I've roasted about 30 batches in my HWP at different roasts/various beans. I'm finding most of my batches are uneven. Not way uneven, but not a nice even color. I know some beans as Tom points out do not roast evenly. I'm sure this has been touched upon but do some of the HWP's just roast unevenly? I did a batch of Kona to a light roast, sumatra to darker, etc. I'm not sure if i'm imagining it, but my first few batches seemed much more even. Could i be overloading? I don't weigh the beans, just fill the cup and level- so if i'm over its not by much. Rec'd a free bag of Peets house blend in the mail (not sure what type of beans) and noticed how even it was. Dark brown with way more oil then i seem to get at a similar degree of darkness. The Peets beans are *very* oily- aside from whether this is desirable, do all beans obtain more or less the same degree of oil at similar roast stages? john
Hi John, I think you and I are about at the same pace. We got out roasters and grinders about at the same time and have been fervelently roasting since. I find my beans are mostly even with a very slight variance between beans. A few will be city if I'm roasting fullcity with blends or like the Sana'ai. As you said this is expected. Are you at all in a breezy/drafty place when roasting? I put mine on my stovetop with my avg room temperature at 73 deg. I used to order from peets regularly before I got my roaster (had to give away my free pound :) ) and I'm beginning to suspect that Peet's adds oil somehow! Actually I assume that their roast cycle is a bit longer/slower which would make it more consistent (if it's anything like cooking). That might explain the excess oil? I know I USED to think that more oil was just an amazing trait. I'd show it off and say, look at that oil.... here, smell. (I mean, after all, these were mail ordered!) Now I just say "here, smell" :) If you have a digital camera, I'd be happy to exchange roast photos with you. -Bry .
re: peet's oily bean, this is likely more an indicator that they've been out of the roaster for some time, perhaps > 14 days or so. If you roast medium dark, there may be a bit of initial oil which then is reabsorbed yielding a dry bean exterior. After a few days, though, and certainly at the 2 week mark, the oil will be pronounced. So what you may have are just old, stale beans that have yielded up their oils. This coupled with peet's toasty-roasty roasting style and they aren't doing anything you CAN'T do, they're doing something you don't WANT to so... creating old stale over-roasted coffee... Yum. Ted
I don't think the beans are stale. In fact (if you believe Peets which I do) they are now dated w/ the roast date, in this case 4.25 which I rec'd about 4/30 or so. That makes them 5 days, perhaps a week at most. Yes they are dark roasted, or *deep roasted* as they like to say. I happen to like dark roast- so kill me. However, I've only roasted maybe one or two batches myself that even gets close to a French roast. Maybe as I learn more I'll grow to hate the darker roasts... but I find I dislike the lighter end of the spectrum more than the darker, though I've been sticking around the middle full cityish w/ my first batches and/or close to whatever Tom suggests for each bean. That's been my starting point. The longest I've had any of my beans around is about a week max. So can't say what happens after that point. I still don't think my roast (with one or two exceptions) are as good as Peet's or my favorite beans at Starbucks. Something still seems to be missing and I'm not sure what it is yet. One thing I do like is my coffee strong (not talking espresso at the moment), which I think is why I tend to be disappointed with the lighter roasts (so far). I often end up using more coffee in the French press to compensate. Do other people do this. I've also been trying to get the grind correct for the press. I have to get it so its relatively easy to push down since my girlfriend has some problems which prevent her from using the same force I do. Right now it's often very hard to push down so I think I'm a little bit to fine- I'm at the 4th coarsest setting on my 166. I started with one 7g (illy spoon aprox) per 5 or 6 ounces which always came out too weak with about a 4 min brew time. I've gone up to 6 or 7 spoons for about 25-30 oz. <Snip>
<Snip> confidence?- bean'wild!
John, Ted Simpson's remarks about oil on darkly roasted beans, such as yours from Peets, are right on the mark. As the roasted beans age, oil migrates to the surface. The oil is now more exposed to the O2 in the air, which will turn it rancid pretty quick, depending on temperature and humidity. You should be able to get very dark roasts from your HWP, and, if you don't have a bunch of very weird beans, you should be getting even and consistent roasts. The only thing I have noticed that will prevent this is roasting in an environment where the ambient temperature is low, such as outside. If the temperature drops much below 63 or so, my HWP doesn't roast as well, but I still get fairly even roasts. A cheap and inexpensive way to check to see if there is something wrong with your HWP (which I doubt) would be to pick up a West Bend Poppery or Poppery II from a thrift shop for less than $5, and compare the roast to that of your HWP. If you're still getting uneven roasts, then the problem (although it's really not a problem) is with the beans. A Poppery will also teach you a little more about the roasting process, as you have to dump the beans into a colander to cool them. It's also a good backup, in case your HWP ever goes down, as well. As for your penchant for dark roasts, I can certainly relate to that. I live in Seattle and drank Starbucks for years before I started home roasting. In fact, I even drank their French Roast, which was REALLY crispy-critters! When I first began roasting, I listened to Tom and many of the "Old Timers" on this list, who generally said you will get better results with lighter roasts. My initial attempts, using the same amount of coffee that I previously used with Starbucks, produced some pretty good tasting dishwater. I wound up DOUBLING the amount of coffee I used and went to a finer grind than I had been using to get the flavor I wanted. I now generally use 55 grams of coffee for a 40 ounce drip pot. Oh yeah, after a few weeks, I began to actually prefer lighter roasts. While different beans will require separate roast profiles, you simply cannot enjoy all the complexities of the bean with a very dark roast. You'll be tasting the roast and not the finer attributes of the coffee. But, if you still like the taste of burn, your HWP should be able to give it to you! --Hugh
At 02:08 AM 5/6/00 -0400, you wrote: <Snip> As I recall you are using HWP. I too have been unable to get a satisfactory dark roast with the HWP. My most aggravating failure so far is Tom's French Roast Blend which came out of my old Hearthware roaster dark and oily with the flavor profile I would expect. In the new HWP I can't get a batch that is even remotely adequate. The beans are not nearly as oily (although they become more oily a few days later) and they taste like toasted chalk. I followed Tom's instructions exactly and used that time as a reference. I have wasted about two pounds of coffee trying to get a decent roast for this bean. I know the beans are not at fault because I love them roasted in the old Hearthware. This is very mysterious. On the other hand I have been reasonably happy with HWP's performance on lighter roasts (not that I do anything *very* light). Maybe HWP is just not suited for dark roasts. Don
<Snip> johnroche> One thing I do like is my coffee strong (not talking johnroche> espresso at the moment), which I think is why I tend to be johnroche> disappointed with the lighter roasts (so far). I often end johnroche> up using more coffee in the French press to compensate. Do johnroche> other people do this. Yes, I have taken to making very strong French press coffee, 20g to 8-10oz. I always forget to adjust back to normal for guests, who politely add lots of milk and sugar. I don't think I'm compensating for a light roast, though. A local coffeeshop serves ground-to-order press-pot coffee. They give you nearly 1/4 cup of roasted beans for a 12-oz mug. That's maybe 40g, I guess. -- Tim Culver Chapel Hill, NC ... popper ... trespade ... press pot
<Snip> Peet's does not sell any coffee that is a week or more past roasting date. Contrast this with Starbucks, who start the 7-day clock ticking when they open the big nitrogen-packed bag from one of their central roasters, and don't make any guarantees about the bagged coffee they sell. Some of Peet's roasts are oily from day 1 -- I have had the same phenomenon with roasts of mine that I have let go a bit too far. <Snip> Right. They have equipment we don't have, access to sources of supply we don't have, and more roasting and cupping experience than most of us, yet they're not doing anything we can't do. Isn't that just a teensy bit ideological? You can dislike Peet's roasting style, or some of their recent marketing gimmicks, but there's no denying their thorough professionalism. I have done roasts that are as satisfying as some I've had from Peet's, but there's no way they're as consistent or complex. If it weren't for Peet's, I wouldn't be on this mailing list, and I suspect that, at least indirectly, this is true of many others as well. --PR
At 09:56 AM 05/08/00 -0400, you wrote: <Snip> snip Nice to know. I stand corrected. <Snip> <Snip> snip I do. <Snip> Indirectly also true for me... because my roasts were so much better than the ones I could get from the pros that I have never stopped. In Peets case its NOT because they are incompetent, Prabhakar, but because I don't like their style and nothing else is available from them.... its dark or its nothing. And let me be clear with you and everyone else on this list, I AM ideological and I AM an amateur and have never stated otherwise. I have no degree in Coffee Studies, Drip Brewing Chemistry or Neomodern Espressoism... absolutely nothing qualifies me to write as an expert on coffee, or on any topic in fact except clinical psychology and even there in only a circumscribed area supported by my doctoral and subsequent studies... so I don't. Note that my opinions which, while strongly held and based on subjective experience, are subject to change without notice. If and when I post something to this or any other group as an expert, I'll bill you. My advice to the original poster stands. Don't burn your beans and maybe you'll do more than just smell the coffee. If there is oil on the coffee and the coffee is fresh, then it is fresh, ruined coffee. IMO, of course. <Snip> Ted
At 12:44 PM -0400 5/8/00, Simpson wrote: <Snip> Not just true of Peet's ... it's like that all over. Our #1 local roaster has that problem too. There must be a reason for it. The only thing I can think of is the well-known fact that the darker the roast, the more the differences between the beans disappear, and so many of our neighbors (I started to type neighbots but maybe that's not such a bad idea either) ... so many of them want mere consistency even if that means mediocrity. ;B -- Eric Bear Albrecht ebear http://www.newmex.com/ebear Tired of the same old crap? Note that crap, gore, and bush are all four-letter words. Want to see anything change? Vote for Nader. Anything else is just more insanity. Two-party system? HA!!
<Snip> There are gradations on "dark". If you put a dish of Peet's Italian Roast and Starbucks Espresso Roast side by side, the Peet's beans are dark brown with a light oil sheen, and the Starbucks beans are black and dry. I believe that Starbucks does this to conceal defects or inconsistencies. You could argue this of Peet's, but Peet's has roasted dark from the very beginning -- Alfred Peet wanted to bring to Californians the European roasts of his youth. As for why everyone else does it, well, even my "foodie" friends tend to think that darkness equals flavour. Which it does -- but flavour of a very specific type. They haven't yet learned to extend to the roasting of coffee the same thoughtfulness with which they approach the cooking of meat or fish. As the coffee-drinking market saturates, I think we will see more diversity in roast offerings (along with more marketing gimmicks, of course). --PR
At 02:03 PM 5/8/00 -0400, you wrote: <Snip> I think Alfred Peet gets misrepresented these days. I shopped at Peet's (Berkeley) back when Alfred still ran the joint. The spiel that I got back then was that Alfred was a consummate roaster who used the roast that was most appropriate for the the beans in question. Some took a darker roast very well, some required a medium. His goal was to maximize the flavor potential inherent in the bean. Admittedly, there were no light roasts anywhere to be found but there was also not the preponderence of dark roasts that you see today. The emphasis upon dark roasts began when he sold the operation to one of the guys who founded Starbucks. Starbucks, by the way, used to sell Peet's coffee relabeled as their own. That is how they got started and that is how they established their relationship with Alfred. I was very disappointed to see Peet's abandon Alfred's high standards and begin emphasizing dark roasts for everything. I stopped ordering from Peet's and began patronizing local micro-roasters who still understood the importance of an appropriate roast. But I have never had better coffee than the stuff I got from Peet's back when Alfred was in charge. Don
<Snip> Thanks for the clarification, Don. My first cup of Peet's coffee was either in the summer of 1981 or the fall of 1982 -- either Peet was still there or he had just sold and his influence was still paramount -- but my memory of it as a revelation is no doubt enhanced by time and by the fact that I still took cream and sugar in my coffee at the time, which was likely A&P Eight O'Clock brewed by my parents. I appreciate greatly the opportunity offered, by Sweet Maria's and this list, to move beyond it. --PR
Thanks, this explains why I liked Peets years ago when I lived in "Bezerkeley". The stuff I see now (e.g. at work), from Peets, bears little resemblance to what I remembered from my days in Northern Califorinia. - Jeff Don Staricka wrote: <Snip> -- Jeffrey Vandegrift, Principal Software Engineer Trilogy Inc, 1732 Main St, Ste 101, Concord MA 01742-3810 Voice: 978.371.3980 x104 Fax: 978.371.3990 Email: jvande Web:http://www.tril-inc.com
Prabhakar Ragde wrote: <Snip> Peet's is the reason I drink coffee at all. After I graduated college in '92 I started working at a startup biotech company in Boston. There were several Bay Area expatriots that swore by Peet's and wouldn't drink anything else. I never drank coffee before I started working with them. I soon discovered why. There was something special about that coffee. I have never had its equal. The memory of Peet's Guatemala Antigua is still my gold standard. I say "memory" because I've ordered from Peet's more recently (a few years ago) and not been as impressed. Anybody know when Alfred left? Was he still there in '92? Could I even been drinking coffee he had a hand in roasting? Or was I just young and impressionable?
<Snip> I am almost certain that Jerry Baldwin (have I got the name right? one of the Starbucks founders) left Starbucks in 1983 or 1984 and bought Peet's, though not from Alfred (there were a couple of owners in between). I can confirm the dates (and names) in my copy of "Uncommon Grounds" tonight -- it's at home. --PR
Hee Hee - so in reality, you get Starbucks Burnt with Starbucks _and_ Peet's - maybe there's room for a new player that doesn't crisp out the coffee? It would seem from the reviews I've printed out and read that Tom only rarely recommends a dark roast and almost always leans toward a City/Full City roast except in some occasions. But then it's a real balancing act when you get to that point in the roast where mere seconds can make a big difference and the roasting latitude changes with the crop - I wonder if Starbucks/Peets opted for the cheaper way out of just roasting all until crisp rather than expending the great effort it would take to exhaustively test-roast every crop to find that particular crop's g-spot. Then again, they may just be trying to hide poor grade coffee too - it is a corporation with an eye for the bottom line after all, right? I have no doubt that when Peet's and Starbucks were smaller and under control of the original founders that they made fantastic coffee. But how can a corporate committee that looks at numbers adn is hired based on a business degree and financial degree competently oversee quality control of their coffee? Mike Prabhakar Ragde wrote: <Snip>
At 3:59 PM -0400 5/8/00, Steve Baragona wrote: <Snip> Hmmm -- interesting. I also started to appreciate coffee in the Boston area, but a bit earlier -- like 1975-76; my gold standard is The Coffee Connection's Guatemala Antigua; I don't think I've ever seen anyone else roast it as light as George did. ;B -- Eric Bear Albrecht ebear W5VZB Box 6040 Presto Computers Macintosh repairs - used Macs - training & troubleshooting 505-758-0579 fax 505-758-5079 Taos, NM 87571 ** "Quantity has a quality all its own" ** ** -- attributed to many including ** ** Larry "Yogi" Berra and V. I. "Vlad" Lenin **
At 12:24 PM 5/8/00 -0700, you wrote: <Snip> I'd like to think so but the odds are stacked against me. Peet's had much better equipment than I could ever afford and Alfred was a consummate master whom I don't ever expect to equal except occasionally by accident. When I lived in Berkeley I would buy my coffee a quarter-pound at a time and I would only buy from that day's roast. I could usually get it still warm off the cooling racks. Even later, when I had it shipped to me, it was only a few days old and was absolutely fine. I'm sure my recollection has been enhanced by the passage of time but this was great, great coffee. Don
Prabhakar - Before I go on to other things, please allow me to apologize.for the tone of my earlier post. My level of snippishness was uncalled for. I'm sorry. As to coffee and home roasting, you said, when I stated that a home roaster could do what Peet's could do, but shouldn't want to: "Isn't that just a teensy bit ideological? You can dislike Peet's roasting style, or some of their recent marketing gimmicks, but there's no denying their thorough professionalism. I have done roasts that are as satisfying as some I've had from Peet's, but there's no way they're as consistent or complex." You're right, of course, that Peet's has lovely equipment, coffees as good as they wish to buy (and so quite good?) and scads more training. I hold that while that helps Peet's do the complex task of blending and roasting for consistent results across differing conditions, it in no way excludes a dedicated hobby roaster from regularly equaling the inherent quality of Peet's roast. There are many reasons why one may not match Peet's TASTE, not the least of which is that most of us are using 'fire and forget' hot air roasters compared to the drums I'll bet Peet's employs. The drum allows the smoke to permeate the roasting beans and makes for a slower roast, in general. Its a poor workperson who blames their tools, but the hot air popper/roaster is part of the problem, I'll bet. But that doesn't mean that, in its way, such a hot air roast can't be as high a quality product as a Peet's product, nor can I see any reason why a dedicated and experienced hobby roaster can't nail their taste goals as desired, pretty much all the time, within the taste profile range of the equipment they are using (e.g., hot air roaster). Now some bets are off when it comes to sophisticated blending... The cuppers at Peet's have the years of experience it takes to do this, and we often don't. But while it may take more attempts to get it just right, a hobby roaster can get it sooner or later, and since taste is as a subjective event we are able to tune our blend and our roast to our own tastes in ways the mass-marketers cannot. The other issue that I opined upon earlier is Peet's signature dark roast. While I will yield that there may be more subtlety in Peet's than in Starbuck's roasts, that seems to be damning with faint praise. The fact remains that these darker roasts have a pronounced dark roast flavor at the expense of acidity and nuance. It seems a shame to burn away the signature flavor components of a quality coffee, and a home roaster need not do this if they do not choose to do so. I strongly believe (note that word) that such dark roasts do only mediocre coffee any favors, and are an unwarranted assault on quality beans. Do I think espresso should generally be roasted darker than is usual for drip? Yes, but only to middle Full City or so. Certainly no or little initial oils on the espresso roast. Do I think that an espresso blend should take into account the tendency of the espresso process to emphasize acidity and therefore contain beans that will taste good at this lighter roast? Yes, yet again. That's why I think trying to find a coffee blend and roast which will double for espresso and drip/vac/cowboy is a hopeless chimera. I want different things from each, and they are pretty much mutually exclusive goals. Malabar Gold is a great case in point. I LOVE this stuff, but I'm not drinking it from a drip cone. You know, the pros have it all over the amateurs when it comes to rocket science and nuclear power generation. Other than at the far, fringe areas where technology and black art intertwine, we amateurs can do almost anything a pro can do, and usually as well, with practice and a willingness to learn from our errors. Unfortunately, those funky techno-fringes are encroaching more and more... tried to work on your modern car without a computer interface recently? Managed to build your own folded optic backyard telescope? So in the absence of '57 Chevys or 6", pipe-mounted, hand-ground, spherical curve, f-10 Newtonian reflectors, we have coffee and coffee roasting. Let's not give it away. Instead let's acknowledge what we can do, lobby for equipment changes to enhance our abilities (or build our own) and in general honor our capacity to meet our own needs in a highly competent fashion in the arena of quality coffee. I truly believe we need to save what we can from the 'experts', or sooner or later we'll have nothing but passive consuming to our name. Say, I got my chaff collector working for the VR MKIV and just finished modifying the Gaggia for preinfusion, and I like it! Just served Jill two lattes made with decaf beans, blended from Tom's excellent stock, that I roasted on the VR. The shots were rich and nutty, and the preinfusion made for a consistent, perfect 1.5 ozs in 30 seconds, beautiful crema, shot after shot. My local cafe can't touch it. And he has a commercial roaster. You get the point. Again, sorry for my earlier snottyness, Prabhakar. Ted
Ted Simpson wrote: <Snip> Ted's post reminded me of a question I've been meaning to ask you wise roaster folk. I use a Whirlypop stovetop popper for my roasting. I'm generally pretty conscientious about keeping the lid CLOSED until the beans hit first crack, and only opening it sparingly and quickly to check the color after that. I do this because I'm watching the temperature rise, and I'm afraid that if I open the lid, much of the heat will escape, giving me an inaccurate reading and potentially stalling the roast. But keeping the lid on also keeps the roasting smoke in. It smokes more after first crack, of course, and more still after second (if I let it go that long). I peek more often after first crack, but I still don't just leave the lid up. I'd always wondered if keeping the smoke in like this was detrimental to the roast. Ted's post suggests that the smoke permeating the beans is a Good Thing (at least if you're a fan of the old Peet's). I'd been afraid that I was hurting the flavor by keeping the lid on... but I'm still afraid to leave it open throughout the roast. Anyone have any thoughts on this? Am I being too careful by not lifting the lid more? Or would that indeed let some heat escape and slow the roast, possibly even stalling it? -- garyZ Whirly-drip-black & vacuum
<Snip> Nothing like looking at a reference book to take the fun out of an Internet discussion. Baldwin, with two partners, started selling Peet's coffee through Starbucks in Seattle. They took turns working at Peet's in Berkeley during the summer to learn the trade. Peet retired in 1979 and sold to Sal Bonavita (great name for a coffee maven) (this of course means that I have never tasted coffee roasted by Alfred Peet). Baldwin hired this guy named Schwartz to do marketing. Schwartz pushed for big expansion; Baldwin was increasingly unhappy with the direction things were going (at least one of the other original partners had already sold out by this time). Bonavita contacted Baldwin in 1983 and offered to sell Peet's. Baldwin, seeing an opportunity to return to his roots, bought Peet's for Starbucks, and took an increasingly active role in it, commuting between the Bay Area and Seattle. In 1986 (I think -- damn, I can't keep all of this in my head) Schwartz engineered a buyout of Starbucks; Baldwin spun Peet's off and stayed with it, and Starbucks embarked on the massive expansion that is familiar to everyone on this list, including some very aggressive store positioning WRT Peet's when a later offer to Baldwin to buy Peet's was rejected. So you could say that Peet's and Starbucks proffer the same sort of carbonization, or you could say that Peet's retains whatever is left of the soul and spirit of the original Starbucks, while today's Starbucks retains the trademark and marketing drive. --PR
<Snip> That's okay. It happens to me too, one of the pitfalls of this medium (and I have references on the psychosocial reasons why this happens, if anyone's interested). I agree with you, Ted, that one big advantage that we home roasters have over commercial roasters is that we are roasting just for ourselves (or close friends) and have both a more cleanly defined target and better feedback. (Though here in Canada, it is a bit of a problem to get sometimes. Even close friends don't believe me when I say, "No, really, criticize it, I need to know exactly how it tastes to you!" I have this problem when I cook people food, also.) I also am coming to appreciate more the subtlety of lighter roasts, enough to pity my friend who told me that anything less than Starbucks French Roast tastes "sour" to him. It is true that espresso seems to magnify the undesirable elements of underroasted coffee, but stopping at Full City is hardly "underroasted". Tom's fifty varieties of beans, together with the variability possible in the roasting process, offers us more flexibility than currently possible through commercial purchase. I believe some of that advantage will erode in the near future. Finally (and Ted, with your ever-more-intricate machines, you are definitely aware of this) there is the ineffable joy of doing it oneself, of being up to the elbows in the process. I started cello last fall, at age forty. It's not Yo-Yo Ma I'm comparing myself to; my seven-year-old (playing violin) is way beyond and will always be, and my five-year-old is overtaking fast. But when I sit down and create thirty bars of scratchy, cramped, highly simplified Bach, nothing on CD can match it. --PR
Good post. I have ordered a copy of "Uncommon Grounds". It sounds like a worthwhile reference. You failed to mention, however, that one of the big investors in Starbucks during Schwartz' expansion phase was a guy named Bill Gates Sr. Were you deliberately shielding us from this knowledge or are you an active agent of the Gates family conspiracy to dominate the world? :-) Don At 09:29 AM 5/9/00 -0400, you wrote: <Snip>
<Snip> PR can't be - I am, and I'm in with Virgin while I am at it too. (If you all must know.) -bean'wild! (living on strategic swamplands, backing onto old oceans 1 hr from Brisbane)
I think I have some good material for my huge sig collection: "I strongly believe (note that word) that such dark roasts do only mediocre coffee any favors, and are an unwarranted assault on quality beans." -- Ted Simpson -- Eric Bear Albrecht ebear http://www.roastbusters.org/coffee Drink your coffee! There are people sleeping in India!
<Snip> PR, Interesting dilemma....... Try making that request here in NYC... You will be told in no uncertain terms..lol <Snip> I agree with you on this one. I, for one, am into process, more so than product. I have trouble being a spectator to something that interests me. I'd rather be a "poor" participant than a great spectator. Keep scraping... Ciao, Angelo
Last week I bought some Timor Peaberry. It doesn't appear to roast evenly and seems to take longer to roast than other coffees I've roasted recently. Also, I couldn't really determine whether or not it went through first crack, although it looked like it did. I thought I heard a small crack or two, but that's it. Has anyone had a similar experience? Thanks, Jon
i roasted my first zimbabwe peaberry today and it seemed to me that is was a light FC so i went by thermometer
On Aug 4, 2006, at 4:29 PM, Jon Rosen wrote: <Snip> I'm beginning to wonder if the "missing first crack" is common to peaberries. The Matadakad (there's no more! sniff!) does the same thing--an audible crack or two is all. The Nicaraguan Pacamara Peaberry is the same way. Now, after the roast, you'll see that they *did* crack--the seams are split and there are cracks near the long ends. But they're just hard to hear for some reason. Scot "cracklin' rosie" Murphy
Perhaps the smaller beans have too little internal moisture to produce an audible crack. But, they also seem to roast lighter and unevenly. I'm not sure how to roast them properly to get good results. On Aug 4, 2006, at 7:25 PM, Scot Murphy wrote: <Snip>
A couple weeks ago I "accidently" roasted some of the Timor to a french roast (1st time with new roaster) ... best french roast coffee I have ever had! Eddie --- Jon Rosen wrote: <Snip>http://lists.sweetmarias.com/mailman/listinfo/homeroast<Snip>http://sweetmarias.com/maillistinfo.html#personalsettings<Snip>">http://lists.sweetmarias.com/mailman/listinfo/homeroast<Snip>http://lists.sweetmarias.com/mailman/listinfo/homeroast<Snip>http://sweetmarias.com/maillistinfo.html#personalsettings<Snip> Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
My guess is that your guess about the internal moisture has lots to do with it. I've noticed in different roasts of the same PB, that depending on ramp and temps to 1st crack, I can get a few snaps and that's it, or I can get a fairly normal and noisy 1st. With the different profiles, I've noticed more difference in the sounds of 1st crack than I have in the cup though. YMMV. peter <Snip> unsvbscribes) go tohttp://sweetmarias.com/maillistinfo.html#personalsettings