Comments on: Video 8 – No to numbers

By: juanchothepancho

juanchothepancho — Sun, 07 Nov 2010 20:45:00 +0000

This is why I love this blog. First off (not saying they are predictable), I see a trend in all the videos that I can use to predict most of the themes. What I have noticed from your views is that coffee is a personal experience. It is NOT black and white, good or bad. It’s what it is and what the person makes of it. We all like different foods prepared differently, so who’s to say coffee is any different?

Love the video

By: Charlie Lorenzini

Charlie Lorenzini — Sat, 10 Apr 2010 17:03:25 +0000

Yes i have to agree i work for Masteroast in Peterborough and they have just gone to a number system and i dont like it

By: Andrew

Andrew — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 08:14:36 +0000

G’day James,
I agree with your immediate questions of any score from a reviewer: ‘What have you tasted’ and ‘what criteria did you use’. Like wine, coffee taste is essentially personal and numbers make what are in reality subjective judgments appear objective – but that is where the ‘super reviewers’ you mentioned (I think in a negative sense -?) perhaps can be of some benefit. From my experiences with wine (I haven’t come across too many coffee scores yet – but I keep exploring) I find that if a number of well known reviewers pass judgment on a particular drop, you can get some very useful insights into what will appeal based on the differences in marks presented. Of course, the wine industry has existed for so long that the wine-reviewing industry now exists almost in its own right. I’m not sure the coffee industry is in a state yet where there are enough established reviewers to make scores of much use as a communication tool between producers and consumers. Word of mouth, and personal trial and error seem to be much more effective – particularly at the consumer’s end of the market where you can start tasting and experimenting for the price of a cup of coffee… (it’s cheaper than a bottle of wine!)

By: coffeehorse

coffeehorse — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 05:57:05 +0000

My feeling is that coffee knowledge is too disjointed, and without known labelling (down to estate/lot/microlot) and less subjective judging, the numbers are rubbish. Added to different brewing methods – coffee varies wildly from siphon espresso (and even in espresso from HX DB, group, preinfusion, brewing temp etc).

If we’re cupping one bean against another from the same region (eg. a Sidamo against another Sidamo) using the same scoring method and the same, the scores break down well. Cup-tasting espresso adds more complexity and thus difficulty, and we’ve not as an industry got the same level of familiarity with regions/estates/soils/processing methods.

perhaps greater accuracy in what we’re actually communicating we’ve tasted (and how we got there) is actually more important, before we start tells consumers “that’s a 91 pointer, while that’s an 88 pointer”.

By: K.C.

K.C. — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 21:05:39 +0000

Forgive my injection here about origin, for the coffee buyers world (exporters, importers and roasters) score is extremely useful for communicating with producers and formulating purchasing protocols. In fact in my work it is essential. The reality of hundreds of samples needing to be efficiently classified at origin leads us to score.

When a set of cuppers become “calibrated” (meaning they all agree upon basic descriptions of levels of good) then they can assign points and use the “Cup of Excellence” style quality discovery, and assign appropriate pricing.

I absolutely believe that amongst experienced cuppers there is a reliable common understanding and recognition of what “good” resembles in washed arabica coffees, even when evaluating multiple origins. Correspondingly, I believe that our point assessments are probably within 3 points of each other between 75 and 90; and more distanced the lower and higher we go. So for purchasing specialty washed arabicas the point system and pricing is a very valuable and workable model for us.

Where I concede this all breaks down is when alternative processing methods (some represented by particular origins) are employed. Fruity, Winey, Fermenty, Earthy . . . (natural, semi natural, milled moist . . .) The relativity of cupping goes wild.

By: SlowRain

SlowRain — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 17:25:36 +0000

What score did last year’s Best Picture winner at the Oscars get? What score did last year’s Booker Prize winner get? Does it matter that we don’t know? Does it really matter, other than from a marketing perspective, who even won? It still doesn’t mean we’re going to like either.

By: Hunt Slade

Hunt Slade — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 17:09:59 +0000

We have never used a cupping score to describe our coffees at the shop. In our first year, I decided that in our area (basically devoid of truly specialty coffee for 35 miles in every direction), a score would not really educate our customers as to the virtues of of any particular bean. Something we have done lately, however is to use descriptors from the “fast and dirty” score sheet we use to decide whether we want to pursue a sample in further cupping ans assessment and finally into a purchase. It goes something like this:

Quick Cupping Form

MENTALITY (overall character)
CALM BALANCED WILD

CURVES (body)
PARIS ANGELINA SALMA

WIND (nose)
ZEPHYR GUSTY TEMPEST

MOTION (acidity)
COUCH POTATO JOGGER FASTER PUSSYCAT KILL, KILL

INTELLIGENCE (complexity)
GOMER JOHN Q. EINSTEIN

MEMORY (aftertaste)
WHAT? THERE IT IS TOTAL RECALL

GRADE
F D C B A

We circle one from each category with a note or two out to the side for particular flavors and end up with a grade-type quick score that is based totally on our enjoyment of the coffee. If a majority of us didn’t give it an “A”, we drop it from the list of potentials. It may all seem a little silly, but we have seen good returns in our customers being able to identify different characteristics in their cups.

By: Chris Deferio

Chris Deferio — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 14:29:42 +0000

You can’t judge a book by its cover…But you DO buy it based on limited but trusted knowledge.
The process of describing coffee will never replace the way a person experiences it…nor should it try.
But setting up a trusted system to guide people into a higher probability of satisfaction should be what
scoring, descriptions, and judging is all about.

-Chris

By: Davide Birse

Davide Birse — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 09:21:53 +0000

i agree with your thoughts and many of the others. Distilling a coffee down to numbers is next to useless for the average person, and even to most of us new baristi. Flavour profiles seem to be the easiest and most useful way of describing a coffee, letting a consumer know what you thought of the coffee when you tasted it, or even objectivly what flavour notes were present in the coffee. A ’94′ point coffee on its own tells you nothing about it. And combined with a flavour profile it just looks like a selling point.

The easiest guidance i’ve found is usually the bean grading plus a Flavour profile from someone you trust. Especially if there tastes are similar to yours.

The only other useful thing i could think off is a relativly small scale for body, acidy and strength which alot of us already utilise along side a profile.standardised scales would allow printed numbers for packages.

By: Stefan

Stefan — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 08:09:30 +0000

Well, aside from thinking that scoring outside a process like the COE cupping is like throwing darts blindfolded, a score does not tell me (as a consumer) a whole lot about the coffee. For example, I was at a very well respected Roastery to buy coffee and they proposed one coffee which was their favorite. It was obviously pretty good, but it just didn’t “fit” me. You can’t easily put a one-dimensional score on a multi-dimensional thing like the taste of coffee, especially when people “look” for different things they expect. So, some people (like me) like Aricha microlots, others don’t, and there’s nothing wrong with that.