Estate Reviews
We found 1964 reviews for Estate. The reviews below appear in reverse chronological order by review date. Older reviews may no longer accurately reflect current versions of the same coffee.
When hot, this cup impressed many of the panel with its light-footed, teasing nuance of lemon, flowers and cocoa. Complex in the nose, but as the cup cooled it flattened disappointingly.
A light, bright, fragrantly smooth cup. When hot alive with shimmers of citrus, spice, and nut tones. As the cup cools, however, a disturbing vegetative undertone surfaces: "grassy," "dried peas," "sour," panelists complained. A potentially superb coffee, an India version of the great, brightly nuanced coffees like Guatemala Antigua and Ethiopia Yirgacheffe, but flawed by either processing/storage errors or too much unripe fruit.
An impressive coffee, and distinctive in the India mode: sweet, svelte, smooth, balanced, with some intrigue that read as chocolate, nut, or spice (I tasted cardamom). "Big coffee, sweet," one panelist concluded.
An intensely contradictory coffee. On one hand: full, smooth body, expressively and deeply sweet, long, vibrant finish. On the downside: grassy undertones and an odd edginess to the fruit that grew more obvious as the cup cooled. Some panelists went exclusively with the upside, others only with the down, while a few celebrated the paradox, sometimes in rather unconventional language: "bold, rough, strong -- Neanderthal ancestors," wrote one. One thing is certain: This coffee is considerably more interesting than its rating suggests.
An intriguing, complexly nuanced coffee that suffered from inconsistency. Panelists responded positively to its richly nutty aroma and sweet floral and fruit notes. A disturbing astringency surfaced in some cups, however, depressing the final rating.
An elegant, extraordinary tribute to the pleasures of the sensation coffee people call acidity. Here the acidity is robustly dry yet alive with a full, fragrant sweetness. Everything dances and rings in this coffee.
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.
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.
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.
The first of four Konas with identical scores of 79 and very similar flavor profiles. Overall assessments of this sample ranged from bland on the downside to balanced on the upside. Which side of the bland/balanced divide panelists settled on probably depended on their predispositions in regard to the Kona profile generally. Three panelists, including me, detected subtle but pleasant wine tones. Three called the acidity sweet, which I assume was praise as well as description. No taints or defects cited; consensus on body: medium.
The Kona song is the same, but this coffee sang it a little stronger and cleaner. No taints or weaknesses whatsoever were cited for this sample. Characterizations of overall flavor, which with the somewhat lower-rated Konas tended to be evenly divided between naysaying "bland" and yeasaying "balanced," here clearly settled on balanced. Occasional little pleasured exclamations turned up on the cupping forms: "very enjoyable"; "the nutty characteristics remained in the cup from beginning to end."
The clear winner in this cupping, as it was in the 1997 Kona Coffee Cultural Festival Cupping Competition. The reason: it clearly transcends the pleasantly mellow limits of the classic Kona profile. It displayed power, complexity, and an uncompromising, authoritative acidity, laid right on top of the usual soft, brightly sweet virtues of a typical Kona. Even the Kona-bashers on the panel liked this coffee. (Well, all but one.) Nobody raved, but there were lots of approving noises: "excellent," "very interesting, very clean on the palate," "nice depth." However, this excellent coffee might be too authoritative for those who like to slip into the softness of a more typical Kona. Lovers of Kona's sweeter, gentler side may prefer one of the less acidy profiles like the Guyer, Hamasaki, or Bayview Farms mill selections. The rather powerful acidity of this coffee casts doubt on the specialty coffee truism that only high growing altitudes (usually defined as over 4,000 feet) can produce solidly acidy coffees. The average elevation of the Fitzgerald Estate is around 1,600 feet. Apparently microclimate can mimic the conditions that, at higher altitudes, produce acidy profiles.
This medium-bodied, fruit-toned coffee attracted strong support from several panelists, who apparently admired its solid acidity, balanced, low-key intensity and fruity nuances. Two panelists detected a faint hardness or bagginess in the aftertaste, although both assigned the coffee respectable scores anyhow.
Majority opinion: Nutty or lightly herbal in the nose, with an acidity both bright and sweet, medium body, flavor nuanced with tones variously described as chocolaty, spicy, or nutty, and a fresh aftertaste. In other words, a classic Kona with dry rather than fruity nuance. One dissenting panelist described the flavor as tinny, and several others ho-hummed their way through the cup without comment. I was impressed by this coffee, particularly by its sweet nuance and what I call dimension -- the way it opened up in repeated little waves of sensation rather than making its statement and standing pat.
An interesting coffee that provoked a wide range of reaction. Everyone agreed that it was a soft coffee with medium body. The controversy centered on the flavor complex at the heart of the profile, which elicited characterizations ranging from "delightfully spicy" and "richly chocolaty" to "harsh, burned and disturbing" and "burned seaweed, or something I had in a sushi bar(!)." Scores also varied wildly. The nays didn't outnumber the yeas, but the naysayers nayed with more conviction than the yeasayers yeaed, culminating in a low average score. Readers who like low-acid profiles may want to try this coffee anyhow. At a moderately dark brown or full-city roast I suspect the controversial flavor complex will lose its slightly hard edge and turn definitively complex and rich.
To say this coffee has an atypical profile for a Hawaii coffee is an understatement. Comparing it to the other coffees in the cupping is worse than comparing apples and oranges - more like comparing apples and cocker spaniels. The Kaanapali dry-process Moka is, as one panelist called it, a "Yemen wannabe." The trees that produced it are Yemen varietals, and the coffee has been processed in the simple, put-it-out-in-the-sun-to-dry approach used in Yemen and parts of Ethiopia. Which means that, like a Yemen or dry-processed Ethiopia, it is fruity, winy, complex, with a disturbingly lush, overripe aftertaste that lovers of these coffees call gamy or wild and people who don't like Yemen or dry-processed Ethiopia coffees call fermented.Five panelists labeled this coffee fermented and dismissed it with very low scores; three recognized the Yemen/Ethiopia characteristics and treated it like a middle-of-the-road dry-processed Yemen/Ethiopia coffee, giving it scores in the high seventies. Four didn't call it anything but gave it low scores.If this coffee had been presented to the panel in the context of similar dry-processed coffees from Yemen or Ethiopia I don't think it would have provoked quite the same level of criticism. For this reason we're not publishing its scores. However, it did not fare well in the context of this particular cupping.
Two panelists found this coffee pleasantly "soft" and "deep," and several noted dry chocolate or smoke tones. But the majority either yawned or complained of a slight off-taste, variously described as earthy, grassy, herby, or turpenny. Whatever you call it, it dampened an already delicate profile.
This Kauai peaberry cupped clean for most panelists, although three found a touch of herby or earthy hardness. The main complaint was lack of power: "mellow, well-balanced, [but] almost bland"; "flavor -- still waiting." Five of twelve panelists used the "bland" word. Nevertheless, several identified positive grace notes. "Dark chocolate overtones and very dry," said one.
The two reviewers who liked this coffee knew they were going to take it from the purists when they gave it their highest and second-highest scores respectively. "I found [it] ... the most interesting and complex [of the coffees in the cupping] with a distinct fruity (but not fermented) tone, but I'm not sure it would be considered a good coffee by most," wrote one admirer. "Perhaps a bit controversial - some Yemen-like fruit," wrote the other.Controversial isn't the half of it. Eight of ten cuppers read this coffee as defective, and five specifically as fermented, a flavor defect caused by the sugars in the coffee fruit going off during drying. Four gave it the lowest possible score of 50, and one exclaimed "50? more like 10!"So is this coffee complex and fruity (two votes), fermented beyond acceptability (four votes), or flawed but acceptable (four votes, including mine)? If there were a certain answer for this question cupping wouldn't be half as much fun, but if we go by numbers alone the bad-coffee camp has it. For more on the "is this coffee fruity or is it fermented" issue see my comment and George Howell's response in the August 1997 issue of Coffee Review.
Although this dry-processed coffee scored roughly the same as the three preceding samples, reviewers' comments seemed to indicate a coffee with more character and development. No faults or weaknesses were noted, and a tone of quiet respect ran through the few comments on flavor and aftertaste: "smooth - mellow"; "very pleasing." A split vote on body: about half the reviewers who commented found it heavy, and about half thin or light.