Cooperative Reviews

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

I liked this coffee. For me it displayed the typical strength of fine Kenyas: clean, bright, berry-nuanced fruit and tremendous dimension. Most of the panelists didn't taste it that way. They found the acidity a touch too astringent, particularly in aftertaste. One eloquently sat the fence: "good berry flavors, a 'juicy' cup, [but] finish a bit astringent. Needs balance." A darker roast might help achieve that balance by softening the acidity.

This was my personal favorite for its explosion of flowers and fruit and long, chocolate-toned finish. I wasn't alone. I counted two "wows!" scrawled on the cupping forms, a significant wow-quotient given the usually restrained disposition of the panel. Although most stopped short of wow, they did register their admiration for this coffee's bright, nuanced fruit and balanced matrix. Only one dissenter: "Bright, lemony cup, ... but I want more body and depth." Once again, a darker roast might go a long way toward developing that depth.

A high score but a relatively low wow quotient. Apparently panelists valued this coffee for its rich balance and deeply matrixed fruit; the body was described variously as full, heavy, and thick. However, several panelists felt the cup was a bit faded, restrained, "past-croppish." Perhaps this is an instance when the mid-season timing of the cupping did prejudice the cupping results.

Bright but well-matrixed acidity, full body, and a complex cluster of grace notes elevated the score of this sample. "Good balance of flavors, excellent complexity, ... fruit, spice, ... tropical woods, cedar with some sweet dark chocolate. [But] fades when cool. Where did all that flavor go?" For me the flavor went too soon. I missed length and development, and found the smoky, herby notes a touch dissonant. But that's a minority opinion: Overall the panel very much admired this coffee.

Ambivalence. Several panelists admired this Keny's understated but richly fruity sweetness, but judging from their scores, remained only mildly impressed by the whole package. "Sweet undertones; dances nicely on the palate, but with a weird, disjointed rhythm" wrote one, memorably. "Thin, lackluster," complained another. I found the cup pleasant but underpowered.

Pungent, full, deep-throated fruit dominates here. Several panelists called the cup balanced, which I take as praise for the way the acidity animates the profile from the inside rather than screaming off the top. Nevertheless, overall this coffee generated limited enthusiasm. "Decent," wrote one. "Not the big fruity notes, but drinkable," harrumphed another. "Lacks true East African character," complained a third.

Consensus found the acidity in this Kenya pleasantly fruity and sweet in the nose but disturbingly sharp in the cup and astringent in the aftertaste. Again, a slightly darker roast might help tame the sharpness. A few of us found solace in what struck us as a round, rather richly textured body.

The center of the profile is satisfyingly round and full but rather opaque, without lift or brightness. The lone complication is a hint of pungent, pruny fruitiness that turns slightly hard as the cup cools. The impassive profile reveals nuance only as it fades rather richly in the aftertaste.

A solid, no-frills Latin-America acidity dominates the cup. No fruit and very little nuance, although the profile sweetens pleasantly in the finish, rounding toward caramel and perhaps chocolate.

A complex, shifty profile. When the cup is hot, explicit vanilla tones with a hovering suggestion of spice are balanced by a deep-toned, rather pungent tartness. As the cup cools the vanilla sweetens toward caramel and the spice turns vaguely fruity. Perhaps all of the spice and pungency adds up to the famous "smokiness" often attributed to Guatemalas.

Alive with dry nuance and surprise: pruny fruit, crisp chocolate, sweetening slightly toward the finish. As the cup cools the chocolate sharpens a bit toward tobacco and herb. Long, richly dry aftertaste.

Extraordinary aroma: powerfully sweet, enveloping and complex, with tremendous dimension. Almost as impressive in the cup: Full-toned acidity softened by peach or prune, resonant and richly dimensioned, with a sweet, full, almost sugary finish complicated by hints of dry chocolate or tobacco.

A gentle cup that seduces rather than imposes. Saved from the ordinary by a soft, rounded complexity and impressive dimension. Warmly pungent tones, faintly tobaccoish or herby, soften toward chocolate in the finish.

Another typically full-bodied, solid-centered Sumatra. Not much range or complexity, but good development: If you stay with the coffee the heaviness at the center seems to grow in weight and power, revealing reticent pruny, sweet-pungent tones in the finish. As it cools, the herby, earthy tones characteristic of some Sumatras emerge, carrying (perhaps) a hint of hardness. Without that hint I would have rated this Sumatra higher.

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.

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."

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.