Sick of the cupping foo foo

[grounded]

Am I just old and cranky or are the cupping descriptions bordering on ridiculous? From my latest SweetMarias RSS feed:

maple syrup, dark honey, melted butter, a touch of chamomile, wheat puff cereal, a dusting of cocoa.

Dark honey? Let's take it a step further and describe the coffee as dark honey from buckwheat pollen.

Wheat puff cereal? I don't think that even has a taste.

Chamomile? No, thanks. I don't want a tea-like coffee.

After ten years of doing business with Sweet Marias for green coffee I've got to search somewhere else with less foo foo.

[BoldJava]

Am I just old and cranky or are the cupping descriptions bordering on ridiculous?...

After ten years of doing business with Sweet Marias for green coffee I've got to search somewhere else with less foo foo.

Only you can answer the 1st question.

Often, I don't find what others find in a cup. On the other hand, I discover things that they don't find. I enjoy searching for flavors; it is part of the fun. I sometimes use obscure descriptors but if that is what I sense, I use the term. I would encourage you to focus more on SM's product and less on their descriptors. Regardless, good hunting!

B}Java

[carol]

When looking at other sites for the potential green coffee, I find that the descriptions are so vague that I have no idea what the coffee may taste like. A one sentence description that reads sweet, lemony and complex, could really be god awful or the best coffee ever. I tend to read Toms cupping description but I really use the coffee cupping score graphic to decide if I want to buy it. I've been disappointed a few times, but over all I find his cupping score and descriptions very useful.

[Howdy Mr]

It seems like maybe the answer to number one could be "yes."

Maybe I'm just cranky today, but it seems like someone could have a more productive comment for their first post in the forums. And the idea of degrading a product because one disagrees with their use of adjectives to describe it is pretty amazing. The product sells itself.

[arbolmano]

Personally, I enjoy the flowery discriptors. 95% of the coffee drinkers out there are looking for dark roasted Starbucks -like charcoal devoid of flavor anyway. I find the desscriptors fun even if I can't relate to them. My favorite is the recent one "sugar beet sugar" whatever that is. I look at the cupping scores for an idea of what I desire. Good luck in finding a better source of green beans than Marias! I made it here after trying many.

[javafool]

The initial post was made by a one post troll. I like the scores and particularly the flavor wheels. When I read particular terms such a musty or not a clean cup it really helps me make my decisions a lot.

[DaDarkerDaBetter]

One of the main reasons I only buy beans from SM is because of the cupping profiles and the scores.

Over time and trial and error I understand more and more what each of the "flowery" descriptions refers to and tastes like, and the scoring for body, sweet, etc. is huge help in picking a bean that we enjoy.

[grounded]

I realize the title of the topic can be misinterpreted. For such a subjective analysis and prone to personal bias I find I usually concur with the cupping scores so that's quite helpful. But I reiterate my suggestion the taste attributes have gone off the deep-end and smack of marketing hype.

All you have to do is look at the old archives - the coffee's attributes were realistic. Didn't Tom used to write these up? Now it's like some marketing intern with some adjective software. I thought Sweet Maria's would stay out of this nonsense but they've gone down the same hole as many fine wineries where people are hired to write wine tasting adjectives.

For more on this subject, read Princeton economist Richard Quandt‘s On Wine Bullshit: Some New Software?
http://www.wine-economics.org/journal/content/Volume2/number2/Full%20Texts/richardquandt.pdf.

[javafool]

Actually I look at the descriptions another way. Now that you have made another post and added some substance to support your initial post, I will respect that and even agree to some extent. On the other hand I have purchased coffee from numerous sources since I began roasting in 1997. Although I have on occasion found a true prize someplace else, I have never found a source of consistently high quality coffee that excite my tastebuds as I buy from Sweetmarias.
As I mentioned previously, there are certain descriptors I look for in Tom's write-ups that make me read further or basically cross them off my list. The cupping scores and flavor wheel tell me a lot about the coffee, but maybe a part of that is that I have followed the evolution of the descriptions from years ago until the present. My coffee world started with a guy in Columbus, Ohio with a small coffee shop just beginning an internet business. He needed another $300 in sales that month to survive, and has grown into a coffee expert known world-wide for his cupping expertise.
I know that the coffee is fresh and top quality, and there are quite a few that I really enjoy and a few that I buy that really do go to compost. For the coffee and descriptions I get from SM, a little foo foo here and there is fine by me.

Terry

[martin]

I dunno - I think the descriptions are a pretty good attempt to put the almost ineffable into words. If they bother you, either ignore them or, as you suggested, find some other place to get your greens that doesn't offend your sensibilities this way. Tom's descriptions are sometimes fanciful, but they've been much too good at describing what I discover in the cup (1) to be dismissed as foo foo.

(1) oh, not every cup, and surely not every roast; I'm not that good at this, no matter what friends and family think. :-)