Hey Aaron,
Thanks for the thoughts. All valid points, and worth considering.
However, remember that in the literature they promised to teach
certain things that they did not. For example, they promised to
discuss defects. That's not a matter of interpretation, it's
generally accepted - fermented beans taste bad, unripe beans taste
bad, etc. Whatever defects are, we were not told about them. Also,
regarding roasting, I don't think you can base your program on the
possibility that a participant is going to make unreasonable demands.
You have to simply tell it like it is. For example, "with this
particular origin, if you use this temperature profile, the beans
will taste baked, no two ways about it." Or, "If this bean gets to
second crack before 12 minutes, generally you will lose this
characteristic." Cuppers like Tom who sell beans aren't afraid to
describe flavors or characteristics at certain roast levels, or to
state what they like. That kind of opinion functions as a valid
starting point, and from there I can roast however I like. But at
least now I have a starting point. It's not like he says, "Here's a
Brazil that's the most chocolaty at a particular roast, but you go
ahead and figure out what that roast level is, because I can't tell
you what you like." If that's the case in the seminar, they shouldn't
be promising to explain how roast profile affects flavor.
And I guess that's the point anyway. It's not that they promise to
tell you what the best flavor is, it's that they imply that they will
be giving you guidance about how different profiles make a flavor go
this way or that. Michael Whitley, the general manager who taught the
seminar, was asked about the profiles that come preinstalled in the
automated systems. His advice was, "Delete them." So he's implying
that their own 'starting points' are worthless and we shouldn't even
be paying attention to them. If it were my company, I would at least
say, "This is what we've found to be a profile that professional
cuppers find to be pleasant for this particular coffee," or at least
something like that to show that there was a logical reason for
putting profiles in the system before you buy it.
What I found really frustrating, though, was the refusal to answer
ANY questions, even when they were worded very specifically; that's
not what they advertised in the seminar sales pitch.
Back to my point about Tom's advice on certain beans, he will often
say things like, "My City roasts were baked tasting, underdeveloped."
Or, "This coffee needs a strong roast treatment." I'll bet if he
taught a seminar he would give you his personal opinion but also show
you ways to get different flavors out of the same beans with
different roast treatments. At the Diedrich seminar we weren't given
information about any origins at all, where to start, how long to
roast, anything like that. Not even a ballpark. That's where I think
they failed. At least put your participants in the ballpark and they
can fine tune to their own preferences, you know?
cheers,
Jeff |