[Homeroast] City? City +? Full City?

Ed Needham beans at homeroaster.com
Sat Feb 20 23:32:19 CST 2010

I call a Full City roast one just before any oil specks show up (usually 
caught just as the first few cracks of second start in a drum and before 
second in an air roaster).  A few oil specks is Full City Plus, and anything 
more is irrelevant in my opinion.

John, I think you are right about 'subjective' dark roasts.  A Full City by 
my description above would have been way different than most were used to at 
that time in history.
Ed Needham
"to absurdity and beyond!"

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John A C Despres" <johndespres at gmail.com>
To: "A list to discuss home coffee roasting. There are rules for this 
list,available at http://www.sweetmarias.com/maillistinfo.html" 
<homeroast at lists.sweetmariascoffee.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 20, 2010 11:45 PM
Subject: Re: [Homeroast] City? City +? Full City?

> Well, this turn of discussion is exactly why I started this thread. And I
> think it proves my point; What do we call our roasts?
>>From a light Cinnamon roast to a much darker Full City + roast may be
> considered a huge leap to a dark roast. And for the times Mr. Peet was
> roasting, it probably was a huge leap. It appears Alfred Peet simply 
> roasted
> darker than what Americans may have been used to, therefore he roasted
> *dark* coffee. By today's standards, using Starbuck's dark roast as the
> yardstick to compare to another time in history, is revisionist history. 
> So
> Mr. Peet didn't roast as dark as Starbucks currently does, but by the
> standards of the day, way back then, he was roasting a dark coffee but not
> necessarily burnt coffee.
> John

More information about the Homeroast mailing list