Central America Reviews

The high point was the dazzling aroma, full of heady vanilla tones shimmering over a rich pungency. Subsequently, things went downhill. A hardness emerged in the aftertaste, and as the coffee cooled the entire profile stiffened and lost its sweetness. Perhaps the coffee was not sturdy enough to sustain its aromatics in the moderately dark roast style.

A substantial coffee without much in the way of surprise or intrigue. Odd smoky or pruny tones surfaced in the aroma and finish. Displayed enough acidity to avoid flatness but not enough to excite. The absence of sweetness and nuance in the upper ranges more than anything else relegated this coffee to the agreeably ordinary.

A sweet nuttiness dominates here, startling in its clarity. This taste complex, typically a bit player in coffees, takes extravagant control of this one, upstaging everything else. True, a hint of wine made itself heard above the sweetness of the acidity. Perhaps some slightly hard, metallic or tobacco tones flitted across the stage just as the lights went down.

The aroma was curiously flat, the body ordinary, but the acidity splendid: powerful without shrillness, complex, alive with muted wine tones. Smoky hints in the cup turned slightly hard and tobacco-like in the finish, but softened again in the rich aftertaste. .

A complete but rather simple profile; decent acidity balances the pungency of the moderately dark roast. Hints of vanilla intensify and the entire profile sweetens as the coffee cools.

Some attractive grace notes teased their way through the balanced, unassuming profile. I read them as herbal in my notes on aroma and chocolate when I got to the cup. Either way they're on the low-toned, pungent side of the taste ledger rather than the high and sweet.

This coffee could be condemned for its lack of power or admired for its soft refinement and vanilla- and nut-toned sweetness. I bought in on the sweetness side. The vanilla-nut tones displayed remarkable persistence, complicating the aroma and lingering in the aftertaste with surprisingly clarity and richness.

A superbly balanced coffee, with a low-toned, slightly winy acidity, a touch of vanilla in the nose, and a solid, dark-roast bottom with little in the way of carbony distraction.

A tribute to dimension and balance. A complete, classic coffee; medium-bodied, with a discreetly wine-toned acidity and just a touch of darker-roasted pungency. Even displays a hint of carbon in the finish, which I could do without, but which some may take as a sign of completeness.

Blind assessment:Scores were solid with almost no complaints, but again, not much was offered in the way of enthusiasm or praise. "Great blender," said one, which led me to think about the difference between a great blender and a good blender. A great blender, it would seem, is a coffee that decisively strengthens or empowers other coffees without imposing itself, like a dinner guest who doesn't have much to say but makes everyone else at the table wittier and more graceful. Perhaps a "good" blender, on the other hand, just sits around amiably without causing problems. Be that as it may, I'm not sure everyone would agree with the "great" adjective either. Two panelists found something a little hard or suspect in the acidity. Only one mentioned a defect, Don Schoenholt, who in a charming and inspired outburst of cupper self-parody wrote: "Slightly soapy aftertaste note sure if it was Dove or Ivory unscented in one of three cups."

A decent coffee ruined by a probably avoidable defect. Parts of the bag from which our samples came apparently picked up moisture during storage. Some individual samples (perhaps from the top part of the bag) cupped cleanly and sweetly, but most displayed either a rope-like taste called baggy (cited by five cuppers) or the moldy-basement taste called musty (two cuppers), both defects typically caused by post-processing moisture. Inspection of this coffee revealed more visual defects than displayed by any of the Itzalco coffees in the cupping, which may indicate something additional went wrong before the coffee went into the bag.

Blind assessment:I found considerable intrigue in this coffee: subtle grace notes and substantial dimension in the upper registers. Only one cupper fully agreed with me, however: "Very interesting coffee." Another admired the cup but took it for granted: "Acceptable standard for Central American cup, nothing to write home about." I would have given this sample my highest score if I hadn't detected something off in one cup. I had company here too: Another panelist encountered one off-cup of three which he characterized as "sour," while another noted something "grassy, twisty" in the aroma. For me the problem was a suspicious lushness in the acidity.

One of the two clear winners in the cupping, this coffee's delicate, sweet top notes and complex aromatics attracted a bouquet of admiring adjectives, including caramelly (the favorite), floral and fruity. "Good blackberry flavor and aroma with complex floral overtones." "Best coffee of the bunch. Very close to outstanding." One admirer felt let down after the aroma, however. First: "Wow! Tangy, floral grace notes." Then: "Not quite as exciting in cup as in nose."

Two contributors admired this coffee for its soft sweetness. Everyone else found it commonplace: "A bit flat, though pleasant and inoffensive"; "Okay, nondescript." The most outspoken condemnation: "Flat, dusty, institutional." Curiously, although most cuppers found the taste flat, several cited piquant nuances: herbal, spicy, etc. Perhaps the piquancy suggests the potential of this coffee and the flatness is a weakness caused by rushed fermentation or errors in handling or storage. Support for the latter hypothesis comes from one very specific assessment: "Slightly musty in the cup."

Almost everyone remarked on the paradox of an acidity that read as complex and fruit-toned, yet oddly hard. "Very good taste but not refined, bright and brassy"; "winy but flat"; "sharp yet sweet"; and most succinct: "fruity sour." Several remarked on the perfumes in the aroma and top notes, variously characterizing them as fruity, floral, and winy.

A familiar story: Some like this coffee's soft expansiveness, others found the profile boring. In the affirmative: "wide-bodied and mellow"; in the negative: "dull, lifeless." Four cuppers picked up chocolate notes. The subtle acidity also attracted both support ("bright and fruity"; "brisk") and criticism ("some unpleasant astringency"). My particular sample displayed a marked difference among three cups, with one exhibiting a flat hardness that betrayed the overall sweetness and depth of the other two.

Most of the wallflower coffees near the bottom of the rankings managed to seduce at least one or two of the Cupping Board with their soft sweetness. I fell for this one. I found it light but pleasingly subtle and complex in the upper registers. I wasn't completely alone: "nice, mild coffee"; "smooth"; "nutty, caramelly." But a majority found little interest to offset the light body: "common"; "not very exciting"; "crispy but boring." Furthermore, three found the acidity a little edgy ("a touch sour"; "harsh"; "raw"). Another reported a yeastiness in one of three cups. I understand the characterization of this coffee as common but not the complaints about the acidity. Perhaps this is another case of variation among individual samples.

Sweet-nuanced words like nutty, fruity and caramelly dominated reports on this coffee. "Interesting combination of aspects," said one. I found the acidity a bit hard behind the fruit tones, but almost no one else complained. One cupper alone found a defect: one slightly dirty cup out of (presumably) three.

The acidity is pronounced, although more fruity and sweet than dry and brisk. Distinct chocolate tones nuance the fruit. The chocolate turns darkly prune-like in the finish, and lingers sweetly in the aftertaste. An attractive and ingratiating coffee, although the rather heavy body remains curiously inert under all the sweetness.