Caribbean Reviews
We found 48 reviews for Caribbean. The reviews below appear in reverse chronological order by review date. Older reviews may no longer accurately reflect current versions of the same coffee.
I found this coffee quite impressive when hot, with the sort of resonant dimension and long, gradually sweetening development I admire. However, for me the profile turned a bit grassy and hard as it cooled. The rest of the panel didn't have much to say about this coffee one way or the other. A few complaints surfaced suggesting roughness or hardness; one panelist reported "good intensity/balance, [though] not enough intensity for my taste." It would appear that a lack of character rather than taint or weakness doomed this coffee to a relatively low rating.
Although this is not quite the deep, almost syrupy sweet Haitian coffee I recall occasionally tasting before Haiti's latest run of political misfortunes, it is a good coffee, and a very promising one, given the relative newness of the admirable Cafeieres Natives project. On the upside, sweet, ingratiating aromatics. Three panelists called these high, delicate notes floral; three others mentioned cocoa or chocolate; one mint. The more tactile aspects of the cup disturbed some, however. Two used the word "gritty"; one "muddy." I found the cup (with patience) rich, but opaque and without dimension or resonance.
Another coffee whose assessment was dominated by roast issues. In this case, seven of eight panelists objected that the sample was roasted a bit too light. However, this complaint was offered as an aside to generally approving appraisals of the coffee itself. A general picture emerges of a well-prepared, clean coffee, sweet and balanced, with hints of fruit and nut. "Aroma of Spanish peanuts carries through to the flavor," concluded one panelist. "Pleasantly focused cup." Given the tone of approval in written comments, I can only assume that this coffee was not rated higher because it lacked power and dimension.
The most thoughtful assessments of this coffee characterized it as a potentially powerful but flawed coffee. "Although a little bit grassy, maybe due to lack of 'reposo' [resting the coffee after processing], this is a very good coffee," concluded one panelist. "Interesting undomesticated flavors," offered another. "One of those coffees that makes me scratch my head and say 'You're different, but do I really want to know you better?'" On the upside panelists cited this coffee's sweet fruit and richness. On the downside it elicited terms like weedy, oniony, or soapy. The most comprehensive attempt at describing the off-taste cited "Aromas of dried onions, grains and soy-sauce."
Reactions to this coffee ranged from enthusiasm to mild approval to ambivalence. The enthusiasts and mild approvers both tended to cite gently bright acidity, full body, and nut-toned aromatics. The enthusiasts felt the coffee brought power to the cup ("packs a punch"), while the approvers felt it didn't ("mild, mild, mild; sweet and soft cup"). The ambivalencers also honored the virtues of the coffee, but detected a slight shadow taint. One suggested that the sample was a bit "faded," another "baggy." Both adjectives suggest this otherwise meticulously clean coffee suffered very mild damage, perhaps moisture-related, during transport or storage.
Judging by their comments, this Old Tavern Jamaica Blue Mountain peaberry was the clear favorite of the majority of the panelists, although they assigned slightly higher numbers for some cupping categories to the regular-bean Old Tavern also reviewed. Descriptions for this peaberry suggest a brightly yet sweetly acidy coffee, with floral high notes, full body, and good dimension. Some reviewers gushed ("Packs a punch! Love it"; "The nicest coffee of this Caribbean cupping. An outstanding flavor"); others simply approved or ho-hummed as they did with all of these coffees. I didn't pick up the hint of storage-related flatness that muted the regular-bean Old Tavern, although some reviewers did, groping to describe it with terms like "faded" and the like. I contributed some help to Alex Twyman, the farmer who developed the Old Tavern coffees, so my own assessment may be suspect, but on the basis of two rounds of rigorously blind cupping I agree strongly with the yea-sayers. I found this a clean, vibrant, subtly complete coffee.
A straightforward coffee, nicely balanced, clean and free of taint except (perhaps) a slight grassiness, a shadow note possibly encouraged by the rather light roast. Panelists noted nutty tones in the aroma and a hint of chocolate in the finish ("cocoa-like" specified one). Why wasn't this fundamentally centered, pleasant coffee not rated higher? Only one panelist registered enthusiasm. I suspect a lack of what some call power and I call dimension -- the sense of unnamed, resonant sensation opening behind the initial impression.
Comments on this coffee focused almost exclusively on the issue of roast: This particular sample was roasted considerably darker than the other samples in the cupping. This dark style, atypical for cupping purposes, was deliberate: The very experienced Coffee Review roaster concluded that this coffee came across best at a darker roast. However, six of eight panelists complained that the roast was too dark to permit fair evaluation. For this reason we are not publishing a rating for this coffee. The sample certainly was clean and free of defect. Whether it manifested enough power to stand up to a darker roast is another question.