undefined | Better HN

0 pointssgc11d ago0 comments

1-2 bars isn't really espresso, it's a moka - which can be quite good in its own right. It falls into the genus of pressurized brewing though, so same genus different species. There's a no man's land from 3-5 bars that is not really used and might be worth exploring, but most 'standards' consider 6 bar the minimum to be a true espresso.

0 comments

criddell11d ago

The SCAA (Specialty Coffee Association of America) has an even more restrictive definition[1]:

> Espresso is a 25–35ml (.85–1.2 ounce [×2 for double]) beverage prepared from 7–9 grams (14–18 grams for a double) of coffee through which clean water of 195°–205°F (90.5°–96.1°C) has been forced at 9–10 atmospheres of pressure, and where the grind of the coffee is such that the brew time is 20–30 seconds. While brewing, the flow of espresso will appear to have the viscosity of warm honey and the resulting beverage will exhibit a thick, dark golden crema.

I have no problem with calling soup espresso. It's ground coffee brewed under pressure in an espresso machine and that's good enough for me.

[1]:https://sca.coffee/sca-news/25-magazine/issue-3/defining-eve...

sgcOP11d ago

Of all the standards, I find the SCAA the least useful. That was the standard 30 years ago, but nobody serious about improving their craft is brewing such a watered down espresso anymore, and a 1:2 ratio is the most common one. So 15g for 30ml. And for pressure, modern consensus is that 9 bar is the high upper limit. 10 almost always leads to a harsh cup. I find the 6 bar lower limit to be a tipping point in the concentration, such that lower pressures are more similar to drip than to espresso - the viscosity and mouthfeel changes dramatically. So I can't agree that whatever comes out of an espresso machine should be called espresso. But we are debating vernacular here, I just hope you enjoy your cup of coffee!

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse