We'll start a separate discussion here for folks who want to discuss the roasted coffee from Prodigal, and leave the Roasting forum's thread to exist for discussions on his green and how home users choose to profile them.

I received the La Argentina, Finca Betel Pink Bourbon and the Ficencio Castillo last night and brought them all to work with me today. I've only brewed the La Argentina so far, and thought it was quite good and roasted well. I'll add more comments as I get time.

Is cost part of a discussion of Scott's coffee's? If not, please delete my response.

I got the email and I looked at the website.

A 1 kg (2.2 lb) bag of roasted coffee is $150 for 1 coffee. If you buy 0.33 pounds (150 gm), its $90/ lb. That would limit my consumption to birthday's and anniversaries.

On the other hand, I have 9 pounds of assorted Aida Batlle's world class El Salvador Finca Kilimanjaro green beans arriving later today for that same $150. I would question Scott if he considered these coffees "rejects" as he did the greens he is selling. Now anyone can certainly question my ability to roast Aida's coffees . I do buy professional roasts occasionally and they range from meh to superb but I can't live solely on $68 -$90 per pound coffee.

GC7 wrote:Is cost part of a discussion of Scott's coffee's? If not, please delete my response....

Anything not related to roast profiling or green storage/usage/quality etc is fair game for discussion. We discuss our thoughts on pricing of other vendors roasted coffees in any other coffee related discussion, so it's perfectly ok to share your opinion here.

Scott's topics (not necessarily his own words, but also discussions regarding things he says and does) are often hotly debated. So as long as everyone abides by our guidelines, it should be a valuable discussion.

GC7 wrote:A 1 kg (2.2 lb) bag of roasted coffee is $150 for 1 coffee. If you buy 0.33 pounds (150 gm), its $90/ lb. That would limit my consumption to birthday's and anniversaries.

I mean there are also coffees for $60 per kg and $20 per 250g, so they are in the less premium category. I mean a double anaerobic geisha and an anaerobic pink bourbon are going to be a very premium offering and other roasters have this coffee offered for a similar high price in other countries

InfamousTuba wrote:I mean there are also coffees for $60 per kg and $20 per 250g, so they are in the less premium category. I mean a double anaerobic geisha and an anaerobic pink bourbon are going to be a very premium offering and other roasters have this coffee offered for a similar high price in other countries

I understand, however, these are NOT COE finalists. They are coffees that we are asked to pay a large premium due to the expertise of Scott Rao to select the finest green coffee and then to roast them to perfection. Everyone can pick their value price point and decide for themselves. Sometimes I think being a Q grader is a curse. I'll never know. I believe I know quality and certainly in foods and experiences in great Michelin starred restaurants. I'll spend $20-30 a pound on green coffees and roast them but I won't spend $30 for 150 gm of Scott's roasted coffee. Does that even include shipping? I have COE finalist and other competition quality unroasted coffees including Aida's in my stash and they fit in the price range I mentioned. Does Scott pick better? I'm sure he roasts better. To each his own.

edit- I see you are from one of my favorite places, Edinburgh. As a golfer, that is near perfection. As an aside, I thought Scotsmen were supposed to be thrifty.

They are not CoE finalists, although I would like to see what the cup scores are for these coffees. I am also definitely not spending $30 for 150 grams of coffee (plus the big shipping costs to the UK), the shift to heavy processed coffees that seem to attract such a high premium isn't really my thing in general but it would be interesting to try what Scott Rao thinks is a good anaerobic coffee when lots of his instagram posts complain about it.

The washed coffees on offer are not as expensive and are more inline with other premium roasters, still with shipping I can't justify the price compared to more readily available roasters that provide very consistent coffees.

I do live in edinburgh but I am not scottish. I am thrifty though especially in terms of coffee, it does help that I am a coffee roaster and have access to more than enough coffee. I only buy coffee if it really catches my eye and when I want to treat myself (or try out the competition )

InfamousTuba wrote: but it would be interesting to try what Scott Rao thinks is a good anaerobic coffee when lots of his instagram posts complain about it.

I agree with your whole thoughtful post Adam but especially the above part.

Geoffrey,

excellent points and there was a thread in Home Roasters that Tom C suggested we leave to greens and this thread if for the roasted coffee. I am not sure anyone here got a greens.

In any event, I repeat some of what I said there.

We don't drink cupping scores. We drink coffee.

I am honestly confused if Prodigal is selling cupping scores or coffee. I suppose coffee comes with a cupping score but the coffees he spoke of in his email on Prodigal are ones that he can't possibly source and make a long term business with. Not only did he admit that but there are other limiting factors. Who will pay the price you calculated more than once?

Also there are limitation on the skills of the buyers. I think you have the skills but many don't .

What does one need to do to distinguish an 86.5 and 88 coffee in terms of preparation and ability?

Lot's of things aren't consistent with the cupping in prep at home - at what point does that impact the drinker's abilities to distinguish 86 from 88. Do buyers care if in a carefully controlled cupping one can tell; probably not since that's not how we drink our coffee. How are these coffees best prepared at home is where time should be spent not the long, long cupping score saga.
So if it's a pourer what has to be within parameters. If it's espresso, then what. It's really hard for me to replicate 19grams in and 38 grams out on my Slayer - it's manual. It might be 37.8 or 38.3. If Rao want's to play in the high world of cupping scores but it doesn't matter to consumers that's fine, but it's like the kid that builds cools sandcastles by himself. Make it real for real people please.

And what about ability to taste? How many HBer's can really tell the difference even if prep is spot on. What gets in the way first is a preference of one coffee over the other. It's just like being at a car show, one stands out more. But even if one has the ability to taste such differences can they describe them? Or maybe that's just a measure of ability? If you can't describe the differences, then you really don't have the ability to taste a 1.5 point difference.

Which is why Rao's email just made me........laugh. Maybe his fans just believe it cause he said it....the world of the Instagram influencer. What really helps individuals is not so much a cupping score, but an accurate, not overly wordy description of the key flavors. Their website does a decent job describing flavors but nothing on the prep.

I may be an outlier with these opinions, yet they do come from observation of my wife as a pastry chef, and tasting exercises she had done. She can describe tastes and differences way beyond the average person who is left to say I like this 86.5 ginger cookie over this 88 ginger cookie but can't explain why.

Running a coffee business based on cupping scores is not a coffee business IMO, it's something else. I will be not be surprised if the ending is a Facsimile of Facsimile.

Michael:

I took Scott's email differently, interpreting his comments on cupping scores as an assurance that he is only roasting coffee from excellent greens. Also, he is using cupping scores as a way of disclosing how he is selling greens that don't meet the high standard he adopted.

Scott's discounted sale of roasted coffees that are from first batches that didn't go as planned looks like another assurance of quality. He wants to feature his intentional dialed in roast of a particular coffee. I inferred from his email that his roasting preference is for coffees that are on the lighter end of juicy. To situate that preference and establish his signature style, he named other roasters that he respects and who roast lighter than he does, those with a similar style, and those who roast slightly darker but would still be appropriately considered third wave.

In other words, I read his remarks as setting expectations of quality and consistency, and this goes beyond a discussion of cupping scores. YMMV.

When I roast some of the (over) abundant greens I've stocked, I would like to try his roasted coffee and obtain corresponding greens. I would also be interested in comparing his first roast that didn't go as planned to the browned beans that I sometimes dredge out of my cooling tray.

I will be interested to read Tom's and others' remarks on sampling his roasted coffees and greens.