HomeRoast Digest

Topic: Objective Coffee Cupping and Scoring? (18 msgs / 362 lines)
1) From: Eddie Dove
Whilst Googling about the Viennese Blend question I had, one of the
links to me to a "Coffee Review" that struck me as odd.  Amongst the
cupping notes, a reference read "As brewed in a Keurig B60
single-serve brewing device using a "K-Cup" capsule to produce 6-ounce
and 8-ounce serving sizes."  Brewed in this fashion, the coffee scored
an 88!
This is not to belittle the Keurig or disparage those that like the
brew it produces; if you like the coffee it produces, then that is
what you should enjoy.  First, I found it odd that it was used for
cupping and given my experience with these types of single server
brewers, I cannot imagine scoring anything an 88.  Second, my
experience with single serve machines using home roasted coffee left
me wanting.  I found that the single serve machines did not achieve
proper brewing temperature, but fell short by a few degrees at 192F.
When attempting to find some temperature specifications on the Keurig
B60, the manufacturers website contained the following paragraph:
"You can also vary the brewing temperature down five degrees from 192
F. You can adjust it down and see what you think, although most coffee
drinkers prefer there coffee at the hottest setting."
When Tom scores a coffee at 88, I know to expect a high quality coffee
due to his stringent standards.  Perhaps I just don't know enough
about proper cupping methodology.  Anyone care to explain, enlighten
or opine?
Docendo Discimus
Home Coffee Roasting Blog and Profiles for the Gene Cafehttp://southcoastcoffeeroaster.blogspot.com/Sweet Maria's List - Searchable Archiveshttp://themeyers.org/HomeRoast/

2) From: Floyd Lozano
Based on a lot of what I have read the past many weeks, I don't think you
belong on this list, Eddie ;)  I know I sure don't meet the prereqs!
As for objective reviews - as if!  Subjective if you ask me, though I'll bet
you will find large clusters of people that agree on simple criteria (it
sucks, it rocks) and if you find the right (trained?) population, you will
probably find near agreement on scoring.  And if you make that population
self-selecting, you get closer to a 'standard' (example: list would vote
mike, you, brett, Tom as cuppers, and I'd be irrelevant!)  But you'll always
have variance.  Some umpires call low and away a strike, some don't.
There's a cupping 'process' for scoring coffee (grind, sniff, dump in a cup
with near boiling water, wait, break crust, sniff, spoon slurp, wait, spoon
slurp wait repeat annotate or something like that) but you can 'cup' an
espresso (brew not roast) too, right?  That's my opinin'.
On 5/1/07, Eddie Dove  wrote:

3) From: raymanowen
Eddie, they impute credibility to their cupping and brewing device. I had a
demo cup once, and it wasn't a bad drink. There was just no involvement with
the coffee at all.
We get green coffee beans from our favorite supplier. They already scored
high long before that point. Tom doesn't even give them a second look unless
he scores them high and they are outstanding in the first instance.
The delivery truck might as well not even set its parking brakes at SM's
dock if the cargo doesn't cup as well as in the first instance. Then we have
opportunity to purchase this quality in quantities unavailable elsewhere.
Personally, I make all my roasting misteaks with a Wagner HT 1000 heat gun
and one of the bread machines or a mixer bowl for now. I know it's hot. I
just listen, and watch the clock. Some misteaks are worth repeating. There
is no Way, just a way to get started.
Again, my Celtic Critic gave thumbs up to my only blend, 50:50 second source
Harar with Sumatra Mandheling from SM. My Desperation Blend, the Stein way.
Cheers -RayO, aka Opa!
Got Grinder?
On 5/1/07, Eddie Dove  wrote:
"When the theme hits the bass, I dance the Jig!" - -Virgil Fox at the Mighty
Wichita (ex- NYC Paramount) WurliTzer- 1976

4) From: Lynne Biziewski
Eddie -
I'm in the very beginning of studyng Internet Marketing. Many reviews are
paid - this is what this sounds like.
On 5/1/07, Eddie Dove  wrote:
"Who knows where inspiration comes from. Perhaps it arises from desperation.
Perhaps it comes from the flukes of the universe, the kindness of the
Amy Tan

5) From: Diablo
Excellent note Lynne.  I was getting a little worked up reading on the method
used to cup.  I find myself a little less so, now.  
From what I have read, I'll go a long with what was said about, grind, add
water to grounds in cup, break, sniff, skim, cup (all with silver spoon mind
you).  Regardless of how you're going to use the beans, cupping in this way
gives you a base.  I've attended enough cupping's now to say I have a good
handle on it.  Now, being able to score, that's another chapter in the story
I'm still writing.  (Just returned from Oakland where I cupped about 6
different Kenyan offerings, and a few Sumatran.  Quite a sublime experience)
--- Lynne Biziewski  wrote:

6) From: Eddie Dove
Yeah ... I get that and it is probably true.  Another fact that
bothers me is that this "Coffee Review" was by someone well known in
the industry (there are clues in my posts).
This was not the only brewing method noted.  Another was, "As produced
in a Beveo concentrate coffee machine at the setting netting the
"strongest" ratio of coffee concentrate to water".  Other reviews
noted no brewing method.
Docendo Discimus
Home Coffee Roasting Blog and Profiles for the Gene Cafehttp://themeyers.org/HomeRoast/On 5/1/07, Lynne Biziewski  wrote:">http://southcoastcoffeeroaster.blogspot.com/Sweet Maria's List - Searchable Archiveshttp://themeyers.org/HomeRoast/On 5/1/07, Lynne Biziewski  wrote:

7) From: miKe mcKoffee
My guess would be someone who's well known in the industry as "a writer
about coffee";-)
Pacific Northwest Gathering Vhttp://home.comcast.net/~mckona/PNWGV.htmKona Kurmudgeon miKe mcKoffee
URL to Rosto mods, FrankenFormer, some recipes etc:http://mdmint.home.comcast.net/coffee/Rosto_mod.htmUltimately the quest for Koffee Nirvana is a solitary path. To know I must
first not know. And in knowing know I know not. Each Personal enlightenment
found exploring the many divergent foot steps of Those who have gone before.
Sweet Maria's List - Searchable Archiveshttp://themeyers.org/HomeRoast/

8) From: Robert Wachbroit
I confess I am puzzled by Tom's scores. I assume that the higher the  
score, the better and more interesting the coffee -- it seems obvious  
that a coffee with more fragrance or more flavor is a better or more  
interesting coffee, other things being equal. And adding the  
individual scores should be a rough but convenient measure of the  
coffee: for example, a coffee whose score is 91 can be expected to be  
better and more interesting than a coffee whose score is 86. But on  
Tom's scoring, the more acidic the coffee is, other things being  
equal, the higher is the total score. I don't understand this. Is  
brightness in coffee always a desirable quality like flavor or aroma?
Of course, we have the individual scores, and so we have more  
information than a mere total score would provide. And I am not  
suggesting that people should base their buying decisions simply on  
the total score. Still, I am puzzled over the meaning of the total  
score. Am I missing something?
On May 1, 2007, at 1:14 PM, Eddie Dove wrote:

9) From: miKe mcKoffee
Yeah, the "how to use" Tom's coffee scores can be confusing. When I started
home roasting figured if score higher meant it had to be better regardless
the bean. 'Taint necessarily so IMO. Can't compare by score a 89 WP
Yirgacheffe with a 84 DP Sumatra and assume the Yirg' is therefore "a better
coffee"! A DP Sumatra won't usually have the acidity of a WP Yirg' so almost
always will score lower. OTOH for a given origin, say Panama, one with a 91
vs 86 the 91 will highly likely be a "better" but again not necessarily
depending on personal preference/palate! For instance a Panama with high
Catuai varietal may score high in acidity while a different Panamna with
Bourbon may score lower, but since I do not particulary care for Catuai type
acidiy the Panama with the lower score would be "better" to me.
Is brightness "always" a desirable quality in coffee? Interesting question.
Generally speaking I'd say yes within the characteristics that are typical
for a particular origin/processing type! Of course when it comes to Sweet
Maria's and Tom we have the benefit of his descriptions, not just numbers.
Over time you'll be able to calibrate your palate to Tom's descriptions and
cupping numbers.
Pacific Northwest Gathering Vhttp://home.comcast.net/~mckona/PNWGV.htmKona Konnaisseur miKe mcKoffee
URL to Rosto mods, FrankenFormer, some recipes etc:http://mdmint.home.comcast.net/coffee/Rosto_mod.htmUltimately the quest for Koffee Nirvana is a solitary path. To know I must
first not know. And in knowing know I know not. Each Personal enlightenment
found exploring the many divergent foot steps of Those who have gone before.
Sweet Maria's List - Searchable Archiveshttp://themeyers.org/HomeRoast/

10) From: Brett Mason
Hi Robert,
Please be cautious with these assumptions, particularly equating the cupping
score with coffee quality.
Every coffee that Tom brings in is a quality coffee.  The quality does not
go up as the score increases.  Rather, the nuances in each area are more
marked as the score in each area increases.
Tom has several "high score" coffees that taste poor to me, compared to some
favorites of his that score in the mid-80's.
Personally, I taste a lot of coffee, and note the ones I like.  THEN I
review Tom's scoring for these which I like, and then I look for similarly
characteristic coffees.
This is more work, but should help you arrive at the coffee you love...
Sure miss the Colombia Excelse 13556....
On 5/2/07, Robert Wachbroit  wrote:

11) From: Leo Zick
i never really look at the total score, i look at the areas mentioned,
brightness first, then fragrence and depth.
i also like the spider web chart to get a good idea of flavor components.
but, im sure im wrong, i dont have enough big words in my email.
conundrum comprehension?
ok, all fixed.
On 5/2/07, Brett Mason  wrote:

12) From:
I agree with Brett here and it goes back to personal taste.
higher score = better coffee not true Robert.
Order the ones you think you would like after reading Tom's reviews.
Most of the coffee I buy is in the 82/87 range. It just happens that way.
All of Tom's coffee are at the top of the heap...
---- Brett Mason  wrote: 

13) From: Robert Joslin
I remember reading somewhere in that vast amount of informaton that
constitutes his website, the master himself admonishes us not to choose one
coffee over another based on cupping score.  Sorry I can't cite chapter and
verse, but its there.
On 5/2/07, pchforever  wrote:

14) From: Brett Mason
John 3:16 is the correct reference.....
On 5/2/07, Robert Joslin  wrote:

15) From:
correct. you agree or?
---- Robert Joslin  wrote: 

16) From: Leo Zick
not too accurate, eternal life shall never be wished for coffee!  it needs a
delicate balance of freezing, packing, vacuum sealing, labeling...
too much to even think of drinking the stuff!
On 5/2/07, Brett Mason  wrote:

17) From: Brett Mason
Coffee is definitely biblical....
See Hebrews 1 every day....
On 5/2/07, Leo Zick  wrote:

18) From: Leo Zick
hebrews 2 in the morning for me, thanks. but now we are talking different
religions, thats how worlds collide. no need for trouble here!
On 5/2/07, Brett Mason  wrote:

HomeRoast Digest