LATEST REVIEWS

A decent coffee ruined by a probably avoidable defect. Parts of the bag from which our samples came apparently picked up moisture during storage. Some individual samples (perhaps from the top part of the bag) cupped cleanly and sweetly, but most displayed either a rope-like taste called baggy (cited by five cuppers) or the moldy-basement taste called musty (two cuppers), both defects typically caused by post-processing moisture. Inspection of this coffee revealed more visual defects than displayed by any of the Itzalco coffees in the cupping, which may indicate something additional went wrong before the coffee went into the bag.

Few complaints here, but not much enthusiasm either. At least no one called this coffee ordinary or boring. "Excellent coffee," said one, "although repeated cuppings left me with a feeling of 'something lacking.'" "Doesn't go anywhere," I observed. However, one of the cuppers felt this coffee came "back with a second level of depth; a good, full cup." Perhaps the rest of us weren't patient enough.

Blind assessment:I found considerable intrigue in this coffee: subtle grace notes and substantial dimension in the upper registers. Only one cupper fully agreed with me, however: "Very interesting coffee." Another admired the cup but took it for granted: "Acceptable standard for Central American cup, nothing to write home about." I would have given this sample my highest score if I hadn't detected something off in one cup. I had company here too: Another panelist encountered one off-cup of three which he characterized as "sour," while another noted something "grassy, twisty" in the aroma. For me the problem was a suspicious lushness in the acidity.

One of the two clear winners in the cupping, this coffee's delicate, sweet top notes and complex aromatics attracted a bouquet of admiring adjectives, including caramelly (the favorite), floral and fruity. "Good blackberry flavor and aroma with complex floral overtones." "Best coffee of the bunch. Very close to outstanding." One admirer felt let down after the aroma, however. First: "Wow! Tangy, floral grace notes." Then: "Not quite as exciting in cup as in nose."

Two contributors admired this coffee for its soft sweetness. Everyone else found it commonplace: "A bit flat, though pleasant and inoffensive"; "Okay, nondescript." The most outspoken condemnation: "Flat, dusty, institutional." Curiously, although most cuppers found the taste flat, several cited piquant nuances: herbal, spicy, etc. Perhaps the piquancy suggests the potential of this coffee and the flatness is a weakness caused by rushed fermentation or errors in handling or storage. Support for the latter hypothesis comes from one very specific assessment: "Slightly musty in the cup."

Almost everyone remarked on the paradox of an acidity that read as complex and fruit-toned, yet oddly hard. "Very good taste but not refined, bright and brassy"; "winy but flat"; "sharp yet sweet"; and most succinct: "fruity sour." Several remarked on the perfumes in the aroma and top notes, variously characterizing them as fruity, floral, and winy.

A familiar story: Some like this coffee's soft expansiveness, others found the profile boring. In the affirmative: "wide-bodied and mellow"; in the negative: "dull, lifeless." Four cuppers picked up chocolate notes. The subtle acidity also attracted both support ("bright and fruity"; "brisk") and criticism ("some unpleasant astringency"). My particular sample displayed a marked difference among three cups, with one exhibiting a flat hardness that betrayed the overall sweetness and depth of the other two.

Most of the wallflower coffees near the bottom of the rankings managed to seduce at least one or two of the Cupping Board with their soft sweetness. I fell for this one. I found it light but pleasingly subtle and complex in the upper registers. I wasn't completely alone: "nice, mild coffee"; "smooth"; "nutty, caramelly." But a majority found little interest to offset the light body: "common"; "not very exciting"; "crispy but boring." Furthermore, three found the acidity a little edgy ("a touch sour"; "harsh"; "raw"). Another reported a yeastiness in one of three cups. I understand the characterization of this coffee as common but not the complaints about the acidity. Perhaps this is another case of variation among individual samples.

Sweet-nuanced words like nutty, fruity and caramelly dominated reports on this coffee. "Interesting combination of aspects," said one. I found the acidity a bit hard behind the fruit tones, but almost no one else complained. One cupper alone found a defect: one slightly dirty cup out of (presumably) three.

The acidity is pronounced, although more fruity and sweet than dry and brisk. Distinct chocolate tones nuance the fruit. The chocolate turns darkly prune-like in the finish, and lingers sweetly in the aftertaste. An attractive and ingratiating coffee, although the rather heavy body remains curiously inert under all the sweetness.

A sweet-toned acidity, a sort of subdued brightness, enlivens this medium-bodied coffee. The sweetness reads with considerable complexity: as vanilla in the nose and fruit-toned chocolate in the cup. Once these nuances have pleased us, however, nothing further turns up. No depth, no teasing secrets. Still, the elegantly complex top notes make this coffee one of the standouts in the cupping.

Little acidity and not much at the top, but balanced and complete in the middle ranges. Rich, particularly in the nose, although the rich impression doesn't develop beyond the first impression, and tends to fade in the finish.

The roast overwhelms the coffee here. The cup is carbon-toned and rather thin-bodied, with little nuance or dimension. Pleasant and without offense, but this Costa Rica's virtues and surprises apparently were left behind in the decaffeination vat and roasting smoke.

Another coffee with a pleasing first impression. The acidity is deep, fruity, perhaps winy. But there's no cushion or bounce here, and little intrigue beyond the fruity acidity and a touch of carbon. The hard simplicity carries into the aftertaste, although the profile rounds a bit as the coffee cools.

An unusual coffee, probably owing to the dry processing. The aroma is deep, rich, and powerful; the body full. In the cup, however, the power turns rather hard and herbal, almost peppery. Like so many coffees in the cupping, this one promises depth, yet won't let us past a hardness at the bottom of the profile.

One of the few coffees in the cupping with resonance and depth. You have to be patient with this coffee and wait for the heavy, pruny, dark-roast pungency to reveal itself in the finish, but it's worth the wait. If this coffee showed some acidity and top notes it might be a real winner. As it is, the attic is bare and all the fun is in the cellar, but that's probably as it should be in something called a French roast.

The acidity is powerful yet subdued, slightly (and properly, given the origin) winy. Not much depth or resonance, but a nutty sweetness emerges in the finish that surprises, given the origin. The roast contributes some slight carbon tones.

Solid, balanced, with a slightly winy acidity wrapped in a substantial body, all characteristics of a good Colombia. But again, these virtues seem attenuated. The complexity is confined to the middle registers, with both top and bottom notes pinched off. A slight sweetness fills out the profile in the finish.

A rather distinctive coffee marked by a clear, winy acidity that some would call bright and others sharp. I lean toward bright with rough edges. The acidity is so dominating that I had a difficult time reading the body: I finally concluded medium. And the broken record rasps: intriguing first impression but not much behind it.

Almost everyone remarked on a complex sweetness in this medium-bodied Huehuetenango. Some characterized the sweetness as chocolate-toned; others as caramel. Two assigned the sensations to that tantalizing cusp between chocolate and fruit. Most found the acidity sufficient to enliven the sweetness ("bright, pleasant, intriguing"), but one cupper complained that the acidity was disappointing and another that it was "puckery." There was an unusually wide range of response to body. Assessments ranged from light to (emphatically) heavy, with a consensus somewhere between medium and full. Perhaps our palates were confused by the pervasive sweetness, which can read as weight.