Talk:Espresso/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

The term espresso

The term espresso is derived from the italian expression caffè espresso. Espresso means literally "expressed" in the meaning of "not implicit". It dates back to ancient custom in which one would have to order "expressively / formally" at the bar of the restaurant. Very often it is wrongly assumed, also in the main article of wikipedia, that the term espresso is derived from "express" in the meaning of "fast" or "pressed out" from the latin word "exprimere = to express" (PPP (Passive perfect participle) = expressum).

--86.142.171.119 22:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)Sorry for my bad english..

---

Every single source I can check for etymologies gives the correct etymology as being derived from the past participle of esprimere. These are all English dictionaries, and they are all possibly wrong. I would need to see some evidence that this is wrong. In the meantime, I think it is safest to go with The Oxford American Dictionary and Merriam-Websters.

71.56.237.70 23:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

---

I agree, go with OED, but it's not clear to me that the etymologies are definitive here, i.e. the etymologies may be correct, but the origin may still be unclear. In English there is an ambiguity between express-quickly and express-custom and the same ambiguity may exist in Italian: whether the single shot of coffee is custom-made expressly for you, or if it is made quickly for you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.107.130 (talk) 17:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Why should an English dictionary be used here? Would not an Italian dictionary be better used? It strikes me that the most likely etymology is going to be based on the literal meaning of espresso in modern Italian, with a particular consideration of early 20th century, an in particular Milanese usage. Latin roots do not strike me as particularly relevant, except secondarily in describing the origin of that usage.--Ericjs (talk) 13:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

---

Answers.com reproduces the wikipedia article but there appears text there which I cannot find here:

The Italian dictionary "Garzanti"[6] (a respected Italian dictionary) clearly states that the origin of the word is from the fact that is prepared on the spot:

Espresso: si dice di cibo o bevanda che viene preparato al momento, su richiesta del cliente: piatto espresso; caffè espresso

Espresso: said of a food or beverage which is prepared in the moment, upon request from the customer, e.g. dish espresso, caffè espresso

One could translate "espresso" as "expressly made", "made to order", "made for a particular purpose".

Another meaning of "fast" is a bit more roundabout. Espresso only means "fast" in a secondary, implied, way. At the beginning of the 20th century steam trains were developing fast and were the ultimate symbol of progress and modernity. Espresso trains were those which went direct to their destination, without stopping along the way. They arrived sooner because they did not stop and not because they attained higher speed. Nevertheless the word "espresso" became associated with "fast".

From everything I have read I would say that the word may have stuck due several different meanings and associations:

1- Made to order
2- The association of the term with the meaning "fast"
3- The association of the term with espresso trains and steam machines, both symbols of progress at that time

GS3 (talk) 21:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

---

History

All my searches for the history of espresso attribute it to Italy in the early 20th century, but these all refer to the first machine for making espresso. Nowhere can I find any attribution to Odessa, Ukraine. In fact, a search of "history espresso Odessa" yields more results for Odessa, Texas! Can the original author please provide a citation? Jmalin (talk) 16:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

To what can we attribute the origin of espresso to a) the city of Milan and b) the early 20th century? There is no citation or reference for this information. --Offchance (talk) 02:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd dearly love to see material on the history of espresso, particularly of the early development of the technology used to make it and the people or companies involved. Clearly it isn't nearly as old as boiled or filtered coffee, and the steam pressure-makers must have come about as a refinement of the older stovetop percolators. But when, where, and who was involved? Charmii 14:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I can tackle adding a more complete history subsection of for espresso. I've been working on one for the CG site for the espresso guide, and can precis (shorten) it here for wiki. Question is, how long do you think I should make it. The CG article one is about 2500 words, and barely scratches the surface in some instances. CoffeeGeek 23:10, 21 March 2006 (PST)

Brewing method

"To pull a single shot of espresso, a metal filter known as a portafilter basket is filled with between 6.5 grams and 10 grams (for a single shot) of properly ground roasted coffee beans. The espresso is then tamped..."

There's a descriptive break, where suddenly the beans are considered espresso. As far as i can figure the finished product is the espresso, not the beans in the basket.

The beans are still considered coffee, however most roasters will use such descriptors as "espresso roasted coffee", "espresso roast" or even shorten this to just plain "espresso". After being milled between the finely tuned burrs of an espresso grinder, the coffee is now considered an espresso grind. However, at this point it is common convention to refer to this finely gound coffee as espresso. Perhaps because the coffee is almost irrevocably ruined for anything else but espresso (it's far too fine to brew in a standard drip coffeemaker yet not quite fine enough for turkish coffee). And of couse, espresso is also the liquid in the demitasse.

This is about as confusing as the debate over the origin of the word "espresso". However, one can probably just chalk it up to tradition. All in all it's probably a distinction not worth making as it can cause as much confusion as it tries to clear up.

How about "The coffee ground is then tamped...". I think it is clearer. Tomlee2060 (talk) 04:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, my previous suggestion is not grammatically correct. Guess it's better to change to "The ground coffee...". I am going to change it that way now. Tomlee2060 (talk) 02:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Americano (please write 'Caffè Amèricano)

The description at the beginning is incorrect. Caffe Americano is not the same thing as American coffee. An Americano is espresso in hot water, made in such a way to satisfy (as I understand it) Americans in Italy during World War II who weren't used to espresso. --Aaronh 00:46, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm just asking as a user who was confused by the article, but what's the difference between Americano and Long Black? --anon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.139.34 (talk)

From what I can tell, the difference is how the water is added. In a Caffè Amèricano, water is added to the shot after brewing, thereby diluting the flavor and bitterness. In a Long Black, the water is added before brewing, which means there is actually more water going through the grounds. A long black should be stronger than a Caffè Amèricano. I can't tell you whether that's right, but it's what I understood from the definitions given in the article. OwenIsCool

---It's just Caffè Americano, the accent on the e in Americano is superfluous.--67.167.51.239 (talk) 19:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Photo

Why cannot a picture be linked to an espresso machine? For those looking on info about them it could be useful to find a picture that maybe tells more than just verbally explaining the principle of how it works. Zisa

---

Why not and a text explaining the principe but I have no photo of an expresso machine. Who has one ? Ericd

My understanding is that there is no such beverage as "expresso".

I've added a photo, but it needs improvement. The machine shown is a personal espresso machine, good for a cup or two, but not the sort of thing you would encounter in a cafe. It should be replaced with something more representative of a real machine when such a photo becomes available. pjf 09:45, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'll see if I can get a picture; I work in a coffee shop Eion 00:37, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

Hi, I embellished this article. It's my first so I hope you all enjoy it. I'm a little bit of an enthusiast in the area so I thought that maybe the topic of espresso machines warranted it's own page separate from that of the drink. There's lots of new pages linked in this page and I hope to get to them soon too. Simpolman 20:49 Feb 14, 2003 (UTC)

Meaning of the word espresso -again

The below appears ("appears" because I wasn't able to confirm via the [6] site, as registration etc is required) to define Espresso, not "clearly state[...] the origin of the word" as asserted. The "Etymology and usage of the term" section should focus on the latter. -- Gherson2 16:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The Italian dictionary "Garzanti"[6] (a respected Italian dictionary) clearly states that the origin of the word is from the fact that is prepared on the spot:

Espresso: si dice di cibo o bevanda che viene preparato al momento, su richiesta del cliente: piatto espresso; caffè espresso

---

If "Any bean or roasting level can be used to produce authentic espresso" then what makes it espresso?

---

So, er, does it mean "extremely quick", or does it mean "pressed out"? -- Oliver P. 21:19 Feb 14, 2003 (UTC)

---

Well, before it said extremely quick, but in the sources I've seen it meant pressed out. Quick might be a connotation. Perhaps I should add that. However I belive that might just be an american connotation. If any Italians know for sure, that'd be great. Remember those "Expresso" Dodge Neons? Simpolman 21:35 Feb 14, 2003 (UTC)

---

A friend of mine brought it to my attention that espresso was invented long after latin was no longer spoken. He's from italy and he claims that Espresso means the same as Express does here. It can either mean fast, or as in "artistic expression". I'll address this when I finish editing this page. Simpolman 22:28 Feb 14, 2003 (UTC)

---

I'm from Italy, and I can confirm that espresso means very quick (the other meaning is also common but doesn't apply to this context imho). There are a few mistakes in the page, at least from an italian point of view: - the photo: in Italy you _always_ drink espresso in small cups, not glasses - a barista is a bartender, wether brewes coffee or not - shots are a foreign concept. We use the terms 'ristretto' (means shrinked, about a quarter of a shot) and 'doppio' (means double, about a shot), while 'normale' (means plain, about half a shot) is the default, and usually you only use it if the barista asks you how you want it. A side note: when Italians drinks espresso out of their countries are usually frustrated because the bartender will give them a drink much bigger than they are used to, and it gets much weaker and tasteless than what we're used to, despite the fact that often (at least in the US) they're often using the finest brand of coffee and the finest equipment you can find in Italy. I guess the main reason for that is to meet the taste of local people, used to drink mugs of lighter coffee.

Marcello Jun 18, 2003

---

Hmmm... Apparently this got discussed but never changed. I can confirm Marcello's statement, having grown up in Italy, and I'm correcting the article to reflect the correct meaning ("very quickly"). — Asbestos | Talk 13:10, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Espresso" means literally "pressed out from", because hot water is pressed out through the ground coffee. E.g. French coffee is instead prepared by filtering, and is much weaker. The "very quickly" meaning you people allege comes probably from the "espresso" trains (guess what, it means express train), which are indeed pushed through stations (in the sense they do not stop).Orzetto 10:32, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Um, I'm afraid it doesn't. L'Espresso isn't a "pressed-out" newspaper. Similarly, the Corriere Espresso isn't the pressed-out courier service. Also, check an online translation of the "express": [1] and note that the adjectival form (i.e. "quick") in Italian is, indeed, "espresso".

I think that the confusion lies in the fact that the English verb "express", meaning to state, comes from the Latin "expressare" ("exprimere"), which is, indeed, to press out (and, in Italian, is "esprimere"). The word espresso as it is used in Italian today is completely distinct from "esprimere," however (though it probably has the same root) — Asbestos | Talk 11:10, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

To make sure that I'm not getting the wrong idea across (as I'm not making much sense), it doesn't matter if the Latin root of the verb was "to press out". "Espresso" is a very common adjective in Italian meaning "quickly" (as in my references above). It does not, in Italian, mean "pressed out" (I was getting side-tracked by references to Latin). The name of the coffee comes from Italian, not Latin, so it's Latin origin is immaterial. Being from Italy, I can confirm Marcello's statement that "espresso" has nothing to do with "pressed out" in modern Italian. — Asbestos | Talk 14:02, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(moved from User Talk:Asbestos)

Hi Asbestos,

I am Italian and I can guarantee you that espresso comes from Latin ex premĕre (doh, I think); the Italian verb esprimere's past participle is indeed irregular and is "espresso". It is normally used in sentences as Gli ho espresso le mie preoccupazioni ("I expressed him my concers"), which is consistent with the idea of "getting something out". The irregularity is awkward since there are other similar verbs, as "premere" and "spremere" that have plain and regular past participles.

There is no immediate connection between espresso and speed, except express trains. However, these trains are no longer used in Italy anyway, since they changed the name to InterCity in order to be more expensive. :-(

Express trains, in turn, got their name originally because they were "pushed" through less important stations, stopping only at larger hubs. Orzetto 14:54, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"There is no immediate connection between espresso and speed".

I don't think that is correct. See for instance the online dictionary at sapere.it (you can use username Asbestos and password A87Y47O8). Definition #2: Veloce, Rapido. Examples: "treno espresso", "corrispondenza che viene recapitata in modo più rapido del normale". While I agreed with you above that this comes from the Latin ex premĕre (had you read the post you would have seen I had said it), but, as Simpolman notes above, espresso coffee was invented after the Romans. The word in Italian means "quickly" (and is also a past participle of esprimersi), but never, in modern Italian, means "pressed out." Do check out my post above. — Asbestos | Talk 15:37, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have to insist, "espresso" has no direct connection to speed except the railway analogy. Otherwise, Nescafe would qualify as an espresso, and that is as close to blasphemy as I want to get. Surely coffee was invended after the Romans, otherwise espresso would have had another name (Greek maybe). It was common practice to make new words after latin or greek (and still is to some extent); for instance, the remote control became a "telecomando" (from Greek tele-), and the fridge became "frigorifero", from latin frigor, -is and fero, fers, tuli, latum, ferre, i.e. "bearer of cold" (its culturally deep origins notwithstanding, frigorifero is today the plain word for fridge). As an Italian I can guarantee you that espresso refers to the steam-pressure preparation, and not to the speed. It is true that the word espresso is not currently used in that sense anymore, and is normally used either for "expressed", the coffee or the train - so some Italian might have been misled and told you this.

On the dictionary side, the de Mauro dictionary reports no relation with speed except in the railway and mail context. Orzetto 00:26, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I'm from Italy too. I don't know neither put in doubt that "Ex premere" may be somewhat related to modern italian term "Espresso", however the word "Espresso" is (and afaik, was in first 20th century and maybe before) often used in the field of cousine to spot out a thing that is made expressely (and quickly) to promptly satisfy a request of the client. In example, you may go to the restaurant and ask "Vorrei una porzione di *something* espresso", meaning that you want the chef readily cook that *something* for you, not giving you something is already cooked, either because the *something* is not in the menu or because you prefer that something to be freshly cooked and not heated. So "Espresso" is something made quickly to satisfy a explicit request of the customer. I think that this sectorial meaning may be more relevant to the origin of the word "Espresso" coffe. However the origin of the word was, maybe the "presso" particle, hinting "pressato", meaning the fact that the coffe powder is pressed to distinguish it from non-pressed coffe, maybe was a somewhat important psicological factor to lead that term to be remembered and to quickly widespread in the use in Italian language.

--The above is very precise and correct about espresso-- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.10.24.244 (talk) 11:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

Well, for all my fussing I'm not that attatched. If you want to change it go ahead. I'd recommend you at least reference the other meaning in the intro, though, given the Italian dictionary definitions above of Veloce, Rapido, and the fact that both myself and Marcello above (both Italian) think it's from the word "quickly". — Asbestos | Talk 10:14, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Again, remember that the first coffee machines which used the term 'espresso' in their ads during the two first decades of the 20th century, in fact did not make coffe from pressing hot water through finely ground coffee. These first machines would let hot water through ground coffee, but there was no comparison to the machines improved during the 1940's. The word 'espresso' was used to specify that this coffe was made right now, at the counter, promptly for the customer. The result was a plain cup of black coffee. At this point in history, the machines could not sport 9 atmospheres, nor would the coffee have any crèma. But they called it 'espresso'. yours, John, Oslo

To answer the original first question (though the discussion of the origin of the term was truly enlightening and interesting), I believe what makes it espresso is at least primarily the grind of the beans. Espresso grind is extremely fine and can be packed into a tight puck inside the espresso portafilter, which is then placed under the espresso machine and has hot water forced through it at relatively high pressure (compared to a traditional drip grinder), resulting in what is essentially a highly concentrated shot of drip coffee. Hopefully that helps (and hopefully if I'm wrong, someone wiser will correct me).--DarkShattenjager 22:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Caffeine content of Arabica vs. Robusta beans.

I thought that Arabica beans had less caffeine content than Robusta beans. Can anyone provide clarification on that? - Nicholas

Yes, that's true, but Arabica is considered to taste better. Mat-C 13:35, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• It's not so much that Arabica beans taste better, but that most roasted Robusta beans taste terrible (not unlike burnt rubber smells) and are not used in 'quality' coffee outside very limited used in blends. Some of the large multi-nationals do use large amounts of Robusta beans (usually from Vietnam) in their products (often freeze dried and 'specialty coffee') but with such a large amount of processing and alteration that the discussion would not merit a mention in an article about espresso. Marc Prince, CoffeeGeek.com (27 Nov 2002) So You Say There's a Coffee Crisis.

However, I think that Robusta beans are worth a mention in an article about espresso because they are often blended into coffee for espresso machines specifically because they increase the amount of crema produced. Though there are some arabica beans that produce significant crema, robusta beans were used historically in Italy for their crema after crema became favorable (crema was considered a bad thing in the early days of the espresso machine). StateOfTheUnion 11:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to note that the robusta beans used in high quality espresso blends are of particularly high quality and carefully selected, and are not the same cheap robusta used by mass coffee manufacturers as filler. In any decent espresso blend they will make up a relatively small percentage of the beans.

I think this article is a little misleading on one small point. While it is true that any bean may be used for espresso it is much more typical to use a blend, which has been blended specifically with espresso and certain cup qualities in mind (such ss crema; of course the varies by the blender). --Ericjs (talk) 14:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

---

I have removed History section pending content.Mat-C 13:35, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Expresso,Espresso,meaning:

The first 'expresso' machine was in fact french,a country which uses a latin based language....and indeed,it was,and still can be called cafe express (fast). So if dictionaries,and most paople have a problem understanding the origin and meaning of the word,it is because it is actually derived from the french -a latin language- and not from italian or latin.Espresso of course is the italian word,whcihc was a(correct tranlation of the french express (rapide).To add to the confusion,the french call it today very often 'expresso' giving the word an italian flavor,without changing its meaning.

• Um, to put it simply, no. The correct translation is espresso. French fries are actually belgian, but do we call them belgian fries? No we do not. Espresso is Italian, not French and not American. Expresso is not a correct translation.

Extra emoticons

I've noticed a few emoticons sneaking into the article. I've been editing these out when I've spotted them, but I thought it best to raise the issue in case they continue to return. As far as I know emoticons are not usually considered part of a good article.

Emoticons in talk are another matter entirely..  ;)

pjf 00:55, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Stove-top espresso makers

What about the smaller, personal espresso makers (like the kind seen here)? I don't know if there is another name for them besides "espresso maker", but it's quite different and should probably be included here. You find them in almost every Italian home (the idea of having bar-like steam espresso makers in the home is very American). I don't know where one could find a usable photo, though, not having a digital camera myself. — Asbestos | Talk 10:54, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's popularly called a Moka, but that's really a brand name. More formally, it's called a machinetta (da fare il caffè). 23 Feb 2005

They are not properly espresso makers, except for some poor (or good, depending on how you see it) English marketing. I've edited to reflect this. Please check the article on moka, this Coffee FAQ: http://coffeefaq.com/coffaq2.htm#MochaP and this FAQ on espresso: http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.food.drink.coffee/msg/549d841ce331bc95?oe=UTF-8&output=gplain

Espresso requires 9 atmospheres of pressure to have the proper emulsion of oils and proteins to form proper crema (as per the article). No crema is formed from a moka pot, which maxes out at 1-2 atmospheres of pressure. 69.195.70.145 00:58, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I very much disagree. In Italy, every family has a moka, and everyone calls this espresso. It's a very American idea that the only way you can make "true" espresso is with a steam-pressured bar-like espresso maker. People were making espressos long before anyone started talking about "atmospheres" and such.

However, since you are set in your ideas, having changed the article twice, I've asked for a second opinion at it:Discussione:Caffè. I'll await their reply.

— Asbestos | Talk 13:01, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

At the italian wikipedia they agree with you, so I'll withdraw from my position. — Asbestos | Talk 15:37, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Poetprosciutto edited the whole article to go against this agreement, I'm reverting his changes. Steadicat (talk) 10:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

If the coffee that comes out of a moka pot is not a classic espresso, then what is it called? just 'strong coffee'? --anon —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.139.139.34 (talk) 17:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

I know this is a moot issue now, but in Italy, they usually don't call it "espresso" at all. Just caffé. 71.56.237.70 04:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know the stove top espresso makers, such as Bialetti, not only make a "true" espresso, but are in fact, the original espresso making equipment.

I disagree. I believe the first espresso machines were made in 1901, long before the Moka pot was invented (1933). As for them making "true" espresso, check the discussion above where an agreement was reached. Steadicat (talk) 10:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

In Spain, the Spanish refer to the stove top espresso maker as an "Italiana". Xx409xx (talk) 17:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

"Expresso" in USA?

I have lived in the East (Connecticut, Pennsylvania), the Midwest (Illinois, Iowa, Kansas), and the West (Wyoming, Arizona). In none of these places is this use common, although it is heard occasionally from careless English speakers. I have never seen the word spelled this way on a menu. Such misuses do not merit mention in an encyclopedia article. (You would not include President Bush's mispronunciation of "nucular" in an article about nuclear energy.) Thus I removed the phrase in the article saying that the use is common. Perhaps it is used in a region I am not familiar with. If so, please indicate the place(s). --Blainster 06:27, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

according to dictionary.com, expresso is a variant of espresso http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=expresso

I have always lived in the Western US and travel to the East Coast frequently. I frequent many coffe houses and restaurants, and I have never heard the term "expresso." I believe "Espresso is frequently mispronounced/mis-spelled as expresso in the ... US" is just plain wrong. It is so infrequently mispronouced that it is not worth mentioning. -- S. Downey

Indeed. Use of the word "expresso" is a common mistatement among people generally unfamiliar with the drink, especially those in the midwest and rural parts of the US. It most like stems from the fact that many people hearing the word for the first time have trouble discerning the pronunciation and instead make the automatic association to the word "express". At least on the surface, this seems to be a logical explanation. However, I would have to agree that to include this variant of the word would be a mistake, regardless of what an online dictionary has to say about it. BTW, the nucular reference was very well stated. -- R. Prieto

Certainly, the Italian word is espresso. However, using simple etymology, and looking at the origins, one would see that esprimere is merely the past tense of exprimere. The connection is plainly visible, and regional differences are sure to occur with the highly variable dialects present within the U.S. I have lived in New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida and California. I say "expresso," regardless of what Starbucks and Italy might say. -- R.J. Frasca

R.J., the Latin word was "exprimire." The Italian word is "esprimere." One is not a different form of the other. "Espresso" is the past participle of the Italian word. All Latin ex- words turned into es- words in Italian. Latin speakers did not drink coffee, and attempting to justify an obvious mistake by referring to the ancestor language of a loan word is silly.

I have lived in the northeast, the south, and the northwest US, as well as Italy, and I have never heard a single person who knew anything about coffee say "expresso" (other than in French, as discussed above, which is not the issue here). However, I hear it all the time from people who are obviously new to espresso-drinking. I do not equate misunderstanding with colloquialism, and I will be altering the article to reflect this. We're not talking about referring to all soda as "Coke," like people do in some areas; "expresso" is simply the result of ignorance about the correct pronunciation, which is often widespread enough (in small towns, for instance) that an untravelled observer could mistake it for a colloquialism.JustinBaeder 18:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Any barista or cafe owner in the US will explain to you that its espresso, not expresso. People new to the drink tend to confuse it even if they are reading it spelled "espresso" right in front of them. Chapium 02:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The invention is french and by the "two thousand cups of coffee an hour" quote and the fact that in french it is called Expresso. I don't think its so strange that people say expresso. I say expresso becouse my father does. He says so becouse he lives in french talking Switzerland. What the word espresso means seems irrelevant to me. Isn't it likely it comes from expresso?

I know this is just personal experience, but I think I have a large enough sample to at least postulate on the use of "expresso" in America. As a copy editor for a trade magazine that covers foods such as espresso, I have noted (and remarked upon) many instances of the "ex" mistake from American writers, especially in Letters to the Editor, blog responses and other informal forums. In fact, particularly among writers from the American Midwest, "expresso" is more common than "espresso." It has been common enough that the misspelling has become a repetitive joke, and lead to discussions postulating the reasoning for this. Having spent over a year in Paris and other parts of France, and never having lost my American accent, I estimate that I have been asked "expresso?" (with a noticeable 'x') at least 200 times when ordering "café." The French, it seems, are aware that Americans are not used to asking for coffee and receiving espresso. Since such experiences have been echoed by those above, and considering the high number of Americans who have traveled in France, it stands to reason that the French pronunciation of the drink would become widespread in North America. In personal experience, the use of "expresso" is rampant across the Midwest and Southern Ontario (of note: these are areas with a greater French cultural influence than Italian). I'm sorry I can't offer any hard data, but I would agree with those who would like to keep mention of the misspelling in the Wikipedia entry. Perhaps we could find out for sure by seeing how many Wiki readers are redirected to this entry from the misspelled word. Misopogon 10:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.69.95.97 (talk)

sentence needs re-write

This sentence doesn't make sense past the first comma: "Espresso beans are coffee beans that have been roasted (generally darker than for drip coffee), finely ground, and quickly processed into a 1- to 2-ounce single serving cup of coffee." Are you talking about the bean or the drink! 65.182.61.248 03:37, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Expresso is the french name for Espresso. Just like Cafe Creme is similar to Cappuccino and Cafe au Lait is similar to Cafe Latte - Godal.

Similar but not the same. Cafe au Lait is coffee and steamed milk. Cafe Latte is espresso and steamed milk. - R. Prieto

Café au lait and Caffèllatte are two different beverages in the US. In Europe, they discribe the same, only using two related languages. The french and the italians both serve coffee from espresso machines. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.10.24.244 (talk) 11:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

Macchiato

Hey there coffee fiends. I ran into an issue with some espresso related articles and I figured that this page probably had a wider watchlist-audience than the rest of the pages, so I'm posting a note here. First, I noticed that there are two articles for "Latte macchiato" and "Caffè Macchiato", but they both seem to describe the same drink. Even if they do describe different drinks, the capitalization is not standard between the two articles (the m is capitalized in one article name and lowercase in the other). Which is the appropriate capitalization for this? Finally, the article at Caffè macchiato seems to describe the same drink sold at most American coffeehouses as "espresso macchiato". Given the policy of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), shouldn't we name it whatever it is sold as in english-speaking countries rather than the italian name? --DDG 15:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm on it - i've fixed the capitalization, and will create a redirect for espresso macchiato. Nandesuka 15:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks there nandesuka, however, can a coffee expert enlighten us as to if the two topics are actually distinct? The slight distinction noted in the Caffè macchiato article seem to cover the need for a separate article. --DDG 16:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, here in Italy a caffè macchiato is an espresso with a droplet of milk, while latte macchiato is prepared in long, narrow glasses with milk at the bottom, milk foam in the middle and espresso on top. --Tridentinus 16:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge Crema foam into this page?

I'm no espresso fan, but as this article is very short and crema is central to the espresso experience, may I suggest a merger? - Magnus Holmgren 20:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Go for it. (Is it just me or should that article have been titled "Crema (foam)"? ―BenFrantzDale 21:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Yup, do it. (And yes, since it has a disambiguation page, it should have been what you suggest.)

• I added the content from the crema page to the espresso article (Jan 29, 2006) Jimmy O

Adwords poisoned links...

'Your Espresso Machine' For espresso lovers. - This site seems to be of no actual value and simply links between google adwords infested blog sites. Discuss.

Agreed. It should be removed. Yakym

force vs pressure

lbs. is unit of force; lbs./sq.in. is unit of pressure.

A commercial-sized 58mm filter basket has about 4sq.in. surface area. 30lb./sq.in. implies 120lb. force - this can't be right. I believe it should be: tamp with 30lb. force.

External Links

Hey, I love Randy's site, and it's a boon to anyone interested in the Silvia and espresso, but is it wise to put linkage to "fan" sites in this document? (the espresso my espresso link) There's a reason why I never added coffeekid.com to this listing - it's just my site about coffee, my thoughts. CG made the cut (someone else added it) becuse it's the most popular coffee and espresso related website online, vis a vis traffic and membership, and it's a community site, not a single person's personal op ed or fanboy site.

I don't want to make Randy feel bad, but IMO, if we start adding fan sites, what's to stop the external links from starting to list the hundreds of espresso blogs and other assorted sites out there. Thoughts?

Added on April 5 - as you can see, there's a bit of a wikiwar to add a personal blog. IMO, the external links should be limited to established, factual, researched websites on espresso, not personal blogs. (again, sorry Randy - your site rocks - but it could start a flood).

Hip and Trendy?

I can't imagine a beverage being trendy. If you're drinking mocha because you think it looks cool you're wasting your money. You drink the stuff because it's really tasty and has enough caffiene to kick you into gear after 2 hours of sleep. Sycomonkey 23:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I concur with that. The term hip and trendy is preceeded by a sentence that indicates that ". . . espresso-based drinks rose in popularity . . ." I don't think that the term hip and trendy is measurable nor does it add significantly more information than the more measurable statement about popularity in the previous sentence. More critically, this section is not geographically bounded. As such, it implies that this increase in popularity happened worldwide. This is clearly untrue as the popularity of espresso in many parts of the world was uninfluenced by recent mass commercialization and popularity of new chains in the United States and arguably some regions of Asia. There should be an indication that the recent rise in popularity is mainly a US or N. American occurance and is not something that occured in more traditional markets like Southern Europe.

StateOfTheUnion 13:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Temperature

The article states that the ideal temperature for an espresso is 90 degrees (plus or minus 5). While piping-hot espressos might be the rule in some places, in Italy espressos aren't served that hot; 70 degrees is about as high as it gets in an Italian bar. We might want to mention serving (vs. brewing) temperature somewhere, but I leave it to those of you who know more about making espresso than I do.  ProhibitOnions  ^(T) 22:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

That's the temperature of the water in the machine. The serving temperature is much lower because the cup absorbs some of the heat (even if the cup is prewarmed). However, I agree that the article seems to be ambiguous about whether the temperature given is for the water pumped through the coffee grinds or the final product.

StateOfTheUnion 13:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Barista Section and keeping op-ed out of the definitions

Just to clarify something here - Starbucks has been using the term "barista" for their counter staff since the very first expansion stores into Chicago and Vancouver, and possibly before that. Seattle veterans have told me that it was in use at Il Giorniale when Schultz first opened those locations. The fact is, Starbucks mainstreamed the term, even though they cannot copyright it (lord knows they've tried).

In the 1990s, when Starbucks began selling espresso machines and other brewing devices for consumers (ironically, copying Peets), they were branded under the original names of the manufacturers - Gaggia and Saeco. The Estro Vapore was one of their more popular sellers in the 1990s. In Vancouver, they sold Gaggia Baby and Classic models. The "Barista" line did not appear until at least 2000, when they brokered a deal with Saeco Italy do do some cosmetic upgrades on the Estro machine, introduce new colours, and launched it as the "Starbucks Barista" espresso machine. The grinder came possibly earlier - it is a Solis grinder, but was rebadged by Starbucks around the turn of the millenium to be the Barista grinder. The 10 cup thermal coffee maker came later. At one point, Starbucks had 3 custom branded espresso machines - an automatic, and two semi-autos. Currently, they only offer the Barista (higher priced semi-auto) and of course the super automatic machines.

Also, I think it's the goal to keep op / ed opinions as much as possible away from Wikipedia - and keep things factual. Making opinion statements like "since Starbucks counter people are now just button pushers, using the term barista seems like a joke" is not, IMO, suitable for Wiki. Just my $0.02 on that. Save the starbies bashing for the blogs ;)Coffeegeek 00:58, 15 June 2006 (PDT)

also, there is no reason to bash starbucks barists. sure, we may work for a corporate machine, but i love coffee and espresso just as much as the next guy. it's my passion and i do consider myself a coffee artist. you might think that you make better espresso at home but i try to do everything i can to deliver a perfect beverage to our guests every time i make a drink. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.89.103.130 (talk) 16:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the way it is stated now is acceptable. I agree with Coffegeek in that the way he stated it above would be unacceptable. However, the advances in technology leading to pushing a button on a machine significantly alters the skill level or artistry required to make espresso. The barista is the one making the espresso, not the one giving the command to make the espresso. In fact, in the push-button scenario, the barista is the machine, not the button pusher. If you want to consider the whole process under what can be called a barista, then the combination of machine operator and machine can be considered a barista, but not the operator alone.24.39.136.38 (talk) 16:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Caffeine content

Regarding the bit about caffeine content in the Popularity and Misconceptions section, 350mg sounds in no way ordinary for a cup of coffee.

[2]

That site suggests that it's much lower, 8-12mg of caffeine per ounce for instant coffee instead of 29mg per ounce for instant coffee.

I would personally consider espresso to have an abnormally high amount of caffeine seeing as how one ounce of espresso has four times the amount of caffeine as an ounce of normal coffee.

Unless somebody objects, I'm just taking that bit out tomorrow.

--68.191.39.170 19:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, a shot of espresso has about the same amount of caffeine as a cup of coffee. It has more caffeine per ounce, but you drink less of it. So a drink based on a shot of espresso will not have much more caffeine than a cup of coffee. I think that a lot of people think that lattes, etc, have more caffeine than they really do.

Yesno 13:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

That's like saying that nuclear fusion doen't have a high energy content in comparison to TNT 72.145.123.42 22:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)exploding, because you can have a small amount of nuclear fusion or a large amount of TNT.

Well, not a great comparison, but you get the point.

--24.147.76.161 01:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I see where you're going, but I don't agree. Lots of people drink cappucinos and lattes and other drinks based on espresso. I'd bet that more people drink these than drink actual shots of espresso or Americanos and whatnot. So the average espresso drink that people drink does not have more caffeine than coffee. This is only interesting to point out because a lot of people think the opposite. It is related to how people who drink a 500+ calorie "coffee" don't understand why they can't lose weight.

I came across this information on the Illy website. "Contrary to popular belief, a cup of espresso is lower in caffeine than a cup of brewed coffee due to the fact that there is less contact time between the coffee and water. A cup of illy espresso contains, on average, 78mg of caffeine while a cup of brewed illy averages 120mg." Hope it helps.

Derek 16:16, 31 Deocember 2006 (UTC)

To accurately compare caffeine content, let's consider the following data.

• 1 ounce espresso: 77 mg caffeine
• 8 ounces instant : 104mg caffeine
• 8 ounces brewed  : 186mg caffeine

Most espresso shops serve latte/espresso in the following quantity:

• 12 ounce drink/2 shots (154 mg)
• 16 ounce drink/3 shots (231 mg)
• 20 ounce drink/4 shots (308 mg)

If you factor in possibly caffeine in mochas from the chocolate syrup, you getanother 3 mg caffeine/tablespoon. Most shops will put in 4 tablespoons into their mochas (most have the tendency to oversweeten), so about 12 mg more for a mocha drink. However, not all types of mocha syrups are caffeinated. Starbuck's version is not. Hershey's is. I couldn't find data for Torani nor Monin syrups.

Also, caffeine has nothing to do with calories, so I may be missing a point above with the weight loss comment above. A couple studies show that caffeine actually helps weight loss (to a very minor extent), but only if you are on a low fat diet and excercise regularlly. I am in no way saying that simply drinking caffeine helps weight loss. Yet even more studies have shown the opposite (although several also have a bias). The lesson is, enjoy your coffee because you like it, and exercise because you like that too.

So using the following data:

• 12 ounce coffee : 276
• 12 ounce instant: 156
• 12 ounce espresso drink:160 (the average of those with caffeinated chocolate and those without)

We see that espresso drinks are about the same in caffeine content as instant coffee while having only 57% the caffeine content of a drip coffee of equivalent volume.

However, if we consider the common notion of a serving of espresso (2 shots) vs a serving (a mug/8 ounces) of coffee, they are similar although espresso has ~20mg less thant the coffee.

All data I used can be found from energyfiend.com, nutritiondata.com, and ico.org.

Draw whatever conclusion you like. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.145.123.42 (talk • contribs).

While everything looks convincing there, and should be cited etc, I do wonder how you know how many shots of espresso cafes put into drinks. I thought Starbucks put one shot, and most other places I go put the same amount. You can ask for a second shot for an extra cost, or even a triple shot. More, and you're probably just ordering plain espresso. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 00:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

This is going to sound awful but I read on the side of an instant expresso cup from the machine that expresso has less caffeine than normal coffee...

Can we cite the side of cardboard cup I got from a machine? Lostsocks 13:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I manage a coffee shop and we use 1, 1-1/3, and 1-2/3 shots of espresso in 12, 16, and 20 ounce lattes and mochas, respectively. The other shops in this area use 1, 2, and 3 respectively. Our other drinks all use differing amounts (3, 4, and 5 for cappuccinos; 3, 5, and 6 for Cafe Americanos; etc.), though the other shops we have found all use 1, 2, and 3 for these other drinks as well. I'm told that Starbucks also follows 1-2-3 throughout its drinks, though I cannot independently verify that since I've only been in a Starbucks twice and never ordered coffee. (If you want to know, I didn't because I cannot stand their burned sludge that doesn't even taste like coffee--but that of course is just a personal preference.) Just to point this out, it takes 8 shots of espresso to fill a 12-ounce cup (approximately, since the volume of espresso in a shot does vary somewhat). We also use 1 ounce, 1-1/3 ounces, and 1-2/3 ounces of chocolate sauce for mochas (and our DaVinci chocolate sauce, not syrup, is not caffeinated so far as I can tell, so I can contribute that much to the question of what chocolates are caffeinated/not.) while the other shops in this area use 1 ounce for all sizes (except one other shop that does 1 for 12 and 16 and 2 ounces for 20 ounce cups). Hopefully that helped some by, if nothing else, illuminating the lack of standards within the industry shop-to-shop--we all have our own idiosyncratic methods.--DarkShattenjager 21:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I worked at Caribou Coffee in Emory Village for 6 1/2 years and our latte based drinkes were 2, 2, 3 for 12 16 and 20 oz respectively. All the "o" drinks (Cappuccino, Americano, Machiatto, etc.) were 2, 3, 4. I then worked at two independents (Java-o-logy, and Gathering Grounds which used Intelligentsia) and both had similar 2, 2, 3 or 2, 3, 4 and honestly we had to pull shots in pairs at G.G. so it was almost always 2, 2, 4. I should add at G. G. The "2" is the traditional Italian doppio volume of 1 oz. not the American 2-3 oz.; although, we used a "3-shot" portafilter for our doppio. This would mean volume wise it would be similar to 1, 1, 2 at say Starbucks, but in terms of ground coffee it was much more. Just my 2 cents that things are drastically inconsistent across the board, but that there maybe two different trends in the U.S. towards more shots and less volume per shot. Novaterata (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Types of Espresso Machines

Is there a reference for the statement about cost not mattering with regard to espresso machines? There are several different designs; cost and design are certainly considerations. I wonder if there is some context to the statement that could be added. For example, some machines have poor temperature control that drifts. Others tend to underheat the water as they get older. Others have pumps that tend to "spurt" rather than holding a fairly constant pressure. The blanket statement made in the article implies that none of these are important considerations, however there is no reference as to who made this statement and under what context. "Everything else remaining constant" may be referring to the design of the machine being constant. If that is the case then the statement implies that different designs cannot be compared with respect to price or performance. Or the statement may not consider the performance of a machine over time. Should this be clarified to reduce the ambiguity of the statement? StateOfTheUnion 11:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Brewing process confusion

The section explaining the brewing process uses too much technical jargon without explaining what these things are. Without an image of an espresso machine already in one's mind, it would be very difficult to figure out what actually occurs during this process.

Agreed. Mas2265 02:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

How-to link

I came across a pretty good tutorial on preparing espresso at home, but before adding the link to an article I haven't edited before, I thought I should run it by folks here. It appears on a commercial site (Whole Latte Love) that sells brewing and grinding equipment, but the article does not push any particular brand or product. Thoughts? | Mr. Darcy talk 01:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

There is actually a guideline against how-to sections on Wikipedia, but that sort of thing is, I believe exactly what Wikibooks is for. ENeville 20:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm familiar with WP:NOT, but the section to which you directed me proscribes writing how-to articles, not linking to how-to articles, which is what I had proposed. I'll leave the link here, and if another editor agrees with me that it's a worthy addition to the article, s/he can add it. | Mr. Darcy talk 03:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

An article about espresso coffee that links to a good site about how to make espresso coffee is totally, fundamentally, appropriate. Let's not go overboard with WP:NOT here - Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and here is here to educate people. It would even be appropriate to have a very brief overview of how to prepare coffee within the article itself. What we don't want to do is write a complete how to with all the details, troubleshooting etc etc. Stevage 05:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I've added it. --Piet Delport 08:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Outstanding - thanks, guys. I've been making espresso at home for almost two years now, and this link has IMO the best description of the variables involved in the process and how to compensate when one of the variables is off. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed Espresso machine section

There was a section titled "Espresso Machine" with a link below it to Espresso Machine. The same link was 3 lines below in the "See Also" section. Chapium 18:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The qualitative definition of espresso

Quite perplexing... what does "qualitative definition of espresso" mean? —Gennaro Prota^•Talk 15:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Barista Conflict

The definition of barista here and the definition of barista on the barista page are opposite of each other. One says that barista was a term invented by the Starbucks corporation, the other says it came from italy. Can we figure this out? 128.206.153.167 00:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

"Barista" invented by Starbucks? You kidding? The term "barista" exist in Italian language at least since the beginning of XX century...--Gspinoza (talk) 17:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Recent additions to etymology

140.251.32.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) added some potentially useful insights with some inappropriately POV language. Is there anyone with patience for copyediting and a knowledge of Italian who cares to have a go at it? Nposs 03:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

Espresso Coffee → Espresso — Put a disambiguation link at the top. Anyone searching for "Espresso" is almost certainly looking for the form of coffee. Also, there are a large number of pages linking to Espresso which refer to coffee. —qwe 03:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I've moved it back. No survey needed, the move was to a non-standard use of capitalization, a phrase that is not common ("espresso coffee") and the rationale that it would confuse users with a mathematical formula named for the beverage is unlikely. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 19:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Variations/ Espresso Drinks

Has anyone checked out citations or "Google presence" for some of the drinks? While I may just be geographically biased, I've never heard of a John Wayne or a Kennedy as styles of beverages. If they're not widely used, then I feel that they should be removed. (Otherwise, this list could grow quite large if every coffee house's signature creation was added.) I also noticed that the list is missing the Borgia which is a more widely-known variant.--JD79 14:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

"consistency between extremely fine and powder"

First sentence: "a consistency between extremely fine and powder". There must be a better way to describe the consistency. Nurg 07:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Starbucks and America-centered wikipedia

Starbucks did not popularize the use of barista throughout the world. My gosh!!! Even here, in Canada, 60 miles away from USA, the use of barista was well known before Starbucks started to brand here... I put the dubious sign

Well I never heard the termn Barista as a espresso operator until the early 2000s, i.e. when Starbucks first got to Australia. I'm in Australia. So I would not be the least surprised if Starbucks poularised the term outside of the US and Italy/Europe. Significantly we do have a reasonably high Italian population here in Aust but even so, no one ever really used the term baristo in this sense, untilt he late early 2000s as as I know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.220.67 (talk) 12:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

"Heart"?

This article makes the statement "Properly brewed espresso has three major parts: the heart, body, and . . . crema. . . ." It goes on to describe crema but never describes what distinguishes the heart from the body. Some Googling produces some descriptions where it is distinguished as a light brown component, as opposed to the dark brown of the body. I pretty familiar with espresso and its preparation myself (I roast my own beans, have a machine just short of professional) but will not call myself an expert, but I don't see it and I have some doubts as to how universal this "heart" / "body" distinction is. I've certainly done plenty of reading about expresso, and this is the first I've heard of it having a "heart".--Ericjs (talk) 14:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Heart, body and crema is terminology used primarily by Starbucks (i've seen it used elsewhere, but they're the only company I know that use it as a training method) to describe the three layers seen in a settling shot. Heart is the very, very dark (almost black) part of the shot at the very bottom. Body is the bit in between that and the crema - while a shot is settling it's the dark brown part that always reminds me of a pint of Guinness pouring. Crema, obviously, is the brown foam/colloid on top.84.45.208.186 (talk) 01:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

"Brewing Process - Pressure 90kPa vs. 900kPa"?

Strange that in the page of Coffee preparation, espresso is prepared at 800~900kPa. Here it's said to be 90kPa. Which is correct? I looked up and a lot of coffee machine ads quote 15bar, i.e. 1500kPa. Very confusing. Tomlee2060 (talk) 04:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The generally accept brew pressure is approximately 9 bar, which is 900 kPa. I personally think that the accepted manufacturer practice of indicating pressure in bars (and perhaps a conversion to US psig)vice kPa would be better than the current form. Manufacturer claims of 15+bar is simply bad marketing. [Oohh... looky! This machine can brew at 16 bar!] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.168.204.10 (talk) 21:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, this is most certainly an error -- 1 atmosphere is 101 kPa so 90 kPa (which is indeed 13 psi) would be below atmospheric pressure. The brew pressure is probably more in the range of 9 bar (130 psi, 8.9 atm), but I don't have any reputable source to cite for this. --69.157.130.28 (talk) 04:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

No way is it 900kpa, but 90 kPa gauge pressure or 190kpa Absolute is feasible. Just look at steam tables to get an indication. Steam at 900kpa absolute has a temperature of 175 degrees Celsius. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.254.204 (talk) 05:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed links discussion

Removed:
Forums
* [http://www.phpbber.com/phpbb/index.php?mforum=coffetimeboard CoffeeTime] – A resource for those who love Coffee. Includes many coffee related articles.
* [http://cremamagazine.sitesuite.ws/forums/YaBB.cgi] - forum for coffee lovers in the Australasian region
* [http://www.toomuchcoffee.com Too Much Coffee] - The European Coffee Resource.

Blogs / Fan sites
* [http://www.home-barista.com/ Home-Barista.com] – Resource for home espresso fanatics.
* [http://www.coffeegeek.com/ Coffee Geek] – Offers reviews, commentary, and forums for all things coffee.

"Institutes"
* [http://www.espressoitaliano.org/index_en.asp?lang=en Italian Espresso National Institute]
* [http://www.coffeetasters.org International Institute of Coffee Tasters]

So, WP:EL offers guidelines on links that should and shouldn't be in an article. Looking here, almost all of them seem inappropriate or questionable. I normally would have removed them without discussion, but this is almost all the links... I'll leave in the institutes for now, but I'd really like to see some discussion as to whether even these are appropriate. - Davandron | Talk 03:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Restored EL to Home-barista.com. as a "Site which fails to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contains information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaffiro (talk • contribs) 07:13, 2 January 2008 (note: Zaffiro left this comment in the revision history, i've duplicated it here for consistency)

Zaffiro, I see that you spent some time editing this article, and I'm glad to see your interest in maintaining it. You have my support on how Home-barista and perhaps coffeegeek follow under that guideline (Wikipedia:El#What_should_be_linked item 4).

My concern was that the sites were Wikipedia:El#Links_normally_to_be_avoided item 14 - Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. Since the sites cover a lot of stuff. But then again, this article is pretty generic so perhaps its a good match.

I'll leave CoffeeGeek's restoration to you or someone else here. I'm going to tweak the homebarista link description back to the old version as its shorter and doesn't contain any unvalidated claims. Thanks for your help! - Davandron | Talk 01:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Davandron, I restored Home-barista.com because it is entirely focused on espresso and contains a good deal of original research, including double blind taste testing. Some of the site's leading posters have backgrounds in engineering, medicine and the social sciences and are clear about when their results are statistically significant and not. Furthermore, their research has been recognized by the espresso machine industry, with advances they developed being incorporated into some of the most advanced machines. Active posters also include professional baristas and coffee tasters ("cuppers"). The reason I changed the description was to remove "fanatic" and give it the greater credibility it deserves. Yes, the posters are "fanatics." But, well-informed ones. :-) Zaffiro (talk) 04:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Some of these links are clearly questionable, and so I suggest a single external link to DMOZ espresso category: http://www.dmoz.org/Recreation/Food/Drink/Coffee/Espresso/ Mwongozi (talk) 08:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Variations

some of these are not mainstream drinks, this article isn't supposed to be every possible use of espresso in drinks, i mean who actually drinks a "747"

I think some of these must be fake. A "747" is silly, but a "Sputnik" would probably result in a trip to the hospital. Funny title, though. A cursory googling doesn't turn up anything on it. Grayfell (talk) 21:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I found that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breve_(disambiguation) points to the espresso variations section, but it has no mention of cafe breve. was this the work of a "helpful" person deciding that the info was of no use to people? I'm still no closer to finding out what this beverage is. thanks for your "help" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.133.62 (talk) 02:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Carajillo does not mean "little kid". It's the diminutive form of "carajo", Spanish slang for "penis". (Dehagido (talk) 15:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC))

Commercial slant - comments

Parts of this article read as if written by an advertising agency. For example the "baristas" and "popularity" sections. They have a very promotional tone, IMO.

"There is a current movement both outside of Europe and in parts of the continent to build pride and professionalism among baristas, encouraging them to consider their work as a serious craft, worthy of the respect granted to other food preparation artisans. In some ways this trend is meant to follow the traditions in places like Italy, France, and Portugal where the barista is considered a respectable career decision. In other ways, this trend is part of what is seen as the "Third Wave" in coffee, where transparency in information sharing is paramount, and the open discussion of ideas, concepts, opinions, and education are shared, even amongst competing businesses in the world of coffee and espresso. The trend is part of the bigger process in specialty coffee to promote coffee as a culinary drink, not as something "regular" or average."

If the two main points in this paragraph can't be expressed in two sentences, I'll eat my espresso machine.

Can anyone explain what the point is of "transparency in information sharing is paramount"?

Four mentions of Starbucks is way too many, IMO. A lot of coffee was consumed in the world before Starbucks came along. CBHA (talk) 21:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Confusing..

Compared on the basis of usual serving sizes, a 30 ml (1 fluid ounce) shot of espresso has about half the caffeine of a standard 180 ml (6 fluid ounce) cup of American-style coffee, which varies from 80 to 130 mg.

What varies from 80-130mg? The American style coffee or the shot of espresso? Somewhat foolishly worded in my opinion. Anyone else have some input? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.131.120.2 (talk) 21:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

regarding the etymology

here's the problem. the text as written now states:

English word "express," conveys the sense of "just for you" and "quickly," both of which can be related to the method of espresso preparation.

these claims are warped, and don't provide adequate backing. the claim that 'express' conveys a sense of "just for you" is on its face absurd. if "express" means "just for you", then a person would say "i made this coffee express.". or "i bought a cake express". but that's not what people say. they might say "i made this coffee expressly for you". "i bought a cake expressly for you". by this conflated definition, if someone says "i made this coffee expressly for you" then they're saying "i made this coffee just for you for you". whatever the case, it needs to be cited to a reliable source, and not just with a link to the (exceedingly expensive) subscription OED. my Oxford Universal Dictionary does not support the claimed etymology. Anastrophe (talk) 05:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• * * * * *

Let me understand this, you are challenging an assertion by Ian Bersten, probably the world's leading living coffee historian, because: (1) it's not in your dictionary (and you can't afford the OED); and (2) people might say "expressly for you," but not "express for you." Do you think you could leave this article to coffee people and take your pedantry somewhere else? Zaffiro (talk) 19:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

please lose the hostility, and assume good faith. mr. bersten may be a leading coffee historian. he is not, most assuredly, a linguist or etymologist. the section is entitled 'etymology', so the expert opinion of sources such as the OED are appropriate; someone who has written books on coffee really isn't a reliable source on the etymology. my oxford universal has etymology going back to the 16th century, with no claim that 'express' means 'just for you'. i'm looking for a reliable source. your hostility is most out of place and inappropriate, i happen to be a "coffee person", and a pedant, and remarkably enough, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. now, do you have a reliable source for this etymology, other than mr. bersten, who has a degree as an economist, not a linguist? Anastrophe (talk) 05:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Expresso

Good lord, please get rid of that. It's not "expresso", that's a horrible mispronunciation, and I don't think it belongs in the first line. 216.136.4.136 (talk) 18:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Focus of article and Reliable sources

As with all articles, it should be focused on the subject. Barista is definately related, but doesn't need a large section for itself in the espresso article. It already has its own article and is linked. This is how Wiki works. Articles should be detailed and informative on the subject, and when related subjects that have/need articles are mentioned, the article is linked and/or created. This makes the article focused and informative, and allows users to go to other subjects if needed.

Espresso has a very simple definition. It is a beverage created by forcing water under pressure through coffee grounds. Thats it. It can have crema, be of higher viscosity, and contain high amount of coffee compounds - but those are not requisites to be classified as espresso. They are common for espresso and should be mentioned and explained.

Espresso roast section is worthy of note since it clarifies the ambiguity of the common belief that its related to the roast level of the bean. It does not need subjective and unsourced notes on tasting methodologies.

More information, when not focused on the subject, does not make a better article. It makes a bigger, bloaty article.

As per WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:N, this article needs to be sourced, informative, focused, and relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChateauLafitte (talk • contribs) 19:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree on your changes. Made a few very minor tweeks, feel free to discuss if any are at issue. MachineKeebler (talk) 22:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

---

Why does a discussion under "Reliable sources" for espresso resort to a Merriam-Webster as the definitive source? "Very simple definition?" Here is Andrea Illy's often-cited definition from Espresso Coffee: The Chemistry of Coffee:

"Italian espresso is a polyphasic beverage, prepared from roast and ground coffee and water alone, constituted by a foam layer of small bubbles with a particular tiger-tail pattern, on top of an emulsion of microscopic oil droplets in an aqueous solution of sugars, acids, protein-like material and caffeine, with dispersed gas bubbles and solids." [3]

That "emulsion of microscopic oil droplets" is crema.

Here is the definition developed by the Specialty Coffee Association of America, as reprinted for the U.S. Barista Championship:

"An espresso is a one-ounce beverage (30 ml., plus or minus 5 ml. including crema) prepared with various grams of coffee (depending on the coffee and the grind) through which clean water of 195-205 degrees F (90.5-96 degrees C), has been forced at 8.5 to 9.5 atmospheres of pressure, and where the grind of the coffee is such that the brewing flow time is between 20 to 30 seconds. While brewing, the flow of espresso should appear to have the viscosity of warm honey, and the resulting beverage should exhibit a thick, dark, golden cream-foam (crema)." [4] at Section 2.1.1.

This is not to say these definitions are the final word, but to show there is a consensus that "real" espresso has crema. No useful purpose {other than semantic quibbling) is served by treating crema as an inconsequential, "o.k. with it; o.k. without it," element of espresso. If you are served an "espresso" without crema, you have been served an improperly made drink using espresso equipment. Crema is to be expected, not be an optional surprise.

Zaffiro (talk) 18:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Dictionaries not a reliable source for the definition of words? Websters, Merriam-Webster, American Heritage, and the OED, all state the same definition. Dictionaries are reliable sources. Subjective definitions are not. ChateauLafitte (talk) 01:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

---

Specialist sources are better sources than lay dictionaries.

Zaffiro (talk) 04:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed this article change a number of times recently. I agree with Chataeulafitte. Just for context, I myself am a confessed coffee/espresso addict and enthusiast. Love it, make it, live it. I critique machines, grinds, beans, and roasters with fellow enthusiasts online and off. I just made a delicious cup from my favorite gaggia, it was delicious and had a healthy amount of crema in it. I probably wouldn't enjoy it as much if it didn't have that crema. That being said, it wouldn't need the crema to be called espresso. The definition of espresso is readily available from the most reliable source available for definitions: dictionaries. Using subjective definitions from an author (I have the book), or subjective definitions from a competition rulebook, are not peer reviewed, scholarly sources, and would not take precedent over a definition found in Websters or OED. They are opinions of the author. Personal subjective opinion, is not sourcable material for Wikipedia.

The competition rulebook definition is a definition created for the specific purpose of the competition. My company has a legal department just for this purpose; rules/regulations, Terms of Service. Words are defined in the context of the document, so when you sign the paper or agree to do the contest, you adhere to definitions of the words defined by the document, no other. You do not use legal ToS documents or contest rulebooks as definition sources for research, scholarly writings, or wikipedia.

If all opinions and personal definitions of words from all authors were reliable sources for wikipedia, we would have quite a mess. Articles would contain vast amounts of ambiguity, heresay, rumor, and opinion. When a subject has been around for over a century, and the definition has been around for as long, its quite a stretch to take the definition from a book written many decades after the subject itself was created, over a dictionary definition that has been in existance long before the book ever came out. Subjects are defined in books all the time by authors, for context, not for absolute, not for dictionary substitution.

Dictionaries go through peer review and years, even decades (OED), of researched editing.

Bulgari (talk) 05:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

---

Then we probably know each other in other contexts. In retrospect, I was more concerned about the "it doesn't matter" approach to crema and consistency than dictionary definitions. I have made an appropriate change in a later paragraph in the same section.

Zaffiro (talk) 06:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Breve?

The article gives "Breve (It. "short"): Espresso with half-and-half. " which doesn't seem to make sense? Half espresso and half water? (if so, why is it 'espresso with'?) something else? Could someone clarify? MurfleMan (talk) 05:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi MurfleMan. By "half-and-half", it means the liquid half-and-half, which in this case is half milk and half cream. Lilbeanchic (talk) 01:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)