rmongiovi wrote:Is anyone saying that the coffee variety isn't important?

What is not being said is that variety is usually more significant than terroir when it comes to coffee character and flavors.

The extreme example would be comparing a robusta and an arabica, grown on the same hillside, one hectare apart from each other. Terrior basically identical. Even if you processed them the same way, could you market and sell them as the same coffee?

What I recently reinforced with this Typica, grown in Sumatra, that I just brought in is that the same variety grown in vastly different terroirs will still taste very similar. Sure, there is a difference because of where they are grown, but not nearly as much as two different varieties grown in the same place. I'll add a picture of this coffee next to a typical Sumatra when I get in to the roastery tomorrow.

It gets blurry when you consider many coffee varieties are genetic hybrids of each other. The Sidra variety, as I understand, is a combination of Bourbon and Typica. Distinguishing it apart from either is less obvious, yet Sidras, like Geshas, are very popular now regardless of terroir. To me that is a trend in the right direction.

Historically coffee varieties have been cultivated and interbred mainly for yield as well as climate and disease resistance instead of "origin characteristics". Hopefully producers will continue to pay attention to both.

No argument from me. But "variety is more important" isn't the same thing as "origin doesn't matter."