Riding the Wave: Breaking Down the History of Coffee

Breaking the timeline into so-called waves — from first to fourth — is generally considered the simplest way to understand how coffee production and culture have evolved in the United States. But like any effort to generalize a category with centuries of history and tradition behind it, it’s an imperfect system.

During the so-called first wave, and especially during the early 20th century, coffee became a more widely industrialized and available commodity. This helped it make its way into Americans’ routines. The second wave, which experts generally agree took place in the latter half of the 20th century, took the category a step further, with household names like Starbucks, Peet’s Coffee, and George Howell introducing café culture and piquing public interest in speciality espresso drinks.

We spoke with Casey Wojtalewicz, co-founder of Los Angeles-based Canyon Coffee, about what’s next in the timeline, how technology is influencing the next wave for coffee, and where transparency and sustainability fit into the conversation.‍

Is the "wave" metaphor still useful, or does it oversimplify a more fragmented landscape?‍

I think the “Three Waves” definitions were really clear-cut because each stage represented a near-revolution in coffee quality and market tastes. If there’s been a revolution in that sense in America since the aughts, it’d probably be in the dominance of iced drinks and RTD — but if that’s the case, you’d have to point to Starbucks, which had bottled lattes in every gas station in America by the early 2000’s.

When I hear Fourth Wave used in context, it usually feels like someone attempting to posit themselves as a leading innovator for a given piece of technology, approach to service, or design, etc. But while the industry is shifting and evolving all the time, I don’t personally feel anything as transformative as the leap from Second to Third wave has taken place in the last decade.‍

How would you explain the fourth wave of coffee to someone who doesn't have a lot of industry context?‍

I’d suggest there’s no industry-wide accepted definition of Fourth Wave. I’m not sure if it’s more about making specialty coffee accessible, or even greater transparency, or the impact of Gen Z preferences and a shift into more emphasis on higher-effort coffee “cocktail” trends, or wider RTD and iced coffee drink products in the CPG marketplace. My firsthand experience with “Fourth Wave” has been mostly as a marketing term for specialty companies seeking to establish themselves as innovators in the space.

Personally, while we never used the term “Third Wave” within Canyon, I never felt that what we were doing was as groundbreaking as what the original third wavers were doing back in the 90s; it felt more like we were standing on the shoulders of giants. We saw something missing in specialty coffee, and a lot of that had to do with approachability, feeling, the world around coffee, and viewing coffee less as a caffeine mandate or thing to prove “We’re the best at,” but something that brings people together and fosters real connection. ‍

Does the fourth wave's emphasis on traceability actually translate to better pay and conditions for farmers? ‍

Unfortunately, I don’t think there’s a correlation. Or if there is, it’s immaterial. Again, I think a bigger shift took place in the shift from Second to Third wave, when roasters actually started giving credit to coffee producers, giving more attention to growing, harvesting, processing, and transport methods, and establishing specialty cup scores, which enabled stand-out quality coffees to achieve higher premiums.

The reason I don’t think the emphasis on traceability impacts pay and conditions for farmers is that if this were true, it would imply that higher pay and better conditions are a matter of will on roasters part — and this is not completely true. Yes, a roaster can choose to simply pay a producer more, or pay them whatever price they ask for their coffee. They then have to pass that increased cost onto their customers.

I do think some roasters are doing this and having success with it, and that’s a great thing. But this business model is not immediately accessible to any and every roaster. On the whole, myriad variables and conditions impact the pricing of coffee, from the producer level, to transport, import (tariffs), down to gas for transit to the roaster; and finally, the costs of business for roasters, including occupancy, labor, costs-of-goods-sold, and shipping. ‍

Do you feel hyper-transparency in sourcing — down to the specific farm plot or harvest date —  is meaningful to most drinkers, or just enthusiasts?‍

No, I don’t think it is, and the complicated nature of it is a good reason. I don’t say this to be cynical! Just because the average consumer isn’t interested in something doesn’t mean that we, as business owners and coffee professionals, shouldn’t care about it or can’t move it forward. While we may need to cater to the “average coffee drinker” for our businesses to thrive, we can still consider that 1 in 20 people who really do care.

For instance, at Canyon, we’ve cared about organic certification from the beginning. And while we think this is important to most of our customers, we know it’s more of a “box to check” than a primary factor in their decision to buy Canyon Coffee. ‍

What role does innovation play in coffee today, from smart espresso machines, refractometers, pressure profiling, to, of course, AI?‍

Here at Canyon, we are not using AI for roasting, grading, or flavor prediction.

In theory, we could use AI to help us achieve certain flavors and characteristics in the roasting process; we could also feed AI data from our coffee-grading equipment to give us feedback. But these things are at the heart of what defines us and our coffee, so they’re honestly the last things we’d look to AI to for support.

For the most part, technology enables us to have more data, more control, greater consistency, and — increasingly — greater automation. In the case of data, control, and automation, this isn’t always necessarily a good thing. In the same way, creative restraints can be helpful for a musician, technological limitations sometimes contribute to… keeping ourselves out of the way.

A good example is Fetco vs. Curtis Brewers. Commercial brewers are arguably the piece of equipment that has changed the least. The models developed during the Third Wave era are trusty, dusty and deliver great results. Both Wilbur Curtis and Fetco brewers are great. Interestingly, though, the Curtis brewers offer full control over every variable of extraction (you can program how long you want each pulse and break from water for as many pulses as you want, to the second), whereas Fetcos typically give a more limited range of control (prewet %, number of pulses, total extraction time). Given this greater control, you’d expect Curtis brewers to deliver better quality results — but they don’t. Both brewers yield amazing cups of coffee.

At Canyon, we love using refractometers for drip coffee and at times for espresso — but only as a checkpoint and a helpful tool for when any barista is having trouble dialing in. When the palate is not giving us a clear indication of brew strength (under vs. overextraction), the refractometer gives us an objective answer that helps us make a correct adjustment to improve the cup quality. We also use the Omix by DiFluid, which gives us moisture, water activity, density, screen size (for green coffee) and color (for roasted coffee). It’s really helpful to have those objective parameters when we’re making decisions on coffees that implicate hundreds of thousands of dollars in purchases.

Some automation is welcomed by baristas. Automatic tampers are a great example. PuqPress has become a ubiquitous brand on countertops around the world (though Mazzer’s automatic tamper is amazing). Baristas enjoy automatic tampers for the consistency and the decreased strain on their wrists and arms. Owners like it for the same reason.

I think we’re seeing the benefits and limitations of innovation play out in real time. I’ve seen automatic steamers show up on bars, and quickly get removed when they don’t keep up with high-volume workflows.

For years, there was a “robot barista” at every specialty coffee expo. I didn’t see them this time around. I think jobs in the coffee industry are largely safe from the touch of AI, and while automation may change the nature of the work, there will always be people who come to a coffee shop for community and human interaction.

This is something Big Tech never seems to understand.