The myth of the perfect espresso
Posted by TheShot on 14 Dec 2009 | Tagged as: Consumer Trends, Quality Issues
Last Friday, the UK edition of Wired magazine published one of those well-meaning articles that thoughtlessly got much of it all wrong: Computing the perfect coffee. At the article’s core is the myth of the “perfect” espresso — something we believe to be about as real as the tooth fairy.
Blame for the modern myth of the “perfect” anything lies plainly with Martha Stewart and her catch-phrases. The myth of perfection has been perpetuated ever since by just about every talking head who stuffs something in his-or-her mouth on TV for a living. However, since the 1980s and the pioneering work of Howard Moskowitz in the field of psychophysics, we can pretty much safely assert that the notion of a singularly perfect anything is a dead-end. An illusion.
Howard Moskowitz and the rise of pasta sauce segmentation
Back in the 1980s, Mr. Moskowitz broke ranks with the conventional wisdom of the times that believed in singular perfection — i.e., that one, true combination of physical properties and aspects could be held up as the model for which everything else was an inferior imitation. Mr. Moskowitz deeply believed in the rule of “different strokes for different folks.” He leveraged this idea to help make Prego pasta sauce — what many considered a superior product that languished and lagged in market share at the time — into a formidable competitor to the day’s rule of Ragu.
While conventional wisdom believed there was one ultimate mother sauce that all pasta sauces were beholden to, Mr. Moskowitz’s research showed there was a market demand for extra chunky sauce — which had no rational origin in all of mother Italy. Prego hired Mr. Moskowitz after he told Pepsi that they should seek out the perfect Pepsis instead of the perfect Pepsi — a radical idea at the time. Today we can count over 40 types of Pepsi, excluding all the diet variations.
Now take this logic a few steps further, and you can understand a little of why today Green Giant sells frozen vegetable mixes under the names “Immunity Blend” and “Digestive Health”.
If measurement was science, why isn’t there a Nobel Prize for weathermen?
But back to coffee, the lessons from Pepsi and pasta sauce suggest that there is no perfect espresso. Some consumers like a sharp, acidic espresso — often dominated by Central American beans at a lighter roast level. Others think these brightness bomb espresso shots are repulsive — and many of these consumers would rather have a more classic espresso defined by body and balance.
But there’s another area where the Wired article fails, and that’s in confusing the acts of measurement and tinkering for actual science and technology. Wired magazine lives and breathes on its celebration of cutting-edge science and technology. So they shoehorn the analogy of the Silicon Valley start-up-in-a-garage upon a couple of national barista heroes: the current and a previous World Barista Champion in Gwilym Davies and James Hoffman.
However, the article exalts the act of measurement as if that in itself has some magical, intrinsic value. And yet a GPS receiver in isolation — i.e., without the aid of cross-referenced maps — merely enables its owner to get lost with greater precision.
Measurement adds greatly to the reproducibility of results and as an aid to identify unconventional areas for experimentation. But it is foolish to compare someone’s experimentation with precise brewing temperature controls to the invention of the first personal computer, as the article suggests. What’s also problematic is that the more something can be measured, the more we tend to believe in a magical combination that unlocks the secrets to its perfection — a perfection that, as we pointed out above, doesn’t really exist to begin with.
When in doubt, stamp “Third Wave” on it
Of course, the article’s author, Mei Li, blew her technologist street cred by brandishing the ever-laughable Third Wave crutch. We dare Ms. Lei to pick up a an old school textbook such as Andrea Illy‘s Espresso Coffee: The Science of Quality (2nd ed.). Its scientific foundation of thermodynamics, fluid mechanics, and biochemistry would surely make her latte-art-fawning head explode.
They do not teach this in barista school, folks.
With its first edition published in 1995 (as Espresso Coffee: The Chemistry of Quality), this decidedly “second wave”-era book exudes more coffee science and technology per page than we’ve seen in all the volumes of “Third Wave” coffee books published in the 14 years since. For a magazine committed to “the future as it happens,” Ms. Lei’s Wired article sets our standards for actual coffee science back by a generation.
5 Comments »
Hey there,
I’m currently searching to buy an home Espresso machine (with the Cappucino function). Budget is around 150 euros. Any decent ones maybe you can recommend?
Many thanks
Hi Michelle –
I am going to give you what seems like contrarian and not terribly useful advice. But the short answer to your question is “no”. Save your money.
Our general rule of thumb has been that if you’re not open to spending a good $600/€450 or more on both a decent grinder and a non-kitchen-retailer machine, your best options are a $25/€15 moka pot or to just keep going to your favorite café.
Your price range is in the sweet spot for a lot of opportunistic home appliance manufacturers who entice customers into buying next year’s landfill. We find the quality of these machines very suspect and not worth buying in the first place. Many of their ilk will sell you using the bogus economic savings argument of a home espresso machine, but we’ve informally found that the reality of human behavior rarely lives up to the robotic theory.
Of course, we hold pretty high quality standards for why we should bother with a home espresso machine at all. I.e., if it doesn’t beat what you can typically get down the street, why bother? But if you want to produce espresso at home that’s on the level of a run-of-the-mill, mass-produced Starbucks — a perfectly reasonable option for many — there are some options in your price range. We know that not everyone is as finicky as ourselves.
Good luck, and hopefully we saved you some money.
Cheers for this guys, actually that’s what I’m wondering as well. So your suggestions are very helpful to firm my suspect (the holiday season sales is tempting though…)
I guess I will stay with my Moka pot for a while and save up money/experience to buy a decent one later. I happen to love good coffee fanatically, even considering moving to Italy for that. Study/Intern in Paris now, but seriously, having a good cup of coffee here is a very rare experience……
Indeed, I disagree with your commentage on the Wired piece. I am a current subscriber to Wired (US) and a regular reader of your blog. I think the difference comes in the your different writing styles.
1) Think of Wired as being VERY bombastic and sarcastic in many of their pieces, awhile throwing in generally technical and accurate information. Sifting through a piece is an exercise in interpretation, opinion – to me the whole process is entertainment.
2) Coffeeratings, on the otherhand, is very square, clear and decisive. No mumbo-jumbo to be had, which isn’t clearly deciphered. Everything is as it should be.
YOUR problem comes in when you assume that everything is square in their sarcastic world. Which it is certainly not. Hopefully by numbers above help you to cut through my mumbo – maybe? Probably not.
Andy
Andy -
I’ve always thought of Wired of at least aspiring to be a little more reality-based than, say, it’s Omni predecessor. But now that you’ve pointed it out, you’re right about the bombastic dimension.
After all, we’ve previously recognized the role for infotainment even in science and technology. That much shouldn’t surprise us.