"Strong and weak", "mild and bitter" are probably the most common pairs of opposites that coffee drinkers use to describe their coffee. Some coffee experts consider these terms useless. Unfortunately, that's not correct and is rather elitist.
In recent years, coffee farmers, importers, roasters, baristas, bloggers, restaurateurs, scientists, and others have made the specialty coffee industry more colorful, but also more confusing for the uninitiated. We're getting more coffee diversity, more stories, and more individual variations of beverages.
Questions that every café with quality standards must ask itself today are:
- How do we convey all the knowledge we've gained to average coffee drinkers?
- What descriptions do we use?
- Which coffee serves as our reference point to make the differences clear?
- How do we avoid overwhelming consumers in the process?
Here follows a mini-explanation model that won't overwhelm consumers, but should still spark their curiosity about more background information – if they want it.
Strong and weak coffee
The majority of coffee drinkers define coffee by its intensity. The natural reaction of coffee professionals would probably be: "Yes, but what kind of intensity?" A fair question, since we know that acidity, sweetness, body, etc. are evaluated not just for intensity, but also for quality.
Does it make sense to explain to a coffee drinker the differences between quality and intensity, knowing full well that this causes confusion even among coffee professionals time and again?
Let's engage in this intensity discussion. The statement "this coffee is strong (or weak)" is not nearly as one-dimensional as it may sound. You can answer this statement with a clear "yes" or "no" and then immediately elaborate, because there are at least three reasons why the coffee might be strong or weak:
- Ratio of coffee to water (recipe)
- Agitation, time, temperature, pressure (brewing method)
- Solubility of the coffee (roast)
Suddenly we have three topics (recipe, brewing method, roast) as a starting point from which we can engage in a deeper conversation with the consumer about quality.
Mild and bitter
"Mild" and "bitter" are probably the second most common descriptions for coffee. In sensory training sessions, I always ask participants what they understand by "mild". Answers like these are the rule: "fine aromas, fine flavors, nothing disturbing, no acidity, harmonious." When asked what the opposite of mild is, the most common answer is: "bitter".
How do we deal with this now?
We have some imprecise descriptions, but also a helpful pair of opposites: bitter – mild.
To illustrate this, we usually conduct a test with an optimally extracted filter coffee A (TDS approx. 1.25, extraction rate approx. 20%), and an over-extracted filter coffee B (TDS approx. 1.25, extraction rate approx. 25%). So far, most participants prefer coffee A, finding it "mild and harmonious". Coffee B in comparison is "bitter", "unbalanced" or even "aggressive".
Wenn>If we extend our Y-axis with an X-axis, we get the following simple chart that everyone can understand and follow with a little explanation:
At this point, we haven't become too technical, we haven't described the coffee lexically (variety, origin, processing) nor in terms of content (tasting notes, body, acidity, etc.). And yet we were able to convey more information – the kind that includes rather than excludes the average coffee drinker.
We don't need to reinvent sensory communication. We advocate meeting consumers with the terminology they use, but defining it more precisely. And suddenly "weak" and "strong" become a complex matter.
