Green Reviews

I have to assume that our sample of this generally understated, rich, but rather inert coffee was dramatically inconsistent. I detected a teasing, off-again, on-again defect in my sample, probably hard ferment. I wasn 't alone: "dusty; something funky," wrote another. Others found their sample simply bland or "non-descript." Two admired their samples, however, responding positively to the round, rich promise of the clean upside of the profile.

A wildly inconsistent coffee. A taste defect, probably ferment, ran intermittently through the sample, popping up here and there with varying degrees of intensity, ruining a sweet, bright, nut-toned cup. Five panelists considered the defect sufficiently pervasive to dismiss the sample. Five more objected more generally, their complaints ranging from "rough" to "unrefined."

"Dull, flat, and dry," complained one panelist. "Dirty background," wrote another. A heavy, monotoned coffee with authority, but lacking resonance and range.

The subtle balance of sweetness, acidity and softly ingratiating fruit notes are promising for espresso. The thin, underdeveloped body and herbal and grassy notes are not. Grassiness is a typical sign of a coffee rushed from processing to cupping table. Perhaps, with longer repose, this coffee will round out and lose its green edge.

Distinct chocolate or sweet cocoa notes provide the main intrigue in this soft, fragrant coffee. "Buttery toffee, love it!" exclaimed one panelist. The rather thinnish body is probably what relegated this nicely nuanced coffee to the middle of the ratings.

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.

A striking one-third of the panelists described the aftertaste of this sweet, clean, fruit-toned coffee as "resonant," a seldom-chosen term. That response may suggest why this coffee scored the second-highest rating in the cupping despite its limited nuance. It displayed impressive dimension, an echoing space around and behind initial sensation.

A complex, subtly nuanced coffee, light-bodied but softly and sweetly acidy, embellished with fruit and pronounced chocolate tones. I tasted papaya in the finish. "Deep & lush," wrote one panelist on aroma. "Slight tobacco. Leafy." Apparently balance and seductive grace notes carried this delicate coffee to the top of the ratings.

A full though monotoned coffee with a fruity but rather inert sweetness. Two panelists suspected from the flat profile that the coffee was from last year 's crop ("Oldish; past crop?"). In fact, this is a current crop coffee. I also suspect storage problems of some kind: The "sourish undertone" that one cupper complained about tasted like bagginess to me, a fault that often comes from contact with moisture after processing.

"Inconsistent, dull sweetness," reported one cupper, which pretty much summed up consensus on this coffee, although a couple of panelists admired its soft fruit, peach-like tones. Three of us detected an outright defect, probably hard ferment.

This Kenya attracted the highest rating achieved by any coffee since Coffee Review began its panel cuppings. Judging from comments alone it would seem that its bright, vibrant acidity powered it to the top, but I suspect that the ultimate reason it prevailed over other samples in the cupping is its deep, echoing dimension. This coffee didn't just tickle or please the palate, it resonated on it like the stroke of a deliciously humming gong. Minority report: Despite the high score, two panelists felt the powerful acidity imbalanced and overly simplified the profile.

No outright defects were cited for this Jamaican coffee, but panelists found little to praise. "No there there," wrote one; "mild to a fault," wrote another. The only panelist to give this coffee a decent rating praised its sweetness and balance. Three detected a slight off taste, applying outdoorsy terms like grassy and woody to it, terms that suggest the coffee may not have been rested long enough after drying.

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.

The majority of panelists who had something to say about this coffee described still another classic Kona: a gentle acidity simultaneously sweet and bright, medium body, soft, balanced cup, clean aftertaste. Fewer grace notes were ascribed to this coffee than to some of the other mid-rated Konas, although this didn't dampen one panelist's ingenuity, who described the aroma as "donuts, [or] fresh-baked sponge-cake." Two dissenting panelists found fault with this coffee, both describing hard tones surfacing in aroma and aftertaste. On the other hand, several went out of their way to describe the aftertaste as "clean."

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.

An almost textbook example of a carefully wet-processed, soft-bean, low-altitude coffee: light-to-medium-bodied, free of defect, pleasingly soft, slightly sweet. Reviewer consensus on all of the above, although one (who admitted his dislike of washed Brazils in his cover note) concurred with the overall description but still didn't like the coffee.