Comments on: Stats of Excellence

By: Twitted by uberproject

Twitted by uberproject — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 09:35:27 +0000

[...] This post was Twitted by uberproject [...]

By: Red Links 18/01/10 | Alexia Golez

Red Links 18/01/10 | Alexia Golez — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 10:48:30 +0000

[...] Interesting stats on the Cup of Excellence awards for coffee. [...]

By: David

David — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 11:38:32 +0000

That was just me being too lazy to edit anything out. “Warts and all” I say. Also used a program called Primitive Word Counter to give more quantitative feedback http://www.primitivezone.com/primitive-word-counter.html

It doesn’t have nice pretty graphics though.

By: Rasmus Helgebostad

Rasmus Helgebostad — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 11:28:29 +0000

I share Ola’s skeptiscism for the causation, but I love how your word clouds make the descriptions look incredibly silly. There shouldn’t be a correlation between the simple aroma descriptor “apple” and mid-priced coffees – the fact that it is certainly makes it reasonable to look again at how those descriptors are gathered.

Is “Notes” in the second cloud a mistake?

By: David

David — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 08:41:48 +0000

Some really great points there Steve. Absolutely I agree, there are a lot of factors, many of which I have not touched on. Not my intention to conclude anything definitive, rather to present some observations based on available evidence.

By: David

David — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 08:39:45 +0000

Ola – you are quite right. While I may have observed some correlations, we cannot assume causation. There may be other explanations. That said I think the supply and demand argument fits nicely. Also from looking at the data on the size of the auctions, lot size plays some role in contributing to the overall size, but the number of coffees plays a much bigger role eg there were 36 coffees on auction in El Salvador 08 CoE, compared to 25 in Guatemala the same year, and only 18 in Colombia.

By: Ola Brattås

Ola Brattås — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 07:08:51 +0000

Statistics. A very tricky thing. You can read volumes into this, but your assumptions still might be wrong. The numbers can be put into various different models and produce different results. I’m not saying that what you’re pointing at is wrong, but having a wife with a PhD in this has made me aware of these dangers.

Yes, thats right wifey; I actually did pick up a word or two of what you were saying even though I was watching The Simpsons.

As for the lot sizes; the increasingly smaller lot sizes has made it less interesting for some larger buyers to buy from the program so they more and more often buy them outside the program directly. This may account for the lower overall prices.

As Steve pointed out there probably is more behind the numbers than what has been pointed out.

Still a very interesting post with many great points and graphs! Thanks for doing such a thorough job of putting the numbers into a system. Great post!

By: Mark

Mark — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 00:35:32 +0000

I think CoE’s strength is the focus on discovery of the special. In that CoE looks through all these coffees and allows people to cup a highly select representative of a countries coffee. To me it encourages people to form relationships and shows origin to roaster isn’t as hard as some would like us to believe. I think the pricing and quality data collection is an area that is influenced by alot of other factors. A look at direct trade and diversity of coffee points to the benefits.

By: Glenn Watson

Glenn Watson — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 00:02:54 +0000

A fascinating read, thanks David.

The descriptor clouds make for interesting reading too.

Could a reason that average prices have fallen in recent years be that buyers have formed direct trade relationships from previous years’ entrants and therefore no longer need to compete in an auction scenario?

If the prices continue to fall, could we see a return to more European and US buyer dominance as displayed in early COE auctions?

By: Stephen Leighton

Stephen Leighton — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 22:23:37 +0000

I think there are a lot of things that effect the prices attained in COE lots that you need to scratch below the surface for to really find out. Not my place to point them out but if you look at some past data compared to new data its very interesting.

I also think we are at a crucial point of the programs development that is very very interesting (and worrying). I find it telling some of the big names in the industry used to buy from the program (that got the headline prices) no longer do. There are reasons for this. I think the days of the high prices for a number one maybe gone while these buyers invest there dollars else where. Some could (and do) say that its because of the success of the program to create the relationships (and the real reason for the program) but I’m not so sure. Panama seems to be still building on those foundations (although a much younger program).

I find the descriptor part very interesting and very dependent though on the jury and its abilities. Might be interesting to compare some experienced jury’s alongside some not so. Anecdotal experience leans me towards experienced jury’s being much harsher than heavily loaded jury’s with new cuppers to the program.

The strangest competition for me last year was the El Salvador one which was way of target price wise compared to the wonderful coffees that were put forwards to auction.

I think some other interesting data is the spread of buyers with Japan leading the way as the main buyer in the group with Europe a way behind and the US no where to be seen.

Lots of fuss about Target buying coffee from the competition last year, but this worry’s me very much that a HUGE brand like that try’s to piggyback on the success of a program for a cheap marketing opportunity.

Which leads me onto the reasons for buying COE. for many its a marketing opportunity and exactly that. for some its a way of the market buyer meeting the seller. I would be very interested to see how many people follow up there prize purchase with some kind of relationship. Unfortunately data that is not really collected.

Nice piece my friend