An ideal texture (thickness) of milk, and an ideal ratio for espresso to milk..?

This is another of those occasional large and rambling posts of mine with a weighty title and subject (from an espresso perspective, anyway!), which tend to raise more questions than they answer (probably because there are very few definitive answers in coffee), and which begin to enter the realms of contradiction and aimlessness (so feel free to give this one a miss!). Nevertheless, these are ideas that have been on my coffee-mind recently, so I want to note them down for my own future reference (as my perception gradually alters over time), and also ‘put them out there’, in case anyone else is in a similar place.

These posts usually also run the risk of being diverted-off in many different directions, due to the nature of the issues raised. As this one is a more likely candidate for this than ever (it could easily become about 10 separate posts or topics), I’m going to preempt this, and suggest that this post could just as easily have been titled:

Down With ‘Cappuccino’ and ‘Latte’ Milk Texture – Is There Only One True Texture..?

Are My Cappuccinos Becoming Too Thin, and My Lattes Too Thick..?

Forget The Rules: Milk Texture is about Mouthfeel and Viscosity!

Foam at 1 – 2cm is Perfection for all Drinks..?

Is It Wrong to Think a 6oz Cappuccino Should Perhaps be made with a Ristretto Double..?

What is the Best Way to Retain True Integrity and Flavour, Considering Varying Cup Sizes, In a Realistic Commercial Setting..?

News Flash! *3rd Wave Barista Promotes Large Coffees in Cafe!?*

Most Long-Winded and Dull Post Ever..?

————————–

That done, maybe I can now look at some of these points without too much fear of  going off-topic. It jumps a bit between the combined issues of texture and ratio/flavour – so apologies for the meandering thread!

Firstly, I’ve been wondering lately if perhaps there might be an ideal texture or thickness of milk when used with espresso. For a long time I have tried to follow, and preach, different texture for each type of drink – Cappuccino texture, Latte texture, etc. By this, many of you will realise that I’m not referring to anything other than microfoam (all drinks should be made with a pourable, microfoamed emulsion, naturally), but instead, to the fact that that this can vary in thickness, depending on the amount of air injected (ranging from just a few millimetres for very ‘hard’ or thin texture, to several centimetres for very thick texture), and that cappuccinos are generally made with thicker microfoam than lattes. But for a long time, and more so recently, I’ve found my cappuccinos tending towards a thinner texture than some would advocate, and my lattes tending towards a thicker ‘head’ than some would expect – therefore running the risk of blurring the dividing line between the two, both in terms of texture, and in terms of taste, if they are the same or a similar size, with latte art. I’ve tried to fight this. I’ve thought *Maybe this is just laziness…*; I’ve tried to force myself to pull it back, and steam thinner for lattes and vise-versa. But now I’m thinking WHY?! That middle texture is maybe where the milk, and the drink, is nicest, and maybe it’s what all drinks should be made with…

I guess this all stems from the fact that when I make myself a 6oz drink with steamed milk at work, I’m not quite sure what it is, in terms of pigeonholing it, but it’s just what I think tastes best, in terms of flavour and mouthfeel (and I mean for that size, when combined with microfoam – I also love espresso, macchiato, americano, filter, etc). This is also the drink that I tend to make for workmates, and ‘coffee people’ who come in if they want something with steamed milk. …But I’m not sure what to call it. It’s simply a ristretto double shot (1.1-1.6oz I suppose), with foam at roughly (!) 1.6cm, give or take a few ml, in a 6oz (bowl-shaped) cup. I suppose you could refer to it as either a (thick) flat white, or a wet-ish strong cappuccino.

And what’s like texture like? It’s thick enough to be rich, viscous and tactile in the cup and in the mouth, with the sort of tension at the rim that never really runs the risk of the fluid slopping over the side, even when freshly poured (although some customers do manage to whack all the air out of it by whisking-in sugar at a rate of knots, leaving themselves with a pitifully foamless drink – whereas my foam stays right to the bottom of the cup). But it’s also thin or ‘wet’ enough to allow for really nice, quite intricate latte art (but not the most  elaborate though), and with a texture that doesn’t leave itself open to being described as too dry or overstretched. And there is a window here – this is a zone, rather than an exact measurement in ml (which alters significantly with the distribution in different cup types anyway, even with exactly the same texture), and it ranges between 1-2cm, a little towards 2, perhaps!

I just find it tastes good. Coincidentally, latte art seems to live quite happily in this zone too (although some folks go a lot thinner for intricacy), but, whilst I adore latte art, that’s not what motivates me to build this drink like this. Nor do I think I’m just a caffeine junkie with worn-out tastebuds who drinks so much coffee that I need a bigger hit in a cappuccino, and who can’t taste the coffee without using a double shot – I’m actually quite moderate in my coffee drinking, and don’t really like to have much more than maybe one short double espresso, and one 6oz drink, in any one working day (speaking pleasure-wise). I just think the coffee flavour tastes richer, more satisfying, and truer at this sort of ratio. After all – ‘we’ all like espresso, and we all like macchiatto (probably) – so why do we feel the need to adhere to the (1:5) ratio of a ‘classic’ cappuccino made with a single shot? The 1:3 or 1:4 ratio seems to make more sense, and feels like the logical progression if you’re using great espresso, and still want to retain that richness in a slightly longer drink. In fact – it also makes sense in terms of the classic notion of a cappuccino as a drink of thirds; 1oz (or even less for a ristretto single) is not 1/3rd of 6 ounces! And yet the majority of people would (probably) say a true cappuccino should be made with a single shot.

I know all this is nothing too radical – there are probably many baristas around the world making their drinks with this sort milk texture. You only have to look at the cappuccinos often served in the barista championships; even at the higher levels of competition, they are often served quite thin. Not that there’s anything wrong with that; they’re lovely, and in some cases consist of precisely the texture that I’m talking about – but by many people’s standards (and probably by the standard of many Italians), they are not as thick as they ‘aught’ to be, and can be, even when using microfoam that is not overstretched. The current WBC rules (whilst by no means a definitive benchmark) define acceptable cappuccinos as having “approximately 1cm of foam depth, accessed vertically” – which allows for some potentially very thin cappuccinos (thinner even than I’m talking about). These competition cappuccinos can probably in some cases be closer to what some people would call lattes.

So whilst this notion of thinner cappuccinos is nothing new, the topic of an ‘ideal texture’ still raises lots of questions, and goes against many conventions - and I’m a stickler for trying pin-down what’s really right. As in so many cases with coffee, much of the confusion can simply come down to cultural and regional differences, as well as personal preference. There are few definitive answers – but I can’t help feeling the urge to uncover some sort of more concrete truth amongst all the variations.

A curious and rather guilty result of all this for me is that I have been making something of a point recently of asking customers in the cafe whether they would like a “large or small cappuccino” or latte, whereas previously (like a good third wave, small-cup ideology citizen), I only served a large if someone specifically asked for one. Whilst I still wholeheartedly believe in smaller drinks, I also believe in flavour (which is rather the point of it after all), and in our particular set-up at the cafe, we serve classic 6oz cappuccinos and 7oz lattes with single shots, and we do a large of each (even though it’s not actually printed on the menus) with a double shot in a 10oz cup. You may have guessed where I’m going with this now: Small = 1:5/6 ratio. Large = 1:4 ratio. Therefore large = a better flavour, that more handsomely conveys the flavour characteristics of our lovely espresso coffees. Whilst I also often suggest to interested customers that they can add an extra shot to a small to give a fuller flavour, much of the time that’s just too clunky to do in a busy situation, and can confuse people with what feels like too much information and questioning. 

You’ll have gathered then, that none of our drinks are that large (given that our ‘large’ is smaller, thankfully, than many places serve for a small!), and it’s lovely to work in a cafe where the sizes (whilst not entirely consistent, ratio-wise) are so sensible – which is why I don’t feel too guilty about promoting the larger 10oz, when it actually delivers a better flavour (I feel) than our small …and which is also probably more pleasing for the ‘average customer’ who likes to sit over a coffee for a while, and who is used to larger sizes. But I do still feel uneasy about directing people away from the purist’s ideal of the smaller drink of about 6 ounces. Which leads me once again to the idea that perhaps a ‘traditional’ size cappuccino aught to be made with a short double…

So what would my ideal menu consist of, in order to best promote the flavour of good espresso, whilst having ratio-consistency throughout the sizes, and at the same time that would have integrity from a purist’s perspective, and be able to offer drinks that are large enough to not totally alienate the general public? It’s very tricky. Maybe 6 or 7 ounce cappuccinos made with a ristretto double, and a 12 ounce large made with a triple shot? But even that has its flaws. Maybe a small single shot cappuccino at 5oz, and a large double shot at 10oz could work flavour-wise, but I don’t think the general British public is quite ready for such a small cappuccino.

Obviously there are many other, more intricate factors to consider in terms of what constitutes the best flavour and ratio in any given circumstance, like the type of milk used, the temperature of the milk, the dose, and the specific coffee being used for the espresso – but one needs to have some sound basic framework to work from for a menu.

Importantly perhaps, I guess the darker roasts that prevail and pervade more generally in the world, cut through 5 - 6 ounces (or much more) of milk more easily, whereas the lighter, more artisan roasts which carefully retain the coffees’ individual characteristics, whilst full of flavour, maybe struggle a little more to come through the milk successfully – and if it’s lovely coffee being used, masking its flavour with too much milk, even in a small drink, is a risk, and a shame.

And what about that texture issue? I used to believe that a cappuccino and a latte could both be made in exactly the same type and size of cup – and that the differentiation should come from the milk texture. Now perhaps I’m leaning more towards a school of thought where both can have the same thickness of milk, but that a latte should be a rather bigger, milder drink (perhaps, referring to the afore mentioned menu, with a small latte being made with a ristretto double in an 8 or 9 ounce cup). Although the large would then be a gross size… But that might work, as the cappuccinos would then rightly remain in the domain of having true integrity for the real coffee lovers, and the large latte would be for those who simply want a vat of something that still tastes quite nice…

…But then there’s the worry that my 1.5oz double in a 6oz cup would just be too strong for most people! Maybe my tastebuds are knackered …or at least, too honed towards the intensity of the espresso experience. To be honest, sometimes it is too strong like this (especially if it’s not made just right), and most customers seem happy enough with the single shot cappuccinos. But I really want to allow the flavour of good coffee to come through the milk for people, and think that (especially with chocolate on top as well!), it gets too lost with a single shot. Essentially; I’d like to be in the position of feeling proud to offer customers something that reflects the flavour of the espresso properly, and which I myself would like to drink - whereas I think the small cappuccinos that I generally serve are a little wishy-washy and under-inspiring!

In Italy (and some other parts of Europe), there is what the Italians would call the wet or ‘white’ cappuccino chiaro,  and the dry or ‘dark’ cappuccino scuro. And I guess the traditional ‘classic’ version would lean more towards the latter. The wetter end of the scale (with a single shot) is probably where the WBC definition sits. The drier end is too thick for most latte art (excepting soft hearts perhaps), and unless really well made can get into the territory of the overstretched. I think I’m somewhere in the middle at the moment, towards the wetter end, with the style of drink I’m talking about.

This wetness or ‘whiteness’ issue, combined with roast-type, probably comes closest to providing some sort of answer to one part of all this nonsense. A thick, dry, traditional cappuccino with a single shot of dark-roast espresso in a 5oz cup probably tastes fine – hence dark. But the wetter, more Western, latte-art-style made with a more subtle, sympathetic roast, probably tastes a bit bland to a coffee lover – because it becomes quite white; the ratio and flavour has changed. Therefore, I feel it does make sense, if your style is a wetter cappuccino, to use a short double to really pull that flavour right back, and show the beauty of the roast.

But don’t worry, if you come to the plan, I will still be serving the small cappuccinos with a single shot, and (a little) thicker than my lattes …probably!

Certainly this is all very much a work-in-progress, as my ideas and understanding of this subtly complex cuisine (where ‘facts’ are ever elusive) continues to evolve… The more you learn, the less you know!