Espresso Reviews

Both Ken and Willem liked this blend, but Willem really liked it: "Floral aroma, buttery, smooth body, sweet flavor with berry and prune notes. Lingering aftertaste with resonant sweetness. Fantastic and complete as milk drink, with chocolate and caramel notes." (93) Ken honored and enjoyed the fruit notes, which he found complex but rather tart once past the aroma ("tart berry and pineapple, dry chocolate" in the small cup, "tart fruit with a floral finish" in milk). In the end Ken found the cup just a bit short on sweetness and depth of sensation, both with milk and without (87).

Willem: "Blossom-like, peppery aroma, just like the roses from my 50+year-old rose tree! Mild sweet flavor with lingering floral aftertaste. Excellent caramel complexity with milk. I loved it." (92) What for Willem was peppery and blossom-like, for Ken was spicy and fruity in the aroma and smokily fruity in the small cup. Ken wanted more sweetness in the demitasse but in milk praised this blend as "sweet, crisp and cherry-like edging toward chocolate." (89).

For Ken this naturally low-acid, lighter roasted blend was "Sweetly musty, cherry and apple in the aroma, heavy body with a tingle in the mouthfeel, crisp and toasty rather than sharp in the small cup, with excellent dimension and range."(91) Willem was less excited: "Bubbly and rich body. Chocolate, caramel notes with mildly woody then fruit notes in the aftertaste." (87) For both Ken and Willem, this blend came most distinctly into its own in milk. "Wonderful mastery of milk" according to Ken, "rich, complete, with a sort of carnal, earth-toned fruity chocolate." Willem: "Fantastic with milk: sweet, rich, lingering chocolate."

Both Willem and Ken found this blend satisfying, though not exciting. Willem: "elegant floral aroma. Overall: smooth and soft with pleasantly lingering aftertaste. Rich caramel notes in milk." (87) Ken: "Complex in a narrow range: smoky, sweet fruit in the aroma, smoky and spicy in the demitasse. Caramelly and sweet though a bit shallow in milk." (86)

Ken and Willem were eight points apart on this one. Ken liked the aromatic excitement of the "floral and fruit notes with complex smoky undertones" that he followed with pleasure from aroma through finish to milk. Although he found the small cup a bit sharp and thin-bodied, he forgave all in return for the floral and fruit complexity. (89) Willem, on the other hand, tasted nothing but imbalance and too much acidity: "Somewhat dull aroma with minor earthy notes" and in the small cup "mildly sharp and some uncontrolled acidity." He was a bit more forgiving with performance in milk: "sweet, bright, with caramel aftertaste." (81)

Both Ken and Willem admired the aroma of this rather darkly roasted blend, but the ambiguous flavor notes in the cup provoked ambivalence. For Willem the aroma was "excellent & fine and deep at the same time, with delicious floral notes," for Ken it was "sweet with a round, roasty chocolate and peach and floral notes." In the cup Willem found an "interesting flavor with an overpowering berry, almost musty, fruit aftertaste" (86) and Ken "dominating pungent, smoky tones, with a dry edge of chocolate; rather sharp and thin in the finish." (83)

Ken admired this blend (86) more than Willem (83), who was ambivalent about the aroma ("chocolate with a hint of tobacco"), critical of the small cup ("lacks sweetness and balance") though mildly approving of performance in milk ("pleasant caramel aftertaste"). For Ken, the aroma also was a bit feeble and musty in its chocolate and papaya suggestions, the cup a bit too dominated by musty and slightly fermented fruit notes, but he felt the finish "smoothed out nicely toward dry prune and chocolate," and the blend showed excellent presence in milk. He got so carried away he decided he found marzipan and mint notes in the milk finish.

Willem found this sample of the Starbucks staple blend "balanced throughout with no major high [positive] or low [negative] notes in aroma, flavor and aftertaste. [In the demitasse] some sweetness with a bitter end note. With milk, sweet, spicy, [with] a mild, pungent aftertaste." (85) Ken was less impressed. For him the aroma was "smoky, sweet and subdued," the body lean, the small cup "smoky and simple." He was most taken with this ubiquitous blend's impact in milk: "sweetens and rounds, prune fruit softens toward chocolate in the finish." (83)

This well-known blend, which attracted high ratings in previous Coffee Review tastings, mildly disappointed in this incarnation (Willem 84, Ken 84). Aroma fared well enough. For Willem it was "elegant, complex[ly] floral," for Ken "sweet, rich, with papaya and perhaps mint." Both found the small cup imbalanced, however. Willem described it as "acidy [and] spicy," Ken as "heavily pungent with aromatic wood notes." This imbalance predictably softened in milk: "Much better with milk than without" Willem concluded, although Ken felt the presence in milk was substantial but "rather ponderous with a woody finish."

Neither Ken nor Willem developed much enthusiasm for this beautifully packaged coffee. Willem apparently liked the "mild floral notes" in the aroma, but in the cup found both body and flavor "lacked balance and temperature stability," meaning they changed for the worse as the coffee cooled. (82) Ken found the smoky, low-toned fruity aroma attractive, but the cup bitterly pungent and smoky without resonance or resilience. The coffee failed to "blossom" for him in milk and remained smoky and flat. (82)

Ken found this espresso matched its name: A straightforwardly roasty, simple espresso of the kind pumped out of roadside espresso carts and kiosks all over the Northwest: "Dark-roasted with a smoky bite and a low-toned papaya-like fruit that turns vaguely chocolate in the finish. Smoky and a little flat in milk." (84) Willem, however, acknowledges only the negative side of the aggressive roast with its limited range: "Burned, dull aroma with unpleasant carbony and cardboard flavor." (78)

Lots of complaints and caveats here. For Willem the aroma was "slightly musty, chocolaty," for Ken "heavy, bittersweet." In the demitasse Willem found "bitter, sharp flavor notes" and Ken "sharpish, ponderously sour tones" although he did detect "some incongruous floral topnotes." "Definitely lacked sweetness with and without milk," Willem concluded. (80) "Powerful but oddly sourish in milk" for Ken. (81)

Co-taster Willem Boot: "Fine and complex fruity/minty aroma. Exotic berry-like flavor notes with fascinating wild black currant aftertaste. Balanced, sweet and intriguing with milk" (93) Ken characterized the wild, sweet, edge-of-ferment fruit tones running through the profile from aroma to aftertaste as black cherry, and enjoyed them almost as much as Willem (90). In milk Ken completely concurred with Willem: "sweet, balanced, lovely."

Co-taster Willem Boot greatly admired this coffee, awarding it an exclamatory 95: "Reddish brown supershot! Complex aroma with tingling body. Mild sweet and dry flavor balance with intense fruit and spicy notes. Cardamom flavor with milk." Ken's admiration was more restrained. He enjoyed the low-toned bouquet of pipe tobacco, leather, toast, smoke, spice and musty cantaloupe notes enough to award a rating of 88, but found the body "gritty" (Willem called it "tingling") and the finish slightly astringent.

Both Ken and co-taster Willem Boot remarked on a medium but smooth, buttery body. Aromatics and flavor were "floral and slightly malty/musty, toasty and crisp" (Ken), "light chocolate & elegant, spicy-smoky" (Willem). "Pleasant[ly] caramel" in milk for Willem, "balanced, sweet yet crisp" for Ken. Willem 90, Ken 88.

The term "balanced" dominated both Ken and co-taster Willem Boot's notes. The body was balanced and smooth for Ken, balanced and buttery for Willem; both found the presence in milk balanced and complex. Ken admired the small cup's "elegant dry fruit" while Willem praised its "lively, citrus" character. Willem 87, Ken 90.

A coffee in which a mild processing taint - sweet fermented fruit for Ken, a hint of mustiness for co-taster Willem Boot - turns toward chocolate under the influence of the dark roast. Subtle but substantial in milk: "lingering balance" in milk for Willem, "delicately complex" for Ken. Ken awarded this coffee a considerably higher rating (90) than did Willem (86), probably owing to Ken's openness to sweet, flirt-with-ferment coffees.

A rather dramatic difference surfaced between co-taster Willem Boot and Ken on this very dark-roasted Panama. Ken wanted more sweetness and body; Willem apparently found enough of both and admired the elegant nuance. Willem: "Aroma with caramel and mild-apricot notes. Despite the dark roast, balanced flavor with apricot and chocolate. Pleasantly spicy with milk" (91). Ken: "Lovely aroma, high-toned but sweet fruit notes. In the small cup lean-bodied and crisply bitter, with a rich but astringent finish. Fruit re-emerges in milk, dry, smoky, chocolate-toned." (83).

Both Ken and co-taster Willem Boot found chocolate notes running through aroma and small cup: "deep-toned chocolate" for Willem, "caramel, chocolate" for Ken. Both, however, complained about a slight sharpness in the finish, though Willem found it "minty." Good presence in milk: "Spicy and sweet" for Willem, "smoky, fruity and rich" for Ken. Willem rating 87, Ken 87.

Ken and co-taster Willem Boot both found the aroma impressive: resonant, floral, fruity. The body disappointed, however: "imbalanced and gritty" (Ken), "unsettled" (Willem). The flavor was "complex" for Willem, "rich" for Ken, with floral and fruit endnotes. Both were approving though not excited about performance in milk: "Tickling, spicy" for Willem, "dry chocolate" for Ken. Willem 85, Ken 84.