I'm fond of the Ethiopian "Moka Harrar" myself...
and I used to roast coffee commercially.
Kinda had my pick of high-grade arabica's---
in fact, basically HAD to brew and sample consistantly,
which helped me coax certain aspects out of the coffee, and helped guide the choosing of which particular bags of green coffee to buy-- and from whom.
I like all the good ones, hehehe...
Dozens---if one counts all the "Estate' coffees from Central America, too.
At times, the Ethiopian Yrgecheffe can be outstanding.
And I love it when the Kenya really sings, and has depth, complexity, decent 'body'...
One particular Central American country has a couple of Estates that can produce almost Kenya-like cup outlines...
And good Guatemala coffee can stand alone...but usually we blended it with various others.
I don't roast anymore, but I did
recently, on a machine that used to be owned by Tully's...situated not 100 yards from where I'm now sitting.
But I can't say that I'm overly fond of that machine---
since I've had better results on a smaller roaster, all in all.
Blend the Harrar with Java Estate (preferably, most usually one particular Estate, there being five
government recognized, sanctioned Estates on Java), and one has a reasonable facsimile of the oldest coffee blend in the world. But it can vary a large amount, according to the coffees themselves, and just how they're roasted.
(it's not all about how dark, or how light colored it ends up--but also just how one get's 'em there...)
As a variation on a theme, there are a few roasters who utilize Sumatra Mandheling, instead of, or in addition to
Java Estate, blending with Harrar or Sidamo.
To this, one can add some Columbian and/or Central American, for yet another common blend type.
Not my favorite, but drinkable.
Usually I like sraight varietals the best.
One can roast the same bean, to two or three different degrees of roast, and add another bean (or not) for a 'blend', too.
Blending AFter roasting is usually best, for reasons of
subtle differences in size and moisture content of the beans, not to mention whatever collodial reactions are taking place before, as the beans go through pyrolysis...but I'm told if one blends the green coffee together and leave it for a day (or a few?), then the moisture evens out somewhat.
Never had a moisture meter to test it---but would like to,
just to see...
Would also like to use, uh---light spectrum analysis?
Just to get an idea of what's REALLy in the various beans.
Which could help one understand better what chemical reactions were going one (by pulling samples during the roasting process). Everything is chemistry, on one level...
From what I understand, the Brazilian Bourbon Santos Arabicas used to be wonderful---but the botanical variety existing today isn't quit the same as it was three hundred years ago.
I've been unhappy with most of the Brazilian arabica that
i was forced to roast (and find a 'home' in a blend for!).
Otherwise, most of Brazil's crop IS robusta
which most specialty roasters do not use---BUT---a few select regions or estates(?) can produce a 'sweet' brew with outstanding crema. From what I understand, the Europeans blend certain Brazilian robusta's into their espresso for the reasons I mention above.
The Vietnamese robusta, I'm also told, is what has been driving the costs of green coffee down, and helping to hold it there, as more trees mature, putting yet again more product on the world market. Never tried it though...to my knowledge.
Columbian coffee isn't what it used to be, either.
Some (not all) of the very best types of arabica trees have been replaced by types of arabicas that produce similar cup (taste) profiles, but lack, compared with what came out of there in the seventies.
As I hear it---the U.S. government, in it's "war on drugs"
went to some of the places that had gone "coke", and convinced 'em to replant with a type of tree that produced more than their previously existing trees did, but as a by-product, had less "intensity" in flavours.
Other good trees might well have been replaced by this higher producing type, too.
I hope some of the best areas and producers can get it together to have "Estate" Columbian.
I'm not tellin' any areas I'm watchin--since Charbucks would probably go try to buy the entire crop--like they do much of the best of the Java!!! (the dirty
*&^%$@#s!!!)
Then they go and half burn it!
Or was that just the Vietnamese robusta?
Peat's coffee houses have coffee much superior to most of what charbucks offers...though I admit to enjoying a cup or two from the starburnt ones (by getting a straight varietal if they offered it, and avoiding the 'gazebo' blend! geez--if i did that to central american coffees, i'd be ashamed to sell it! the gazebo is most likely "commercial grade" central's, over roasted to hide certain lacks, and flaws...
so my palate tells me, anyway...)
And I dunno, but I'd bet San Francisco has coffee houses that rival (cup quality-wise) Seattle.
Last time I was in "the City", several little places I stopped at for coffee, had nice, rich, full bodied brews.
S.F. is amongst U.S. historic coffee "ports", you know...
In fact, many Washington state-based roasters get at least some of their coffee from the green brokers in the Bay Area.
It doesn't matter who roasts the coffee (as long as one is experienced, competent, and gives a damn about quality), but first--it simply HAS to be IN the bean, in the beginning!
Last time I looked, neither S.F. or Seattle, had anything at all, in the way of coffee orchards...as N.Y., Chicago, New Orleans, uh, or Germany don't either---where some of the very best
goes to get de-caffeinated.
Ooh! but your nome 'de geur!
New Zealand has some excellent coffee grown there!
Geeeze, what an education on the ole bean, thanks.. Where in the world can I get some of this ""Estate Columbian""?? I'm a sucker for the fancy stuff.