Coffee roasting comps/tasting

Bottom Line

After seeing the results between a few roasting competitions I was left wondering if a bit of it is random.

A roaster does poorly in one comp and better in another with the same blend/bean... well maybe the same.

Also having bought some of the winning blends/beans the same thought occurred (if the roaster actually entered the same as what the sell?). Some were excellent, some horrid, some good.

Or maybe it is my palate?

And then this article sparked this post from me:
http://m.guardiannews.com/lifeandstyle/2013/jun/23/wine-tasting-junk-science-analysis

Could the same be happening in the coffee industry? Should then the results of a competition then be taken, at best, with a grain of salt?

mycuppa

Large and prestigious events attract a high number of entries/submissions and these need to be evaluated in a short period of time. Sometimes, a roaster may submit an entry thinking their coffee reaches it's peak in a certain window of a day (or days) which may or may not align with when it is actually tested. As we all know, people develop palate preferences - even judges. If you have seen how these comps are judged, it would open you eyes. I won't go into detail here. Science would debunk the results as the same group of people typically do not cup every coffee (except in smaller categories). However, practical and physical constraints need to be balanced - it's impossible to expect a person to carefully test 10's or even 100's of coffees. It's one of those things like any competitive sport in our modern era - almost anyone can win on a given day, such is the standard amongst roasters that it is more likely extraction that will mean the difference. Separating the top group of entries in any category would be like trying to split the atom.

shape_shifter

The good old 'if someone tells you it's good and uses big words to describe it then it must be good' your brain will convince you that it is even if it's not. What I actually found even more interesting is the reply article and it's last paragraph: Our reluctance to spend more than an absolute minimum on wine and our tendency to sneer at those who do is one of the reasons why supermarkets are able to keep screwing their suppliers and why many producers can no longer be bothered with a market that won't give them a fair return on their outlay. Don't blame the critics. The choice is yours. I think this speaks of not just the wine industry but all industries and the tendency towards doing a half arsed job and getting away with it 'why should be do our best when majority of the industry doesn't either and people still buy the crap and rave about it', people won't spend that extra to get a better product when they can spend less and still like what they buy. I have no qualms about handing over $80 for that handmade scarf that has been spun, dyed and knitted by the same person instead of buying that $20 mass produced scarf from China (that is not to say that quality products don't come out of China, OHs business is proof of that when they can source a part for $2 that they get an answer, photo and specs within a day of a request for a product compared to a response in a week if they are lucky and a 'urrr durrrr ummm we don't understand' from similar businesses here in Australia for the same product that would cost them $20). Anyway the China thing wasn't my point, the point is marketing places a HUGE part in a success of a product, if you can prove that a product is worth someones time and money, not justifying but just reasons for the cost it can go a long way to swaying peoples views.