what is espresso ??

[tim]

Hello.
Just came back from a very interesting and inspiring trip to New York and Brooklyn.
Thank you Gimme!,Grumpy and 9th st. espresso and a special thanks to Chris Owens for putting up with me and showing me New Yorks many secrets and hidden treasures.

Ok, over to the business : After drinking some shots in NY, I found them to be very sweet and intense. Maby even a bit too intense. It seems that the trend in the US hot espresso bars the last times I have been there is to pull a 1 oz. double shot on either big double baskets or even triplebaskets. Even if I order an espresso.

My question is : If an espresso in the us is a 0,5 oz shot including crema, then what is a ristretto ??

Seems to me it would be a droplet of crema ??

Any thoughts or comments ?

[James Hoffmann]

I guess the definition is becoming more and more open ended which is why we are seeing Italy being quite precise in their definition by the INEI for "Italian Espresso". I think they have realised that espresso as a whole no longer belongs to Italy (so to speak).

I think something similar was raised in a thread about David Schomer's espresso.

[Jaime van Schyndel]

Tim,
Volumes... it goes back to the coffees/roasts used.
Still...
We may see some espresso in the style of Crescendo here in the states soon in good espresso bars . I get the feeling that most of the espresso on the scene these days are more for milk and more about filling a certain generic profile.
To paraphrase a pundit, when they talk about espresso here, they aren't talking about the same thing as you are.

[tim]

So I guess it comes to the same issues I have with pizza.
Italian pizza being totally different than an american style pizza.

Nothing wrong about american style pizza, but to me it is a different product than the Italian style.

But do the bars serving a 1 oz double shot espresso still serve ristretto ?

[onocoffee]

Perhaps someone can explain exactly what is "American Style Pizza"?

Because I don't have a clue what that could be.

Dominos? Papa Johns? Pizza Hut? Boston Style? New York Style? Chicago Style?

Beyond that there's Wolfgang Puck, flatbreads, blah, blah, blah.

All under the monnicker of "American Style"? Even Americans can't agree on what is a "good" pizza.

[jmc]

I often say that coffee is a lot like pizza, almost everyone has an opinion, even if they don't know anything about pizza or how to make it. I tend to disregard terms like ristretto becasue of this very issue, I remember being served a 3/4oz double at Vivace a while ago and being a bit puzzled..I was recently talking w/someone and I had to ask, "Are you pulling ultra-ristrettos? Meaning 1oz shots w/crema from your triple baskets?" (Estremamente Ristretto?)

[Rich Westerfield]

I often say that coffee is a lot like pizza, almost everyone has an opinion, even if they don't know anything about pizza or how to make it.

Jay,
You're from Chicago. Which means you're disqualified from talking about pizza. You can, however, expound to your heart's content about your local red sauce and cheese pot pies.

Next time you're in the area, remind us to take you to our local Neapolitan D.O.C. pizza guy - Ellie and Trey loved it.

I tend to disregard terms like ristretto becasue of this very issue, I remember being served a 3/4oz double at Vivace a while ago and being a bit puzzled..I was recently talking w/someone and I had to ask, "Are you pulling ultra-ristrettos? Meaning 1oz shots w/crema from your triple baskets?" (Estremamente Ristretto?)

I recall Mr. Cho suggesting I was being anal for for trying to lock in on some specific definitions to work with. Being in relative isolation here in Pgh, we get a lot of our info from forums like this one - and since everybody has a different opinion, it's really f'n confusing.

On the one hand, we're sort of glad we're not the only ones scratching our heads about what's what, although we don't think that's an overall positive for the industry. IMO, it would be nice to have standards from the SCAA so that we could be on the same page with customers and other shops. Shops could interpret the different drink styles, but nobody could say "this is the definitive ristretto" unless it conformed to the SCAA definition. What would be wrong with that?

Tim's point (and Jaime's) about possibly having an espresso for milk and one for shots seems a pretty interesting point to persue, which Jimmy O. touched on with his 2% milk post last week. This seems like something that could really make a difference in converting more people to straight shots, or at the very least, macchiatos (although we personally like our espresso sweet...)

Anyway, good stuff and thanks to Tim for addressing it.

[aaronblanco]

it's a bit confusing to be asking a volume question for a prep method issue...at least as it pertains to ristretto. ristretto is what you do with the shot, not how much of a shot it is, right? by that definition--'restricting' the shot by culling it before it blondes/finishes--it shouldn't matter how much you end up with in the demi or whether you're updosing a double basket or selling a triple basket short to get 3/4 oz out of it.

and it can't be time-constrained either, can it? you can't say ristretto is anything under, say, 18 seconds. ristretto, imo, can only be about what you do with the shot...meaning pulling it off the pour before it blondes or finishes.

is that not a commonly accepted definition? it's a prep method, not a volume descriptor.

[Brent]

Tim's point (and Jaime's) about possibly having an espresso for milk and one for shots seems a pretty interesting point to persue, which Jimmy O. touched on with his 2% milk post last week. This seems like something that could really make a difference in converting more people to straight shots, or at the very least, macchiatos (although we personally like our espresso sweet...)

Last time we opened our cafe (yay not opening this summer, having a holiday instead!) we ran one blend for milk and one for espresso. It was great - it also allowed for discussion about coffee with customers (which invariably led to me making way more coffee so people could compare - sometimes they even paid) so there are simple customer benefits from having varieties of coffee for espresso.

On the topic of differences between areas - being in NZ, I am aware of a difference between regions in North America. Equally, I was alerted to there being differences in NZ between areas - ie north versus south - our "milk" blend was called "very Auckland" (Auckland is where I live, and is north) by a southerner. What surprised me was when another coffee person in Auckland referred to a north shore (north auckland) style / tastes versus central city style / taste (a distance of about 5 kilometres and one bridge)

[Jaime van Schyndel]

Nothing wrong about american style pizza, but to me it is a different product than the Italian style.

Ah. what if we don't know it, but you are enjoying much better versions of pizza than we are?

1oz is ristretto and that's all they serve, the real question is could they pull a servicable 2oz double BUT would anyone drink it? Many of those coffees don't taste good at anything but a tight ristretto. Sometimes, I feel like the espresso community here is part Alchemist also

[tim]

hello.
good comments.

So, some of you say espresso is not about volume in the cup.
Then I have another question :

Why is everybody making fun of espresso pulled as a single 2 oz shot where a double would be 4 oz ??
(I wonder what a lungo would be like if that was an espresso )

Would you still call a 2 oz shot an espresso ??

[Jim Schulman]

Despite the INEI definitions, the trend around Naples & Salerno, where I was a few years back, was towards ristrettos. Old line bars still served normales when one asked for a "cafe", and you had to ask for a cafe ristretto; but most smaller bars and restaurants, where the baristas weren't pros, served ristrettos as the standard "cafe."

This is in line with the impression of most amateur enthusiasts that it is easier to pull tasty ristrettos than normales. Basically, if a barista is just starting out (and if you get this in Naples nowadays, you'll definately have it here), they are better off pulling ristrettos.

Given that espresso based drinks are becoming popular the world over, and that they are being prepared by just about everyone imaginable on every piece of equipment imaginable, I would be very loath to predict what the general public's perception of "good espresso" will become. Certainly, it's better we all argue about it loudly and passionately enough so it gets noticed than to leave the territory to big corporations' advertising departments.

[Andy Schecter]

it's a bit confusing to be asking a volume question for a prep method issue...at least as it pertains to ristretto. ristretto is what you do with the shot, not how much of a shot it is, right? by that definition--'restricting' the shot by culling it before it blondes/finishes--it shouldn't matter how much you end up with in the demi or whether you're updosing a double basket or selling a triple basket short to get 3/4 oz out of it.

and it can't be time-constrained either, can it? you can't say ristretto is anything under, say, 18 seconds. ristretto, imo, can only be about what you do with the shot...meaning pulling it off the pour before it blondes or finishes.

is that not a commonly accepted definition? it's a prep method, not a volume descriptor.

It's both a prep method AND a volume descriptor. The ristretto prep method involves a finer grind, passing less water through the portafilter, and a LONGER extraction time. The longer extraction time is necessary to fully extract the coffee, because you have less water available to do it. That's why "triple ristrettos" at Gimme Coffee often run 40 seconds. And it's why the ristretto isn't just a "crutch drink." Pulling a good 35-40 second ristretto without blonding takes more skill than Mark Prince believes it does.

On the other hand, a twenty second short shot isn't a ristretto; it's just a poorly pulled, underextracted shot.

Ristretto is also a volume descriptor because it necessarily implies that the ratio of water to coffee is lowered. Unfortunately, baristas continue to use measurements like ounces and milliliters in describing their shots. Although convenient, these measurements are very confusing, since espresso can be made from 6 grams of coffee, 23 grams of coffee, and everything in between. In addition, there are wide variations in extracted volume due to coffee freshness, crema production, and spouted vs bottomless portafilters.

The only consistent "volume" descriptor that I am aware of is the ratio of extracted espresso to ground coffee. For example, 16 grams of espresso extracted from 16 grams of coffee, a ratio of 1:1, is in the ristretto range. 32 grams of espresso extracted from the same 16 grams of coffee, a ratio of 2:1, would be a normale. Although this method has been pointed out to them, even vaunted "third-wave" baristas continue to stick their heads in the sand and pretend that ounces and millimeters are adequate to describe what a ristretto is.

Right, Mr. Cho?

[Ric Rhinehart]

The longer extraction time is necessary to fully extract the coffee, because you have less water available to do it.

This is where it gets unclear for me. How do we define fully extracted? In brewed coffee we talk about 18-22% of the coffee mass in solution as fully extracted. Are you applying the same standard to espresso? Also, if nondissolved solids are an important component of espresso (I think they are much more so than in brewed coffee) what is the desired concentration?

On the other hand, a twenty second short shot isn't a ristretto; it's just a poorly pulled, underextracted shot.

This is only true if the standards for extraction cannot be met in 20 seconds (which may or may not be the case - I lack knowledge here)

For example, 16 grams of espresso extracted from 16 grams of coffee, a ratio of 1:1, is in the ristretto range. 32 grams of espresso extracted from the same 16 grams of coffee, a ratio of 2:1, would be a normale.

I would love to see some lab work on this concept...it seems like a reasonable approach, and a quick run at some ristrettos seemed to bear out the 1:1 ratio.

[nick]

Right, Mr. Cho?

Right, Mr. Schecter.

If you don't mind me saying, Mr. Tim's question could be interpreted one of two ways: as a philosophical one, or as a question somewhat implying that some standard definitions would be helpful.

just like in the WBC thread, I'll make an assumption for the latter.

The reason that AndyS and I have this meeting-of-the-minds about this "extraction ratios" thing is because we've both been frustrated by many comments from folks online. Tacy's writings about the GS/3, and how minute temperature differences are reflected in the cup. Comments like Jaime's earlier in this thread, "1oz is ristretto and that's all they serve, the real question is could they pull a servicable 2oz double BUT would anyone drink it? Many of those coffees don't taste good at anything but a tight ristretto." Nothing personal, but in my opinion, these words have little meaning. We pull very "drinkable" 2 oz doubles. What "tastes good" to you depends completely on your own preferences, and on the skill of the barista.

It is MUCH easier to pull a "good tasting" 1 oz. double than a 2 oz. double. That said, don't be a playa hater... 2 oz. doubles, when properly pulled, can kick ass. Yes, with MOST coffees.


What I'm somewhat fascinated by is Tim's perspective in asking these questions in the first place. In my observance, Europeans (at least the 3rd-Wave type) are generally much more careful with their words when talking about espresso... perhaps because their words need to have relevance as they cross borders, culture, and language. Americans are generally much more flippant with their words, taking a "Well, if they don't GET me, then that's their problem" sort of attitude.

Tim's question is a VERY important one, and one that I hope we make some progress on at the PF2007 event. I'd like to propose that we take a few major topics and establish community standards, that will perhaps take hold around the country. When someone says "ristretto," and all that they know about it is that it's "a shorter shot pulled in about the same amount of time as a normal espresso," it can be interpreted too many different ways. When someone says "espresso," is a ristretto an espresso, or is it something else? If we can't agree on our terminology, it greatly handicaps the community conversation going forward.

[James Hoffmann]

Slightly off topic - but the term "normale", I see it in a lot of North American forums, but have never ever heard it used around Europe.

Am I just ignorant?

[Jaime van Schyndel]

Why is everybody making fun of espresso pulled as a single 2 oz shot where a double would be 4 oz ??

Without hemming and hawing about what -is- is , I just want to ask why you proposed the question?
Am I projecting to imply you don't like the practice of so many US shops serving a short 1oz double and calling it espresso on the boards or is there something more to it?
Seriously though,
Apples and oranges. The espresso you can drink on a daily basis appears to be a huge contrast from what is considered the top espresso here in the US. Extraction volume, beans used, roast styles, it really is a big cultural difference. Only one of the big dog roasters I know who really espouses 2oz for service as a double espresso is George Howell but that is a big exception...
I can't think of a well known cafe off hand that serves anything but ristretto(labled simply as espresso) on the east coast and particularly NY.

I'd like to propose that we take a few major topics and establish community standards, that will perhaps take hold around the country.

Common terminology is achievable but standards are not.

[Andy Schecter]

Would you still call a 2 oz shot an espresso ??

Compare these hypothetical "2 oz" shots:

#1:
22g coffee in the basket
roasted 3 days ago
bottomless portafilter
blend 14% robusta
rotary pump machine at 9 bar

#2:
14g coffee in the basket
roasted 12 days ago
spouted portafilter
all arabica
lever machine


#1 is undoubtedly a ristretto, yielding perhaps 20g of espresso for an extraction ratio of 0.9

#2 is a regular espresso ("normale"), yielding perhaps 30g of espresso for an extraction ratio of 2.1

It strikes me as absurd and utterly lame that we continue to describe shots through these crude volume estimates, and then expect others to understand the drink.

[Andy Schecter]

Slightly off topic - but the term "normale", I see it in a lot of North American forums, but have never ever heard it used around Europe.

Am I just ignorant?

No, you aren't ignorant.

Now that that's been cleared up, I probably shouldn't have used the term. Some people use normale to mean an average espresso shot, somewhere between a ristretto and an lungo. Illy Cafe uses normale to describe their medium roast blend.

More confusion in terminology....

[malachi]

Tacy's writings about the GS/3, and how minute temperature differences are reflected in the cup.

what about it?

[malachi]

Espresso is just another method of preparing coffee.
As with any method of preparing coffee, it is flexible and open to personal opinion and interpretation.

"Kill the sacred cows"

[Peter G]

Weighing in on the original topic:

We've always defined espresso terms in two ways: in the "general" sense, describing the taste, texture, appearance and "spirit" of the beverage. The second way is usually a list of standards, which include dosage, pressure, temperature, extraction time, and finished beverage volume (or, I guess, weight).

Let's separate these, and refer to them as the "general" definition and the "technical" definition.

The General Definition

This is a very interesting topic to me. There is a field of study, called foodways, which thinks of foods as "folklore" much like stories, traditional music, etc. And just like other kinds of folklore, foodways change over time and geography. In this way, the pizza analogy is perfect. "pizza" evolved from its Neopolitan origin in a multitude of ways: in America, Italy and elsewhere. There are now dozens of interpretations of "pizza", based on various cultural and economic influences. You will always find those who declare certain pizzas to be "authentic" and others "not pizza". These definitions, of course, vary from person to person and from culture to culture. Ever had pizza in Latin America? wow.

In this same way, today's apple pie with granny smiths, white sugar, unbleached white flour, crisco, cinnamon and nutmeg barely resembles the apple pie everybody ate for breakfast 150 years ago, with its dried apples, brownish sugar, coarse flour, and lard (cinnamon and nutmeg were expensive then). And this is the quintessential symbolic food of our Nation! Coq au Vin, Neopolitan Ragu, Tacos, Lo Mein (which became Ramen), Succotash, on and on...

The point is, foods and their preparation change constantly and resist definition and stasis.

And so it is with espresso. Our little wing of coffee culture has trodden merrily down the path of intense, sweet espresso, and now quality cafes regularly eschew single baskets and oily roasts and embrace overdosing and short short shots.

Some will always resist change, in the name of authenticity and tradition. Well, the truth is, change is the tradition. You can bet that when Achille Gaggia introduced his 9 bar "crema caffe", there were those who insisted that it violated the "rules".

I suggest that the "ristretto" as a menu item is flawed these days, because it only exists as a modifier of a different, "normal" espresso. And given that the "normal" espresso is in flux and being interpreted in a number of wonderful ways, the name "ristretto" has lost meaning. For similar reasons, I have long since tried to stop using "single" and "double" nomenclature. Give me an espresso please, and I leave it up to the barista to interpret that request for me.

The Technical Definition

Taking the above into consideration, we really should have no need for a technical definition. However, we live in a world where artistic, quality-oriented interpretation is rare and bastardization for the sake of profit and laziness is commonplace. The various definitions of "espresso" are necessitated by the bogus and vile "espresso" drinks foisted upon the booboisie due to substandard machines, coffee, technique, etc.

A story: I was spending a day working at SCAA headquarters in the not-too-distant past when a desparate quality-oriented employee of a coffee roasting/chain coffeehouse company called in asking for the "definition" of espresso. She needed it as evidence in her heroic struggle to keep the powers that be from changing the in-house standard to 15 second shots, to shave valuable seconds off the prep time and therefore save labor pennies. In this case, she was able to (successfully) argue that a 15 second extraction violated the SCAA's rules of espresso, and that the company was at risk of being exposed for mislabeling. An odd story, perhaps, but I would say the outcome was somewhat positive, at least for the souls who might've drunk the dreck. This is why we invented technical standards, and why we enforce them.

However, in the rarified realm of culinary experts, I don't give a hoot if the tech standards for espresso are followed; much like I don't care if my Nana's glorious pizza lived up to the Neapolitan DOC standard.

Peter G

p.s. Andy, I find the "espresso by weight ratio" topic so interesting I have taken the liberty of posting another thread. I'll post my questions there.

[Jim Schulman]

You can bet that when Achille Gaggia introduced his 9 bar "crema caffe", there were those who insisted that it violated the "rules"

His customers, apparently more or less disapprovingly, called it "schiuma," which means either foam or scum; the term "cafe crema" was his contribution to the marketing end.

I've seen lots of pics of machines from that era with some lever groups and some old style steam pressure groups; these were advertised as doing both espresso and cafe crema. The changeover seems to have taken a full decade. It would be very ironic if cafe crema was considered the wimpy latte style drink of the late 40s; but I've never had a chance to find out.

[tim]

WOW.
I have to admit that Peter G had a great post here !
Well, my reason for posting this topic is more out of curiosity.

I could not agree more that we need to evolve as we learn and that espresso today should not be the same as espresso 10 years ago.

However, I do see a point of having a technical guideline, just like you have in food recipes. They are there to guide you, but you don't have to follow them if you want to be more creative. However some times following the recipes cooking time, etc is a very wise choice.

I also think that a good barista should try to learn and work with different methods of preparing caffe espresso before deciding on which style he / she wants to pursue.
I feel that many of us don't study the different styles and just do what we are told or think is cool to do.

Personally, I am not a great fan of super short espressos. I believe in many cases that I am missing out on what the coffee really has to offer. On the other hand, I had some great shots in Brooklyn. My favourite one was Grumpys triple basket pull of Andrew Barnett's Ecco caffe(all brazilian). Super sweet and super nice !

Thank you for all the good feedback.

[Jaime van Schyndel]

I also think that a good barista should try to learn and work with different methods of preparing caffe espresso before deciding on which style he / she wants to pursue.
I feel that many of us don't study the different styles and just do what we are told or think is cool to do.

Interesting.
I feel that too many have a Schomer-like obsession on pulling only the tiny shot and focusing on the technical minutia surrounding everything but the blend. (Alchemy) Since volume is an assumed given, all too often the blend is like some black box and considered an unalterable constant with a certain ristretto profile. Exceptions being blends like Stumptown's Hairbender that use very ripe green and blends into milk. This profile 'must' have X amount of body and intensity. (chocolate bomb) Sometimes just intense espresso that's sole purpose is to cut through large amounts of milk.
That's fine for what it is, but I feel like we walk all over the sweet, floral, aromatic, and fruit that is the nature of great coffees like those in the CoE. That's what I want to see in espresso. Focusing on flavor instead of profiles.

Personally, I am not a great fan of super short espressos. I believe in many cases that I am missing out on what the coffee really has to offer. On the other hand, I had some great shots in Brooklyn. My favourite one was Grumpys triple basket pull of Andrew Barnett's Ecco caffe(all brazilian). Super sweet and super nice !

I think Andrew will be excited to hear that. I am very fond of Andrew. Great guy. He has lot of respect for you as do I. As I begin to understand the coffee culture more there, I realize why George Howell has so much respect for you guys.
-Jaime