After the old forum software breaking in a way that we were unable to fix, we've migrated the site to a new platform.
Some elements aren't working as we'd hoped - some avatars didn't survive the transition, and we're still having issues with attachments that weren't added as inline images, but we're hoping to have that all sorted out soon.
One thing I'm not getting from the slightly 'academic' analysis here is any appreciation of what I would consider the most important thing - i.e. the freshness of the coffee itself... for instance if Turkish-style coffee is bitter, is that because "too many organic acids got through", or simply because the beans may not have been fresh in the first place??
Yes... It's a hard thing to call because the writer is using taste descriptors where he should be using chemical compounds to describe the characteristics of the shot under certain conditions. This is clearly done to make the article more accessible but at the cost of diluting the academic intent; thus, exposing the elephant in the room: Ultimately the science of the perfect extraction is an academic pursuit and not an aesthetic one. If asthetics were the aim of the article the beans and their journey would have to come first and foremost!
A. with some styles of coffee like Turkish coffee it is more about the raw bean and the way it was roasted. Generally speaking, Turkish coffees can use some of the cheapest and lowest grade Brazils that are then very lightly roasted ( read undeveloped). What your are tasting with some Turkish coffees is a rough or dirty cup combined with unbalanced acids.
Comments