Comments on: Challenging Flavours

By: Colin

Colin — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 19:22:55 +0000

When I mentioned repeatability I wasnt really referring to producing the same result year after year, rather repeating a similar flavour profile throughout a crop and a similar profile long term.

Processing coffee that yields “hugely” different flavour profiles in the same crop would set off alarm bells for me.

Over the course of a few years I think its very plausible for a farm to expect similar effects on their coffee from a processing method, notwithstanding the changes in the coffee that occur inherently from year to year before any processing.

By: James Hoffmann

James Hoffmann — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 14:01:47 +0000

From a chemical point of view there is currently no way to create roasted coffee without some bitter compounds such as, well – caffeine.

We’ve simply become accustomed to it, while also more fixated on the other aspects of the brew.

By: Rob

Rob — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 09:42:01 +0000

Very interesting and thought provoking post David. Challenging convention is sometimes unpopular, but questioning the accepted norm has often served as the catalyst to drive change and bring industries forward.

Being someone who is at the early stages of their journey into the world of speciality coffee, I think there is a tendency to show bias towards the more popular sweeter coffees from El Salvador, Brazil, etc. Certainly this year for me there has been some very enjoyable coffees in this area. The Kilimanjaro from Square Mile and the Finca Los Amates from Hasbean are 2 that come to mind.

But in contrast to this, for me the Sidikalang has been a clear standout this year, something I chatted with Colin about on Saturday. Now whether I was taken by this coffee because it was so different, or because I just really enjoyed it in the cup is difficult to call. But the key thing is I got to try it and enjoy it. I’d have been disappointed if it had not made it to my table this year because its characteristics had been viewed as defects on the cupping tables. In the same respect, although yourself and several others commenting here are Irish, I doubt very much we’d enjoy tasting potato in our coffee as found on occasion in the Rwandans. So as Steve has pointed out, there may be a fine line to be tread when assessing what is a defect and what is a more unusual but acceptable characteristic in a coffee.

Though as much as I enjoy the Sidikalang, it would not be a coffee I would be drinking on a daily basis. As James mentioned, if I just wanted a coffee for my daily staple, then it would be the El Salvador, Brazil, Kenya, Ethiopia et al I would likely be reaching for. This would concur with other comments made, that whilst encouraging farmers to produce more coffees such as the Sidikalang may be good for those of us who enjoy our coffees a little different, this may be a false economy if the market is not yet be there to support them. In the same breath, it’s my opinion that they should also not be discouraged. It would appear then for now we may be in the hands of the green coffee buyers whose personal tastes will likely determine what coffees make it to the broader speciality market.

By: Rasmus Helgebostad

Rasmus Helgebostad — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:56:22 +0000

Well there certainly are a variety of different coffees out there for you to try, if all you want is to taste new things. However for it to be interesting as a coffee rather than any given (potentially poisionous) food product, I think it should be

a clean representation of terroir and varietal.

Processing and roasting should only be present to highlight those two.

Expecting it to be reproducable is nonsense, as any farming product will be different from year to year.

By: Nick

Nick — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 22:30:13 +0000

David, don't ever argue definitions with "greg." He doesn't care what your definition is, he only cares about his own personal version... you know, kinda like "Third Wave." :-)

By: David

David — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 22:29:40 +0000

Perhaps so, but I imagine people like Styles (above) may have had a lot of his opinions formed pre-Intelli. I take your point though.

By: Nick

Nick — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 22:25:20 +0000

I don’t mean that it’s a reflection of a cupping score. I mean that those guys come from a certain tradition and culture at Intelly that results in them “describing them as ‘gross’.”

By: David

David — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 22:13:53 +0000

I disagree. All coffees to a greater or lesser degree contain a bitter element. Some coffees can be relatively less bitter than other coffees, but even if you give the most naturally sweet coffee to someone not accustomed to drinking coffee, they will recognize it as bitter (as Jim said sometimes they also misidentify other attributes as bitter). I have given coffees, brewed to Gold Cup standard, roasted by roasters of the highest caliber, to people who don’t do coffee, and much to my chagrin their initial comment is “bitter”.

Also amaro/amari does literally mean bitter, so I don’t get your comment, unless I am missing your meaning.

By: greg

greg — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 22:00:03 +0000

People who think coffee is bitter by definition have spent too much of their lives consuming bad coffee. I simply do not buy the inevitable “bitter” argument.

Though I say this as a fan of Italian amari, which, by definition, is not the same thing as “bitter”.

By: David

David — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 21:22:51 +0000

My point wasn’t that these descriptions aren’t correct. Moreso that “we” are really fixated on coffees that fit into this mold, perhaps at the expense of more interesting, thought provoking spectra of flavour.