Worst Coffee Trends – Bad Coffee Trends – Esquire
Posted by TheShot on 02 Jun 2010 | Tagged as: Barista, Beans, Café Society, Consumer Trends, Machine, Quality Issues, Roasting
If the title of this post seems like the product of a copy-editor undergoing a seizure, it is intentional. It echoes the title of a new article on Esquire‘s Web site verbatim: Worst Coffee Trends – Bad Coffee Trends – Esquire. To thicken the plot, do note that this is the second article in a series written by La Colombe‘s Todd Carmichael. His first was titled: Coffee Revolution – New Ways to Roast Cofee [sic] – Esquire. ([sic] added by us.)
What’s going on here? Esquire is usually doing battle with GQ for who’s male readers have more money, power, and women (in that Scarface order). What do they care about hipster doofuses drinking beverages that cost 0.000016% the price of a new Maserati GranTurismo? Why do they list it under the strange blog topic named “food-for-men”? And if they can afford that GranTurismo, why can’t they afford a spell-checker?
Those questions remain unanswered. What also remains unanswered is, “What’s with Todd Carmichael’s stream of consciousness in these pieces?” The original post reads like not-quite-lucid reflection that should be funny and entertaining. It used phrases like “cork sniffers” and “rock star barista”, plus it made an homage to the Torrefazione Italia of old — what’s not to like? But instead, it came off like an unfocused and incoherent rant. Amp up the language a bit, give the man a shopping basket to push, and he could pass for Gary Busey cruising the Tenderloin on his way to Glide Memorial for the night. We didn’t cite his piece the first time around because, well, it didn’t make any more sense than a Frank Chu sign.
In Mr. Carmichael’s latest rant — with the subtitle of 7 Steps to Survive the Horrible Hipster Coffee Trend — he takes on $17,000 coffee machines, roasters who fawn over elitist bean crops, and baristas who don’t conform to his ideals of appearance or speech. In other words: all the stupid crap we write about. Except we’re perhaps the craziest ones of all. Because when we do it, we honestly think we’re trying to make a focused, logical point somewhere along the way.
Mr. Carmichael: we honestly like what you’re trying to say. We even like your coffee — despite the occasional coffee Nazi who wants to publicly urinate on you out of a sense of superiority combined with good-press envy. So take this as benevolently as possible: don’t give up the day job. Stick to making good coffee or crossing the Antarctic, because expressing yourself in writing just isn’t your strong suit … and Lost no longer needs writers.
7 Comments »
I didn’t find Carmichael’s writing all that incoherent, and I agree with many of his points, especially those regarding coffee service.
That said, if some people in the industry are guilty of pretentiousness or posturing, then Carmichael is guilty of posturing in his own way, playing the role of the “grumpy old man” who liked things better in the old days.
Also, some of what he writes, especially about green sourcing and roasting, is misleading or plain wrong. For example, when he says “the world is tiny and coffee only comes from the small band around the middle. We all have access to the same beans,” he’s ignoring the fact that the quality of green can vary enormously from farm to farm and even among lots from the same farm or co-op. And many lots and sometimes the production of an entire farm is completely bought by a single company. So, actually, roasters *do not* all have access to the same beans.
Carmichael is also ignoring the benefits of traceability, which is why many roasters specify where their beans come from. It’s not about bragging, it’s about informing the customer, giving credit to the producer, and in the case of Fair or Direct Trade, an attempt to ensure that farmers are paid a living wage. Without traceability, this falls apart. Note that Carmichael sells only blends, without any reference to what coffees go into them. Is his coffee sustainably farmed? Does he pay a fair price for it? Who knows?
Found this snippet particularly entertaining:
“The Web is filled with their caffeinated ramblings and “reviews,” and for a long time, the culinary-minded neo-traditional roaster just shut up and took it like a man. The idea was to let the coffee do the talking. But I suppose it was only a matter of time before I snapped”
Hope he didn’t hurt anyone when he “snapped” !
There are many people in the perceived “establishment” that think this way, I guess it was a matter of time that a “second wave” roaster decided to use some “third wave” techniques (i.e. the web) to lash back.
We didn’t want to make this post longer than it had to be, but @Anon, we too noticed that there was something less-than-factual in his “we all have access to the same beans” statement. Some Cup of Excellence supplies are in low production and high demand, and thus cannot even make it out to the bigger producers — because they are too “niche” for them to reasonably carry.
Transparency is a good goal. I recall going to a Slow Food restaurant in Alba, Italy where the chef took our reservation, took our order, cooked up the meal, and cleared our table (the not-infamous-but-should-be Bruno Cingolani at Dulcis Vitis). This was no overly pretentious affair. And his menu listed where everything came from — including the butter, flour, salt, etc. There was no snobbery in that experience.
But I’d hate to see currently-fad-unfriendly coffee blends blacklisted from consumption at high-end coffee shops over a lack of transparency.
Using blends may lead to a lack of transparency, but it doesn’t have to. Many specialty roasters are open about the coffees that go in their blends, and some even list percentages, e.g., Coffee Collective.
On the other hand, I’ve always found it odd that Stumptown, who arguably lead the way in showcasing producers and paying high prices for green, keep the components of their blends secret.
For all the intelligence sharing in the professional coffee world, blending is one area that seems to fall short. Some blends are practically considered a form of intellectual property. Look at a simple three-bean blend such as Malabar Gold — they charge an (IMO, ridiculous) premium for the lack of transparency.
Should roasters be compensated for their blending? That’s ultimately the question.
That’s a tough question, and I say this as someone who works in the industry and has developed blends.
In some ways, I feel there are no great secrets in blending, especially as it is often possible to figure out the components of a blend given the taste, the look of the beans, and the roaster’s SO selection. But then there are roasters such as Vivace, or Sweet Maria’s with their Espresso Monkey Blend, who have good, unique blends and keep them totally secret. So maybe they know something I don’t.
[...] and coffee machines for only $17,000? Todd Carmichael at Esquire attacks hipster trends in coffee. Greg Sherwin at CoffeeRatings.com attacks Carmichael. Filed Under: Today's Mission This entry was written by Mark Rabine, posted [...]