Coffee by Raja - Coffee Systems Part 2

Why Two People Can Taste the Same Coffee and Disagree

The Cup Is Shared. The Experience Is Personal.

Two people sit at the same table and taste the same coffee.

It comes from the same brewer. The same coffee, water, grind setting, recipe, and equipment were used. Both cups were poured from the same batch.

One person describes the coffee as bright, floral, and similar to lemon.

The other notices green apple, gentle sweetness, and a slightly dry finish.

One enjoys its lively acidity. The other finds the same quality sharper than they prefer.

Who is correct?

Possibly both.

They are drinking the same physical beverage, but they may not be having exactly the same sensory experience.

This does not mean coffee tasting is meaningless or that every description is equally accurate. It means flavour is not simply a fixed message waiting inside the cup to be read identically by everyone.

The coffee provides physical and chemical signals.

The person tasting it transforms those signals into an experience.

That experience is shaped by the senses, brain, memory, language, culture, attention, expectation, training, and personal preference.

To understand why people sometimes disagree about coffee, we must first understand what tasting involves.

Flavour Is More Than Taste

In everyday conversation, we often use the words taste and flavour as though they mean the same thing.

In sensory science, it is helpful to separate them.

Taste refers mainly to sensations detected in the mouth, including sweetness, sourness, bitterness, saltiness, and umami.

Flavour is the wider experience created when taste combines with aroma and other sensations, including temperature, body, texture, and astringency.

Many of the qualities we describe in coffee—such as chocolate, jasmine, berries, citrus, nuts, or spices—are experienced largely through smell.

Before drinking, aromatic compounds reach the nose as we smell the coffee. During drinking, aromas released inside the mouth travel towards the nasal cavity through the back of the throat.

The brain combines these aromatic signals with taste and mouthfeel to create the experience we call flavour.

This is why coffee may seem unusually flat when our sense of smell is reduced. The tongue may still detect bitterness, sourness, and sweetness, but much of the aromatic detail becomes less available.

Flavour is therefore not produced by the tongue alone.

It is created through cooperation between several sensory systems.

We Do Not All Receive the Same Signals

Every person brings a slightly different sensory system to the cup.

Some people are more sensitive to certain bitter compounds. Others may notice particular aromas more quickly or experience them more intensely. One person may focus naturally on acidity, while another notices texture, sweetness, or roast character first.

Even when two people detect the same quality, they may disagree about its intensity.

One person may describe a coffee as moderately bitter. Another may experience the same bitterness as strong.

Neither person needs to be careless or poorly trained. Their sensory systems may simply be responding differently.

There is also a difference between detecting a sensation and naming it.

A person may notice that an aroma is present without being able to identify it. They may recognise it as familiar but struggle to find the right word. Another person may immediately connect it with jasmine, orange blossom, cocoa, or a particular spice.

This does not necessarily mean one person has tasted more.

It may mean they have more experience connecting that sensation with a familiar reference.

Training can help people improve this connection, but it is important to remember that difficulty finding a word does not mean the person has experienced nothing.

Sometimes, perception arrives before vocabulary.

Memory and Culture Give Flavour a Name

Imagine that a coffee contains an aroma reminding several people of cooked fruit.

One taster may describe it as apricot.

Another may say peach.

Someone else may think of mango, dates, fruit preserve, or a sweet prepared in their childhood home.

Their descriptions are different, but their experiences may overlap.

We recognise aromas by comparing them with memories. Those memories are shaped by the foods, ingredients, places, and traditions we have encountered.

A person familiar with cardamom may identify it quickly and precisely. Someone with less exposure may describe the same sensation more generally as spicy, herbal, or perfumed.

A taster who knows blackcurrant well may use that descriptor confidently. Another person may connect a similar aroma with grapes, berries, jam, or something they cannot yet name.

Neither person lacks sensory ability.

They are searching different libraries of experience.

Coffee is tasted across communities with different languages and culinary traditions. Sensory descriptions will naturally reflect those differences.

This diversity can strengthen coffee education.

Shared vocabulary is valuable because it helps people communicate, but it should not require tasters to abandon familiar references simply to sound professional.

The most useful descriptor is one that genuinely helps explain the experience.

Language Can Make Agreement Look Like Disagreement

People sometimes disagree more in words than in perception.

One taster says:

“It tastes like orange.”

Another replies:

“I would call it mandarin.”

These statements are not identical, but both people may be noticing a similar family of citrus aromas.

One person may describe a coffee as bright. Another may call it lively, juicy, crisp, or high in acidity.

Before deciding that two tasters disagree, it helps to understand what each word means to them.

Does “orange” describe aroma, sweetness, acidity, or the combination?

Does “sharp” mean intense acidity, unpleasant sourness, dryness, or simply a sensation that attracts attention?

Does “strong” refer to bitterness, concentration, roast character, body, or overall flavour intensity?

Sensory vocabulary becomes useful when it improves communication.

A respectful tasting conversation does not begin with:

“That descriptor is wrong.”

It begins with:

“What in the coffee led you to that description?”

This question moves the discussion away from defending words and towards understanding experience.

Expectation Arrives Before the First Sip

Imagine receiving a coffee described as:

Ethiopian natural process — strawberry, jasmine, and tropical fruit.

Before tasting, your attention has already been directed.

You may immediately begin searching for strawberry.

Now imagine tasting the same coffee without any information. You may still notice fruit, but perhaps you describe it as grape, cherry, ripe berries, or fermented fruit.

The beverage has not changed.

The information surrounding it has.

Labels, tasting notes, origin information, processing details, price, packaging, cup design, and environment can influence what we expect and where we direct our attention.

This does not mean that tasting notes are dishonest or that people imagine everything they are told to expect.

A useful description can help someone recognise a quality they may otherwise struggle to name. The challenge appears when expectation becomes stronger than observation.

This is why blind tasting is valuable.

Removing information about origin, variety, processing, brand, score, or price allows tasters to observe the coffee before responding to its story.

Context can then be introduced afterwards.

Both approaches are useful.

Blind tasting helps us focus on the beverage with fewer external cues. Contextual tasting helps us understand how the coffee connects with production, intention, value, and market.

The Coffee Is Changing Too

Disagreement does not always arise because the tasters are different.

Sometimes, the coffee itself is changing.

As coffee cools, aromatic release changes. The balance of sweetness, acidity, bitterness, texture, and aroma may also become easier to examine.

A very hot coffee can make some characteristics difficult to separate. As the temperature falls, fruit, sweetness, acidity, roast character, or dryness may become more noticeable.

Two tasters may therefore appear to disagree simply because they tasted at different moments.

One may be describing the first aromatic impression. Another may be describing the coffee several minutes later. One may focus on the first sip, while another is considering the finish.

This is why structured tasting benefits from shared procedures.

Tasters should experience samples at similar temperatures, follow a comparable sequence, and return to the coffee as it cools.

Consistency does not remove individual perception, but it helps ensure that people are discussing the same stage of the experience.

Description and Preference Are Not the Same

A person can describe a coffee accurately and still not enjoy it.

Another person can enjoy the coffee greatly without being able to describe it using technical language.

These are different forms of judgement.

Descriptive evaluation asks:

• What characteristics are present?
• How intense are they?
• How do they change?
• How do sweetness, acidity, bitterness, aroma, and texture interact?

Preference asks:

• Do I enjoy this?
• Would I choose to drink it again?
• Does it suit the experience I am seeking?

A highly floral and acidic coffee may be clean, distinctive, and carefully produced. A person who prefers chocolate-forward, lower-acidity coffees may still decide that it is not the style they most enjoy.

That preference does not reduce the work of the producer or the quality of the coffee.

Equally, appreciating the coffee’s quality does not require someone to enjoy it personally.

A thoughtful sensory culture allows both statements to exist:

“I recognise what this coffee expresses.”

And:

“It is not the style I most enjoy.”

Separating description from preference makes tasting conversations more honest and respectful.

Training Helps Us Communicate

Sensory training has great value.

It can improve attention, strengthen aroma recognition, expand vocabulary, introduce reference standards, and help people evaluate coffee more consistently.

Training also helps groups develop shared meanings.

A team can taste reference solutions, compare sensory examples, discuss intensity, and agree on how particular terms will be used within its work.

This process is known as calibration.

Calibration does not require every person to experience the coffee identically.

Its purpose is to help people understand one another and apply an agreed method more consistently.

A calibrated group may still include people with different sensitivities and preferences. What improves is their ability to explain observations, separate description from preference, use shared references, and recognise where genuine disagreement remains.

The purpose of sensory education is not to replace personal perception with one approved answer.

It is to make perception more attentive, repeatable, and communicable.

A More Appreciative Way to Disagree

Sensory discussions can sometimes become competitive.

One person identifies an unusual descriptor. Another challenges it. Confidence may be mistaken for accuracy, while uncertainty may be mistaken for a lack of ability.

A more constructive tasting culture begins with curiosity.

Instead of saying:

“There is no peach in this coffee.”

We can ask:

“Which quality reminded you of peach?”

Instead of saying:

“This coffee is obviously sweet.”

We can say:

“I experience clear sweetness. How does it appear to you?”

Instead of saying:

“You are confusing acidity with sourness.”

We can ask:

“Can we taste it again and describe the intensity, quality, and finish of the acidity?”

These questions do not weaken technical standards.

They create a better path towards them.

They encourage people to provide sensory evidence, compare experiences, and clarify language. They also allow less-experienced tasters to participate without feeling that every observation is a test.

When people feel respected, they are more likely to describe what they genuinely perceive rather than repeat what they think an expert expects them to say.

A Practical Exercise: Tasting Without Trying to Agree

Prepare one coffee and divide it equally among several people.

Use the same cups and serve everyone at the same time.

Step 1: Taste Silently

Do not share information about the coffee.

Ask each person to write down:

• The first aroma they notice
• The main taste sensations
• The body or texture
• One or two flavour associations
• How the coffee changes in the finish

Simple observations are valuable.

“Sweet and nutty” may be more useful than a highly specific descriptor the taster cannot explain.

Step 2: Compare Experiences

Allow each person to share without interruption.

Look first for similarities.

One person may write lemon, another orange, and another citrus. These may represent a shared sensory direction rather than a disagreement.

Ask what led each person to choose a particular word.

This often reveals that different descriptions are connected to similar sensations.

Step 3: Taste Again as the Coffee Cools

Return to the coffee after several minutes.

Notice whether the aroma, sweetness, acidity, bitterness, texture, or flavour associations have changed.

Then ask two separate questions:

“What do you observe?”

“How much do you enjoy it?”

The answers may reveal that people agree more about the coffee’s characteristics than they do about their personal preferences.

That is not a problem to solve.

It is useful information.

Sensory Perception Is Part of the Coffee System

Tasting may appear to be the final stage of coffee, but sensory judgement influences the entire system.

A quality professional’s evaluation can affect purchasing.

A buyer’s interpretation can influence price and market access.

A roaster’s sensory decisions can shape roast profiles and production standards.

A barista’s tasting can guide recipe adjustments.

A customer’s preferences can influence what a café chooses to serve.

Over time, market responses may influence which varieties are planted, which processing methods are developed, and which flavour profiles producers are encouraged to pursue.

Perception influences value.

Value influences decisions.

Those decisions travel back through the coffee system.

This is why sensory evaluation deserves both technical discipline and human understanding.

The more carefully we communicate what we experience—and the more respectfully we listen to others—the more useful our decisions can become.

Final Thoughts

Two people can taste the same coffee and disagree because tasting is not a simple reading of chemical information.

It is a meeting between the coffee and the person.

The coffee brings its variety, growing conditions, processing, storage, roasting, brewing, temperature, and chemistry.

The person brings sensory sensitivity, memory, language, culture, attention, expectation, experience, and preference.

Every cup is therefore both shared and personal.

Sensory training helps us observe more carefully. Calibration helps us communicate more clearly. Consistent methods help us understand where differences arise.

Appreciation reminds us that a different experience is not automatically an inferior one.

The purpose of tasting is not always to make everyone reach the same answer.

It is to understand the coffee more fully by examining what we perceive, why we perceive it, and how our experience connects with the experiences of others.

Better coffee begins with better questions.

Better sensory conversations begin with better listening.

Coming Next

Coffee Systems | Part 3

Coffee Bean Is Not Really a Bean—So What Is It?

Discover why coffee is botanically a seed, what lies inside it, and how its structure, viability, moisture, water activity, density, genetics, and storage influence green coffee and roasting.

About the Author

Raja Muthusamy is an international coffee professional with 20 years of experience across the coffee value chain. His work has included roles as a barista, trainer, coffee technician, roast master, production manager, green coffee evaluator, quality controller, competition judge, and coffee educator.

He is a Q Instructor, an Authorized SCA Trainer, and holds a CAS Diploma in Coffee Excellence from ZHAW. Throughout his career, he has trained coffee professionals, developed roasting and quality systems, and supported businesses in improving coffee quality from origin to cup.

Through Coffee by Raja, Raja shares scientific knowledge, practical experience, and systems thinking to help coffee professionals make informed decisions across farming, processing, roasting, brewing, sensory evaluation, quality management, and business.