97 flavors?!?!?!?!

so … are you the exception that proves the rule about syrup? or a shining, entirely feasible example? or a washed-up, over-unctious nutcase?

also, you’re totally deflating all of my favorite iron chef delusions. sheesh.

i DO agree that craft-i-ness is a total turn-on. this blog totally digs hand-crafted purity.

That’s because they know the ingredient ahead of time and do all their planning before they arrive at the studio. In other words, the premise that they’re “surprised” by the ingredient and create off the hip is a complete and utter sham.

On Flavoring: Over the past several years with my time running Jay’s Shave Ice, I explored a number of flavor houses and thought a bit about flavors both artificial and natural. One of my most vivid memories was sitting in the lab at McCormick’s development center “decoding” a strawberry. Feeding that sucker into chromatograph and watching the device spit out the chemical compounds that was that particular strawberry. Then learning that these scientists would combine a number of the compounds to recreate that particular flavor. Once I realized that it’s just chemistry, I wasn’t so turned off to “artificial” flavors.

Personally, I think the USBC bar is set too low. Where’s the excitement? Where’s the “cutting edge”? If this is all we’ve got as a 3W Community, then we suck. Amateurs. Hacks. Myself especially.

I’ve been a syrup manufacturer. I’ve offered 97 different flavors of syrup on our racks. I’ve done the 20 ounce drinks. I’ve done the blended frappuccino-type drinks. I’ve brewed in glass carafes. I’ve done flavored coffees. They’ve all made money for me and my company, however, my approach has always been about refinement and progression.

Today, we offer chocolate and vanilla syrups. Both house made. We eliminated 20z cups in February and will eliminate 16z cups on November 1st. We no longer do blended drinks. And many of our competition drinks end up on our menu – not to mention the other drinks we tinker with from time to time.

Well, maybe I’m being misleading. Right now do have more syrups than vanilla and chocolate. In the fridge I’ve also got coconut milk, a jamaica infusion and piloncillo syrup for a couple of drinks that are off the menu. As we continue, we work on refining our methods and offering a higher quality product. In 2007, we recently switched to all locally produced milk from pastured Jersey cows. It’s a continual process that never ends.

But it’s not because we’re located in some urban sanctuary like Stumptown. We’re in a suburban library where business, at times, can be scarce. It’s also an area that it’s populated with four Starbucks and at least an equal amount of “indie” coffeeshops. In spite of the “competition”, we draw our own line in the sand and refuse to do those things that everyone else does “just because.”

What I would like to see in our craft is greater attention to craft. Sure it’s easy enough to buy that White Chocolate Mocha syrup of DaVinci – but why not learn and make it yourself? From ingredients you’ve sourced and can identify?

Any schmoe (including that crappy shop down the street) can buy a jug of Ghirardhelli and call it “quality” – but are you the kind of barista that can go out and make chocolate syrup in-house and create a drink based on your craft?

Those are the baristas I find inspiring.

for the philosophical underpinnings of this argument, i’ll turn it over to the genius g.k. chesterton.

true: i’m imagining a speech in the vein of what jon lewis did in the 2006 usbc. “i have a dream … ”

rich: personally, i DIG the iron chef-style invent-a-drink. the nordic barista cup has done this, i believe. ‘twould seem to remove some of the “staging” and appearance emphasis, and add a bit of live drama. it would be at least one element of the comp that the audience could sort of “experience.”

ditto on the taste scores. ditto on sigs in the cafe. people want to TASTE this stuff, doggone it. i hear that octane’s ben and danielle may be rolling out their competition sigs, the retail versions, in the upcoming weeks. woohoo to that.

i think, too, that spectators should be able to walk right up to the bar during competition. we may try to do this if our spring event comes together. silence and respect and all that could be observed. in some of these recent comps, spectators were further removed that you’d be on the fairway at a PGA tournament.

my first SERBC (03) was in the by far the coolest venue to date … a cozy, fully equipped culinary room that had enough space for maybe 50 people, and provided a more intimate, exciting venue to crane your neck and watch the craft.

blogwife edit: unfortunately, one of the things we had to watch was a, er, “wasabi mocha.”

Why would a “consumer” drive 16 hours (with a wife and baby) to sit and watch a barista competition? Something just does not make sense here.

WOW. I hope no other coffee consumers — fanatics or otherwise — besides Ben ever read that. Heck, if I were on the outside of this industry and I read that, I would deem you all a gang of snobs and stop caring about learning about coffee.

Jesus, isn’t the goal to make coffee as fascinating to consumers as we find it ourselves? Isn’t the goal to present coffee as so inspiring that it would motivate someone to pack up his wife and kid and drive 16 hours to see it?

SA

However, I will also challenge what appears to be an assumption on both yours and Ben’s behalf that the RBCs are designed to celebrate a “purity of ingredient”. Rather, they exist to showcase the talents of the baristas – knowing their coffees and being able to showcase its flavors given the equipment and setting. That the impression is out there that the RBCs are about the ingredients is due more to specific entrants and cafe owners and not due to the entities known as the SCAA or BGA. There is nothing in the rules about not using syrups.

I personally think there should be more points given to “taste” of the sig drinks and less on creativity and presentation. As a judge, I care that your drink works first of all. Only if it tastes good do I really care how you got to where you ended up. Yet on the sig drinks 42% of the possible sig drink points have nothing to do with taste.

If we’re trying to reach more people, then I’d suggest that the less esoteric, the better for the industry. And “better for the industry” should be SCAA’s aim, not “better for just the 3W cafes”.

There are exceptions to this assertion. Certainly Chris DeFerio’s “Campfire” is an obvious recent example of the story being integral to the presentation. I’d hate to have missed the opportunity to taste that – but Chris is also working to bring that to Carriage House as an actual menu drink. I’m not the first to suggest this, but why isn’t the sig drink required to be on the cafe’s menu instead of something created specifically for the comp?

What would you think of something that was more like an Iron Chef-type sig drink component where there are 10 sponsors supplying different elements of the drink build and you have to use four. Personally I’d think that would be very cool, challenging and worth it to the sponsors. Not to mention it would be reproducable for decent cafes.

Sorry again for the confusion. I wasn’t saying that I want Monin (or any syrup manufacturer) to fail; I was trying to make a comparison based on one of Terry’s bona fides– he noted that as a coffee roaster/cafe owner he will be driving a 92 Buick for the forseeable future. I was trying (unsuccessfully, I guess) to point out a type of inequity: so many people are struggling so hard to build a business around quality coffee (i.e., one of the points of the RBCs), yet syrups (aka the dialectical anthesis of quality coffee) appear to be a much more profitable. In my last comment, I was imaging a world in which the 3W (to borrow your term) cafe owner or roaster was driving the shiny new black sports coupe and the syrup/flavor chemist was driving the fifteen year old car. Sure, it’s not gonna happen, but a guy can dream. And again, by inequity I allude to the inherent contradiction in that the RBCs celebrate a sort of purity of ingredient that eschews commercial syrups, but in the real world of the coffee shop those same people use enough syrup that their manufacturers have build a business that is (most likely) more profitable than any specialty coffee business focusing on what’s in the cup from the bean.

I get the rest of what you’re saying.

Rich

£337? 1′m jµ$7 4 n00b! 1 h4rУ¥ qµ4£17¥ 70 m4|{3 h4rÐ(0r3 pr0nµn(3m3n7$ 4b0µ7 qµ4£17¥.

Given the concern that Monin and DaVinci be properly represented in their component ingredients, I’ll ask (without a trace of irony or satire) what exactly is in that stuff? While some of the syrups might contain trace amounts of the actual foodstuff on the label, every bottle that I looked at listed “natural flavor” as the primary flavor component. As Robert Wolke points out in What Einstein Told His Cook, “The official FDA definition of natural flavoring is published in the Code of Federal Regulations (21CFR101.22) in the form of more than 100 words that meticulously plug every conceivable loophole. In simple terms, a natural flavor is defined as a substance extracted, distilled or otherwise derived from plant or animal matter, either directly from the matter itself or after it has been roasted, heated or fermented. Not often realized is the fact that all flavoring additives, natural or artificial, are made by humans.” He goes on to point out that natural flavors and artificial flavors are created side-by-side in the same factories, with little difference between the two besides the path taken to the target chemical compound– and that natural flavorings are more expensive (because of marketing value) than an identical compound arrived at through different means.

Or, as Eric Schlosser writes: “Distinctions between artificial and natural flavors can be arbitrary and somewhat absurd, based more on how the flavor has been made than on what it actually contains.

“A natural flavor,” says Terry Acree, a professor of food science at Cornell University, “is a flavor that’s been derived with an out-of-date technology.” Natural flavours and artificial flavors sometimes contain exactly the same chemicals, produced through different methods. Amyl acetate, for example, provides the dominant note of banana flavor. When it is distilled from bananas with a solvent, amyl acetate is a natural flavor. When it is produced by mixing vinegar with amyl alcohol and adding sulfuric acid as a catalyst, amyl acetate is an artificial flavor. Either way it smells and tastes the same. “Natural flavor” is now listed among the ingredients of everything from Health Valley Blueberry Granola Bars to Taco Bell Hot Taco Sauce.

A natural flavor is not necessarily more healthful or purer than an artificial one. When almond flavor — benzaldehyde — is derived from natural sources, such as peach and apricot pits, it contains traces of hydrogen cyanide, a deadly poison. Benzaldehyde derived by mixing oil of clove and amyl acetate does not contain any cyanide. Nevertheless, it is legally considered an artificial flavor and sells at a much lower price. Natural and artificial flavors are now manufactured at the same chemical plants, places that few people would associate with Mother Nature.”

What’s in the syrups? We’ll probably never know. The natural flavorings could be any of the items listed in FDA regulation sections 182.10, 182.20, 182.40, and 182.50, and the substances listed in 172.510. “Natural Flavor” could be any combination of the thousands of chemical compounds listed; the manufacture will never explicitly state what’s used as long as it is derived from items on that list. There may not be HFCS in the syrup, but I’m willing to bet that there’s no pumpkin in the pumpkin spice.

Our shop serves excellent, mostly Direct Trade, coffee. But we have no desire to be elitist. Rather, we think the point of our existence is to provide pleasure, not to ask customers to revel in our awesomeness.

100 % agree. what we should strive for, imo, is a level of quality that draws people in instead of leaving people out.

the syrup comments have been wholly focused on another issue — effectively promoting comps to engage with consumers — and not their necessity or inevitability in the regular shop environment.

thanks for the feedback. i think some people responding to this subject are smelling an attack where there really isn’t one.

for the umpteenth time: my question is about mixed messages, and how the movement can best highlight what’s special about competitions. syrup sponsors SEEM to pose an bump in the road in two ways — cognitively, for the average consumer, and (at this year’s serbc) in terms of business priorities and the ability to effectively pull off a barista comp that draws the public.

Overall, I’m a bit disgusted at the tone of some of the posts. I personally don’t like most flavored lattes, but you know what – a good mocha is awesome and not every barista can do that – it takes someone with talent.

Unlike many shops with 3W aspirations, we challenge our baristas to come up with unique drinks which may or may not include syrups, because we take the “bartender” version of the barista definition to imply “mixologist”, not simply a machine operator or sommelier. So that makes us decidedly non-3W, but it doesn’t mean we don’t train or can’t hold our own against 3W shops, as we’ve proven we can.

Comments about desiring syrup manufactuers out of business seem immature at best, mean-spirited at worst. Yes, we can and should applaud shops that the l33tz determine “hardcore” when they do things right, but those are and will be few and far between – urban centers, near colleges, maybe some affluent burbs. Not a lot going of 3W going on in fly-over states, ex-burbs or other areas – where a lot, if not most, of coffee drinkers in the US reside.

Our shop serves excellent, mostly Direct Trade, coffee. But we have no desire to be elitist. Rather, we think the point of our existence is to provide pleasure, not to ask customers to revel in our awesomeness. That, and to sell more “good” coffee that pays more farmers well so that more coffees at more points of origin become worthy of our business.

Guess what. Flavored latted customers can actually discern that our 16oz vanilla lattes taste better than the mermaid’s. Even though those people supposedly have no palates if you listen only to the cognoscenti.

So if it takes some syrup to sell the tons of FT and Direct Trade and auction coffees that make a difference to the quality of live of peoples at origin, so be it.

as on coffeed.com, i’m not going to respond in kind to personal attacks. it would appear that readers (like “true”) have already discerned the logical lapses in argument and called them as such.

Anonymous posting is not professional and is the latest refuge of a coward.

in general, i would prefer posters with names. however, the truth is always more important. and so, i appreciate the anonymous input.

Syrup man taking over the world- please that is just plain goofy.

interesting. i’ve already replied to you — and stated initially — that i got no problem with the business argument for syrup sponsorships. it’s the mixed messages i’m interested in discussing.

your coffee credentials, numerous as they are, haven’t been questioned. your organization of a barista competiton has.

as such, you’ve stated that (a) you’ve never judged, and (b) you don’t like watching competitions. so … you must have had other reasons for bringing the event to clearwater. in fact, you already stated them.

this is the ENTIRE point — the work of baristi was denigrated by this approach. your mind and priorities appeared to be elsewhere. the entire competition seemed to be a tack-on to the kinds of things you really wanted to do. it felt like a rip-off.

i’ll agree on one point — people should call nick cho if they’re wondering. michelle campbell too. ’nuff said there.

The biggest complaints seem to center around the lack of spectators and my ROI comment.

you’re right, spectators are never substantial. but it’s never been this bad (since at least 2002). so instead of making strides, we’re going backward. basic steps to engaging people are ignored. that’s the tragedy. i think chris owens nicely summarizes the problem with the ROI comment above.

We have been severely criticized for not giving a cash prize to any of the finalists, eventhough it is not required. I personally accept responsibility for this decision …

fair enough. that’s a reasonably debatable point, in my view. thing is, if you’re going to eliminate a traditional money prize, then people are going to look for some other source of value. i think people were looking, and they weren’t seeing one.

For those of you who saw fit to post opinions about an event based on the observations of just one person. Weren’t you just a little suspicious that there was not a single redeeming feature about this event?

hm. clearly, you haven’t read my 29 blog posts about this year’s SERBC. there were redeeming qualities, and i named them. that simple.

I think I just got roped into participating in BZ’s Manufacturing Controversy. ” Beezlebub incarnate” who writes like that? Why would a “consumer” drive 16 hours (with a wife and baby) to sit and watch a barista competition? Something just does not make sense here.

as stated on coffeed, you needn’t pay me any attention, td. i’m a nobody whose blog is NOT read by most of the coffee community. who writes like this? an exhausted hack junkie late at night, that’s who! it’s BAD writing! this blog has always been my cathartic way of just sounding off about a topic i love, in a NON-journalistic, NON-reportorial way, since the journalism you love to refer to is what i already do all day.

here, it’s just honest humor and screediness about what i see from the spectator seats. that’s it. there’s a constitutional amendment protecting that sort of thing, you know.

as for why i’d drive 10 hours to clearwater … as clearly blogged here, it was to support greenville’s only top-notch barista in his inaugural (and emotional) competition. that may seem crazy to you. but then, i love excellent coffee a LOT. and it’s not crazy to me or my wife.

TD- I don’t happen to care who sponsors the event. I also don’t have a problem with the host/sponsors profiting off of it. If that is what is needed to have these events and further promote coffee, the barista craft and community, so be it. I think you are misinterpreting why people were upset with the sponsors and the “ROI” speech. There was a perceived lack of respect for the competitors and the competition during the entire weekend. During the finals the host/sponsor conglomerate, were nowhere to be seen until it was time to make the announcement. Then magically everyone appeared and the room filled. So, when you took the stage and made the now infamous “ROI” speech, it wasn’t the fact that you felt the sponsors should make money off the event, it was that you decided to make those statements with the barista finalists on stage. The timing and tone of the speech, gave the impression that you felt that the competitors were less important than the Return on Investment. It IS after all a barista competition. Here is a quote you directed towards BZ on coffeed.com, “The company staffs, the volunteers, the SCAA staff and the competitors that you have demeaned here”. It is my opinion that if anyone was demeaning, it was you, by the actions I stated above. Whether intentional or otherwise, only you know.

That said, I can’t help but notice that if your thoughts about barista competitions are along the lines of “I myself have never judged, and probably never will. I do not enjoy watching young people in manufactured high stress environments, and probably never will. Just a personal quirk, I guess” you are setting up any number of pratfalls for yourself if decide to host a barista competition. Honestly, why go through the tremendous expense and workload to host the event if you don’t enjoy it at all? If it is painfully obvious that you don’t care for the event that you host, it will create tensions among the people that are passionate about participating. It’s not to infer that you are not passionate about coffee, only that one could logically assume that there are better outlets to demonstrate your passion.

As for the role of the syrup manufacturer as a sponsor, let’s just say that giving back to the community isn’t a bad thing when the community has provided well enough for you. I can assure everyone who didn’t make it to the SERBC that Monin’s investment in their sugar factory dwarfs that of any “third wave” roaster’s physical plant, and those guys are not driving ’92 Buicks. There’s gold in that thar high fructose corn syrup. Where BZ sees a contradiction, I say give ‘em enough rope. If, as bz had speculated, point of competition is to promote quality so that syrups are an unwanted to a well crafted coffee, perhaps the guys from Monin will be driving their 15 year old Lexus and Infinity sports coupes to the 2013 SERBC.