So, what are you researching?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Peter Tam on June 20, 2008 at 10:02am

That is completely true, except that the coffee in the competition is not so good. I am not quite sure of the WBC champions, but for sure about the champion for China. His coffee is really not good, but so poor. The problem is how he can be the champion?

Most people knows that we announced that our coffee is quite good, confirmed by Italian coffee professionals, and our coffee theory can help people to learn to make good coffee. But, no one, including the organization of WBC, care of it. That is why I asked whether they care of good coffee or not. They pronised yes, but never see what they do about it.

You have got feeling of the coffee industry, and found some of the problems.

It is very true that people know coffee almost only from cafes. The problem is that almost all of cafes do not have good coffee, like in China, people would know from the cafes that "coffee is not good, not drink it". If there were more people can make good coffee, those small group of people will not be able to influence it.

I do not know if I explain it well or not. The English is always a problem for me.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Shawn Steiman on June 20, 2008 at 10:23am

Wow, guys, I have so much work to do on my dissertation, yet, I cannot ignore this thread!

There is only one way of looking at quality- objectively. In order to do that, though, you must define what quality is and then score against that. The definition of quality has a bit of subjectivity because people are choosing to measure traits they deem important. Regardless of the process, the person (or people) defining quality need to have a very broad understanding of the range of experiences available, IMO, for the definition to be useful. The problem is that preference always gets in the way. Just because something is considered excellent does not guarantee that I'll like it (c'mon, there are 6 billion people on the planet, we're gonna be different!). (For a better explanation of this, buy my book, released this week. It has a solid section on coffee quality and cupping: The Hawaii Coffee Book)

Consequently, coffee at a barista championship may not be anything most people drink because 1) they don't like it (inexperience is a detriment to quality assessment) or 2) they don't have access to it. The shots and caps at competitions are probably very good. At least, they are good by my definition and the general definition that the coffee community has established. The signature drinks, are of course, more difficult to measure as their requirements are more relaxed. It is challenging to score them but not impossible.

Lastly, to address Peter's statement of bad Chinese coffee... It does not surprise me that this may be true. Remember, though, that competitions are designed to discover the best of what's available, not the best of what can be.

The vast majority of people on this planet do not know the possibilities that exist in the coffee organoleptic experience. They lack the experience. This isn't always their fault. We can't be blamed for ignorance if we don't realize there is anything to know. Most people I educate about coffee do start drinking and buying differently when I'm through with them. The specialty coffee movement has only been blasting at full speed for about 20 years. Coffee quality and access to that coffee has increased dramatically. However, there's still those 6 billion people to educate... Let's be patient and keep educating. Baby steps...

▶ Reply to This

▶ Reply to This

• 1
• 2
• 3