Some interesting thoughts, obviously this is being talked about in gourmet coffee circles.

For so long espresso coffee was dominated by an italian style roast, i spose with good reason they (the italians) invented espresso, it seems that as the expertise and knowledge of coffee in the UK, USA, and now Australia has increased we have started to “rebel” against what is/was the norm in coffee roasting, and roasting light is what we are seeing.

I believe we are now in a very exciting phase of our coffee evolution, so much experimenting wheather we agree with it to be good - bad - tasty - or not, its amazing to be a part of….

This actually sparks me onto a blog post that ive been meaning to rant about….

I’m glad to hear you boys enjoyed your Melbourne trip so much. It was great to catch up with you again at Market Lane.

I remember you were quite surprised to hear that we use the same (relatively light) roast for both espresso and filter brews. I’d love to explain my thoughts as to why we do it that way.

The aim from the beginning at ML was to make the farms the hero (not the barista, or the roaster). This meant showcasing the coffees the way the farmers intended. We only want to taste the flavours that are naturally occurring in the coffee.

This necessitates a roasting style which highlights the enzymatic qualities of the coffees, just touches upon some sugar browning and steers well clear of any dry distillation characteristics. (but roasting far enough to remove the grassy/green flavours)

I have found this style of roast to be quite rewarding to prepare and drink. When I taste an espresso or pour over of our coffees, it feels as though I’m being given a glimpse of the farm itself. When I taste a coffee which has excessively caramelised sugars and roasty flavours, all I can think about is a hot roaster. This isn’t to say I do not enjoy dessert style, chocolatey, big bodied ristrettos - I do! (as you know I worked at The Source, choc central).

Steve Leighton, an amazing roaster at Has Bean coffee in the UK blogged about roasting for brew method - http://www.hasblog.co.uk/roasting_for_brew_method

He articulates what I haven’t - that we only want each coffee to be the best it can be!
Wether that means a light roast or a darker roast, we just want the coffee to be transparent and shine as the farmer intended.

I am the first to admit that light roast coffee as espresso is not without its flaws. It is quite difficult to tune in and can be inconsistent (when it’s bad, it’s REALLY bad!). But, with a knowledgeable barista behind the machine, he/she can stay on top of it and maintain a balance of flavours. Only then, can it truly shine. The complexity and elegance present in this style of espresso (in my humble opinion) is just phenomenal.

I hope this hasn’t come across as negative, just wanted to share our philosophy. I’d love to hear your thoughts and discuss further!

Cheers,

Matt Perger

I will not try to sidestep the plausible outcome of such an industry-sensitive discussion genesis, that being a heated dialog, culminating in possible controversy surrounding the ‘origins’ -pun intended- of this “so-called-espresso” roasting. You summarized your thoughts as follows:

“…Using the same roast for espresso and filter leads one to think that they are trying to increase yield, hence making more profit, they are too lazy to do two separate roasts or just don’t know the difference….”

The funny thing about a decision, in this case to roast in a particular way, is that we can never know its origin, that is: why did then phenomenon commence, and why?

If I was to offer a, perhaps cynical but practically probably, guestimation as to the reasoning behind such a decision to ‘mid-roast’ for both espresso and filtered coffee, my thoughts would be simple. IMHO, its does seem most likely that the bottom-line would have fostered this universal mid-roasting, but it an industry so heavily scrutinized by internal and external players, I wonder whether the desire to ‘more easily recognize origin characters’ was a mere afterthought.

Indeed, it does seem like a valid argument. It seems particularly potent if one does not have a strong understanding and appreciation of traditional espresso roasting and extraction. On the other hand, perhaps some arrogant pluralism has crept into the coffee industry? Arrogance or difference of opinion in the coffee industry- surely this is a new phenomenon?!

My thought is, if this argument is legitimate, then why have these notable origin characteristics been, somewhat, stolen from the filtered coffee by over roasting?

I’d say there it’s probably safe to put money on the increased-yield-profitability reasoning. But if this is the case, I highly doubt it would ever been conceded. As to the notion of ‘not knowing the difference’ I’d say that’s a losing battle too. Which person or culture defined espresso coffee anyways? Why is their interpretation any more valid than mine?

I will say this though: If you are merely seeking to satisfy the bottom line, but proffering a justification imbued with a convenient origin-seeking facade- you will be found out! And you can take your double ristretto of Sidamo and shove it up your……. and that all we have time for!

Shun!!

Belarus