"Strong and weak", "mild and bitter" are probably the most commonly heard contrasting pairs coffee drinkers use to describe their coffee. Some coffee experts consider these terms useless. Unfortunately, that's not true and is rather elitist.
In recent years, coffee farmers, importers, roasters, baristas, bloggers, restaurateurs, scientists, etc., have made the specialty coffee industry more colorful, but also more confusing for the uninitiated. We get more coffee variety, more stories, and more individual expressions of beverages.
Questions that every quality-conscious cafe must ask itself today are:
- How do we convey all the acquired knowledge to average coffee drinkers?
- What descriptions do we use?
- Which coffee serves as our reference to highlight the differences?
- How do we avoid overwhelming consumers?
The following is a mini-explanation model that should not overwhelm consumers but still make them eager for 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 (coffee experts sounds less attractive) would probably be: "What intensity exactly?" A legitimate question, as we know that acidity, sweetness, body, etc., are not only examined for intensity but also for quality.
Does it make sense now if I explain the differences between quality and intensity to a coffee drinker, with the full knowledge that this still causes confusion even among coffee professionals?
Let's delve into this intensity discussion. The statement "this coffee is strong (or weak)" is not as one-dimensional as it may sound. You can clearly answer this statement with "yes" or "no" and then elaborate, because: there are at least three reasons why coffee can be strong/weak:
- Ratio of coffee to water (recipe)
- Agitation, time, temperature, pressure (preparation method)
- Solubility of the coffee (roast)
Now we have three topics (recipe, preparation method, roast) as a starting point to engage consumers in a more in-depth conversation about quality.
Mild and bitter
"Mild" and "bitter" are probably the second most common descriptions for coffee. In sensory training sessions, I always ask what participants understand by "mild." Answers like these are the norm: "fine aromas, delicate 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 an experiment 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."
If we extend our Y-axis with an X-axis, we get the following simple diagram that anyone can understand and relate to with a little explanation:
We haven't gotten too technical yet; we haven't described the coffee lexicographically (varietal, origin, processing) or in terms of content (flavor notes, body, acidity, etc.). And yet we were able to convey more information – information that includes, rather than excludes, the average coffee drinker.
We don't need to reinvent sensory communication. We advocate for meeting consumers with the terminology they use, but then defining it more precisely. And suddenly, "weak" and "strong" become a complex matter,
