09-28-2006, 02:57 PM
Since this seems to have morphed into a Sharkey's coffee thread, I'll add that I stopped at their table at the Hilo Market. I guess it was Scott's son who was there. I asked if they grew and made coffee from peaberry (is this what Jamaica Blue Mountain is made with?). He said that his dad didn't buy the hype about peaberry and felt that it was just a genetic mutant that developed one, instead of two half, berries. He didn't think that this mutant necessarily made a better coffee.
I don't claim to have a good "nose" or "tongue" (as in a professional taster type), but I've never thought that Kona coffee was that special. If you recall, it used to be only roasted Americano and blended because it was too weak, or, excuse me, "subtle". It got a little better when roasted dark (to my taste). When I cared more about coffee, I liked Sumatra better. My feeling is that the Kona growers put their money toward a good marketing campaign that made people think it was a cut above. I think the Hamakua, Puna and Ka'u coffees stand a good chance at being as good or better. Whether they are financially successful may depend on a good marketing campaign. Or, strong grassroots popularity from the likes of the PunaWeb.
I've been suspicious of claims of the same or better quality coming from the same plant but grown in another soil. Like growing peaberries in Hawaii makes for as good or better coffee than Jamaica Blue Mountain (perhaps another example of a good marketing campaign and high pricing?). I once saw a grower at a California farmers market offering Maui onions! I asked excitedly if they actually airfreighted them from Maui. No, they said, they grew them in Watsonville, CA. Now, the Watsonville area produces a lot of good produce, but they don't have the volcanic soil of the Kula area. How can they call it "Maui onions"? I guess the Maui onion growers didn't have as strong an industry group as the Kona coffee growers. I have to think that it's just an effort to take advantage of the cache generated by the popular item.
To wind this back on-topic, maybe if Costco came to Kea'au, the east side coffees might get a good boost in sales.
Les
Edited by - Les C on 09/28/2006 19:00:22
Edited by - Les C on 09/28/2006 19:01:36
I don't claim to have a good "nose" or "tongue" (as in a professional taster type), but I've never thought that Kona coffee was that special. If you recall, it used to be only roasted Americano and blended because it was too weak, or, excuse me, "subtle". It got a little better when roasted dark (to my taste). When I cared more about coffee, I liked Sumatra better. My feeling is that the Kona growers put their money toward a good marketing campaign that made people think it was a cut above. I think the Hamakua, Puna and Ka'u coffees stand a good chance at being as good or better. Whether they are financially successful may depend on a good marketing campaign. Or, strong grassroots popularity from the likes of the PunaWeb.
I've been suspicious of claims of the same or better quality coming from the same plant but grown in another soil. Like growing peaberries in Hawaii makes for as good or better coffee than Jamaica Blue Mountain (perhaps another example of a good marketing campaign and high pricing?). I once saw a grower at a California farmers market offering Maui onions! I asked excitedly if they actually airfreighted them from Maui. No, they said, they grew them in Watsonville, CA. Now, the Watsonville area produces a lot of good produce, but they don't have the volcanic soil of the Kula area. How can they call it "Maui onions"? I guess the Maui onion growers didn't have as strong an industry group as the Kona coffee growers. I have to think that it's just an effort to take advantage of the cache generated by the popular item.
To wind this back on-topic, maybe if Costco came to Kea'au, the east side coffees might get a good boost in sales.
Les
Edited by - Les C on 09/28/2006 19:00:22
Edited by - Les C on 09/28/2006 19:01:36