …
Seeing the two photos above and the description of how the machine spilled lots of coffee, and other remarks, i think you don’t know how to work an automatic machine.
It would have been horrible if you had tested a manual machine!
Very often, in cases like this, the tester (or his boss) has a hidden agenda.
on 15 Jan 2012 at 9:39 pm +00:00T 65.TheShot said …
These machines are push-button stupid. Are at least that’s their sales promise.
That said, it is possible to tune and tweak them a little — in some cases — to manipulate their standardized operating range. We personally got out of the business of tuning one and simply used a floor model that a major retailer was using. Hence our “native habitat” comment in the post up top.
While you could argue that the retailer mangled the setup, they were selling a large volume of the machines there. They should have every incentive to have their demo (of what is essentially a brain dead machine) work properly.
on 23 Jan 2012 at 2:14 am +00:00T 66.Nick said …
I literally feel like I’m in the twilight zone right now. I started out reading a review and somehow found myself addicted to the comments…so much so that I’ve now read them all.
To “TheShot” (I think you’re name is Greg?): Thanks for your review. I can’t in all honesty say I completely agree with you (because a) I’m not as invested in the quality of espresso as you clearly are and, both similarly and apologetically, I b) can’t quite differentiate the difference myself). I do, however, find your devotion to excellence both refreshing and done so with quite class.
To almost everyone else (there were a few exceptions): Get a grip. It has all become quite asinine at this point. You’re practically badgering the poor guy (not that he seems even remotely phased by it). Did he run over your dog? Because I swear I thought he was giving a review of an espresso machine? That’s all. Keep breathing. He’s not proposing a legislative ban on your precious little Nespresso pods. You disagree with him? -Use logic, make your argument like a grown up, debate and/or move on. Don’t attack him.
Thanks again for the review. I learned a few things I didn’t know.
Cheers and happy drinking.
on 23 Jan 2012 at 2:16 am +00:00T 67.Nick said …
your name*
on 29 Jan 2012 at 12:57 pm +00:00T 68.Dutchman said …
Can you tell me how the Citiz compares to the DeLonghi EC155 non-capsule machine?
on 29 Jan 2012 at 1:47 pm +00:00T 69.TheShot said …
If we could, we’d be running the wrong web site for the wrong reasons.
on 29 Jan 2012 at 2:15 pm +00:00T 70.Dutchman said …
What’s the use of testing one machine and not all kind of cheaper machines to compare it with?
on 29 Jan 2012 at 3:15 pm +00:00T 71.TheShot said …
Because this is CoffeeRatings.com, not HomeEspressoMachineRatings.com. This was merely a single blog post about the state of most commercial home espresso machines on the spectrum of quality you can achieve or acquire through other means/methods.
To do an exhaustive survey and comparison between home espresso machines is largely irrelevant to our mission and would be a theme for a different web site entirely. And personally, it’s a subject that would bore us to tears.
Not to mention our key finding from this experiment: that an exhaustive test of the most popular home espresso machines today would essentially condemn us to an endless series of McDonald’s-quality espresso shots.
on 30 Jan 2012 at 5:53 am +00:00T 72.Dutchman said …
Don’t understand why it would bore you. You like good coffee in a café and you will also then like good coffee at home I presume. But with everything their are several price categories
.
on 30 Jan 2012 at 5:56 am +00:00T 73.Dutchman said …
I can understand you’re not gonna test all capsule systems but their are several non capsule systems available with a low pricetag like the EC155 and EC702 from DeLonghi.
on 30 Jan 2012 at 8:35 am +00:00T 74.TheShot said …
It would bore me because, when given a choice, I prefer really good coffee to run-of-the-mill average coffee. Despite all the marketing lies on these products that promise the push-button ability to produce “perfect espresso drinks like a professional barista”, most of the popular home machines offer systems that produce little beyond predictably, consistently average coffee. If there were truth in advertising, these manufactures should really say, “Make adequate espresso drinks like a minimum-wage high school student who pushes buttons at a megachain.”
Thus the quest of crowning the “best” popular home espresso machine would be an exercise in celebrating adequacy. Not only that, the logistics of acquiring each home machine, tuning it, etc. , would be a real headache where I’m not interested in going down that rabbit hole.
on 31 Jan 2012 at 7:22 am +00:00T 75.Quest4Best said …
Must post… Bought a Nespresso D190 recently. Yes, indeed it is not the godlike espresso from a well seasoned barista. I do consider myself a coffee snob though. And yes i stll permit myself to buy a great espresso when time permits. Gave up trying to replicate the $8K machine and maintenace / knowledge required… What the new setup does is consistent. Come on. The pics of the the great vs Nes. Never saw that once with my machine unless i forgot to put a new pod in.. At least keep it real.. Bought the nespresso to put on my boat cause coffee houses don’t exist on the ocean. Now it’s not leaving my kitchen. For the boat i now have a Handpresso paired with a hand grinder. There is no HolyGrail… Just enjoy a cup and less thinking… BTW I sold my Porsche… Now a Jeep Wrangler makes sense. Doesnt mean i have settled… Ski hills and performance cars do not mix… Same with my coffee experience…
on 08 May 2012 at 6:28 am +00:00T 76.Fred said …
I enjoy my Citiz for its ease of use, but I also find most of your complaints fairly valid; I’m basically just looking for an acceptable espresso that is better than what most big-name chains will offer me, and the Citiz is excellent for that purpose. I’d also like to reiterate Meghan’s point from above, that the Citiz allows you to control the size of the shot, but also point out that if you get your coffee-sample from a demonstration machine at a shop they are almost invariably set to use too much water, as they are calibrated to the timid public rather than the true afficionados.
One final point: there is a company called “CoffeeDuck” that makes refillable pods for the Citiz and other Nespresso machines from the same line; with these and a little bit (ok, a fair bit) of initial tinkering to find the right amounts, you can get a truly fresh-ground espresso from a Citiz machine!