It was interesting to read the the latest post from industry blog Coffee Hero, “Espresso Vivace Now Without Robusta,” for two reasons: 1) as a fan of Espresso Vivace, I have enjoyed the Dolce blend in the past (though, admittedly it has been a few years) and 2) because the article also sets a few facts straight about Robusta coffees and says a few unsolicited kind words about our friends at Sethuraman Estate.
It all began with an article in the Seattle Times, called “Coffeehouse customers steamed about higher prices,” where David Schomer is quoted as saying Espresso Vivace stopped adding “lower-cost Robusta coffee” to his blends, presumably in an attempt to cut costs.
Is it just me or is that logic a little hard to grasp?
Puzzler aside, Michael Allen Smith of Coffee Hero proceeds to review the new Dolce blend sans-Robusta and finds that it “tastes just like the robusta version, however it doesn’t linger on the palette as much. My friend referred to the new blend as “the younger brother.”
I have not tasted the new formula, but suspect that our Hero’s comments are probably accurate. As old-school roasters tinker with their blends, whether to lower material costs or to appear more in touch with the latest style, a little something is lost. Too bad.
My question for Mr. Schomer: Why not just use a better Robusta?
On the bright side, he continues with supporting information as to why roasters should use better Robusta in their blends and even praise of a single origin Kaapi Royale Coffee (Sethuraman Estate) Robusta coffee purchased from Paradise Roasters:
Recently, I had a 100% robusta single origin espresso from Paradise Roasters. It was an outstanding espresso and every bit the equal in quality to arabica espresso blends.
I agree that most Robusta coffees are falling far short of their potential quality and are best used in instant coffees, but I am pleased to see that coffee people are learning that other higher-end Robustas are now available and are not afraid to voice their experienced opinion contrary to current popular trend.
3 responses so far ↓
1 MAS // Oct 1, 2009 at 6:04 pm
I don’t think the reporter quoted Schomer as stating their robusta was lower cost. I think she leaped to that conclusion and then didn’t follow up with an additional question.
I’m still unclear why Vivace feels it wasn’t needed. Maybe more information will come out on the reasoning.
Also, I updated my post to give credit to the Sethuraman Estate.
2 George Sabados // Oct 9, 2009 at 8:15 pm
Firstly, and a question of correct use of words, a palette is:
1. a thin and usually oval or oblong board or tablet with a thumb hole at one end, used by painters for holding and mixing colors.
2. any other flat surface used by a painter for this purpose.
3. the set of colors on such a board or surface.
4. the range of colors used by a particular artist.
Whereas, I believe when we speak of coffee tasting, we speak of a PALATE:
1. Anatomy. the roof of the mouth, consisting of an anterior bony portion (hard palate) and a posterior muscular portion (soft palate) that separate the oral cavity from the nasal cavity.
2. the sense of taste: a dinner to delight the palate.
3. intellectual or aesthetic taste; mental appreciation.
My apologies since I do make this correction regularly in the line of my duties.
In regards to the ‘original’ Vivace Dolce Blend – which I had the luxury of tasting at an SCAA show in Seattle some years ago made by the man himself – it was evident, both visually and orally, that it contained a high percentage of robusta. It was confirmed by the look of hesitation on Mr. Schomer’s face when I asked how high. It seemed he assumed I would poo poo the whole notion of robusta in an espresso blend.
Contrary to popular opinion, I believe that robusta is ABSOLUTELY necessary for espresso blends used for a majority of milk coffee drinks. It can be more syrupy, sweeter, higher in body and tastier than a great many arabicas. And in an espresso blend, robusta underpins the favourable qualities of arabicas, greatly assisting their characteristics to ‘punch through’ a cup full of milk.
But of course, liking robusta comes with a series of provisos: –
1. There is a quality scale for robusta as much as there is for arabicas – and the better end of the spectrum provides a better range of qualities.
2. Roasting robusta requires a completely different treatment to roasting arabicas – in order to diminish the ‘baginess’ or earthy characteristics and to enhance the required characteristics. As a side note, this different roasting treatment can grow the taste footprint of lower grade robustas -meaning that cheaper ones can taste better.
3. Percentages must vary from roast to roast depending on the intensity of the outcome – which changes all the time.
4. Robusta (when given the right roast treatment) needs a greater length of time to mature and become truly worthy. Too soon and it froths unbelievable crema with largish bubbles and which disappears quickly. More importantly, it tastes ‘raw’. These were cues which alerted me to the use of a great deal of robusta in the Dolce blend.
Interestingly, I have conducted a great number of ‘blind’ espresso tastings where pundits overwhelmingly preferred the 100% robusta cup. That is, so long as the above points are adhered to.
Now, why would a successful blend such as the Dolce be dumbed down so to speak?
I can think back to Mr. Schomers uncomfortability in being asked how much robusta his blend contained. Maybe Mr. Schomer felt the 100% arabica crusaders in the coffee industry were successfully tarnishing Vivace’s reputation. It may be possible that the taste of the robusta was too prevalent – given the house encouragement that this blend should be consumed very soon (too soon) after roasting. Without a detailed explanation from the man himself there is only one thing I can say for certain – that is, the dropping of robusta from the Dolce blend was not because of cost! After all, robustas tend to be a great degree cheaper than arabicas.
3 MAS // Oct 10, 2009 at 5:23 am
George –
Someone else corrected me on the palate vs palette hours after I posted. This seems to be a common coffee site mistake (after eXpresso and ColUmbia). The correction has been made on my site and on about 10 other articles.
Great comments, especially about the roasting differences.
I have spoken to a number of Seattle roasters and they all have nothing but the highest respect for Vivace. Never once did I hear a negative comment about his use of robusta.
Leave a Comment