What is the conviction based on that specialty coffee is so much better in many respects? To explain specialty coffee, we often use average coffee as a reference and point out the differences. But to formulate the differences precisely, one must first understand average coffee.
My first specialty espresso contained 10% Robusta. Today, this would probably not be accepted as specialty everywhere. Not only have the definitions become stricter, sometimes I get the feeling that in the specialty coffee world there is a drastic rejection of anything that is not "alternative", "artisan", "specialty", "direct trade" or "micro". Unfortunately, these are neither mandatory quality characteristics nor explanations. They are often just buzzwords that apparently don't need to be explained, since it's so easy to hide behind them.
Yet these very terms offer a good starting point for explaining the differences to average coffee. But for that, one must know average coffee in order not to dismiss the plus or minus 90% of the market.
Pointing out differences by denigrating coffee varieties, certain countries of origin, companies, etc., probably won't be worthwhile in the long run. Rather, one should understand the consumer and their quality standards.
Criteria such as harmonious, mild, fine, strong, intense, elegant, refined, and a nice crema are nowhere to be found on the standardized SCA score sheets. Their explanatory value is limited. But they mean a lot in the language of the uninitiated, so we should adopt and expand on them. This might also mean that we should try pretty much every kind of coffee.
Reality Check 1: The wonderful espresso at the Italian highway rest stop
We know that coffee in Italy tastes good to many people. There are reasons for that. But has each of us also drunk such espressos and analyzed the sensory attributes objectively, the way you would with a SCAA score sheet? Most coffees have some attribute that scores better than the others. We need to understand which ones these are and why they convince the average coffee drinker. My idea? Syrupy consistency and "intensity".
Reality Check 2: Robusta
Ever done a Robusta cupping? If not, why not? It's about time, because the still widespread 70/30 Arabica-Robusta ratio myth needs to make way for reality. Demand, climate change, and politics mean that we now have a tight 55/45 ratio. Projections suggest that within ten years at the latest we will have more Robusta than Arabica on the market. The economic and natural conditions faced by many coffee farmers today limit a rapid increase in more specialty coffee.
Besides, Robusta farmers are also coffee farmers. If the story goes that higher prices for good quality help coffee farmers, then one should think the story through to the end and include Robusta farmers in the narrative. In a few years, they will form the majority of coffee producers. One should probably face reality and engage more with Robusta again. After all, there are many consumers who like it. Very many, in fact.
Reality Check 3: Dark roasts and defects
Roasting philosophies are a delicate subject. Just this much: lighter doesn't necessarily have to be better, underdeveloped doesn't taste particularly good, and there's more to coffee than just acidity. Those who offer such coffees probably have more difficulty reaching average coffee drinkers. They have gotten used to roasting aromas, and these don't always have to be bad. Especially when they mask defects. And these too are reality. Commercial Turkish coffee has many defects and is roasted very dark. But this gives it a highly recognizable flavor profile. Many coffee drinkers have gotten used to this too. To understand them, one must also understand Turkish coffee.
Reality checks help us not to overdo it and approach certain things a bit more relaxed. If we listen to the consumer and impart our learned knowledge in their language, we'll probably reach more of them.
