Any thoughts on the following:

I'm in the market for a compact-model espresso machine,
one that reliably produces high-quality espresso, in
small amounts (say one or two espresso cups at a time).
It does not need to have an integral milk steamer or
coffee grinder (although separately, I'm interested in
knowing what sort of grinder is best, as I know my
current coffee grinder cannot grind the stuff fine enough).

Any idea what I should buy among currently available
models?

Thanks,

Steve

(Steve Pope) wrote:
> Any thoughts on the following:
>
> I'm in the market for a compact-model espresso machine,
> one that reliably produces high-quality espresso, in
> small amounts (say one or two espresso cups at a time).
> It does not need to have an integral milk steamer or
> coffee grinder (although separately, I'm interested in
> knowing what sort of grinder is best, as I know my
> current coffee grinder cannot grind the stuff fine enough).
>
> Any idea what I should buy among currently available
> models?

No matter how much you spend nothing will perform better than this:
http://www.amazon.com/Bialetti-Moka-...4527692&sr=8-4

Next you need good water (coffee is 99.999pct H20) without good water
no matter how much you spend on coffee it will taste like crap.

You need a decent burr mill, how much you spend depends on your
budget... after a point (about $150) they don't get noticably better
no matter how much more you spend.

Of course you can always go cultish-egoist, just open your wallet,
open your cheeks, spread em wide.

Sheldon > wrote:

>No matter how much you spend nothing will perform better than this:
>http://www.amazon.com/Bialetti-Moka-...4527692&sr=8-4

Heh. The apartment we just stayed in, in Rome, had a similar
unit in its kitchen and it worked quite well.

>Next you need good water (coffee is 99.999pct H20) without good water
>no matter how much you spend on coffee it will taste like crap.

Have a Brita filter unit.

>You need a decent burr mill, how much you spend depends on your
>budget... after a point (about $150) they don't get noticably better
>no matter how much more you spend.

Right, the burr grinder is on my list. Anything in particular
I should look for?

Steve

Steve Pope wrote:
>
>
> I'm in the market for a compact-model espresso machine,
> one that reliably produces high-quality espresso, in
> small amounts (say one or two espresso cups at a time).
> It does not need to have an integral milk steamer or
> coffee grinder (although separately, I'm interested in
> knowing what sort of grinder is best, as I know my
> current coffee grinder cannot grind the stuff fine enough).
>
> Any idea what I should buy among currently available
> models?


I have tried several over the years. The best hs been a Krupps and Braun
was a close second. Krupps was also the best value. An appliance repairman
convinced me it was not worth spending a lot of money on one because they
all screw up eventually and they are hard to get parts for. No use
spending $500 or more on one when a $150 machine will do the same job
because the extra money does not guarantee better coffee or a longer life,
just a more expensive piece of trash when it quits.

Steve Pope wrote:
>
> Any idea what I should buy among currently available
> models?

This is the most common question in alt.coffee.
The answer varies with time, so ask there to
get the current best answer. Last time I looked,
it was the Capresso Infinity grinder and Gaggia
Carezza espresso machine. But ask again, because
this information may be stale.

Thanks, Mark and Dave for your input.

S.

In article . com>,
"Sheldon" > wrote:

> No matter how much you spend nothing will perform better than this:
> http://www.amazon.com/Bialetti-Moka-...ref=pd_bbs_4/1
> 02-2462282-7529725?ie=UTF8&s=home-garden&qid=1174527692&sr=8-4

Sure, and there's no difference between Camembert and Gouda.

Sheldon persists in this disinformation campaign. There's nothing wrong
with Moka pots. Zillions of Italians use them. I have one, too. I
also have a pump espresso machine. Most people with more than two
functioning tastebuds can tell the difference between the coffee made in
these devices. A food chemist can explain that they are very different
products, produced under very different thermodynamic conditions.

> Of course you can always go cultish-egoist, just open your wallet

If you only brew espresso for mixing with water or milk (cappucinos,
lattes, Americanos), then a moka pot or other steam-based gizmo might be
all you need.

But if you like the taste, aroma, and texture of real espresso in
straight shots, a pump machine might be worth considering. I'm out of
date on current products, but I second the recommendation to check the
articles in alt.coffee.

--
Julian Vrieslander

(Steve Pope) wrote:
> Sheldon wrote:
> >No matter how much you spend nothing will perform better than this:
> >http://www.amazon.com/Bialetti-Moka-...000CF3Q6/ref=p....
>
> Heh. *The apartment we just stayed in, in Rome, had a similar
> unit in its kitchen and it worked quite well.

Read the cutomer reviews.

Of course if you have more dollars than brain cells you can go for one
of the *machines*, all useless bells and whistles, and there is no
limit to how much jewelry can be hung on to achieve *the look*,
remember, it's only appearance, serves no function whatsoever.

> >Next you need good water (coffee is 99.999pct H20) without good water
> >no matter how much you spend on coffee it will taste like crap.
>
> Have a Brita filter unit.

Better than nothing, but a reverse osmosis filter is best... and never
set up any coffee brewer the night before, the water will go stale
(will lose oxygen, and oxygen is what permits you to taste.

> >You need a decent burr mill, how much you spend depends on your
> >budget... after a point (about $150) they don't get noticably better
> >no matter how much more you spend.
>
> Right, the burr grinder is on my list. *Anything in particular
> I should look for?

I have a Solis Maestro, wasn't expensive (about $140) and works like a
charm... been used every day since 2000, still works like new, and
requires very little attention, just clean the burr every few months.
All burr grinders are kinda messy (static electricity), some say
adding a few drops of water with the beans is a remedy, don't you
believe it... best to have a small brush handy to sweep up the stray
grounds. Don't buy any coffee brewer with a built in mill, not unless
you don't mind spending your life cleaning... plus none of those
contain a very good mill, and when any part of a combo unit dies it's
all trash.

You can spend a lot more if you're into *the look* but then when it
dies you'll just have a much more expensive pile of junk.

http://www.aabreecoffee.com/Solis.cf...oogleAAB-Solis

Sheldon

Julian Vrieslander wrote:
> "Sheldon" wrote:
> > No matter how much you spend nothing will perform better than this:
> >http://www.amazon.com/Bialetti-Moka-...000CF3Q6/ref=p....
> > 02-2462282-7529725?ie=UTF8&s=home-garden&qid=1174527692&sr=8-4
>
> Sure, and there's no difference between Camembert and Gouda.

Idiot, that's apples and oranges... which proves why you know nothing
about coffee, or anything else.

> Sheldon persists in this disinformation campaign. *There's nothing wrong
> with Moka pots. *Zillions of Italians use them. *I have one, too. *I
> also have a pump espresso machine. *Most people with more than two
> functioning tastebuds can tell the difference between the coffee made in
> these devices. *A food chemist can explain that they are very different
> products, produced under very different thermodynamic conditions.
>
> > Of course you can always go cultish-egoist, just open your wallet
>
> If you only brew espresso for mixing with water or milk (cappucinos,
> lattes, Americanos), then a moka pot or other steam-based gizmo might be
> all you need.
>
> But if you like the taste, aroma, and texture of real espresso in
> straight shots, a pump machine might be worth considering. *I'm out of
> date on current products, but I second the recommendation to check the
> articles in alt.coffee.

Those imbeciles know nothing, absolutely nothing. Anyone reads the
history of coffee will learn that espresso was developed as a way to
use the crappy moldy beans by over roasting. Those burned beans were
then given to the peasants to keep then from rioting, because they
were already addicted to caffeine. Espresso in of itself is garbage
coffee anyway, no way to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear... it's
all cultish blind belief nonsense. The best anyone can do is keep it
simple and use good water. Doesn't matter how much is spent on coffee
beans and equipment, how much one plays witch doctor by roasting their
own, if the water sucks so will the coffee. Very few coffee cultists
know anything about the water, with all their noise about expensive
equipment hardly any invest in an RO filtration system, and the water
is everything. And the thing about those machines is it's impossible
to clean their plumbing, so even if one does use good water all those
machines can produce is ****. The Bialetti-Moka type unit can be
scrupulously cleaned each time it's used, nothing, NOTHING produces
better espresso. Too bad about yoose coffee newsgroupies that you
can't have a ****ing contest over the Bialetti-Moka, it's *simply* the
best[period]

Sheldon

In article >, says...
> I'm in the market for a compact-model espresso machine,
> one that reliably produces high-quality espresso, in
> small amounts (say one or two espresso cups at a time).
> It does not need to have an integral milk steamer or
> coffee grinder (although separately, I'm interested in
> knowing what sort of grinder is best, as I know my
> current coffee grinder cannot grind the stuff fine enough).
>

We have a Krups model 964 espresso machine that has been going string
for 10 years. Steamer but no grinder.

For grinder, definitely a burr grinder (as opposed to a "blender" type.
Our Braun is also a workhorse, can grind very fine.


--
Peter Aitken

Sheldon > wrote:

>Those imbeciles know nothing, absolutely nothing. Anyone reads the
>history of coffee will learn that espresso was developed as a way to
>use the crappy moldy beans by over roasting. Those burned beans were
>then given to the peasants to keep then from rioting, because they
>were already addicted to caffeine. Espresso in of itself is garbage
>coffee anyway, no way to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear... it's
>all cultish blind belief nonsense. The best anyone can do is keep it
>simple and use good water. Doesn't matter how much is spent on coffee
>beans and equipment, how much one plays witch doctor by roasting their
>own, if the water sucks so will the coffee.

Oh, okay. So you don't know jill about coffee it turns out.

Steve

On Mar 22, 4:23�pm, (Steve Pope) wrote:
> Sheldon > wrote:
> >Those imbeciles know nothing, absolutely nothing. *Anyone reads the
> >history of coffee will learn that espresso was developed as a way to
> >use the crappy moldy beans by over roasting. *Those burned beans were
> >then given to the peasants to keep then from rioting, because they
> >were already addicted to caffeine. *Espresso in of itself is garbage
> >coffee anyway, no way to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear... it's
> >all cultish blind belief nonsense. *The best anyone can do is keep it
> >simple and use good water. *Doesn't matter how much is spent on coffee
> >beans and equipment, how much one plays witch doctor by roasting their
> >own, if the water sucks so will the coffee. *
>
> Oh, okay. *So you don't know jill about coffee it turns out.

But you're the one who asked... and somehow a few hours passes and
you're an expert, jerk.

Sheldon > wrote:

>On Mar 22, 4:23�pm, (Steve Pope) wrote:

>> >Those imbeciles know nothing, absolutely nothing. *Anyone reads the
>> >history of coffee will learn that espresso was developed as a way to
>> >use the crappy moldy beans by over roasting. *Those burned beans were
>> >then given to the peasants to keep then from rioting, because they
>> >were already addicted to caffeine. *Espresso in of itself is garbage
>> >coffee anyway, no way to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear... it's
>> >all cultish blind belief nonsense. *The best anyone can do is keep it
>> >simple and use good water. *Doesn't matter how much is spent on coffee
>> >beans and equipment, how much one plays witch doctor by roasting their
>> >own, if the water sucks so will the coffee. *

>> Oh, okay. *So you don't know jill about coffee it turns out.

>But you're the one who asked... and somehow a few hours passes and
>you're an expert, jerk.

"Espresso is in and of itself garbage coffee". Because it's
"burned". Uh-huh.

This is truly one of the common falsehoods that food neophytes
somehow latch onto an keep repeating, right up there with "Mexican
food in California is not authentic" or "all deep-fried food
is too greasy".

There's plenty of bad espresso out there, consider just possibly
you haven't encountered the good stuff?

Steve

Steve Pope wrote:
>
>
> There's plenty of bad espresso out there, consider just possibly
> you haven't encountered the good stuff?

My neighbours are Italian. They still have a house over there and spend a
few months each year back home. They brought me some espesso a few months
ago. It was a heck of a lot better than what I get here.

(Steve Pope) wrote:
>
> you haven't encountered the good stuff?

The good stuff... that's a definition?... you haven't a clue what
espresso IS, moron.

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/coffee/roasts.html

Italian, espresso

Roaster Watch: After 14 minutes or so the beans grow quiet and begin
to smoke. Having carmelized, the bean sugars begin to carbonize.

Surface: Very oily

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

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
(which is why folks say Star Bucks sells burned coffee, no they do
not, they sell close to the real deal, yoose just don't like
espresso). Naturally the concept can't be absorbed by the sealed
minded ritualistic cultists. This all came about in Italy because at
first coffee was banned as being sinful (after all, caffeine is a
narcotic), no different from how the gubermint looks at pot. Then the
Pope tried it and blessed it, but the gubermint didn't have enough to
go around, so they hoarded all the GOOD STUFF for the wealthy and
metted out the crap to the peasants, who discovered by roasting till
burnt they made it salvageable. Hardly anyone likes espresso at
first, it's an acquired taste, same as tobacco and pot... nearly
everyone chokes on their first drags. One day the gubermint will
legalize pot, but will keep all the GOOD STUFF for themselves. This
is not a fairy tale. National Geographic ran a TV special about
coffee about twenty years ago, occasionally there are reruns on the
public service stations.

There are many foods/drinks that an awful lot of folks think really
suck big time, doesn't mean they're bad. But don't water it down and
add stuff until you find it palatable and then still call it the real
deal... latte is tantamount to strawberry licorice. I really love
real licorice, the stronger and blacker the better... hate that red
crap. I don't mind an occasional espresso, but as soon as anything is
added, even a lemon peel or pernod, it's no longer espresso. If yoose
add dairy and sweetener you're really a wuss. Even in Italy, real
espresso is difficult to find. The last time I knew of an Italian
restaurant in NY's Little Italy that served the real deal was thirty
years ago... now it's all wussed down to even above a true French
roast.

Sheldon

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

(Steve Pope) wrote:
> Sheldon wrote:
> >Flavor: Smokey; tastes primarily of roasting, *not* of the inherent
> >flavor of the bean
>
> "Primarily" is a little squirrely. *

You're what's squirrely... an hour ago you're asking for help and now
you're a coffee maven... what you are is an ignoranus troll.

Sheldon > wrote:

>> Sheldon wrote:

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

>> "Primarily" is a little squirrely. *

>You're what's squirrely... an hour ago you're asking for help and now
>you're a coffee maven... what you are is an ignoranus troll.

I asked for recommendations on espresso machines. This does
not mean I don't know anything about coffee and/or espresso, it
does mean I'm willing to learn more about currently available
espresso machines. Is that too much to ask?

I'm perfectly willing to believe that what I want to come out of
the espresso machine doesn't meet your definition of "espresso".
And even that your definition is the correct one.
Still, what I'm after cannot come out of any other sort of coffee
maker, so I still need an espresso machine to make it, misnomer
may that be.

Steve

(Steve Pope) wrote:
> Sheldon wrote:
> >> Sheldon wrote:
> >> >Flavor: Smokey; tastes primarily of roasting, *not* of the inherent
> >> >flavor of the bean
> >> "Primarily" is a little squirrely. *
> >You're what's squirrely... an hour ago you're asking for help and now
> >you're a coffee maven... what you are is an ignoranus troll.
>
> I asked for recommendations on espresso machines. *This does
> not mean I don't know anything about coffee and/or espresso, it
> does mean I'm willing to learn more about currently available
> espresso machines. *Is that too much to ask?
>
> I'm perfectly willing to believe that what I want to come out of
> the espresso machine doesn't meet your definition of "espresso".
> And even that your definition is the correct one.
> Still, what I'm after cannot come out of any other sort of coffee
> maker, so I still need an espresso machine to make it, misnomer
> may that be.

You know nothing about anything, you low IQ imbecile... you don't
belong on a cooking newsgroup, you have nothing to contribute, all you
do is take... actually you pilfer.

You only asked for a recommendation for a burr grinder, you were
offered that. That you were offered much more informtation than you
bargained for should be considered a bonus. Normal brained folks
would have said "Thank you", but not a prig such as yourself. You are
an ingrate.
Glad to not have made your acquaintance.

Sheldon

Sheldon > wrote:

> Normal brained folks would have said "Thank you", but not a prig
> such as yourself.

You could back and look and notice that I said "thank you" to
those who replied to my query.

Possibly, you're too busy frothing to read carefully.

Steve

On 2007-03-23, Steve Pope > wrote:

> I'm perfectly willing to believe that what I want to come out of
> the espresso machine doesn't meet your definition of "espresso".
> And even that your definition is the correct one.

His definition of espresso couldn't be more wrong. Typical for
Sheltie. That eleventy million Italians drink moka pot coffee is no
more a valid criteria for good espresso than the millions of Americans
who drink Dunkin Donuts or 7-11 and call it good coffee or Budweiser
and Miller and call it good beer. No one who knows and really enjoys
great espresso still roasts quality espresso bean blends (espresso is
*NOT* a roast!) to a greasy charcoal end. Bottom line, you wanna
taste the real deal, you're going to have to spend some money and
learn some skills (what a shock! ...kinda like cooking). You want to
drink crap and call people names, follow Shelby's advice.

nb


nb

On Mar 22, 9:44�pm, notbob > wrote:
> On 2007-03-23, Steve Pope > wrote:
>
> > I'm perfectly willing to believe that what I want to come out of
> > the espresso machine doesn't meet your definition of "espresso".
> > And even that your definition is the correct one.
>
> His definition of espresso couldn't be more wrong. *Typical for
> Sheltie. *That eleventy million Italians drink moka pot coffee is no
> more a valid criteria for good espresso than the millions of Americans
> who drink Dunkin Donuts or 7-11 and call it good coffee or Budweiser
> and Miller and call it good beer. *No one who knows and really enjoys
> great espresso still roasts quality espresso bean blends (espresso is
> *NOT* a roast!) to a greasy charcoal end. *Bottom line, you wanna
> taste the real deal, you're going to have to spend some money and
> learn some skills (what a shock! ...kinda like cooking). *You want to
> drink crap and call people names, follow Shelby's advice.

Another moron with nothing useful.. if all you can
do is call names but offer nothing positive then you're just another
dumb putz... you offered nothing helpful, you angry piece of shit.

On 2007-03-23, Sheldon > wrote:

> Another moron with nothing useful.. if all you can
> do is call names but offer nothing positive then you're just another
> dumb putz... you offered nothing helpful, you angry piece of shit.

Ahh... isn't that cute. Shelting responds with another round of
namecalling. Even got him to sling some fecal matter. Lil'
pensie-wensie wanna peanut?

nb

Mark Thorson > wrote:

>Here's a classic essay on the general subject,
>Jack Denver's reply to a newbie on alt.coffee:

>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.c...e=source&hl=en

Big on attitude but short on information ("I doubt what I tell
you will help you"), other than the basic fact that one wants
a pump machine.

But thanks.

Steve

Steve Pope wrote:
>
> Any idea what I should buy among currently available
> models?

Here's a classic essay on the general subject,
Jack Denver's reply to a newbie on alt.coffee:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.c...e=source&hl=en

It doesn't recommend any current models, but
it tells you the basics toward understanding
what an espresso machine really is. There
is a great deal of misunderstanding on that
subject.

This is probably the all-time best essay
on the subject of buying your first espresso
machine ever posted to alt.coffee.

Sheldon wrote:
>
> 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

It is at this point, the train has been reliably determined
to have left the track. If you know what I mean. :-)

Steve Pope > wrote:

>Mark Thorson > wrote:

>>Here's a classic essay on the general subject,
>>Jack Denver's reply to a newbie on alt.coffee:

>>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.c...e=source&hl=en

>Big on attitude but short on information ("I doubt what I tell
>you will help you"), other than the basic fact that one wants
>a pump machine.

Also I am pretty skeptical with his contention that an "Americano"
(dilutted espresso) is ultimately better than other forms of coffee
such as filtered, French-press, etc. I can't 100% rule out this
possibility but I've never liked "Americanos".

Steve
>
>But thanks.
>
>Steve

Steve Pope wrote:
>
> Any idea what I should buy among currently available
> models?

Here's a review of the Gaggia Carezza when it was introduced:

http://www.coffeegeek.com/proreviews...arezza/details

It's currently available for $179, which is less than
the pricing mentioned in the review.

In article >,
(Steve Pope) wrote:

> Also I am pretty skeptical with his contention that an "Americano"
> (dilutted espresso) is ultimately better than other forms of coffee
> such as filtered, French-press, etc. I can't 100% rule out this
> possibility but I've never liked "Americanos".

An Americano, because of the dilution, has a similar texture to coffee
made in a drip machine, French press, etc. But the flavors can be
different. Whether you like it better is a matter of taste.

The difference will be more obvious if you are starting out with
espresso made with a pump machine. These machines force hot water (not
steam) through coffee at high pressure (9 atm). The stuff that comes
out of a pump espresso machine is different than what it produced by
drip brewers, percolators, moka pots and other steam gizmos. A
different profile of compounds, different viscosity. It's actually a
different physical state. The thick crema on a well-made espresso is a
colloidal suspension, trapping oils and aromatics which escape (or are
not extracted) in other processes.

There are lots of books that explain all this much better than I can.
For example, "Espresso Coffee, 2nd ed.: The Science of Quality," by
Rinantonio Viani and Andrea Illy.

Unfortunately, a lot of people form their opinions of espresso (and
other fancy coffee drinks) from what they have experienced at Starbuck's
and other big chains. Really good espresso is hard to find. It
requires good beans, expert roasting and blending, and a competent
barista working on well-maintained clean equipment. You'll know it when
you find it.

I live in Seattle, where there are espresso joints everywhere. The
stuff served by most of them (including Starbuck's) ranges from mediocre
to drek. But there are a few shops that stand out. If you come here,
try a straight shot at Caffé d'Arte, Espresso Vivace, or Zoka. You
don't have to a coffee snob to appreciate the dedication that these
folks put into their product. It's hard to get to their level of
quality and consistency with home equipment. But for a couple of
hundred dollars, and some practice, you can come close.

--
Julian Vrieslander

On 2007-03-23, Julian Vrieslander > wrote:

> different profile of compounds, different viscosity. It's actually a
> different physical state. The thick crema on a well-made espresso is a
> colloidal suspension, trapping oils and aromatics which escape (or are
> not extracted) in other processes.

Precisely.

> and other big chains. Really good espresso is hard to find. It
> requires good beans, expert roasting and blending, and a competent
> barista....

Bingo! All the other factors can be rendered into black crap by
unskilled operators. Before Starbucks went to insanely expensive
superautomatics (grind, prep, brew at touch of button), even the best
machines on the market were no help to them. So, it's true. Your
chances of finding a good espresso in the wild is about one in twenty.
But, they're out there and it's possible to replicate them at home.
On my second machine and second grinder, I can make *great* espresso.
But, it took some jingles and experience and skill to get there.

Here's what I would recommend as a minimal surefire combination at about
the lowest cost you can expect for new:

http://www.coffeegeek.com/proreviews/detailed/cremasl70
http://www.sweetmarias.com/prod.zas.shtml

But, you can buy these things used. I got both my grinder and machine
for under $200.

nb

Julian Vrieslander > wrote:

>Unfortunately, a lot of people form their opinions of espresso (and
>other fancy coffee drinks) from what they have experienced at Starbuck's
>and other big chains. Really good espresso is hard to find. It
>requires good beans, expert roasting and blending, and a competent
>barista working on well-maintained clean equipment. You'll know it when
>you find it.

>I live in Seattle, where there are espresso joints everywhere. The
>stuff served by most of them (including Starbuck's) ranges from mediocre
>to drek. But there are a few shops that stand out. If you come here,
>try a straight shot at Caffé d'Arte, Espresso Vivace, or Zoka.

Thanks.

I go to Caffe d'Arte each time I'm in Seattle.

One motivation for getting an espresso machine now is that
I have access to a good coffee source (Blue Bottle, which I
can pick up every Tuesday and Saturday and it's always roasted
1 or at most 2 days previously.)

One model I'm considering is the Briel ES42F but I'm still
in the research phase.

Steve

writes:

>I live in Seattle, where there are espresso joints everywhere. The
>stuff served by most of them (including Starbuck's) ranges from mediocre
>to drek. But there are a few shops that stand out. If you come here,
>try a straight shot at Caffe d'Arte, Espresso Vivace, or Zoka. You
>don't have to a coffee snob to appreciate the dedication that these
>folks put into their product. It's hard to get to their level of
>quality and consistency with home equipment. But for a couple of
>hundred dollars, and some practice, you can come close.

don't forget Victrola