What is the basis of the conviction 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. That would probably not pass as a specialty everywhere today. Not only have the definitions become stricter, sometimes I get the feeling that in the specialty coffee world there is a drastic rejection of everything that is not "different", "artisan", "speciality", "direct trade" or "micro". Unfortunately, these are neither mandatory quality features nor explanatory approaches. They are often just buzzwords that apparently don't need to be explained, since it's so easy to hide behind them.
Yet these terms themselves offer a good starting point for explaining the differences from average coffee. But to do this, one must know average coffee in order not to dismiss the plus or minus 90% of the market.
It's probably not worth the effort in the long run to point out differences by disparaging certain coffee varieties, certain countries of origin, companies, etc. 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 conspicuously absent from the standardized SCA evaluation sheets. Their explanatory value is limited. But they mean a lot in the language of the uninitiated, so we should incorporate and expand on them. That may also mean that we should taste pretty much every kind of coffee.
Reality Check 1: The great 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 do with a score sheet à la SCAA? Most coffees have some attribute that scores better than the others. We need to understand what 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 would be high time, because the still widespread 70/30 Arabica-Robusta ratio myth must give way to 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 facing many coffee farmers today limit a rapid increase in more specialty coffee.
Moreover, Robusta farmers are also coffee farmers. If the story goes that higher prices for good quality help coffee farmers, then the story should be thought 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 in coffee there is more than just acidity. Those who offer such coffees will probably have more difficulty reaching average coffee drinkers. They have gotten used to roasted aromas, and these don't always have to be bad. Especially when they mask defects. And these are reality too. Commercial Turkish coffee has many defects and is roasted very dark. But this gives it a highly distinctive flavor profile. Many coffee drinkers have gotten used to that too. To understand them, one must also understand Turkish coffee.
Reality checks help us not to get ahead of ourselves and to take certain things a bit more lightly. If we listen to consumers and convey our learned knowledge in their language, we'll probably reach more of them.
