So I thought I might take this opportunity to write more subjectively and in more depth about a handful of the many extraordinary coffees that we have tested and reviewed over the past three weeks or so. I focus on three of those coffees, but reference several more.

I suppose this report is compensation for the nagging regret we often feel when we send our brief reviews out into the world to represent coffees that constitute so much more than we can convey in our reviews, coffees that are complex, collaborative transoceanic creative acts, acts so rich, singular and radiant in their distinction that they deserve not just a number and a description, but entire essays of the kind our culture devotes to the best films and books and music. Great coffees may resemble one another according to style and type—great Kenyas may resemble other great Kenyas and great Ethiopia naturals more or less resemble other great Ethiopia naturals, for example—but each coffee itself is unique in its detail, and given coffee’s short shelf-life, absolutely singular in time and place. Each one will never, in its entirely and detail, exist in the world again in quite the same way.

I’ll get to the coffees in a moment, but while I’m riding this horse I would add that the finest of the small-lot coffees we review every month are the creation not only of a single producer or group of producers, not only of a single roasting company and single importer, but of an entire coffee culture. Each luminous success we report on is also a tribute to those who design and make happen the growing number of instructional programs for roasters, the green and roasted coffee competitions, the research and support programs for producers, the aficionados who buy, brew and appreciate fine coffees—in essence, the entire expanding human infrastructure that sustains the art of small-lot coffee.

To Celebrate or Mourn?

Mainly I want to praise, honor and give credit to some representative examples of coffee brilliance. But it is a complex and fraught time in the coffee world today. In consuming countries, coffee has never been so hip and trendy, whereas in most producing countries, prices paid for green coffees have seldom in history been so low for so long a time. Compounding that disturbing paradox is the reality of climate change and a related chain of misfortunes and disasters afflicting already undercompensated producers in growing countries: unprecedented high temperatures and chronic droughts in Africa and Brazil, devastating rust disease epidemics in Latin America, unpredictable weather everywhere.

So one doesn’t know whether to celebrate what seem to be ever-intensifying achievements in the art of fine coffee, or mourn the fate of the losers on the producing end of things, those forgotten and left behind who can’t cope and who are suffering or going under entirely. I am not sure whether to ring the bell for a party or toll the bell for a funeral.

But right here, at this moment, it’s party time. I am going to write in particular about three of the transcendent successes of the art of coffee production and roasting that have come to us over the past couple of weeks, including a few words about the farmers and millers who grew them.

All of the coffees I reference here are currently available for sale by their respective roasting companies, by the way, so if readers want to come to their own sensory conclusions about them they will be able to, at least for the next few weeks.

Purity and Power: The Kenyas

Featured: Paradise Coffee Roasters Kenya Gatomboya Peaberry (96)

Kenyas also recently reviewed and high-rated: Bird Rock Coffee Roasters Kenya Thageini (96); Vigilante Kenya Gathiruini (95)

Right now I am drinking the 96-rated Paradise Kenya Gatomboya. The finest coffees of central Kenya are among the most classic of origins, while also among the most striking and original. Their classic poise and intensity is owing in part to consistently high growing elevations and in part to fruit-removal and drying practices (collectively called processing) conducted using the most traditional and meticulous of methods. Like most fine coffees in the world, Kenyas are wet-processed or “washed,” meaning the skin and fruit flesh are removed from the beans immediately after they are harvested and before they are dried. However, at the cooperative mills of central Kenya the removal of the fruit skin and flesh or mucilage is performed by the traditional ferment-and-wash method, not by machines that squeeze and scrub the sticky mucilage from the beans (and often leave a bit behind) as is increasingly the efficiency-driven practice in many other parts of the world. And those cooperative leaders who operate the Kenya mills appear to be masters of the traditional ferment-and-wash procedures, producing a cup that is both transparently clean yet deeply resonant, grand yet balanced in structure, with its sweet-inclining fusion of sweet, tart, bitter and (a hint of) savory tastes, supple mouthfeel, and purity of aroma, flavor and finish that lets notes speak melodically rather than mutter.

Raised drying beds for parchment coffee at a cooperative in Kenya.

All of that makes Kenya classic. The originality, as opposed to the classic completeness and balance, is almost certainly owing to varieties of Arabica long grown in Kenya called SL-28 and SL-34, both derived from a Bourbon variety brought to East Africa in the mid-19^th century, and which may have spontaneously crossed with plant material brought from eastern Ethiopia. (All Arabica material originally came from Ethiopia, of course, but took a productive detour through Yemen and from there on to the rest of the world, including the Isle of Bourbon or Reunion, where the great and prolific Bourbon variety originated as a mutant of a Yemen-derived Typica.) The Bourbon influence has always struck me as most influential in the Kenya profile, but at any rate the great Kenyas offer an original and unmistakable aroma/flavor complex that is at the heart of Kenya elegance and appeal.

A great early coffee leader at Starbucks, Mary Townsend, apparently was the first to use the term “black currant” to describe this unique Kenya flavor constellation. The sweet yet tartly dry, slightly savory berry sensation we associate with black currant is a good descriptive starting point for a fine Kenya, but a starting point only. When we cup a great Kenya like those referenced here, the aroma and flavor descriptors simply don’t stop coming. We almost always get sweet-tart fruit notes (black currant, raspberry, pomegranate), rounder notes of chocolate, coconut or vanilla bean, citrus hints (grapefruit zest, bergamot), aromatic wood (usually fresh-cut cedar or a perfumy sandalwood), and flowers, usually not out front, but always hovering, sweet-toned and shifty.

When we finally get down to crafting our reviews we allow ourselves at most five aroma/flavor descriptors. Given we have three cuppers all offering overlapping but subtly different descriptors for the same set of transient molecular stimuli, and given that these associative descriptors issue from open-minded but strong-willed personalities, the final five descriptors that make it into a review of a complex coffee like a Kenya are much more consensus selection than exhaustive catalog, a hopefully evocative collection of associative threads to follow into the heart of a resonant whole.

Gordon Shepherd, the author of the brilliant (and accessible) book Neurogastronomy: How the Brain Creates Flavor and Why It Matters, writes that “smell has the property of being, in general, ‘synthetic,’ that is, a mixture of several smells makes a new unified smell.” Which is to say that, when we enjoy a coffee, all those overlapping descriptors we dig out of our associative memory banks tend to arrive in a singular surge of pleasure, both unified yet complex and deep, as it just did a moment ago when I took another swig of (my slowly cooling) Paradise Kenya Gatomboya.

A Final Note on Kenyas

Many years ago I used to compare fine Kenyas to fine Cabernets. Now those kinds of beverage analogies strike me as unfair to coffee. Maybe a fine Cabernet should be compared to a fine Kenya. Nevertheless, great Kenyas, when taken black and without sugar, have an amazing way with a whole range of foods, and not just breakfast rolls. Try one with lunch. Try one in the afternoon with something savory. And don’t feel you need to stop when the cup cools. The best Kenyas, like the one that powered these last few paragraphs, are so pure and unswerving in their expression that they are often as satisfying at room temperature as when they are hot and freshly brewed, not to mention splendid on ice.

Coffee Credits

A selection of those along the supply chain who helped create the Paradise Coffee Roasters Kenya Gatomboya profiled here:

Miguel Meza, founder and now (after a hiatus) again co-owner of Paradise Coffee.

Charlie Blasky, Roastmaster and Green Buyer at Paradise Coffee, who proposed buying this coffee, and who, along with an entire team of Paradise cuppers, including Miguel Meza, determined its final roast profile.

Menno Simons and Tim Chapdelaine of Trabocca Coffee, who led in selecting this coffee in Kenya, purchasing it at auction, and importing it to North America.

The 600 farmer-members of the Barichu Cooperative Society who grew the fruit that produced this coffee, with particular credit to the operators of the cooperative’s wet mill, Gatomboya Factory, that so meticulously prepared it.

Technical experts at Scots Laboratory, the research laboratory of the British Colonial Agricultural Department that between 1934 and 1939 selected the SL-28 and SL-34 varieties so crucial to the character of today’s great Kenyas.

Lush and Accessible: The Naturals

Featured: Dragonfly Coffee Roasters Elida Natural “Dragonfly Lot” (94)

Another natural also recently reviewed and high-rated: Argyle Coffee Roasters Gebeb Ethiopia Yirgacheffe Natural (94)

Regular readers of Coffee Review are already familiar with the phenomenon of the “new naturals”: high-end coffees that have been dried inside the entire fruit, rather than after the fruit has been removed, as is the case with the Kenyas described above. These “new” naturals, unlike the more traditional and cheaper kind of mass-harvested, mass-dried naturals, are produced from uniformly ripe fruit, and are coaxed and coddled through the drying process so that (at best) the sugars in the drying fruit flesh trapped inside the skin with the bean do not ferment at all, or ferment cleanly and sweetly without having attracted taste-dampening micro-organisms.

No matter how processors manage the drying, however, the beans are enveloped in drying fruit for a long time, encouraging a considerably greater variety of sensory outcomes than invited by the wet process, with its early, decisive removal of fruit flesh and skin. Consequently, naturals almost always display a much greater variety of processing-related expression than do fine wet-processed coffees like the best Kenyas. And when these new naturals work out, as they more and more frequently do, they can be sweet, fruit-saturated, and extraordinarily seductive.

As I write I am drinking the Dragonfly Natural from Elida Estate in Panama (94). The first impression is great sweetness and very subtly fermented fruit notes. Odor molecules released by ripe fruit and by alcohol are apparently very similar. In poorer quality naturals the fermented, alcohol-related character may be quite explicit, and often not particularly attractive, carrying with it suggestions of overripe, almost composting fruit, often turned heavy and bitter by musty or mildewed notes. But here, in the Elida, the fermenty alcohol suggestion is quite subtle and deeply matrixed in ripe fruit. Around the cupping table, we try to find the right word for it. Faint brandy? Too grapey. How about we call it rye whisky, and give the fruit nuance to a separate descriptor—ripe banana, perhaps? In the end we settle on pear cider (the fermented kind), plus ripe banana.

One of eight bags of Elida Estate Natural that Dragonfly Coffee buys every year, produced from the same field and processed by the same method.

But there is more to this coffee than ripe fruit and subtle ferment. Once past the nose and into the cup we read a very explicit sweetness which someone calls golden sugar; we agree. And there is definitely chocolate. We settle on crisp, unsweetened baker’s chocolate, giving the sweetness to the brown sugar and the hint of cider. Finally, this is no simple, lushly sweet coffee either. For the slight but important citrus suggestion we settle on lemon zest— not whole lemon, just the zesty hint. Flowers too—very sweet, full flowers: honeysuckle.

The structure is poised and attractive too, although the finish, characteristic of slightly fermented naturals, is flavor-saturated but a bit too drying on the tongue, so we assign it an 8 rather than a 9.

Although it is clearly the processing method and procedures that gave this coffee its distinctiveness, its underlying liveliness and classic balance doubtlessly reflect the respected though not flashy tree variety that produced it, Catuai, plus the impact of the high growing elevations and cool temperatures in the highlands where Elida Estate coffees are grown, factors that promote a dense, well-developed bean.

Coffee Credits

 A selection of those along the supply chain who helped create the Dragonfly Coffee Roasters Elida Natural:

 Tamas Christman and Hilary Clark, who founded Dragonfly Roasters in 2011 and who, over the last few years, have established a coffee relationship with Elida Estate that almost perfectly fits expectations around the popular industry terms “direct trade” and “relationship coffee.” Every year Dragonfly buys the same volume of natural-processed coffee from the same grove of trees on the Elida farm, including the splendid 2015-16 crop beans that composed the sample reviewed here.

Tamas Christman, again, who roasted this coffee for Dragonfly and who roasts all of Dragonfly’s coffees.

Wilford Lamastus, leader and longtime owner, with his family, of Elida Estate, the innovating, prize-winning farm in the cool highlands of Volcan Baru that produced this coffee.

The indigenous peoples of the Ngöbe-Buglé culture, who have developed (by all reports) a comfortable symbiotic relationship with coffee farms like Elida, and who provide the essential seasonal labor involved in selectively harvesting and carefully processing coffees like the one profiled here.

 Aside: A Ferment-Free Natural

Today we often cup naturals that have no discernible fruit ferment. True, in these coffees the dried-in-the-fruit processing appears to encourage sweetness, but a less sugary or lushly fruit-toned sweetness than in naturals like the Dragonfly Elida Estate. With the recently-reviewed Argyle Coffee Roasters Gebeb Ethiopia Yirgacheffe Natural (94), the sweetness read to us more like the floral sweetness of dark honey, complicated by certain aromatic wood-related notes—sandalwood, myrrh—and a sweet but crisp fruit we called pear. The chocolate seemed even drier and crisper than the chocolate in the Dragonfly Elida Natural, so, rather than baker’s chocolate, we decided to call it roasted cacao nib.

Fruit of the Earth: A Sumatra

Featured: Kéan Coffee Sumatra Tano Batak (95)

Sumatras offer still another sensory world, different from the pure, intense complexity of the great Kenyas or the fruit-toned seduction of the best of the new naturals. If coffee tradition likes to use the word “fruity” or “fruit-forward” to describe dried-in-the-fruit coffees like the Dragonfly Elida described earlier, the word that tradition likes to apply to Sumatras is “earthy.” And I suppose the Kéan Sumatra Tano Batak I am drinking at the moment is earthy—though here the “earth” is a very complex note, simultaneously sweet and humusy and dry and mineral-like. We were reluctant to trot out the word earthy in our review, partly because that term is often used to justify coffees that are essentially musty or mildewed. We settled on “moist, fresh-fallen leaves” for the foresty, slightly minerally earth-related sensation. Like the dominant flavor constellation in Kenyas, it is a layering of notes rather than a single note: complex, unique, and ultimately precious. Resonating behind and around it is the fruit. At least a dozen descriptors rolled out of us for the rounding fruit sensation; co-cupper Jason Sarley and I each supplied one of the two in our published review, though we registered many. From Jason came the ripe watermelon descriptor; from me the blackberry. But if you drink this coffee with us you will feel, whatever you choose to call it, a sweetly pungent fruit resonating around and behind the note we are short-handing as fresh-fallen leaves. Finally, we found a soft, sweet, nut-toned chocolate. You may have to wait for this note, pause while the coffee softens and sweetens on the palate. Finally, farther away still, a floral note, clear in the nose, backgrounded in the cup. We called it jasmine. Our five-descriptor rule didn’t leave a slot for an aromatic wood note; if it had we probably would have chosen oak.

The structure of this Sumatra is sweet-savory and resonantly drying. The acidity is brisk yet juicy with backgrounded fruit nuance; the mouthfeel soft, plush, though not syrupy. The finish is drying, though rich and flavor-saturated, with a quiet, backgrounded sweetness.

As with dried-in-the-fruit or “natural”-processed coffees like the Dragonfly Elida described earlier, Sumatras like this one derive a good part of their distinctive character from refinements in fruit removal and drying. These traditional Sumatras are “wet-hulled” coffees, meaning the fruit removal was performed by a relatively standard ferment-and-wash procedure, but the drying procedure adds an unorthodox, cup-altering wrinkle, involving interrupting the drying to remove the inner parchment skin before finishing the drying. See the text under the heading “Sumatra’s Unique Wet-Hulling Process” in our July 2016 tasting report, “Learning from Sumatras.” The great innovation in Sumatra coffees is the new understanding of this subtly unique processing variation, and the ability of some coffee mills to control it and refine the sensory outcome.

Just-washed parchment coffee in the Lintong region of Sumatra waiting for the local “collector” to pick it up for further processing.

Of course there are other reasons accounting for the character of this Sumatra, as there are with the other coffees described here. With this Sumatra, growing elevations are medium-high rather than very high, as was the case with the Elida and the Kenya described earlier. The bean is a bit softer here, the acidity less intense. The roast is just a touch darker than was the case with the Paradise Kenya and the Dragonfly Elida, emphasizing depth over brightness. Tree varieties that contributed to this sample are mixed and not particularly distinguished, although there may be secrets yet to be documented on tree varieties in the classic growing regions of Sumatra. But the determining factor in this coffee’s character is almost certainly well-executed and -understood nuances in the wet-hulling processing method.

Coffee Credits

A selection of those along the supply chain who helped create the Kéan Coffee Sumatra Tano Batak:

Martin Diedrich. Martin was raised on a coffee farm in Guatemala, where he started roasting coffee at the age of 13 and later created the successful Southern California-based coffeehouse chain Diedrich Coffee, before exiting the corporate coffeehouse world to found the small-scale community-oriented Kéan Coffee with his wife Karen Varese Diedrich in 2005. The Diedrichs named their new coffee business after their son Kéan.

The small-holding farmers in the Dolok Sanggul district of the Lintong growing region south of Lake Toba in North Sumatra Province, Indonesia, who grew, harvested and wet-processed this coffee to around 40% moisture.

Namora Tani, the experienced mill-operator who collected the moist parchment from the local farmers, brought it to her mill, and expertly finished the drying in two stages. The first drying of the wet parchment coffee is about four hours on a concrete patio; the second drying of the now-hulled coffee is longer, during which it is protected by green-house like roofs. Namora Tani is one of the most respected “collectors” or wet-hullers in the Lintong region.

Eko Purnowowidi, who, around 14 years ago when he worked for Volcafe Specialty Coffee, developed relationships with five different collectors to create some of the earliest branded, high-quality wet-hulled Sumatras, including Blue Batak and Lake Tawar. Eko now works with Olam Specialty Coffee through his group, the Klasik Bean Cooperative.

Alan Nietlisbach and Ian Kluse of Olam Specialty Coffee, the exporter/importers who selected and brought this lot to the U.S.

The post Beyond the Review: Celebrating Coffees in Depth appeared first on Coffee Review.

But you can’t win them all, and the Central American invention of the term “honey” for dried-in-the-fruit-pulp coffees appears to have prevailed everywhere else in the world outside of Brazil. You can see both the victory of that term as well as the attraction of the process itself in the worldwide range of origins represented among the 21 honey coffees we tested for this month’s report: seven Costa Ricas (four reviewed here), five El Salvadors (two reviewed here), two Brazils (one reviewed here), and one each from a far-flung assortment of origins: Nicaragua, Panama, Colombia, Sumatra, Rwanda (the PT’s Coko Rwanda Honey appears here at 93), Thailand (the Paradise Java Thailand Semi-Washed is here at 91) and Honduras (the Red Rooster Honduras Finca Las Flores appears at 91).

The Honey Evolution

The relative dominance of Costa Rica honeys both in number of submissions and number reviewed should come as no surprise. Although the process was pioneered in Brazil, the term honey and the application of the process to small, refined lots of coffee was popularized in Costa Rica, part of the Costa Rican “micromill revolution” in which farmers took advantage of the newer compact mechanical wet-processing machines to begin processing their own coffees rather than selling their coffee fruit to large mills.

Honey-processed coffees drying in raised beds

The availability of mechanical wet-processing machines, which squeeze or scrub the fruit flesh or mucilage off the beans using only a very small amount of water, made even further refinements of the honey process possible. Today you will find “black honey,” “red honey,” “yellow honey,” and “white honey” coffees. In the black honey and red honey processes, the beans are dried with all or nearly all of the fruit pulp adhering to the beans. The difference between the two processes, black and red, depends on how quickly or how slowly the beans are dried: black honey is apparently dried slower than red. In the case of yellow honey, the mechanical demucilaging machines are adjusted to remove somewhere between 20% to 50% of the mucilage or fruit flesh before drying (no explicitly described examples of yellow honey are reviewed here), whereas with white honey almost all of the fruit flesh is removed, leaving only a thin coating on the beans, perhaps 10%. So, if we follow a hypothetical model of how processing influences cup character, we might expect white honey coffees to cup the brightest and most transparent; in other words, most like a conventional washed or wet-processed coffee, whereas we might expect the black honey and red honey (in which all or almost all of the fruit flesh is left on the bean) to cup closest to a fully dried-in-the-fruit coffee: fruitier perhaps, with more chocolate and aromatic wood.

Cup vs. Hypothesis

Our results only in part supported these hypothetical expectations. Certainly the 93-rated Equator Costa Rica El Aguacate White Honey was among the cleanest and brightest of the ten coffees reviewed, whereas two of the three red honey samples we reviewed, the Magnolia Costa Rica Esnider Rodriguez (91) and the Manzanita El Salvador Loma La Loria (91) showed signs of processing-related variations in cup style, in particular an unusual though quite attractive interweaving of floral and aromatic wood notes. Nevertheless, a third red honey, the Reunion Island Sol Naciente Costa Rica (91) was by contrast crisp, delicate and zesty.

Moving to black honey, two of the four samples we tested displayed the heavy, rather woody character that one might expect from coffee dried in the fruit too slowly. On the other hand, the Willoughby’s 93-rated Costa Rica El Puente Cerro Verde Black Honey was particularly lively, with no signs of flavor-dampening fault at all, only a clean but impressively complex aromatic profile, spicy and deeply sweet, a sweetness that we might attribute in part to the black honey process and careful drying in the fruit flesh.

Further complicating any effort to generalize on our results, the processing methods for half of the coffees reviewed here were not described in detail, although the information we did have clearly qualified these samples for this report. For example, the engagingly complex Propeller El Salvador Finca El Pozo (93) and the striking and original PT’s Coko Rwanda Honey (93) were simply labeled “honey” with no color modifier attached. We can assume, given Brazilian practices, that the fine 91-rated pulped natural Espiritu Santo Brazil from Java Blend fits the criteria for “red” honey, though its pleasing juxtaposition of zesty tartness and berryish sweetness in the cup could just as well make it a conventional washed coffee. The Paradise Roasters Java Thailand Semi-Washed (91), rich with spicy chocolate character, was labeled “semi-washed,” although information we received on its processing suggests it fits the criterion for yellow or white honey, since it was dried with some but not all of the mucilage removed.

Gently Exotic Unpredictability

All of the preceding ambiguity reinforced our general conclusion as we cupped through these 21 honey samples: It appeared to us that the main characteristic that honey- (or pulped natural-) processing brings to coffees is a gently exotic, mildly unpredictable complexity. We certainly experienced far more variation in cup as we moved around the table with these coffees than we would with, for example, a table of conventional wet-processed or washed coffees from roughly the same set of origins. And, with the exception of the two rather flat, monotoned black honey coffees, those unpredictable differences were original and engaging rather than off-putting or distracting.

Probably these cup variations derived from differences in how much of the fruit flesh was removed from the beans before drying and how the drying was handled. In general, the four top 93-rated samples showed a natural sweetness, subtly exotic variations in aroma and flavor, and smooth, viscous mouthfeel that could plausibly be related to the virtues of the honey processing method. On the other hand, these four high-rated samples remained relatively pure, with clean, often bright acidity. The next tier down, the six 91-rated samples, were also quite engaging, but showed clearer (though still attractive) signs of impact from processing variation: spice and aromatic wood notes tended to complicate the fruit and flowers, for example, and in the case of the Red Rooster Honduras Finca Las Flores Honey, a faint though attractive hint of brandyish ferment surfaced.

Honey Process and Origin

On the basis of this modest sampling, it appears that the honey process does contribute adventure and originality to coffee types normally associated with the wet method. This is not to say that honey produces a “better” cup than wet-processing, just a different, and more exotic and less predictable one. In the case of origins where wet processing is typically pursued by traditional methods involving fermenting the fruit flesh before washing it off, as in Guatemala or Peru, for example, rather than through use of machines that squeeze or scrub the fruit off, as is usually the case in Costa Rica and Colombia, the advantages of the honey process in imparting complexity and nuance to the cup may be less significant. And with origins like Rwanda and Sumatra, where traditional local processing methods already add a particular intrigue to the cup, careful honey-processing may produce a different-than-usual cup, though not a more intriguing or adventurous one. Brazil represents still another situation entirely, since the norm in Brazil is “natural” or dry-processing. Honey or pulped-natural Brazils are almost always lighter-footed than typical Brazil full naturals, with more delicacy and brightness and greater emphasis on stone-fruit and flowers rather than nut and chocolate.

At any rate, coffee lovers who value the mildly exotic over the familiar and predictable in a still classically bright and balanced cup may be particularly well-served with honey coffees from classic origins like Costa Rica, Honduras, and El Salvador. And committed aficionados should enjoy the pleasing challenge of reading in the cup the subtly original impact of still-evolving refinements of honey-processing technologies.

The post Honey-Processed Coffees: Quiet Adventure appeared first on Coffee Review.

Until recently, however, Australia has unequivocally been espresso country — usually espresso taken with milk, though with more emphasis on cappuccino and classic milk drinks and less on the syrups and frou-frou variations that cluttered American espresso menus up until a few years ago.

Recently, however, I’m told that single-origin coffees intended for drip brewing have become at least a bit more important on the Australian scene. So, when my co-founder and colleague Ron Walters offered to bring back some coffee from Australia for a tasting report, we decided to focus on coffees intended for “brewed” application, meaning drip, filter drip, French press, etc.

Ron brought back 21 coffees from 10 independent Australian specialty roasters, all from southeastern Australia (New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania). All samples were whole-bean, protected by the same kind of packaging standard with smaller American roasters (sealed immediately after roasting in moisture- and atmosphere-resistant laminated foil bags with embedded one-way valves to allow CO2 to exit without allowing staling oxygen to re-enter).

Some Modest Observations

So what did we find out about single-origin drip coffees from Australian roasters, viewed from an American perspective?

Of course, 21 samples from 10 roasters is a tiny cross-section of a vibrant industry segment, so you will find no generalizations here. But we can describe what appeared on the cupping table and add an observation or two.

• Overall, we tasted a set of very engaging green coffees, skillfully roasted. True, we ran into a couple of samples (not reviewed here) consisting of uneven, mildly tainted green coffees, about the same percentage as might turn up in a similar sampling from small American specialty roasters. Well, no, not quite. Perhaps the Australians by percentage did very slightly better than we might expect from a similar cross-section of American roasters.

• Origin and green coffee type. Despite the quality of the coffees, we found a bit less range and excitement than a romantic coffee drinker hoping to travel the world by cup might wish for. We tasted several Colombias, some outstanding Kenyas and Ethiopias, and a sprinkling of others: Tanzania, Central America, Brazil. However, most samples were conventionally washed coffees from familiar tree varieties. We found relatively little in the way of coffees that offered unorthodox or surprising profiles achieved through unconventional processing method (honey, Indonesia wet-hulled, whole-crop natural) or exotic tree varieties. It appears from this set of samples that a classic, purist expectation for balanced structure and cleanly expressed complexity dominated among these ten Australian roasters.

• It was also surprising not to find more Pacific and Asian origins on the single-origin coffee menus of these ten roasters. One Thai coffee on one website was about it. No Indonesias, and no Papua New Guineas, despite the geographical proximity and close historical ties between Papua New Guinea and Australia. And no Australia coffees, though given the very small coffee volumes produced in Australia and the tendency for Australian growers to roast and retail their own coffees, this omission comes as no surprise.

• Roast: no dark-roasting here, that’s for sure, but almost no medium-roasting either. Most samples were In most cases, a light roast executed tactfully and skillfully, though on occasion we felt that the roast may have been a bit too light to fully develop the coffee’s potential.

The Top Performers

We review 8 here of the total of 21 samples we tested, with ratings for those 8 running from 91 to a high of 94. The roasters of the four top-rated coffees — Campos, Mecca, Ritual, and Axil — all had second samples that also scored well, but we followed our usual practice of reviewing only one sample — the highest rated — from any given roaster.

The top-rated Campos Coffee Ethiopia Yirgacheffe Goro (reviewed here at 94) offered a fine medium-roasted variation on the classic washed Yirgacheffe cup. Less citrus than usual, but the flowers were particularly complex in range and spicy in character, the underlying chocolate solid, and the acidity juicy. Mecca Coffee roasted the highest-rated of four excellent Kenyas. Its Kamwangi Factory Kenya Kirinyaga (reviewed here at 93) was sweetly but intensely bright, animated by the brisk, elegant dry fruit character (often labeled black currant) typical of fine Kenyas.

A nicely modulated light roast developed the complex, rather exotic profile (plush flowers, pungent, mango-like fruit, chocolate fudge) of Tasmanian roaster Ritual Coffee’s Colombia Miranda (reviewed here at 93), the highest rated of the five Colombias we tested. The San Ysidro Costa Rica from Victoria’s Axil Coffee Roasters (reviewed here at 93) was one of the few samples that was apparently processed by an alternative method, probably what Costa Ricans call yellow honey, in which the fruit skin and a portion of the fruit flesh is removed immediately after harvesting, but some of the fruit flesh is allowed to dry on the beans. This processing and a tactful light roast netted a lush but cleanly expressed profile, richly floral with a crisp backbone of aromatic wood.

Venturing Beyond the Portafilter

Reviews for four more excellent Australian-roasted coffees rated 91 to 92 also appear this month. If this set of coffees overall is typical of current Australian single-origin small-lot offerings for non-espresso brewing, then Australian coffee-lovers venturing beyond the portafilter appear to be well-served.

Stu Grant of Ritual Coffee, whose Colombia Miranda is reviewed here at 93, sent us the following thoughtful email response to a question about the place of single-origin “filter” coffees in the Australian coffee scene. I thought I might close by quoting it in its entirety.

“As you know, Australia has been espresso-obsessed for a few decades, to the point that the phrase “real coffee” in our vernacular refers to espresso as opposed to brewed coffee. As someone who lovingly roasts and serves filter coffee to consumers, I’ve come up against this regularly, with people (sometimes literally) turning their noses up at filter coffee, describing it pejoratively as “American coffee.” On the other hand, I have made many, many converts, particularly amongst black coffee drinkers. I find brewed coffee to be a gentle and expressive style of coffee preparation. Being well-suited to single-origin offerings, it’s also a great way for us as coffee roasters to showcase really special coffees, and also to introduce people to the notion that different coffees can have very different flavour profiles. Espresso will remain king in Australia, certainly in terms of % of coffee made/served, but brewed coffee has definitely found its place in the market now as an option for discerning drinkers.”

The post Some Single-Origin Coffees from Australian Roasters appeared first on Coffee Review.

Brazil produces considerably more coffee than any other country — about 34% of the world’s total in 2016. It produces many kinds and qualities of coffee: large volumes of natural or dried-in-the-fruit coffees of the Robusta species called conilons; even larger volumes of natural or dried-in-the-fruit coffees of the Arabica species of the type we focus on for this report; and a mix of relatively higher-end Arabica coffees processed by other methods, ranging from conventionally wet-processed or washed to “pulped natural.” Pulped naturals (or “honey coffees” as they’re called in Central America) are processed using an intermediate method situated between washed and natural, in which the skins of the fruit are removed, but all or part of the fruit pulp or mucilage is allowed to remain on the beans as they dry. In our past surveys of Brazil coffees, the top-scoring coffees were often fine pulped naturals.

But another category of fine specialty coffees is also produced in Brazil, a category that we focus on in this month’s report: old-fashioned natural dried-in-the-fruit Brazil coffees that are done particularly right.

Processing Variables: From Stripped to Coddled

Normal, decent-but-not-great Brazil natural Arabicas, the good-value kind that anchor the decent-but-not-great blends of the world, are mass-harvested, either by stripping the branches by hand or by machines that roll down the rows of coffee trees and shake the more or less ripe fruit off the trees. The resulting mix of ripe, overripe and underripe fruit is then subjected to sophisticated mechanical separation before being dried on patios in layers, hopefully not too thick, and hopefully relentlessly raked. Then comes an even more rigorous cleaning and sorting of the dried and hulled beans: by density, by bean size and shape, and by computerized electronic sorting machines. The result is a decent, solid coffee, a little uneven cup to cup, but by the luck of the draw and the relentless obstinacy of cuppers, a coffee that fills out the heart of many a “premium” all-Arabica blend cleanly and nicely, with considerable resonance, a little chocolate and a lot of nut, and not much acidy brightness because most Brazils are relatively low-grown.

The nine high-rated Brazil naturals we review this month are either exceptionally distinguished examples of that standard procedure for Brazil naturals, or special smaller lots of naturals apparently coddled right from the get-go. The cup profiles, plus the information we could dig up, suggest that many of this month’s top-rated samples may have been selectively picked rather than stripped or machine-picked. Certainly all were dried quite carefully, some in thin layers on raised African-style beds that facilitate air circulation under and through the drying fruit.

And the character of the acidity, at least, suggests that most were grown at higher elevations than typical for Brazil naturals. These high-rated Brazils did not challenge us with the intense, sweetly tart acidity characteristic of extremely high-grown coffees, but they did display a balanced, vibrant brightness we often found ourselves calling “round” or “juicy.”

Tradition and Trend

You could say that the Brazil naturals we review this month partake of two influences. First is the great tradition of Brazil naturals, a coffee-growing culture decades deep, steeped in knowledge and infrastructure peculiar to the production of naturals. On the other hand is something quite new, the example of the innovative new natural-processed coffees pioneered in the late 2000s in regions like southern Ethiopia and Central America, where fine coffees were traditionally wet-processed rather than natural-processed. This second, newly fashionable style of natural was generated by a restless specialty coffee culture that looked for, among other innovations, ways to add value to green coffee through creating distinctive cup profiles via variations in processing method. Unlike Brazil naturals, which have been produced for decades in a climate with relatively dry harvest seasons, or the even older traditional naturals produced in the semi-arid regions of Yemen and eastern Ethiopia that stretch back to the very beginnings of coffee history, these “new naturals” are produced in climates with often humid harvest seasons. Drying ripe fruit in humid conditions encourages the fermenty, fruit-forward character that epitomizes these coffees, a fruit-bomb effect that surprised and dazzled many aficionado consumers in the late 2000s.

The Brazil Difference

But while those newer natural-process coffees from Ethiopia and Central America remain popular among aficionados for their bright fruit-forwardness and lush but lively acidity, many coffee consumers aren’t familiar with the style and others simply don’t enjoy it. For those with more traditional coffee tastes, these high-end Brazil naturals may surprise and please. They offer dried-in the-fruit profiles with generally deeper, more nuanced fruit, a fundamental sweetness, and a vibrant though not assertive acidity. If the new naturals from Africa and Central America tend to bright berry notes and lush florals, the Brazil naturals we review here tend more toward the roundly sweet and less acidy stone fruits and simpler, less exotic flowers. Plus chocolate. Lots of nuts and chocolate.

If there is a through-line in the Brazil naturals we review here, it is the nut and chocolate tones that carry the cup profiles. From roasted cacao nib and rich, dark chocolate to a more austere, drier baker’s chocolate, and from classic almond notes to buttery hazelnuts to sweet, earthy pistachios — chocolate and nut tones rule.

The highest-rated of this month’s Brazil naturals include Willoughby’s Fazenda Passeio Natural, tied for the top rating at 94, a deeply sweet, complex and balanced coffee with a nectar-like mouthfeel, dried papaya notes, baker’s chocolate and almond. One of the prettiest nut- and chocolate-toned coffees we tested, Topeca’s Fazenda Sertão (93), makes its case around pistachio and baker’s chocolate. The Revel Estancia Telese, tied for top rating at 94, was less predictable, with a very slight fermenty edge that manifested as a faint hint of rye whisky complicating its deep, rich sweetness and lilac-toned florals.

Growing Regions

All of the coffees we received for this cupping were produced in three growing regions: Carmo de Minas, Mantiqueira de Minas and Cerrado Miniero, all in Minas Gerais State. Carmo de Minas and Mantiqueira de Minas are both traditional growing regions with a preponderance of smaller (by Brazilian standards) farms. Eight of the top-scoring coffees we review here were produced in Carmo de Minas and Mantiqueira de Minas. One, however, the 93-rated Fazenda Aurea from Taiwan roaster GIGA Coffee, was produced in the more technified Cerrado region, where flat terrain encourages machine-picking, and particularly dry harvest seasons encourage efficient large-scale patio-drying. Perhaps we can see the impact of a drier harvest reflected in the Fazenda Aurea’s crisply delicate profile and the fragrant way sandalwood notes complicate its melony sweetness.

Value Across the Board

In the global green coffee market, Brazil has long prospered by producing good value coffees, decent but not exceptional, with costs controlled mainly through volume efficiency and the sophisticated use of various sorting and grading technologies to compensate for relatively high labor costs. Perhaps owing to this value-first tradition, the fine Brazil coffees reviewed this month offer impressive price-to-rating ratios.

The two coffees that earned the highest scores, the Willoughby’s and the Revel (both 94 points), are priced at $13.99 for 16 ounces and $13.25 for 12 ounces, respectively. Typically, coffees that we rate at 93 or 94 hover around an average price of $17 or $18 for 12 ounces; others go for upwards of $25. On the other hand, the most expensive coffee we review this month is the 92-rated Victrola Carmo de Minas Canaan Estate, which at $16.00 for 12 ounces is still something of a bargain.

Of course, it might be best if consumers were asked to pay a higher quality premium for the best Brazil coffees, and that these quality premiums made it back to the producers and eventually to workers. But the Brazil industry continues to suffer from low expectations, particularly among North Americans. Perhaps Brazil needs its Gesha moment, some flashy break-out coffee that creates buzz and spectacular prices per pound, a moment that changes aficionado expectations about Brazil and sets off industry-wide experiments there with carefully coddled small lots. But for now, we should be grateful that these fine, subtly distinctive variations on a great traditional coffee type continue to come our way.

The post Brazil Naturals: Tradition Meets Trend appeared first on Coffee Review.

Over the past few years, however, several of these smallish and local companies have grown large and national, while still trying to preserve the special standing they established early on among an ever widening net of admiring consumers. This is not the place to go into where the money came from for these expansions and who got purchased by whom (consult the business press), but Intelligentsia Coffee, Stumptown Coffee, Counter Culture Coffee and Blue Bottle Coffee are all celebrated small-scale innovators that have expanded over the past few years as they explore how they can manage being big and small at the same time, intimately local, yet nationally present.

And the Big Go for Small

Meanwhile, other much larger companies that grew up riding the previous “wave” of specialty coffee are trying to find a way back to being small and cool again, to claim for themselves at least a little of the panache associated with the latest trend toward small-lot, medium-roasting companies. To this end, about a year ago, Starbucks launched its Reserve program of small-lot coffees, a product line powered by the buzz created around its showplace demonstration roastery in Seattle. And Allegro Coffee, although its main roasting establishment is based in Colorado and owned by Whole Foods, has opened satellite roasteries, branded as Allegro Coffee Roasters, on both coasts, offering impeccably sourced and roasted small lots.

In most cases this expansion (Intelligentsia, Stumptown, Blue Bottle) or targeted contraction (Starbucks, Allegro) has been in part carried out by opening satellite roastery café locations, where consumers can stop by and pick up fresh-roasted small-lot coffees over the counter. This is an honorable and admirable approach, and frankly the best approach from the point of view of freshness and intimacy with the product, but these companies can’t open satellite roasting locations everywhere, plus Counter Culture sells its freshly roasted coffees only through restaurants, cafés and specialty food stores owned by others. Consequently, most consumers interested in sampling the high-end, small-lot coffees from these six companies (or from their special small-lot product lines) must necessarily order them online.

An Anonymous Sampling

That, at least, was the premise for this month’s testing and report. We ordered a minimum of five coffees from the websites of each of six companies: Intelligentsia, Stumptown, Blue Bottle, Counter Culture, and the small-lot lines of Starbucks Reserve and Allegro Coffee. We ordered them anonymously. All were whole-bean. We tried to order a range of typical coffee types consumers might look for: at least one wet-processed Colombia or Central America, for example, one wet-processed Africa, a Sumatra or similar Indonesia, a dry-processed or “natural” coffee, and at least one selection from a particularly rare or unusual origin.

That was the goal. In fact, we ended up with a much less coherent, rather random collection of coffees from the six roasting company websites. To these companies’ credit, they do not offer the same kind of coffee selection. Stumptown, Intelligentsia and Counter Culture offer primarily washed or wet-processed coffees; the unstated focus appears to be on coffees that offer variations on a pure, classic cup. On the other hand, Blue Bottle’s relatively small online selection is heavy on blends. Allegro Coffee Roasters offers a lively selection of well-curated small-lot coffees at its satellite roastery in our neighborhood, but its online selection of such small-lot coffees was not particularly robust. Consequently, we ended by supplementing two of Allegro’s special small-lot coffees with three of its more standard, generic single-origins. And, to our surprise, these coffees, with their generalized, old-fashioned origin names, turned out to be quite impressive, attracting ratings averaging as high as any of the other roasters’ fancy, specially selected small lots.

First Some Observations, then a Scorecard

Scroll down for roaster-by-roaster remarks and ratings summaries. But first, a few general observations.

Coffee selections. Generally, selections of small-lot coffees from most of these roasters were globe-spanning and exciting, though less so in the case of the blend-heavy Blue Bottle menu. The Allegro menu offered a large range of standard, generically described single-origins (Kenya, Sumatra Lintong, etc.), though few seasonal small-lot selections.

Roast. With all samples except those from Starbucks Reserve, the roasting was medium to light. But Starbucks? Still at it. All five Starbucks Reserve samples were roasted darkish to dark. They were not burned or charred, by the way, just roasted too dark to, in most cases, even come close to persuasively showcasing the nuances of their green-coffee character.

Single-origins rule (or the listlessness of blends). Clearly, most of these companies or programs lavished their creativity on sourcing and showcasing exciting small-lot single-origin coffees. The few blends we tested came in on average considerably lower-rated than single-origins from the same company. Most of the blends simply tasted tired, blunt or listless by comparison to the fresh, strongly stated expressions of the seasonal single-origin coffees.

From one perspective, this result simply reinforces the argument for concentrating on fresh, seasonally selected single-origin coffees offered on a changing, rotating basis rather than on year-round blends, an argument that clearly appears to drive the online offerings of Intelligentsia, Stumptown, Counter Culture and Starbucks Reserve. On the other hand, it may be that some companies, despite their distinction, are still falling back on the regrettable specialty coffee tradition of using blends to move faded green coffees out of the warehouse or to reduce costs. Blends, of course, do not have to be drab or boring, or even year-round. When we do our holiday cupping we always receive some astounding blends consisting of creative combinations of very distinctive, high-end, seasonally fresh coffees with impeccable credentials.

Delivery and packaging. For those interested in a primer on specialty coffee packaging and its implications for the consumer, consult our February 2016 Tasting Report where we discuss various packaging strategies and freshness issues.  Most of the samples we tested for this month’s article, aside from the five Starbucks and three of the Allegro Coffee samples, were packaged in simple, informal ways that allow staling oxygen to remain in the bag with the coffee after packaging. Rather than depending on high-end, oxygen-evacuated packaging, as Starbucks does, for example, these companies depend on to-order roasting and rapid delivery to reduce risk of staling. All of these informally packaged samples bore roasted-on dates, which, assuming these dates are correct, allow consumers to judge how long the coffees have been in the bag since roasting.

To measure the efficiency of this approach when applied to mail-order, we kept track of the number of days that elapsed between the roast dates on the bags and the dates the coffees were delivered. See the results in the summaries of each roaster’s performance below. We are happy to report that Counter Culture and Blue Bottle did extremely well, delivering within two days after roasting. Stumptown also did very well, delivering at three days, and Intelligentsia fairly well at five days. Allegro did not do well at all with the two roast-dated samples it sent. See the Allegro summary.

The packing of coffees for shipment was fairly haphazard in the case of all roasters. Several of these orders were delivered during a rainy week in California, and the boxes were soaked from being outside for a few hours. While roasters are not responsible for rain and where the parcels were left, they are responsible for how well the coffees were originally packed at the roasteries. Each of the six shipments was protected only by either a) a small amount of loose bubble wrap or b) paper wrapping that wasn’t affixed to the bags of coffee. The Starbucks shipment was sent in a box at least three times too big for its contents.

Intelligentsia Coffee

Time elapsed between roast date and delivery: 5 days (a fair performance)

Overall: Of the six roasting companies we sampled, Intelligentsia attracted the highest average ratings for its five precisely sourced single-origins. The Ethiopia Intelligentsia Benti Nenqa Ethiopia (reviewed here at 93) rated highest of the five; lowest rated was the Ljulu Lipati Zambia Limited Release (reviewed here at 89).

Website: Intelligentsia’s online store currently offers a menu of more than fifteen single-origin coffees, plus espressos and blends. One click takes you directly to a coffee and a short paragraph overview that includes information about the origin and producer, followed by technical information (though excluding processing method), a map and photo. Below this basic information is a link via which you can download a pdf providing a more detailed narrative about the coffee.

Counter Culture Coffee

Time elapsed between roast date and delivery: 2 days (outstanding performance)

Overall: Counter Culture averaged a rating of exactly 90 extended over five samples, including four very specifically identified small-lot single-origins and one blend, the rather stolid 88-rated “The Natural,” not reviewed here. The highest-rated of the four single-origins was the delicate, honeyish Cueva del los Llanos Colombia reviewed here at 92. We also review the interesting Boka Papua New Guinea, an elegant and rather rare coffee that we rated 88 after reluctantly deducting 3 points for one off-tasting cup.

The Counter Culture bags were composed of a bio-degradable material called Biotre. Compostable coffee bags are obviously a very attractive idea, but based on information on the manufacturer’s website, composting these bags at present is rather cumbersome and, if you compost in your backyard, excruciatingly slow. You need to remove three parts of the bag before composting (tin tie closure, valve and label) and if you compost in your backyard, 40% of the bag material will not break down for several years. We could find no published tests measuring oxygen impermeability for this promising but still very experimental bag material.

Website: Counter Culture Coffee currently offers more than twenty coffees via its online store, easily searchable by region, single-origin or blend, limited release, and year-round (as opposed to seasonally available). There is a wealth of information about each coffee, from its origin and history to its producers and processing method, including photos and maps, as well as tasting notes.

Allegro Coffee and Allegro Coffee Roasters

Time elapsed between roast date and delivery: 17 days (clearly not a good performance, although this figure only directly applies to the Allegro Coffee Roasters small-lot, roast-dated selections. The more generic but excellent Allegro Coffee selections delivered in sturdier, industry-standard packaging were not roast-dated and registered lower residual oxygen.)

Overall: Allegro averaged just under 90 for five coffees, all single-origins. However, the two highest-rated samples were generically defined single-origins offered under the Allegro Coffee brand rather than selections in the small-lot Allegro Coffee Roasters collection. The Allegro Kenya Grand Cru (reviewed here at 93), for example, was apparently comprised of unidentified auction-lot Kenyas. Nevertheless, it was a superb, very characteristic Kenya, and tied with three other, more precisely-identified samples (two from Stumptown and one from Intelligentsia) for this report’s top rating. The Allegro Coffee Sumatra Lintong, a classic wet-hulled Sumatra, also impressed with a rating of 92 (not reviewed).

On the other hand, two small-lot coffees from the Allegro Coffee Roasters brand, both rather rare origins, an Ethiopia Harrar and a small-producer Java Sunda Hejo, did not greatly impress, having doubtlessly suffered from some staling after roasting and before delivery. Both bags were roast-dated, but were shipped 17 days after the roast date, and the sealed, foil-lined packaging apparently did not help, as both samples arrived with about 19% residual oxygen, only a little less than atmosphere. We review the Java Sunda Hejo here at 88. All samples were shipped from Allegro’s main facility in Colorado, not from our local Allegro satellite roastery.

Website: Allegro Coffee and Allegro Coffee Roasters coffees are sold via the same website and together offer upwards of forty different coffees for sale at any given time. Both brands offer minimal information about the coffees themselves. Descriptions of coffee blends include the countries of origin and the roast style, along with any certifications (such as organic), while descriptions of single-origin coffees add only a sentence or two about the coffees’ producers.

Stumptown Coffee

Time elapsed between roast date and delivery: 3 days (excellent performance)

Overall: Owing to our efforts to sample a range of coffee types, we ended by ordering eight rather than five samples from Stumptown. They ranged in rating and interest enormously. Four distinctive high-rated single-origins from Africa rated 93 to 91, including the exceptional Ethiopia Nano Chalia (93) and the Rwanda Huye Mountain (93) reviewed here. Three Stumptown samples from Latin America coffees lagged a bit, one at 90 (the Guatemala Bella Vista reviewed here) and two at 87. Two blends definitely disappointed at 86 and 85.

Website: Stumptown’s boldly graphic but rather slow-responding online shop is searchable by Africa and Latin America coffees and blends only, but all available coffees (more than thirty) can be seen by scrolling down the (very long) landing page. Once you click through on a coffee, you’ll find succinct information, starting with tasting notes and followed by information about the producers and region. You can click through to an additional page of information that is photo-driven and includes notes about processing methods.

Blue Bottle Coffee

Time elapsed between roast date and delivery: 2 days (outstanding performance)

Overall: Ten months ago, as part of a larger report, we tested a range of coffees purchased directly from the Oakland, California Blue Bottle roastery. Ratings for those single-origin, bought-on-site samples were quite impressive: an average of 92. For this Internet-based sampling, carried out ten months later, ratings were decent, though not nearly as impressive, perhaps because this time around we ended up ordering mainly blends rather than single-origins. This month’s five samples averaged just under 89, three points lower than the samples tested in June. The highest-rated of the five, the current incarnation of Blue Bottle’s Three Africans organic blend, is reviewed here at 91. The only sample we ordered from the website’s very limited selection of four single-origins, the Guatemala Alta Verapaz Santa Isabel, also rated 91. We added a review of a mid-rated sample, the Beta Blend, at 89.

Website: Blue Bottle offers a small online shop that features subscription options for regular, prepaid home delivery of coffees. Currently four blends and four single-origin options are offered, along with three espresso blends and a decaf. Information on blends is limited to countries of origin, any certifications (such as organic) and a chatty though succinct characterization of the sensory virtues of the blend. For single-origins, the site adds more specific information, including identifying the farmer or cooperative that produced the coffee.

Starbucks Reserve Roastery

Time elapsed between roast date and delivery: Not applicable, given Starbucks’ state-of-the-art, 0%-oxygen packaging and the implied justification it offers for not providing roasted-on dates. Shipping and delivery from Starbucks were slow, however; the coffees we ordered were shipped a full six days after we placed our order.

Overall: Starbucks Reserve Roastery offered an adventurous assortment of interesting origins. However, all of those we tested were roasted dark enough to pretty much obscure any origin-related character. The one exception among the five tested samples was the Starbucks Reserve Yirgacheffe Chelba, reviewed here at 91, a fine dried-in-the-fruit or ”natural”- processed Ethiopia so pronounced in its cleanly intricate character that an engaging version of its fruit, flowers and cocoa character survived the roast, albeit turning rather dry and spicy. On the other hand, the Starbucks Reserve Sumatra Aceh, reviewed here at 89, was a pleasant cup but so overwhelmed by the roast that it was difficult to tell whether the green coffee represented a classic, wet-hulled, fruit-and-tobacco style Sumatra (most likely) or a conventionally washed coffee of the style also produced in the Aceh region of Sumatra. As was the case with all of the Starbucks Reserve coffees, the paragraph of text on the bag contained almost no technical information about the coffee itself and whatever factors might be assumed to have influenced its cup character.

Website: Starbucks’ huge online store features, on its coffee page, a pop-up promotion for its newsletter, as well as a menu of formats, from whole-bean and ground coffees to pods and instant coffees. There’s also a search function that allows you to narrow down by roast, region and flavor. Once you get into the section dedicated to the Starbucks Reserve small-lot offerings, the focus of this month’s reviews, the actual selection of coffees is quite extensive and adventurous, although description about them is limited to basic information on variety and processing method in list format, brief tasting notes, and some paragraphs of what amounts to coffee travelogue.

Some Tentative Advice for Consumers

If you can, buy local, directly from locations close to where the coffees are roasted. Such locations would include the retail locations of many local companies we review and that advertise with us, as well as locations of the larger companies whose coffees we review here. It is remarkable how high the coffees we bought directly over the counter from our local Allegro Coffee Roasters and Blue Bottle locations rated in recent months, as compared to the good, yet relatively lackluster ratings for coffees we purchased online from these two companies for this month’s report.

Nevertheless, the companies we review in this report are trying hard to bring fine small-lot single-origin coffees to customers via the Internet, with interesting coffee selections, extensive descriptions, and (in most cases) prompt shipping after roasting. But based on the results of our testing, the very best and most distinguished small lots are not being offered by these companies. Perhaps there is not enough volume available of these often tiny lots to warrant publicizing and selling them on the Internet. The very best, superfine microlots appear to be either being offered by smaller, more agile companies, or perhaps even offered as specials over the counter at the roastery cafés operated by some of companies reviewed here.

Nonetheless, you are generally better off buying from any of the Internet sites than shopping for coffee at your local supermarket or general specialty food store. We base this observation on the coffee ratings of our supermarket survey from this past February, Trolling the Supermarkets for Single-Origin Coffees.

Given the emphasis among these six companies on seasonal offerings of small-lot single-origins, go for the single-origins and not the blends. This advice probably applies to almost all leading edge roasting companies today. The only time this observation appears to break down is during the holidays, when many companies compete to see how brilliant and special they can make their holiday blends.

The post When the Small Get Big (and the Big Try for Small) appeared first on Coffee Review.

What options, we wondered, are available in the way of exciting, distinctive single-origin coffees at the local supermarket or big specialty food store? Are there coffees that consumers can just pull off the shelf and toss in their carts during a weekly shopping run that at least come close in quality and character to those available from the websites of smaller, higher-end roasting companies?

Although various cities and neighborhoods in our home base, the San Francisco Bay Area, regularly enjoy periods of self-congratulatory “it’s all happening here, folks” culinary buzz (Oakland is enjoying one of those moments as I write), the actual array of supermarket, specialty food and big box chains in our area is typical of those found in most large U.S. urban centers. We scouted the aisles of Safeway, by far the dominant supermarket chain in our region, of Target, of Costco, of Trader Joe’s, the innovating value-oriented specialty food chain, and of Whole Foods, the more upmarket innovating specialty food chain.

Although we bought coffees for which “single origin” was defined by the broadest of criteria – coffee produced in a single country from a single crop year – we particularly focused on finding coffees that fit the single-origin epithet more closely: coffees from a single farm or coop, or even a special selection from a single farm or coop.

An Overview

Very roughly, the roasters of the coffees we bought fell into the following categories: 1) major national or international brands (Maxwell House, Lavazza, Gevalia, Dunkin’ Donuts, McCafé, Illy); 2) national specialty coffee chains (Starbucks, Peet’s); 3) proprietary store brands (Trader Joe’s, Target’s Archer Farms, Whole Foods’ Allegro, Safeway Select); 3) elite specialty roasters with increasing national presence and satellite roasting facilities in our area (Intelligentsia Coffee, Counter Culture Coffee); and a scattering of offerings from genuinely local-only specialty roasting companies of varying sizes (in this case the largish Mr. Espresso in Oakland and the smaller Ritual Coffee Roasters and Sightglass Coffee in San Francisco).

We bought and tested thirty-eight samples. We did not, alas, find any 94- or 95-rated, palate-blowing gems. But the top twelve, nine of which are reviewed here, netted rather impressive ratings of 88 to 93. The entire array of thirty-eight coffees averaged around 85. Since we were able to buy more Colombias than any other single-origin, and because we wanted to convey some sense of the overall range of coffee quality and character we experienced, we added to the nine reviews of high-rated samples a review of a mid-rated Colombia (the 84-rated Safeway Kitchens 100% Colombia) and a very low-rated Colombia (the 75-rated Maxwell House 100% Colombia Medium Roast).

Big-Store Coffee Shopping: Some Issues and Answers

Cupping for this report raised an interesting set of issues and questions, more interesting than I had expected. Here, from a consumer perspective, are some questions and answers provoked by our little sampling.

Q: How important is buying coffee as whole bean and grinding it yourself as opposed to buying it pre-ground?

A: Apparently quite important. Of the six coffees rated 90 or higher, five were whole bean. The average rating for whole bean samples was 86; for pre-ground 84. This should come as no surprise, of course. Roasted beans are natural packages protecting the delicate aromatic substances that give coffee its sensory appeal. Break them open and even the most sophisticated packaging techniques are feeble compensation for the protection lost by premature grinding.

Q: What is the best origin to buy at supermarkets or specialty food stores?

A: Clearly, based on this very limited sampling, Kenya. We tested only two Kenyas; both placed among the three top-rated coffees in the cupping: the Ritual Coffee Kenya Karatina AA Espresso topped the ratings at 93 (tested here for brewed coffee applications, not espresso) and the Trader Joe’s Kenya AA Medium Roast tied for second at 92. However, another origin that regularly attracts high ratings on Coffee Review, Ethiopia, did not burn through the ratings this time round: three samples, high 88, low 84, average 87. Guatemala did well (three samples, including the 92-rated Allegro Organic Guatemala Asuvim Micro-Lot: high 92, low 85, average 88). Central Africa (Rwanda and Tanzania) also did rather well (four samples: high 89; low 83; average 87).

It should come as no surprise, however, that Colombia turned out to be the most frequently appearing single-origin on store shelves. Colombia has recovered from its recent weather-related crisis and is currently producing very large quantities of often quite good coffee at reasonable prices. Plus there is still the residual impact of decades of effective marketing of Colombia coffee around the photogenic Juan Valdez character and his donkey. Fourteen of the thirty-eight samples we tested were Colombias. However, they ranged enormously in quality, from a high of 90 to a low of 69, with an average of 84.

Two Colombias attracted the 90 rating. One was a surprise: the McCafé 100% Colombian, the highest-rated pre-ground sample in the cupping. The other 90-rated Colombia was a more predictably successful offering, a whole-bean Colombia Nariño Medium Roast from a respected, long-established local roasting company, Mr. Espresso. Other solid Colombias were the pre-ground Colombia Luminosa from Peet’s Coffee (88) and the whole-bean “Big Trouble” Colombia from Counter Culture Coffee (88). With the exception of the 90-rated McCafé Colombia, pre-ground Colombias from other major national brands ranged from disappointing to outright bad: Dunkin’ Donuts Colombian (83); Folgers 100% Colombian Medium Dark (77), and the 75-rated Maxwell House 100% Colombian Medium Roast.

Q: Is it a safer bet to buy a supermarket coffee produced by a local roaster than one from a nationally branded roaster?

A: Based on our modest sampling, the answer is a qualified yes, particularly when considering the coffees at the very top of the ratings: Four of the total of six 90-plus-rated coffees we tested came from roasters identified as local. Two were from San-Francisco-based Ritual Coffee and one was from the largish Oakland wholesale roaster Mr. Espresso. We included the 92-rated Allegro Guatemala Asuvim in the local category because it was roasted in Allegro’s nearby Berkeley small-batch roasting facility, not in Allegro’s large national facility. On the other hand, a classic small-roaster single-origin coffee (Sumatra Siliban Village) from Sightglass Coffee , a highly-regarded San Francisco company, did only moderately well at 87, and a locally, satellite-roasted Intelligentsia coffee disappointed (probably owing mainly to roast and packaging issues) at 86. Keep in mind that small, local roasters typically do not use expensive, sophisticated packaging techniques to protect coffee (see our section on Supermarket Packaging and Freshness later in this report), so if a store’s inventory of these local, small-roaster coffees is not refreshed regularly, quality suffers.

Q: What about roast?

A: As is usual with our surveys, the highest-rated coffees were brought to a medium roast, although this month’s samples showed a wide range of medium, with some samples quite light, like the top-rated Ritual Coffee Kenya Karatina (93), and others darkish like the 90-rated McCafé 100% Colombian.

And, as usual, we ran into a few coffees roasted so dark that putting an origin name on the bag constituted a meaningless gesture. Furthermore, with these super-dark-roasted coffees the roast name on the bag often had little connection to what appeared inside. The word “Medium” might appear on the bag, while inside a dark- (sometimes very dark-) roasted coffee showed up. Nevertheless, with most of the samples we tested, the roast description on the bag more or less matched the actual roast style of the coffee.

Q: Which of the supermarket/specialty foods/big box chains surveyed appeared to do best by single-origin coffees?

A: All chain locations we visited offered a more or less reasonable selection of decent single-origin coffees except our local Costco, which seems to have given up on carrying much in the way of coffee aside from a handful of super-dark-roasted selections produced by Starbucks. Our neighborhood Safeway seems to be mounting a significant effort to carry local roasters among its generally wide, if rather motley, selection of nationally-branded, mostly pre-ground coffees. Whole Foods, as usual, offered a good range of single-origin coffees, including locally roasted selections from Allegro Coffee, its specialty coffee subsidiary. The very interesting lineup of rather sophisticated single-origin coffees offered by Target’s Archer Farms brand was in part compromised by their pre-ground format, although scores were still solid (three samples; high of 89, low of 85, average 87). Trader Joe’s, on the other hand, sells its robust if rather generically described line of single-origin coffees in whole-bean format only (four samples; high 92, low 84, average 87.5).

Supermarket Packaging and Freshness

Packaging strategies used to protect freshly roasted coffee from the staling impact of oxygen are complex. As I noted earlier, all packaging works best when the coffee inside the packaging is whole bean rather than ground. Pre-grinding coffee enormously ups the freshness ante, making technically superior packaging absolutely essential. What follows is an overview of how coffee packaging works and can be evaluated. If you are not interested in the technical details, stop here – I hope you enjoyed the portion of our report you have already read. But if you are interested, here goes.

The Small Roaster Strategy

Most smaller roasting companies use a simple packaging strategy. They seal freshly roasted whole-bean coffee inside foil bags with little one-way valves embedded in the foil. (From the outside these valves look like slightly elevated, nickel-sized circles with a hole in the middle.) The valves allow the large flows of CO2 emitted by the freshly roasted beans to exit the bag, along the way forcing out, or diluting, most of the oxygen-bearing air inside the bag. The valve, if it works right, prevents air/oxygen from re-entering the bag after the flow of CO2 has diminished. This strategy more or less works to protect whole-bean coffee over short periods of time, say two or three weeks. The best smaller roasters supplement this approach by printing “roasted on” dates on the packaging, so that consumers can make their own judgment regarding whether the coffee inside these bags is likely to be fresh enough for them.

This month’s top-rated, locally roasted Ritual Coffee Kenya Karatina (93), for example, a coffee almost certainly packaged using a variation on the simple strategy outlined above and bearing a prominent “roasted on” date, showed 4.5% residual oxygen still in the bag with the coffee, considerably less than the approximate 21% oxygen in the atmosphere. It came across on the cupping table as relatively fresh and lively, presumably because it was recently roasted and the oxygen exposure inside the bag was modest.

The Big Roaster Strategy

Understandably, larger roasting companies with national, or even international, reach cannot depend on such simple packaging expedients. Their business models require a longer shelf life: in the United States usually between eight months and a year, in Europe even longer. These large companies typically use the same foil bags with one-way valve as used by small roasters, but they also employ sophisticated packaging machinery that clears the bags of oxygen-bearing atmosphere at the moment the coffee drops into the bags and a split-second before they are sealed. In the most frequently used technique, the oxygen-bearing atmosphere is displaced in the bag at the moment of filling by an injection of pure nitrogen gas, which, unlike oxygen, does not promote staling.

The majority of the nationally branded coffees we tested were clearly packaged using variations on this more sophisticated technique, often called “nitrogen flushing” or simply “flushing.” Sometimes cans or jars are used in place of the foil bags, and the crucial one-way valve is embedded in the foil that seals the top of the can or jar rather than appearing on the side of a bag. If all has gone well, such flushed packaging almost always registers 0% residual oxygen inside the package by the time it reaches store shelves and the consumer. In other words, no unabsorbed oxygen remains in the bag or can with the coffee until the moment it is opened.

For example, the best-rated of the pre-ground samples we tested, the McCafé Colombia, showed 0% oxygen. On the other hand, some lower rated nationally or internationally branded samples also showed 0%, yet still were listless or faded in the cup, probably because (still another variable) they were ground in advance of packaging and needed to be allowed to sit before packaging in order to dissipate the first explosive volumes of CO2 initially liberated by roasting and grinding (a process called “degassing”). Or they may have been feeble green coffees to begin with.

Some Takeaways

Still with me? I hope so. To sum up, whole-bean coffees packaged by small companies with recent “roasted on” dates are a good bet for freshness, as are whole bean coffees packaged by large companies using sophisticated equipment. To repeat, preground coffees are likely to be at least a little faded no matter how well-executed the packaging.

Finally, there are occasional major failures. Whole-bean coffees in simple packaging with no “roasted on” dates may be allowed to stale on the shelves (we tested one such semi-staled sample, produced by a very respectable local roaster). And pre-ground coffees in sophisticated packaging may on occasion turn up with that packaging compromised by malfunctioning valves or leaky bag seams. Such flaws can expose the coffee to staling oxygen for months. One of the two Lavazza coffees we tested (Santa Marta Colombia, 69) showed 20% residual oxygen in the bag and a cup so faded that it tasted like vaguely sweetened cardboard. In fact we found three out of approximately twenty-two big-company coffee samples with their sophisticated packaging compromised and showing around 20% residual oxygen, suggesting a failure rate of about 14% for this kind of packaging, a figure that some realists in the packaging industry probably would not find surprising, although many large companies appear to do much better.

You may ask, why not use both this fancy oxygen-reducing procedure and print a “roasted on” date on the packaging? Our locally based but nationally present neighbor Peet’s Coffee appears to do just that. On the side of each bag of Peet’s coffee we bought at our local supermarket we got the date on which the coffee was actually roasted as well as the usual “best by” date, which in Peet’s case was three months out from roasting, a rather reassuring figure given the eight months to a year the coffee industry more typically applies to such coffee packaging. And both of the Peet’s coffees we tested (high 88, low 87) showed 0% residual oxygen. Too bad we don’t resonate to Peet’s darker roast styles. Having worked our way through this exercise, however, we have to love Peet’s packaging practices and the integrity those practices suggest.

The post Trolling the Supermarkets for Single-Origin Coffees appeared first on Coffee Review.

In 2015, we cupped thousands of samples and published more than 300 coffee reviews. Approximately ninety of the reviewed coffees scored 94 points or higher. Obviously, all coffees earning scores of 94 points or more are exceptional. But we couldn’t include them all, and some were more unusual or noteworthy or better values than others. Consequently, some outstanding coffees were left off the list. However, every coffee on the list is remarkable or exciting in some way.

As in past years, we selected and ranked our Top 30 coffees and espressos based on quality (represented by overall rating), value (reflected by most affordable price per pound), and consideration of other factors that include distinctiveness of style, uniqueness of origin or tree variety, certifications such as Fair Trade and organic, and general rarity.

As in past years, our rankings featured a significant number high-scoring coffees produced from botanical varieties of Arabica with striking sensory properties: coffees of the Gesha/Geisha variety and coffees from the distinctive traditional varieties from Ethiopia and Kenya. In 2015, in an effort to provide greater variety in the Top 30 and somewhat minimize the dominance of coffees from these super-star varieties, we refined our ranking process to place greater importance on factors other than overall score.

For 2015, we also decided to create additional categories to help focus attention on fine coffees from less celebrated origins and/or produced from more common botanical varieties. The coffees in the category rankings may not have attracted superlative ratings of 95 points or more but they merit recognition for their excellence, nonetheless.

For those who are curious about why certain coffees from certain tree varieties tend to score better than coffees from other tree varieties, or generally are interested in how we conduct our testing and rating process at Coffee Review, we recommend reading Editor Kenneth Davids’ piece, How Coffee Review Works.

Breaking Down the Top 30

The average overall rating of the coffees on the Top 30 list for 2015 is 94.8 out of a possible 100, the same as 2014 and slightly higher than the 94.4 average in 2013. The average price is $40.33 per pound, up from $37.98 in 2014, and $35.00 in 2013.

For the second year in a row, a coffee from Panama was named the top coffee of the year. This year’s No. 1 coffee is Finca La Mula Geisha, roasted by JBC Coffee Roasters in Madison, Wisconsin from coffee grown on Willem Boot’s La Mula farm in western Panama. We described the coffee, which earned 97 points (out of a possible 100) as, “Immense, sweet, juicy, intricate. Lilac and jasmine, peach, apricot, rosehip, much more in aroma and cup.”

Six of the Top 30 coffees in 2015 come from trees of the Gesha variety grown in Panama. Gesha or “Geisha” is a rare Ethiopia-derived botanical variety of Arabica that boasts elongated beans and a distinctive floral and chocolate cup.

Coffees appearing on the list were grown in eleven different countries. The most frequently appearing origins are Panama and Ethiopia, with six coffees each. Other origins with multiple coffees on the list are Kenya (4), Colombia (2), Nicaragua (2), Costa Rica (2), and Sumatra (2).

Given that Coffee Review’s tasting facilities are based in the United States, it is not surprising that 27 of the 30 coffees on the list were roasted by companies in the United States. California roasters dominated the rankings this year with nine representatives overall. However, coffees roasted by companies in Canada, Taiwan, and China also appeared on the list at No. 29, No. 8, and No. 2, respectively.

Regular Coffee Review readers will recognize many of the roasters appearing on the Top-30 list. Six roasters had two coffees on the 2015 Top 30 list: Dragonfly Coffee, JBC Coffee, Klatch Coffee, Old Soul Co., PT’s Coffee, and Temple Coffee. All six of these roasters are Coffee Review advertisers, although their status as advertisers had no bearing on their review ratings or their selection to the Top 30. For one thing, we cup coffees blind, identified by number only. We do this consistently and rigorously. Also, here is what happens over the long run: Roasters interested in Coffee Review send us their coffees for review. Some of these coffees do not attract high ratings. Others do. Those roasters whose coffees attract high ratings then send even more coffees for review on a more consistent basis, and at some point may become advertisers in order to further capitalize on the success of their coffees. In other words, it is not that advertising leads to consistent high ratings, but that consistent high ratings sometimes lead to advertising.

Tree Variety, Processing Method and Diversity

The variety of tree that produced the coffee appears to play a crucial role in cracking the Top 30. In 2015, six coffees came from the rare and celebrated Gesha variety, six from trees of ancient, distinctive-tasting varieties native to Ethiopia, and four from the heirloom, Bourbon-related SL 28 and SL 34 varieties responsible for the finest coffees of Kenya. In addition, two Top-30 coffees were produced from trees of the rare, big-beaned Pacamara variety and one from the tiny-beaned, but even rarer Mokka. So, in the case of at least 19 of the Top 30 coffees, unusual or rare tree variety appeared to play an important role in generating an exceptional cup worthy of a high rating. For more on botanical variety and the role it plays in fine coffee see Kenneth Davids’ How Coffee Review Works or our December 2011 tasting report, Single-Variety Coffees: Aficionado Fun.

Processing method also appears to play a significant role in qualifying for the Top 30. On this year’s list, for example, seven coffees were dry-processed or “natural,” meaning the beans were dried inside the fruit rather than after the fruit has been removed, as is the case with wet-processed or “washed” coffees. Until relatively recently, dry-processing was seldom if ever applied to high-end specialty coffees like those that appear in our Top 30 list. This showing is evidence of a continuing trend toward use of alternative processing methods as creative tools for crafting distinctive cup profiles.

There are other signs of greater diversity of coffee types in the 2015 Top 30 list. For example, last year there were no decaffeinated coffees in the Top 30. This year, one at least, No. 23, was a decaf. Last year, only one blend appeared. This year, there were two. In 2014, only one coffee designated for espresso brewing made the list, versus four in 2015. At least three Top 30 coffees in 2015 were certified organic.

The Cost Factor

Returning to value considerations, the average price of coffees on the list was $40.33 per pound, although that average was skewed upwards by the six extremely expensive Geshas.

Not surprisingly, higher scoring coffees tended to cost more:

97-point coffee (1) = $119.90/pound

96-point coffees (7) = $78.74/pound

95-point coffees (11) = $23.68/pound

94-point-or-less coffees (11) = $25.30/pound

However, one of the selection criteria for the Top 30 coffees was value or affordability, measured by price per pound. Many of the coffees on the list are priced in line with similar single-origin specialty coffees. Three coffees on the list were priced at less than $18 per pound, and 16, or more than half, cost less than $25 per pound. The top two coffees on the list were also the most expensive, selling for the equivalent of more than $120 per pound. The three most affordable coffees on the list were the No. 29 Reunion Island Colombia Las Hermosas ($11.95/12 ounces), No. 30 Red Rooster FTO Congo Sopacdi Cooperative ($13.49/12 ounces), and No. 10 Willoughby’s Kenya AA Kigwandi Estate ($17.99/16 ounces).

VIEW TOP 30 COFFEES OF 2015

The post Top 30 Coffees of 2015 appeared first on Coffee Review.

Splurging on very expensive but very rare and amazing coffees like those produced from the superstar variety Gesha (or Geisha), for example, is one way to break out of the habitual into the memorable, and several roasters took that route. Of the four Geshas we review here, all were dried-in-the-fruit or “natural” versions, all were aromatically intricate and surprising, though each was subtly different, from the sweet, spicy, perfectly structured PT’s Panama Auromar Geisha Natural Peaberry (96) to the immense, floral-saturated Geisha Coffee Roasters El Burro Geisha Tachi Natural (95) to the richly fruity/savory Giv COFFEE Panama Boquete Kotowa Gesha Natural (94) and the sweetly balanced, melodic Willoughby’s Panama Finca Auromar Camilina Natural (94).

Other single-origin efforts memorable enough to make the cut were a bold-beaned, spicy-sweet natural-processed Pacamara (the 95-rated Old Soul Co. Nicaragua Pacamara Los Congos Lot #8) and an unusual dried-in-the-fruit Kona (the 93-rated Hula Daddy Hokulele Kona).

Taking the Holiday Blend Route

A second way roasters aimed at the holiday exceptional was with an unusual or striking holiday blend. Producing a great blend for the holidays appears to have become an implicit competition among some roasters; if so, we cupped a few major contenders this month. The general strategy roasters pursued was juxtaposing a fine, lush-tending dried-in-the-fruit natural Ethiopia with one or more brighter, crisper wet-processed coffees. The Ghost Town Holiday Blend (95), for example, combined a dried-in-the-fruit Ethiopia, floral and fruity, with a doubtlessly brisker, more pungent wet-processed Kenya. Two blends complicated this approach by adding a second wet-processed coffee: the Red Rooster Holiday Blend (93) juxtaposed a wet-processed Colombia with both a wet-processed and a dried-in-the-fruit Ethiopia, while Olympia Coffee’s Holiday Blend (94) brought together wet-processed Honduras microlot coffees from the Capucas Cooperative, a dried-in-the-fruit Ethiopia Yirgacheffe, and a classic wet-processed Kenya.

Perhaps the most original in composition of the blends reviewed this month, the Velton’s Coffee Holiday Blend (93), combined coffees from two origins we seldom have an opportunity to sample at Coffee Review: a Java from small holders at the west end of that Indonesian island (most coffee is produced by large farms nearer the east end) and a Papua New Guinea, which together netted an unusual spice- and almond-toned cup.

Holiday Implications

What did the coffees reviewed this month suggest about current trends in high-end specialty coffee?

• It appears that, for now, dried-in-the-fruit, “natural”-processed coffees rule. All of the single-origin coffees we reviewed this month at 93 or higher were naturals, even the Hawaii Kona and the Pacamara. Perhaps roasters feel that the fruit and chocolate tendencies of the type particularly suit wintery expectations.
• Our cupping seems to have confirmed the ongoing trend of creating assertive seasonal blends from two to three distinctive, individualistic coffees, rather than quieter year-round blends from multiple origins.
• Finally, roasters appeared more inclined than ever to share their blend formulas, rather than conceal or mystify them.

Perhaps the most impressive trend overall was toward quality and distinction: of the thirty-five holiday coffees we cupped for this article, twenty-two rated at least 90, and an impressive twelve, all reviewed here, scored 93 or better.

Coffee Review associate editors and co-cuppers Kim Westerman and Jason Sarley were particularly instrumental in crafting this month’s reviews.

The post Holiday Coffees 2015 appeared first on Coffee Review.

Assuming this pair of third-party certifications is enough to satisfy skeptical consumers’ socio-economic and environmental concerns, what about the pleasure part?

Eight at 90 or Better

Of the nineteen certified coffees we tested, eight rated 90 or higher, an excellent showing. Five others rated 87 to 88, a decent showing, leaving only six rated 86 or lower.

However, this impressive performance is mainly owing to coffees from one origin. The five top-rated coffees, all 91 to 93, are Ethiopias. By comparison, only two Central America coffees attracted a 90-or-better rating: the spicy, nutty Ghost Town Guatemala CODECH (90) and the deeply chocolaty Paradise Roasters FTO Guatemala Huehuetenango (90). A gently pungent Peru from Giv COFFEE (90) filled out the complement of eight 90-plus reviews. We also reviewed two solid 88-rated coffees, the sweet-savory, perfumy Honduras Finca Gaby from Magnolia Coffee and the crisply pungent Roast House 423 Blend, comprised of Fair Trade/organic coffees from Guatemala, Mexico and Indonesia.

Ethiopia Explanation

The dominance of the Ethiopia coffees is probably attributable to three factors. As always, the complexity and originality of the native varieties of Arabica grown in the southern and western parts of the country give Ethiopias a sensory edge, no matter what the theme of the cupping. Second, the ongoing epidemic of leaf-rust disease in Central America constitutes a persistent challenge for all producers in the region, but particularly, perhaps, for small-holding farmers like those responsible for most of the region’s Fair Trade/organic-certified production. Also, the seasonal timing of our cupping may have discouraged the submission of more Fair Trade Certified coffees from Peru, one of the countries where the Fair Trade program has been most successful.

Sustainability Gone Mainstream

Finally, and most controversially, it is possible that Fair Trade certification may be losing its value as a marketing differentiator for coffee in the U.S. In other words, the Fair Trade seal may not give a coffee and a roaster quite as powerful a boost with consumers as it once did, encouraging a further shrinking of the pool of top Fair Trade Certified coffees available for our cupping. Not because specialty roasters or their customers have lost interest in sustainability for small-holding farmers and other farm workers. Rather, because that commitment appears to have diffused and gone mainstream.

In 1999, when Fair Trade Certified coffee was first launched in the U.S. under the leadership of Paul Rice, there was only one other significant coffee certification: organic. Now there are multiple certifications addressing an overlapping array of socio-economic and environmental concerns. They include major third-party-verified certifications like Rainforest Alliance and UTZ Certified, plus smaller, more specialized certifications like Smithsonian Bird Friendly. Starbucks has its own Café Practices certification, Nespresso its admired AAA Sustainable Quality Program. Mainstream coffee companies have led in the founding of the 4C Association, which sets “an entry-level standard that defines a global common baseline and starts all coffee supply chain actors on the path to the sustainable production, processing, and trade of coffee.”

Additionally, adherents of the loosely defined group of practices called Direct Trade make the argument that their independent efforts to build long-term relationships with producers by paying more for distinctive coffees net better money for those producers and better coffees for their customers in ways that both supplement and exceed what can be achieved through certifying programs like Fair Trade.

And Fair Trade USA itself has modestly widened its mission. Originally available only to democratically run cooperatives of small producers, Fair Trade Certification is now available to groups of small producers who work with a single exporter or wet mill, as well as to some qualifying farms or estates. Nevertheless, Fair Trade USA remains primarily focused on small-holder cooperatives. Ben Corey-Moran, Director of Coffee Supply for Fair Trade USA, points out that 95% of its certified coffees continue to originate with democratically managed cooperatives of the kind that Fair Trade Certification was originally designed to promote and support.

More Pressure on Fair Trade

Other trends are haunting Fair Trade Certified. The rigorously monitored farm-to-cup integration of the Fair Trade Certified movement appears to be unraveling a bit, for example. Three of the ten high-rated coffees we review this month were produced by Fair Trade Certified cooperatives, but because the three roasters retailing these coffees are currently not Fair Trade Certified, they cannot display the Fair Trade USA seal on packaging or websites. The complex reporting and record-keeping involved in maintaining Fair Trade certification is doubtless daunting for smaller roasting companies, as it is for some farmers. The time and effort involved in maintaining certification may make sense for roasting companies that make Fair Trade Certified a major element in their identity and marketing, but it may not for those small companies that simply want to offer one or two good Fair Trade Certified coffees as part of a general product mix.

“Fairly Traded”?

For the record, anyone can call coffees “fair trade” or (the current favorite among copy writers) “fairly traded,” since neither term is the intellectual property of Fair Trade USA. However, only coffees for which the entire supply chain is certified by Fair Trade USA, from producer through importer to roaster, can legally display the Fair Trade USA seal and call its coffees “Fair Trade Certified.” Some complain that this tight vertical monitoring of the supply chain is limiting and coercive. On the other hand, Fair Trade USA also can justifiably complain that roasters who are not certified are freeloading, since Fair Trade USA has invested heavily in the formation and publicizing of the fair trade concept, as well as in helping cooperatives of small holders to produce more and better coffees over the long term.

Nevertheless, even if the institution we know as Fair Trade USA is eventually swamped in a sea of competing certifications, roaster defections and ambiguous marketing language, I would argue that it has honorably and successfully served its cause by pioneering the case for action in support of small-holding coffee producers who for decades have been routinely crushed by the logic of a commodity system pursuing price and volume largely absent of any consideration of environment, people, or quality of goods and experience. Fair Trade Certification itself could perhaps wither (I hope it does not), but it appears that its cause has an enduring life and power.

The post Fair Trade Certified Coffees appeared first on Coffee Review.

On the other hand, specialty coffee at the producer end is also full-on into a move toward diversification and differentiation, just as intense as the trend toward homogenization. Farmers all over the world are experimenting with different coffee varieties chosen for one reason only, which is that they taste different and/or better than more familiar varieties, and for that reason can command higher premiums per pound. And as a further strategy for differentiation, farmers and millers are experimenting with exotic processing methods, including refined versions of the ancient dry or “natural” method, in which the coffee is dried inside the fruit, and experiments with the honey or pulped-natural method, in which skins are removed, but some or all of the fruit pulp is allowed to dry on the beans. Both of these methods, although tricky to pull off successfully, have a profound differentiating impact on taste, and done right can generate significantly higher premiums per pound for the producer.

Both trends, toward homogeneity and toward differentiation, are on display in Central America today. But between them, what is being lost, or at least overlooked? Potentially the subtle, familiar variations on the familiar, classic Central American cup, produced from well-established tree varieties like Bourbon, Caturra, Catuai and Typica and processed by variations on ferment-and-wash methods.

Look back over Coffee Review’s Central America reviews over the past couple of years and you will find plenty of pricey coffees from the newly rediscovered and exciting Gesha variety, for example, plus many high-rated coffees processed by exotic natural or honey methods. But what about the standards? What about classic wet-processed coffees from Central American origins produced from traditional varieties not named Gesha?

Surveying the Classics

We tried our best to sample that familiar, classic world of Central American coffees with this month’s cupping. We tested 39 samples from 25 roasting companies in the U.S. and East Asia. All of the main Central American producing countries were represented, although some were more thoroughly represented than others. We tested fourteen Guatemalas, seven El Salvadors, seven from Honduras, five Panamas, four Nicaraguas, and two Costa Ricas.

All were wet-processed coffees (no natural- or honey-processed samples). Based on cup and on description, the majority appear to have been processed by traditional ferment-and-wash methods rather than by short-cut, squeeze-and-scrub mechanical demucilaging methods. None were Geshas.

Quest Fulfilled?

So, did we turn up some outstanding examples of fine, classic wet-processed Central America coffees, balanced, bright but not too bright, aromatically complete but not flashy, with subtly engaging variations?

We did.

However, the distinctions among the best of these samples were not dramatic, and intense attention often was required to distinguish between what, for us, was a quintessentially complete, well-structured cup with a quiet but intriguing sensory story line that we might rate 92 or 93, for example, and a solid, balanced cup with a satisfying but somewhat simpler story line, which we might rate at anywhere from 91 to 89, and cups that were, well, edging down from solid and balanced toward flat and simple (anywhere from 88 to 85). It took particular attention to make distinctions between a 92 and a 93, for example, or a 91 and a 92, distinctions that seem much simpler to make with more intense, individualistic origins like Ethiopia, Kenya or Sumatra, or with coffees processed by more unorthodox methods that produce more idiosyncratic cup profiles.

Take the Old Soul Panama Elida Estate Lot #6, for example, which we ultimately rated at 92. This coffee might work as a poster cup for classic Central America washed coffees. Produced from trees of the solid but not distinctive Catuai variety, cleanly processed by the wet or washed method, and brought to a tactful and appropriate roast, in this case a roast at the slightly darkish end of medium we used to call “City,” together net a deeply sweet cup, balanced, complete, with quietly though not dramatically complex aromatics. This is a coffee that people who say “I just like coffee that tastes like coffee” ought to particularly enjoy. The Victrola Honduras Santa Barbara Finca Las Brisas (Bourbon and Pacas varieties, 92) offers a similar appeal. The Bartok Coffee Guatemala Huehuetenango El Rincon (Bourbon and Caturra varieties, 93) proposes a lighter-roasted version of a similarly classic Central America cup, with the light roast helping turn it crisper, higher-toned, with an emphasis on flowers and citrus zest. The Kickapoo Coffee Organic Guatemala Rio Azul (92) offers a particular style of small-holder coffee that benefits both from traditional tree varieties (Bourbon and Typica) and from a slight, serendipitous harvesting/processing taint, a whisky-like hint of sweet ferment that complicates the fruit notes, a “clean” fresh-tasting ferment that I particularly associate with some of the better small-holder coffees of Central America.

The Spoiler Pacamaras and Maracaturras

Complicating, or enriching, our search for the classic Central American cup were several quietly but strikingly distinctive samples produced from trees of the Pacamara and Maracaturra varieties of Arabica. Both of these varieties are showy, bold-beaned hybrids developed over the past decades (the Pacamara in El Salvador, the Maracaturra originally by farmer Byron Corrales in Nicaragua). Both are crosses of compact-growing varieties (Pacas and Caturra respectively, both natural mutants of Bourbon) with the huge-beaned, low-yielding Maragogipe variety, a natural mutant of Typica first found in Brazil. The resulting hybrids, Pacamara and Maracaturra, with their big showy beans, also often display subtly distinctive cup character, usually tending toward a juxtaposition of crisp, savory-sweet, nut-toned depth with complicating notes that range from pungent, berryish fruit to quiet florals. But since neither of these varieties displays the consistently striking, recognizable character of Gesha, we decided to allow them into this month’s sampling, to be cupped along with coffees produced from more familiar, traditional varieties popular in Central America like Caturra, Catuai, Typica and the heirloom Bourbon.

As it turned out, the relative success of these big-beaned hybrids, particularly the Pacamaras, did distort our results a bit. Of the ten samples that scored 92 or better, three were from trees of the Pacamara variety: the top-rated El Salvador Finca Medrano Nohemi Ventura from Korea’s Namusairo Coffee (94), the Equator Coffee Guatemala El Injerto Pandora del Carmen (92), and the Namusairo El Salvador Los Vasquez Pacamara (rated 92 but not reviewed). Two of the three Maracaturra samples we cupped also did quite well: the Bird Rock Guatemala El Socorro Maracaturra, reviewed here at 92, and the Willoughby’s Guatemala Finca El Socorro, rated 91 but not reviewed.

Other exotic varieties included a sample of the original, huge-beaned Maragogipe variety (Bird Rock Guatemala La Bolsa Maragogype, rated 90 but not reviewed) and a sample from trees of the SL-28, the variety most responsible for the great coffees of Kenya. Planted in central Costa Rica and roasted by Korean roaster Coffee Roasters Avenue, the Costa Rica Herbazu Finca Leoncio SL-28 offered a fine variation on the pungent, dry-berry character of Kenya at a rating of 91.

The Cup-Suspect Varieties

As far as the newer disease-resistant hybrids incorporating robusta genes go, we had very little to go on with this month’s sampling. Catimor, an early-version robusta-incorporating hybrid that is particularly neutral in the cup, has been planted in some Central American fields, but almost always turns up mixed in with other varieties, as it did in one of this month’s samples. Apparently the more recently developed, more sophisticated robusta-incorporating hybrids have so far only been widely planted in Honduras. We did test one sample made up purely of coffee from trees of the Lempira variety, a robusta-incorporating hybrid particularly popular in Honduras. Nicely roasted, it produced a brisk, rather zesty, though not particularly inspiring cup at 89.

Tellingly, perhaps, Honduras’s overall coffee production is predicted (by the U.S. Department of Agriculture) to rise in this coming year by 13%, despite the ravages of the leaf rust epidemic, a gain attributed mainly to widespread planting of disease-resistant hybrids like Lempira. On the other hand, in El Salvador, where the coffee industry has honorably and high-mindedly remained focused on more distinctive-cupping but more disease-prone varieties like Pacamara and the heirloom Bourbon, coffee production is predicted to be flat for the coming year, with overall production having declined since the onset of the rust epidemic in 2013 by an extraordinary, heart-rending 44%. This, of course, is a statistic that can make gourmet coffee writers who yammer on lovingly about Bourbons and Pacamaras seem a bit like narcissistic ghouls. On the other hand, there is some questioning of the long-term agronomic wisdom of converting exclusively to disease-resistant varieties rather than sticking with the possibly more resilient range of varieties that is typical in Central America. See the thoughtful blog, Coffee-Leaf Rust: Problems with Rust-Resistant Varieties by Patrick Hughes posted at Barista Magazine. [http://baristamagazine.com/blog/coffee-leaf-rust-problems-with-rust-resistant-varieties/].

And it is clear that farmers who grow distinctive-tasting but disease-prone varieties of Arabica do now have tools available to combat leaf-rust, assuming they have the resources to deploy those tools. Carlos Batres, owner of the admired Montecarlos Coffee Estate in El Salvador, a farm that mainly produces Bourbon and Pacamara, reports that by using currently available fifth-generation fungicides, his farm has controlled the disease, and he expects his production to return to normal levels in 2016. But small-holding producers throughout Central America, particularly those who are on their own and not associated with successful cooperatives, are simply abandoning coffee, and doubtless suffering along the way.

Have-It-All Varieties?

Those unfamiliar with the technical and scientific challenges of coffee production may ask, with innocent logic: Well, why doesn’t the coffee industry just develop hybrids that are not only disease-resistant, but also taste good and taste different?

First, because developing new varieties is hard to do and it’s expensive. Second, because until recently there has been a chasm-like split between technical people who do the breeding and those in the specialty coffee industry who care about taste and differentiation. Third, the specialty coffee industry itself has only recently got the difference straight between quality (how free a coffee is of taints and distractions) and distinctiveness (how different a coffee tastes from other coffees, given equal freedom from taints and distractions). When you confuse coffee quality with coffee distinction you are simply not in a good position to evaluate the cup character of new varieties and, hence, their potential market value.

But the word is out, and the recently founded World Coffee Research (WCR) organization, for one, claims to be focusing both on productivity and cup character in a sophisticated new breeding program that incorporates genetic coding and commits to an impressive, well-considered agenda. Unfortunately, the WCR predicts that it will take years of patient work to produce new varieties that will fulfill the program’s lofty, inspiring goal: coffee trees tough enough to meet the challenges of disease and climate change that still taste amazing.

The post Traditional Coffees of Central America: Quest for the Classic appeared first on Coffee Review.