Sheldon > wrote:

>Flavor: Smokey; tastes primarily of roasting, *not* of the inherent
>flavor of the bean

"Primarily" is a little squirrely. The palate can distinguish
between "smoked" flavors and coffee flavors, both of which are
present. Your statement is akin to saying BBQ ribs taste
primarily of smoke and not of meat. It ain't necessarily so,
and even if it is true you still may have a combination of flavors.

>Espresso existed hundreds of years before the first espresso machine.
>Today most folk fiddle with their methodology so that they don't
>really drink espresso... true espresso is burned beans, crappy beans
>salvaged by burning, reminescent of the acridness of burned tires

We can quibble about terminology. What the Italians call caffe',
and which need not resemble your description, is produced in what
Americans generally call an espresso machine, which is what I was
inquiring about. Common usage of "espresso" in the U.S. does
not correspond to your "true espresso" definition, which I suspect
has very few adherents. Do you really think I was talking about
coffee which tastes of the "acridness of burned tires" when I first
posted? Get a grip Sheldon. But I *am* talking about a form of
coffee that requires and espresso machine to make.

>Even in Italy, real espresso is difficult to find.

Yes, well you will note they do not call their coffee "espresso"
either.

Sheesh.

Steve