An open conversation about coffee, and why it tastes how it tastes.
Participants include:
Peter Giulliano, of the Specialty Coffee Association of America Symposium; James Hoffmann, of Square Mile Coffee Roasters; George Howell, of George Howell Coffee; Anette Moldvaer, of Square Mile Coffee Roasters; Geoff Watts, of Intelligentsia Coffee and Tea; Tim Wendelboe, of Tim Wendelboe; and Oliver Strand.
Current topic: Coffee Varieties.
krismwood asked: Has anyone accumulated a generalized list of taste notes from each cultivar? Bourbon - orange citrus and caramel, SL28 - blackcurrant, gesha - floral and the list goes on etc etc
Krismwood- I have published an informal list, but I think a more collaborative project would be a great idea!
angusgibbs asked: On the topic of buying coffee based on country, variety, processing & roast profile, I notice that you all seem to agree on taking advice from a "trusted coffee professional". As a coffee professional myself, I often see consumers mislead or given false information, the salesman putting their own preference in front of the consumers wishes. I find this an endlessly maddening source of frustration. What do you guys think we can do to stop the "Barista Opinion" problem?
You’re right to point out the problem. But I don’t think it’s particular to coffee.
I live a couple of blocks away from what is arguably the most celebrated cheese store in New York City - it’s the famous one, the one that’s on TV, the one with t-shirts, the one included on the walking tours - and I will do everything in my power to avoid going there because the staff makes shopping a crap shoot. Sometimes the person behind the counter has some instructive insight, but most of the time he or she seems fresh out of a training session with a still-wet veneer of knowledge that gums up the transaction: it’s great that you’re really into cheeses of Spain, but the Manchego you’re pushing is plasticky and unpleasant, the Kraft of Madrid. Often I have to demand to be sold the cheese I want. The place drives me nuts.
But I’ll go out of my way to go to Saxelby Cheesemongers in the Essex Street Market. It’s much smaller than the famous shop (there’s a second, larger Saxelby Cheese uptown), and it’s not on any of my daily routes, but the members of the staff there are so engaged and thoughtful that every visit is a delight, a learning experience - if they’re excited about a cheese I want to try it too. Just as important, every purchase is a pleasure: I give them money, and I’m so happy with what’s wrapped up in the waxed paper that I feel I’m coming out ahead.
It’s up to the consumer to work out who the coffee professional (cheese professional, sneaker professional) might be who that guides them best. It’s up to the coffee professional to become that person.
I’d like to hear from the others here as to how one becomes that person.
- Oliver Strand
Last week, Meister tweeted the following question:
question: Do interspecific hybrids (e.g. Catimor) create conflict for “100% Arabica” roasters? #varieties
The thought of people claiming “100% Arabica” brought to mind the “100% Italian” T-shirts they sell on Mulberry street:
I think there are problems selling a product based on a purity claim (100%) and a species description (Arabica) because nothing is quite that simple. That’s not to say it’s not important- the 100% Arabica claim comes from a time when most roasters were “cutting” their coffee with as much Robusta as they could without being objectionable, in a time when price competitiveness was a race to the bottom in terms of price.
I see the 100% Arabica declaration as a statement of pride and commitment, not a claim that should be challenged legalistically; just like I would be hesitant to challenge the mother of the little baby in the t-shirt above (are you REALLY Italian? Is Sicilian Italian? etc.) I think what the 100% Arabica folks are trying to say is “we don’t use robusta” which is a more easily defensible claim, but which markets less easily (it’s a negative statement, for one)
But it’s fun to consider this idea from a legalistic standpoint. Here’s what I see as the arguments:
For “100% Arabica”:
-draws attention to the very real differences between two coffee species
-helps differentiate roasters who focus on Arabica instead of price-cutting with Robusta
Against “100% Arabica”:
-Catimor (a common coffee variety) has some Robusta genes in it
-one of the genetic parents of the Arabica species is Canephora (Robusta), so all Arabica has robusta parents anyhow.
I dunno. I guess I don’t see this as a profound problem for specialty roasters, since the only ones I regularly see making a strong claim about Arabica are commercial roasters like 8 O’clock, etc.
-Peter G.
intrepid510 asked: It seems that you guys are searching for something that is easily to describe to a customer (me) so that I can make better buying choices and therefore keep coming back your shop to buy coffee. One thing that I do not recall seeing at the many roasters I have bought from is something akin to, if you like this, you should try try that. Is that something that has been thought of? At the end of the day coffee is very complex and I don't think something so simple as terrior or varietal can describe
The good shops do what you describe: If you like this, you should try that. The best shops do it well.
On the flip side you’ll find shops where members of the staff are seemingly incapable of pointing you to another interesting, engaging choice either because of stock (they don’t have it) or because of taste (they don’t have it). It’s annoying to be told to give something a try only to go home and find that it’s nothing special.
In part, it’s because of circumstance. You play roulette if you buy small-lot seasonal coffees with limited availability. While there’s a lot to be said for going with the seasonal flow, sometimes there’s a lull when nothing on the shelves is that exciting, and at these moments I would appreciate a little more candor from the shop: If you like this, you should try that when we get it in at the end of the month, but in the meantime this one will hold you over.
Chances are you won’t hear that. I rarely have. Sometimes the coffees covered in discussions like this one are treated like members of the sophomore class at Princeton - they’re all the best, every single one of them.
poutapocalypse asked: I thought the latest post by Peter G was very interesting, and poses a new direction/sub-path/ish: training of sales-personell/baristas. Would it be possible, or desirable with a better, more accessable training for baristas with more focus on... "farmwork", so if someone comes and say "I liked this", then the barista can reccomend based on what logically would be similar? You have an established somlier-education, now even beer-somliers... is it room for this in coffee?
Oh God, yes!!!
This exact issue is what drove us to build our Coffee Steward training program. The whole point is for coffee stewards/baristas to be able to make those connections for themselves, and share them with consumers.
It was actually through writing this program a few years ago that it really became crystal clear to me that much of the flavor we associate with country of origin is usually actually flavor-of-variety. That distinct Kenya-ness is actually the flavor of SL-28, etc. The reason we did the Varieties video and tasting is for the same reason- so baristas and coffee stewards can understand the impact of variety on flavor. Our program offers similar classes on process, roasting, and tasting.
-Peter G.
It’s tough to predict flavor in coffee. There are so many variables. However, rarely do consumers have the opportunity to taste coffee immediately before buying: so they rely on labeling to help guide their choices. We can’t really avoid that- and we all make choices about how we label coffees, and how we talk about them.
Let’s focus on what we agree on here for a second:
We all probably agree that the ultimate way for a consumer to predict flavor, and make a good purchase would be to have a coffee person they trust make recommendations to them. This is what you suggest, James, at the end of your article. You’re right, for sure.
Second to that, it’s probably most trustworthy to predict flavor by farm identity and roaster. A farm name often suggest many important elements: variety, process, microclimate, harvest technique. The roaster name represents their commitment to roasting style and freshness. If you know you like Finca Kilimanjaro, it is very very likely that you will like the next Finca Kilimanjaro you see; next year.
That’s why you and I, James, both use farm name first when labeling coffee. As Oliver pointed out, that’s probably the best way for the attentive customer to find coffees they like: a roaster they like and a farm they like.
The vast majority of specialty coffee, however, isn’t sold by farm name, nor is it recommended by consulting coffee professionals. It’s labeled by country. Finca Kilimanjaro would be known as “The El Salvador” in most specialty coffee contexts. I spend a lot of time around baristas, and the shorthand is often “The El Salvador from Intelligentsia” or whatever.
Here’s my point: that someone who is nuts about Kilimanjaro- of the mysterious “Kenia” variety (perhaps related to SL-28) is more likely to love an SL-28 coffee from Nyeri, because of the varietal connection between the two. A Bourbon planted on a farm next door will taste totally different from the Kenia-variety Kilimanjaro.
Let’s use another obvious example. A person who loves a Pacamara from El Salvador will be more likely to love a Pacamara from Guatemala than a Bourbon from El Salvador.
My point is simply that there is a lot more logic in grouping coffees together by variety than grouping them together by country- particularly Latin American coffees- as the norm is today. Obviously any grouping is less useful than a personal consultation for a coffee professional, or a specific coffee from a different farm.
-Peter G.
I am going to follow up to Oliver’s last post answering the question posed by portlandcoffee:
At the consumer level, assuming that I have already decided on my brewing method and price point, should variety be the most important element in guiding my choice of beans from a roaster (rather than country/region of origin, or tasting notes)?
I’m also going to answer “no”, aware that this may take our conversation off down a different path.
The reason that some commenters on here, and I am going to use Peter for this example, express such strong opinions about the value of variety, and its contribution to cup quality is experience.
I could use opportunity as much as experience here, because their experience tasting coffee has been much more focused and intense than a typical coffee consumer. A coffee professional will taste hundreds upon hundreds of coffees a year. This means that you can pick up the commonalities across the 50+ lots of bourbon you may cup from different countries. With a mass of data the trends become clearer.
Peter will also have a unique opportunity to taste the same coffee many times - perhaps initially at origin, then upon arrival, and then through various iterations of production. This again gives more data, for both variety as well as geography.
Very few consumers will taste as many different coffees in a decade as someone like Peter will taste in a quiet year. They don’t have the opportunity to quickly form strong associations of variety and flavour.
This is why I am uncomfortable with the idea of variety predicting flavour, especially when it comes to how we market and sell coffee. So from here we inevitably move to how we do choose to label our coffee…
I believe key information like variety should be kept transparent, and made available. If someone pays attention, and is sufficiently interested, they may learn that they enjoy lots of Caturra way more than lots of Castillo. This is no bad thing, as it will be an effective tool when it comes to judging the suitability of future purchases.
The same goes for key aspects of post harvest production - such as whether the coffee is washed or perhaps a natural process. I’m aware that having rigid opinions (such as “all naturals are bad”) is a problem as it may halt exploration, or experimentation - but from a consumer perspective the pain of a bad purchase is magnified, compared to that of a coffee professional.
Ultimately there is no single piece of information that is going to communicate how a coffee is going to taste. I’m somewhere between a typical consumer, and someone like Peter. I taste a lot of coffee, but even with a lot of advance information I’m unlikely to accurately predict the exact cup qualities. Also, back to the world of buying coffee from a shelf, all manner of unique characteristics are all too easily smothered by bad roasting.
We should work to convey its provenance, as well as give some indication of who was responsible for key aspects of a coffee production and ultimate quality.
I’m aware that in writing this post, on this blog, I’m likely preaching to the choir. To finally answer the question posed - I believe that one should allow oneself to be guided by those who’ve worked to gain your trust. Share with them your previous experiences, good and bad, and your expectations and they should be able to guide you to something you’ll enjoy.
portlandcoffee-deactivated20120 asked: At the consumer level, assuming that I have already decided on my brewing method and price point, should variety be the most important element in guiding my choice of beans from a roaster (rather than country/region of origin, or tasting notes)?
Not yet.
That’s my opinion. Last week, Peter Giuliano tweeted “as a taster, variety, process, and producer mean WAY more to me than country name.” My list is different. I taste: roast, coffee company, process and producer. Preparation is important, too; that’s a different conversation.
(An aside: I find the roast profiles of some coffee companies to be so pronounced - and, at times, inconsistent - that they effectively edit the coffee, highlighting some notes and cutting out others: roasts are not neutral. A second aside: by coffee company I mean everything that happens between the port and the roaster, how the coffee is stored, shipped and sold - old coffees taste old no matter what they are or what the transparent price might have been. I’m not pointing fingers, just expressing a general observation.)
Where does variety fall in that lineup? I’m not entirely sure, in part because I’m not tasting it.
Then again I’m tasting coffee as you’re tasting coffee, and mostly picking up what’s on the shelves. The other participants here are tasting at origin, at auctions and at roasters. Their experiences are less mediated, which means what they taste has more clarity, but sometimes that clarity is a kind of bias.
I’d like to hear what the other participants think.
Earlier today, Robert Thoresen, Stephen Rogers and Aldo Sohm, spent the morning at my office cupping some coffees. Those who follow this Tumblr are probably familiar with Robert and Stephen; those who follow wine are probably familiar with Aldo, the sommelier at le Bernardin.
My guess is this was the first time that a World Barista Champion (Robert, 2000) and a Best Sommelier in the World (Aldo, 2008) cupped coffees together, and even if I’m skeptical of any competition with “world” in the title (not to sound cynical, but, really? the whole world?), it was a kick to stand at a table with people who possessed so much intimate knowledge of two of comparable but dissimilar drinks that I love dearly. Naturally, the conversation turned to coffee varieties.
Robert brought it up. I don’t want to speak for him, but he seemed to echo much of what Peter posted on this Tumblr, that the distinctive characteristics of coffee varieties are as important as (more important than?) place and process. Variety matters. Robert had some fantastic coffees with him: a Pacamara, a natural Geisha, a Catuai. There was a gorgeous Caturra on the table I took home to drink in the morning.
Remembering some of the tweets from last week, I asked Aldo about French wine, specifically if the red wines of Burgundy are one hundred percent pinot noir. They are, he said. Unlike Châteauneuf-du-Pape, a rustic wine from the southern end of the Rhône that’s a blend of thirteen varieties.
According to Aldo, the formulation depends on the year. Grenache plays the biggest role, but you would never up the Grenache past the tipping point to where you could call a Châteauneuf-du-Pape a Provençal Grenache. You wouldn’t want to. The name “Châteauneuf-du-Pape” not only evokes the character of the wine (shapely, pretty, moody), it allows the winemaker to respond to the year and adjust the grapes in the unmistakably regional blend while still coloring within the lines: you want to use all the Crayons in the Châteauneuf-du-Pape box because that’s what it takes to make a Châteauneuf-du-Pape.
I should note that viticulture in the area has been going strong for thousands of years and was refined in the early 1300s, after Pope Clement V moved the seat of the Catholic Church from Rome to Avignon. They’ve had time to work it out.
I should also note that Aldo is a terroirist.
How does this relate to coffee? I’m not sure there’s a clear connection for me to make, but I will cull some thoughts from the accounts above. For a Burgundy, the variety is fixed; for a Châteauneuf-du-Pape, the configuration of varieties is fluid; and for both, variety is one factor among many that determines how the wine tastes in the glass.
Jim McLaughlin posted an interesting thought on his tumblr blog.
It’s worth reading.
To answer his question at the end: I’m not a farmer, and it’s inappropriate for me to presume to answer your very good question. However, you asked, and in the hypothetical situation where I owned a farm in Brazil, I would probably choose to plant a variety of varieties (ha ha!) depending on the size of the farm, the altitude and the local varieties, I would probably choose Bourbon, SL-28 and Moka (if you can find reliable stock of these). I would build my soil by farming organically with shade. (which it sounds like you have already begun) I would partner early with a knowledgable roaster, even before I began to harvest.
I would mainly make those choices based upon personal preference developed over years of tasting coffee. If you’re planning on selling the coffee, it helps to be passionate about your coffee, and to love the way it tastes. You’ll fetch more for it if you love it and you are proud of it. As for the “varietal math” of productivity vs. premium, that’s a really complex equation. While Catuai or Catimor might seem more productive, they also require more inputs to produce. Buyers will pay premiums, but the market is imperfect, and it depends on finding a good match between the buyer and producer. I know that’s far from a satisfactory answer, but it’s the most honest one I have.
-Peter G.
