Do you really think that at 3 star restaurants, where they have about 5 staff per customer, they would serve Nespresso if they thought it isn't good coffee?
It doesn't matter what I think, you can read what they said. Of course it's not Starbucks quality level, but it's not great coffee, just good enough for the other qualities to win over better tasting coffees.
Can you show me any evidence that better coffee can be obtained in a reasonable other way?
Sure, the way multiple coffee shops do so here: you buy a decent Italian espresso machine (such as a La Marzocco), you get a few baristas with a couple of decades or more of experience serving coffee, buy decent beans and grind them yourself daily.
Of course, this isn't reasonable if you're a restaurant which serves a few dozen cups a day, which are just a small part of the whole "product". But for a dedicated coffee shop, which might serve more than a hundred per day, the costs are reasonable.
I know it is romantic to think that you can make better coffee yourself
I didn't say that. I have a capsule machine myself. But I don't need to make better coffee to know that better coffee is made.
Nespresso burns and grinds and vacuum seals coffee that is then placed into a machine that delivers a fixed amount of water at a particular speed and temperature. All the parameters in this process have been tuned by professionals backed up by panels of taste testers.
Sure, Nespresso is a great value for its price. But nothing in that process is better than what I'm describing.
Why would a restaurant be able to do better, let alone significantly better, at a reasonable price and effort?
Not restaurant, coffee shop. And I don't know what you consider "reasonable". The reason they do better is because they have different constraints in terms of space, marginal costs per cup and importance of the coffee to their line up, which allows them to invest more in it.
Coffee simply doesn't have this.
Grinding many days in advance, even if vacuum sealed, does have an effect on the taste.
> Sure, the way multiple coffee shops do so here: you buy a decent Italian espresso machine (such as a La Marzocco), you get a few baristas with a couple of decades or more of experience serving coffee, buy decent beans and grind them yourself daily.
So which part of this makes the coffee better than Nespresso? Is the espresso machine doing something better than a nespresso machine? I don't think so. Are the beans being grinded better than in a nespresso factory? I don't think so. Are the beans themselves of higher quality than the ones that nespresso uses? Perhaps, though unlikely to be a significant difference unless you are willing to pay a much higher price, and even then. Even if these is some small advantage that the barista can have, does that weigh against the advantages that Nespresso has, namely being able to perfectly tune the whole process with taste testers?
> Grinding many days in advance, even if vacuum sealed, does have an effect on the taste.
Why? What is the difference between a coffee particle sitting "inside" a bean, and sitting tightly packed in a vacuum? And if there is an important difference, why is the former better? For all we know it tastes worse.
Admittedly not very scientific with a low sample size, but the result of this test was that Nespresso is better than the coffee of an experienced barista. At the very least there isn't an obvious perceptible difference in favor of the barista. Do you know of any blind taste tests showing the opposite?
Is the espresso machine doing something better than a nespresso machine? I don't think so.
Why not? Why is it so hard to believe that an hand-made machine that costs an order of magnitude more can actually produce a better result?
For example, the size allows the La Marzocco to have two different water heating chambers at different temperatures, which is impossible with the size of a Nespresso.
Even if these is some small advantage that the barista can have, does that weigh against the advantages that Nespresso has, namely being able to perfectly tune the whole process with taste testers?
It can't perfectly tune the process, because the machine itself isn't perfectly tuned. It's designed to be cheap, small and easy to mass-produce.
They do a great job, but the constraints are simply different.
Why? What is the difference between a coffee particle sitting "inside" a bean, and sitting tightly packed in a vacuum?
Because the exposure to some air has already happened, and the process doesn't stop after you closed it in vaccum (which itself is never perfect).
Do you know of any blind taste tests showing the opposite?
The key descriptors for Nespresso were ‘smooth’ and ‘easy to drink’. And from the point of view of restaurateurs who use it, the key word is ‘consistency’. It was far from bland, but it was not challenging or distinctive either. It’s a coffee everyone can really like but few will love: the highest common denominator, if you like
It doesn't matter what I think, you can read what they said. Of course it's not Starbucks quality level, but it's not great coffee, just good enough for the other qualities to win over better tasting coffees.
Can you show me any evidence that better coffee can be obtained in a reasonable other way?
Sure, the way multiple coffee shops do so here: you buy a decent Italian espresso machine (such as a La Marzocco), you get a few baristas with a couple of decades or more of experience serving coffee, buy decent beans and grind them yourself daily.
Of course, this isn't reasonable if you're a restaurant which serves a few dozen cups a day, which are just a small part of the whole "product". But for a dedicated coffee shop, which might serve more than a hundred per day, the costs are reasonable.
I know it is romantic to think that you can make better coffee yourself
I didn't say that. I have a capsule machine myself. But I don't need to make better coffee to know that better coffee is made.
Nespresso burns and grinds and vacuum seals coffee that is then placed into a machine that delivers a fixed amount of water at a particular speed and temperature. All the parameters in this process have been tuned by professionals backed up by panels of taste testers.
Sure, Nespresso is a great value for its price. But nothing in that process is better than what I'm describing.
Why would a restaurant be able to do better, let alone significantly better, at a reasonable price and effort?
Not restaurant, coffee shop. And I don't know what you consider "reasonable". The reason they do better is because they have different constraints in terms of space, marginal costs per cup and importance of the coffee to their line up, which allows them to invest more in it.
Coffee simply doesn't have this.
Grinding many days in advance, even if vacuum sealed, does have an effect on the taste.