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 draw attention to the differences. But to formulate those differences precisely, one must first understand average coffee.
My first specialty espresso contained 10% Robusta. Today, that probably wouldn't pass as a specialty everywhere. It’s not just that definitions have become stricter; sometimes I get the feeling that in the world of specialty coffee, there is a drastic rejection of everything that isn't "different," "artisan," "specialty," "direct trade," or "micro." Unfortunately, these are neither mandatory quality criteria nor explanatory approaches. They are often just buzzwords that apparently don't need to be explained because it's so easy to hide behind them.
Yet, these very terms provide a good starting point for explaining the differences compared to average coffee. To do so, however, one must know average coffee so as not to dismiss the plus or minus 90% of the market.
Pointing out differences by disparaging certain types of coffee, countries of origin, companies, etc., is hardly worth it in the long run. It is much more important to understand the consumer and their quality standards.
We look in vain for criteria like harmonious, mild, refined, strong, intense, elegant, noble, and a beautiful crema on the standardized SCA evaluation forms. Their explanatory power is limited. But they mean a lot in the language of the uninitiated, so we should incorporate and expand upon them. This may also mean that we should try every type of coffee at some point.
Reality Check 1: The great espresso at the Italian motorway service station
We know that many people like the coffee in Italy. There are reasons for this. But has everyone among us actually drunk such espressos and analyzed the sensory attributes objectively, as one would with a score sheet à la SCAA? Most coffees possess some attribute that performs 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 is high time, because the still-prevalent 70/30 Arabica-Robusta ratio myth needs to give way to reality. Demand, climate change, and politics have led us to a nearly 55/45 ratio today. Projections assume that within ten years at the latest, we will have more Robusta than Arabica on the market. The economic and natural conditions of many coffee farmers currently limit a rapid increase in more specialty coffee.
Furthermore, Robusta farmers are also coffee farmers. If the story goes that higher prices for good quality help coffee farmers, then one should think that story through to the end and include the Robusta farmer in the plot. In a few years, they will make up the majority of coffee producers. We 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 is more to coffee than just acidity. Anyone offering such coffees will likely have more difficulty reaching average coffee drinkers. They have grown accustomed to roast aromas, and these don't always have to be bad. Especially when they are used to mask defects. And these, too, are a reality. Commercial Turkish coffee has many defects and is roasted very dark. Because of this, however, it has a highly recognizable flavor profile. Many coffee drinkers have grown accustomed to that as well. To understand them, one must also understand Turkish coffee.
Reality checks help us not to go overboard and to approach certain things a bit more loosely. If we listen to consumers and convey our acquired knowledge in their language, we will likely reach more of them.
