In defense of coffee heretics
Posted by TheShot on 01 Feb 2012 | Tagged as: Add Milk, Consumer Trends, Quality Issues
When Trish Rothgeb (née Skeie) first coined the term “Third Wave,” it was supposed to be about enjoying coffee for its own sake. But reading some of the articles posted about coffee in the popular presses lately, we wonder if any Third Wave is really more about purging heretics and enforcing an orthodoxy over a mythical “one, true way” to make and appreciate coffee.
There’s the Wall Street Journal heralding the abolition of any coffee roasted darker than a City roast. We’ve got coffee lovers freaking out over whether their French press tastes are all wrong and that they must be exclusively replaced with pour-over methods. And we have former baristas evangelizing that anyone who likes milk or sugar in their coffee are simply doing it wrong (or, as the article implies, they’re drinking bad coffee). We haven’t seen this many rules and regulations being imposed upon the public enjoyment of consumables since the invention of the Jewish kashrut dietary laws.
We may have defended the coffee Nazi in their time of need. But we have to draw the line when a purveyor’s personal quirks are declared as rules that extend to all coffee.
orthodoxy: 1580s, from Gk. orthodoxos “having the right opinion,” from orthos “right, true, straight” + doxa “opinion, praise”
And here’s the real absurdity in all that. Coffee has thousands of flavor and aromatic components. It comes in a diverse array of varietals with unique terroir and flavor profiles reflecting its thousands of points of origin around the world. There are an untold number of ways to process it, roast it, and brew it. Yet we have pundits and experts promoting the idea that coffee is somehow this singular, monolithic commodity — like CocaCola out of a spigot — that can only be properly roasted only one way, brewed only one way, and appreciated as a consumer only one way. Getting the most out of your coffee is not the same as Obsessive-compulsive Disorder.
Coffee professionals who tell us that coffee can only be properly roasted this side of a City roast are just as narrow-minded in their thinking as the people who told us for years that dark roasts were the ideal. Some coffees shine under lighter roasting conditions, while others taste grassy and have none of the body that their pedigree would otherwise offer. Those who tell us that coffee should never be adulterated with milk not only throw our enjoyment of cappuccinos and flat whites under the bus, but they limit our appreciation to only those forms of coffee that taste good without milk.
Given all of its glorious variety, coffee is best optimized with different roasts, different brewing methods, and even different condiments (or the lack thereof) to uniquely suit its unique character — and not just its unique consumer. Celebrate its diversity, and call us heretics.
4 Comments »
The evangelist above says in the headline specifically TO taste coffee with milk (and also without milk).
Who, exactly, is saying that coffee should under no circumstances be consumed with milk?
@SAO: Fair point about the with and without, but the body of her article clearly took the stand that coffee meant with milk and sugar was only the “cheapo”, “wine for sangria” variety. Which is bunk.
There are some excellent coffees selected and brewed with different flavor profiles that are ideal with milk. Saying “improved with milk + sugar = cheapo coffee” is orthodoxy, and an orthodoxy based on a false premise at that.
I’ve added an edit above in italics to make that clearer.
Great post!
[...] In defense of coffee heretics : theshot.coffeeratings.com [...]