but this then leaves the issue of how to communicate the difference between Stumptown and Sweet Maria’s $105.25 lot and a $6 lot.

However, this statement to me seems to imply that the difference in price between a “top” lot and a “budget” lot (of which I am one of the buyers) reflects a similar difference in quality. But in my cuppings of the lot-samples I could not detect a difference in taste or quality which would warrant such an enourmous difference in price of the lots in question.

As much as it would deem unfair to me would a buyer of one of the “cheaper” lots try to make it appear he is now selling coffee worth more than $100/lbs, as much would it deem unfair to me would the buyers of the top lots now try to communicate that there exists a difference in quality/taste of these lots which warrants such a difference in price…

Just my 2 cts…

As to the growth of the varietal, I too think it is problematic. Geisha does well in Panama at high altitudes and with the right micro climate. This is not to say that it can’t grow in other countries, but from the Panama experience, Geisha grown at lower altitudes is not a great coffee. We tasted some pretty bad examples of bad Geisha in Panama this year. Like everything else, just because someone has great success with a specific coffee, does not mean that everyone can. Part of what makes the HiE Geisha so amazing is the care with which they harvest and process the coffee. It is one of the reasons I am going back to Panama in January, so that I can witness the harvest first hand and better understand all of the issues facing growers of specialty coffee. Anyway, my two cents worth. Can’t wait to get over to London and visit.

Cheers.

i think your right to be concerned jim, not so much about the potential flooding of the market, as the next fashionalble variatal will be just around the corner, but the issue you raised re: branding.

the end users lookm for brands, they always will do, so if you tell someone that Esmerelda is the pinnacle of coffee, its gets known for this. serve them a bad cup from a lower quality batch form the fram and that brand is being damaged.

The farms have used basic economics to create an inflated price, now they have to apply basic marketing to ensure that the reputation of the farms and the brands they have established do not suffer from dilution.

thoughts?

I think the thing with Geisha and to an extent pacamara’s, are they are very obvious on a cupping table. Lazy cuppers (and I don’t know who judged the Panama auction or El Salvador and I’m not passing any comment on there quality) pick them out because they are so different. Does this make them better coffee’s because they are different?

I think we are a dangerous and difficult cross roads of coffee. Following the latest fashion with people who can ill afford to react to this, and can damage years of varietal history for the sake of a whim. Will this improve coffee quality in the long term?

I don’t know enough to be an expert on this stuff, but I know enough that it could be dangerous.

To me, the ability to taste harvests from different sides of the creek and harvest dates is the best kind of cerebral treat a cup of coffee can offer. I thank Esmeralda for the opportunity.

I have tasted a few “Geishas” from other farms. Maybe 20% of them simply aren’t the same Geisha from Esmeralda, because the beans look completely different and have none of the Esmeralda fruit and florals. I have little insider info on this stuff, so hopefully someone else can enlighten us.

I see some parallels between the Esmeralda and Geisha fad / craze today and the history of Centrals in the 1970s, when a few forward-thinking, cutting edge new breed of specialty coffee roasters discovered for the first time single origin Central American coffees (namely from Costa Rica and Guatemala) that had something in them that they had only ever had from Kenyans before: acidity.

It’s hard to find written-down history about this, but if you get a chance to talk to any second and third generation roaster (with family roots going back to the 70s and 60s), they might all tell you the same thing – back then, this “amazing new taste sensation” of brightness was heavily sought after because these roasters were so used to the homogenized centrals with medium-low acidity, and the low acid / brightness coffees of Colombia and Brasil. Certain specialty roasters valued and praised this brightness more than anything else on the cupping table, and while they weren’t paying $50 or $100 or $130 for a pound, they were paying a premium and demanding more of the bean.

As I said – lots of parallels there. And perhaps some lessons to be learned.