I have spotted a few interesting comment threads here and there in the corners of los internet the past couple of days having to do with cupping. Long fingers of the Gray Lady and all that.
It's sooooo hard to stay out of internet debates sometimes. But they can be so darned interesting. So even though I just spent all day cupping and roasting and then drinking wine and talking about the possibility of leasing land in the west of Ethiopia to grow geisha in the land of its birth (verdict: possible! but difficult!), I still just finished writing and re-writing a response to a great thread that's been going on for a few days at slashfood. I am dumb.
You can read the whole thing at the above link, but here's a summary. Slashfood links the article and asks their readers what they think. A few pretty knowledgeable people chime in with "actually, coffee's really varied and interesting!" a few people chime in with "bah, sounds like a bunch of wannabe snobs making things up" and "their killing the joy!" (This last one really hurts... there's really no reason to do what I do other than the joy... Why would I ever want to kill it?!? But sigh I do understand why people, sadly, suspect this.)
Anyway, in the process of a pretty standard series-of-tubes debate, there began an interesting back-and-forth between Peter Lynagh of Terroir, Nick Cho, and Greg Sherwin who seems like a really nice and knowledgeable guy. His website (Bay Area-centered appropriately enough for this week!) is here. (He shares my taste in top SF cafés, ergo, he must be smart.) Seriously, though, the debate arose because Greg wanted to point out that cuppings, traditionally have been done by green buyers looking to spot defects before they buy coffee. He's absolutely right about this, of course. The debate arose when he seemed to assert that this somehow means that the term "cupping" cannot apply to less formal settings, like cafés or private homes. Nick and Peter begged to differ. Needless to say I'm on Nick and Peter's side. The notion that cupping is limited to defect detection totally misguided. Nick says it best when he defines cupping as a method of evaluating coffee. Exactly. But again, Greg's windmill-tilting made for interesting debate, and I hope I can meet Greg who seems totally cool even if we disagree on this one (ultimately very minor) point.
Anyway, I spent like an hour writing this response and editing it to make sure it didn't sound snotty or retarded or anything, when I really should have been sleeping (we have about 30 coffees lined up for tomorrow, plus more roasting). So I figured I might as well post the highlights here. For a full look at the antecedent comments and my entire comment, you can go here. Or you can be a regular human and stop reading about such arcane topics.... up to you.
...I do understand the point you are making, Greg, about the difference between a purchasing cupping and a public cupping (and believe me, Nick and Peter understand this very, very well, too!). You are mistaken in assuming all commercial cupping is for defects, though. Certainly that's a key aspect, and usually the first stage in the process. But many, many cupping rounds at many, many different roasteries and importing companies (and even at exporters!) all over the world are done for subtlety, nuance, sweetness, and fragrance. To take an obvious example... in the final round of the Cup of Excellence Guatemala, with nothing but amazing, clean 85-plus coffees on the table, are the judges somehow no longer "cupping," but doing "comparative tasting"?
I humbly submit that you may be misguided in saying that a "comparative tasting" that's NOT a purchasing cupping is therefore not really a cupping. A public cupping may be a new(ish) iteration of cupping, with less at stake and with slurps that are a little more tentative, but people are still literally cupping the coffee. .......
I share your concern about shoe-horning wine terms into coffee ...... but coffee, I promise you, honest-to-goodness is properly evaluated on sweetness, acidity, fragrance, aroma, balance, etc.... these are not imported from the practice of wine tasting, but rather simply happen to be the relevant categories when inspecting and grading coffee. And aroma notes like honey, jasmine, mandarin, caramel, blueberry, whatever are 100% legit, believe me (I'm not saying there's no BS out there, but cuppers have to be allowed this language because it's in the durn coffee dagnabbit!). ....... Perhaps the perception that coffee terms were stolen or cribbed from wine comes more from the chronological order in which most Americans first encounter the very concept of beverage tasting. Wine first, coffee later. I honestly don't know. Also, obviously, popular writers use the wine analogy because it's familiar to their readers and at least somewhat related. I can't really see the harm in this... should they be using lunar geology analogies, or Ukrainian political analogies?
But thanks for your points... It's definitely a reminder to be clear with people about what the purpose of our little adventures are and the context in which cupping developed in the first place.
Finally... I know what a wasteland of poorly conveyed sentiment the internet can be and I want to stress sincerely and in a friendly way that I'm being totally straight and not trying to sneak in any snark along the way! (Though sneaking snark can be fun).
A wasteland of something, at least... I'm off to bed!
