the quasi-fresh, non-expert-roasted, crestfallenly cupped 2006 esmeralda stuns afresh as spro.
for if the great-but-not-immortal 2007 esmeralda so repeatedly ingested by this fortuitous blog really is such a subtle step down from the blubbering memory of last year’s crop, then wouldn’t the light roast, or the second-pick status, or a few bean defects alone be enough to blame for the taming?
the apex of this conclusion-dithering struck this blog full force when the home-roasted remainders of last year’s mesmeralda — such as cupped poorly last week — bloomed shockingly in the portafilter. allow us, in fact, to consult our notes.
… and we’ve never even had marzipan. which means the resurgent ez went so far as to conjure non-existent experiences! it was apparition-like! when expanded into milky macchiato form, it was as if we had found what french pastry chefs have tried for centuries to create — and haven’t. is there are word for that? there is not! alas, this blog’s history of hyperventilating over the panamanian goddess has likely reduced what credibility we might have had on this subject to spitoon drippings … which, come to think of it, gives us nothing to lose.
basically, although the year-old, dark-roasted ez fared poorly in the cupping (for those exact reasons), it appears to have had the ballast to stand up as espresso in a way the lighter-roasted, much brighter esmeralda never did, this year or last. which brings us back to the point. the chosen roast, or even the potential presence of non-optimally-colored, suggestively gnarly granules has everything to do with everything.
for absolute clarity, though: we just need some darker-roasted 2007. the auction lot, preferrably. packaged in high-grade sow’s ear and a hand-embossed label. if the cost runs high enough, this blog can always grub for sponsors in the style of other blogs.