Cupping

Reference values#

Values for the affective assessment as specified in SCA Standard 102-2024 and set out in the SCA’s June 2024 CVA document, unless stated. Shall = mandatory, should = recommended.⁴

The ±3 °C tolerance on water temperature allows for cupping at high elevation, common in producing countries.⁴ The roast-level reading depends on the instrument: the CVA document lists different target readings for different roast meters and notes that their scales are arbitrary.⁴

Sensory science behind the split#

Sensory science distinguishes analytical measurements, such as the intensity of a taste, from value judgements, such as preference or acceptability.⁴ The first can be trained against references and is treated as objective; the second is subjective.⁴ The SCA regards separating the two as best practice in sensory and consumer science.⁴ Its CVA work, with World Coffee Research and the Coffee Science Foundation, found in 2021–2022 that cuppers could act as consistent descriptive panelists, but also found two distinct preference clusters among them.⁴

The descriptive side. Classic descriptive methods rate the intensity of attributes on 15-point scales; the CVA adopted the same scale for compatibility.⁴ CATA is a rapid profiling technique: tasters only tick the attributes present and do not rate their intensity, so less training is needed.⁴ The descriptors behind the lists come from the Coffee Taster’s Flavor Wheel, which in turn is built on the World Coffee Research Sensory Lexicon.⁴ For each attribute, the lexicon gives references that serve as the standard against which it is measured.¹³ The 2016 wheel was designed by having 72 experts sort the lexicon’s attributes, then grouping them with hierarchical clustering and placing the groups with multidimensional scaling.¹²

The affective side. The 9-point hedonic scale was developed at the US Quartermaster Food and Container Institute by Peryam and Pilgrim to measure soldiers’ food preferences.¹⁶ It is the most common scale for consumer acceptance.¹⁶ The SCA calls the 9-point scale the most commonly used affective measurement in food science and adopted its format.⁴ Its labels, however, speak of impression of quality rather than liking.² The SCA says a taster may rate for a market they know as well as for themselves – an idea it calls inter-subjectivity.⁴

The uniformity box. Uniformity is a small discriminative test inside the affective form. The SCA notes that this is not ideal from a sensory-science point of view, but keeps it because individual cups make it possible.^2,4 Formal difference tests are a separate family of methods; the triangle test in ISO 4120, for example, is a forced-choice procedure for deciding whether two products differ perceptibly.¹⁵

How reliable is cupping?#

Studies point in different directions, depending on what is asked of the cuppers.

• Description. In a study of 13 Colombian coffees, four certified cuppers using the SCAA protocol were compared with a six-person trained descriptive panel.⁷ The two methods overlapped little.⁷ Cuppers’ tasting notes agreed poorly on terms, and the authors concluded that cupping cannot replace descriptive analysis for profiling coffee.⁷ A later review, describing the same comparison of 13 Colombian coffees, reads it as showing that cuppers were reasonably consistent in grading quality but highly variable in describing flavour.⁸
• Scoring. A study of Q graders found that the tasters had full capacity of evaluation, although their perceptions of the attributes varied. Tasting in the morning or afternoon did not, on its own, affect the results; combined with interaction between tasters, it produced distortions, and the authors called for better evaluation technique.¹⁰
• Process. In a 2026 validation study, the authors observed that Q graders usually arrive at an overall score first and then fill in the categories to match.¹¹ They also note the long-recognised weakness of mixing intensity, quality and presence of attributes on one form.¹¹ The CVA’s missing score line targets the same habit.⁴
• Experts versus consumers. In a blind test with 205 naïve consumers, preferences were split equally between a high- and a low-graded coffee, and consumers could not identify the more expensive one better than chance.⁹ The authors conclude that industry grading may correlate poorly with how consumers experience coffee.⁹

Calibration or alignment. In sensory science, calibration means training panelists to use defined references in a specific test.⁴ The SCA argues that the cupping room’s “calibration” is better called alignment.⁴ Descriptive results should align through shared use of scales and descriptors. Affective results may align within a supply chain, but across very different markets the SCA advises agreeing on the description and “agreeing to disagree” on preference.⁴ In its view, a good affective cupper is consistent with their own scores over time, not necessarily close to other cuppers.⁴

The “80+ = specialty” convention#

A score of more than 80 is widely treated as the line for specialty coffee. A 2026 study states the convention plainly.¹¹ An ICO compilation of specialty definitions includes one, attributed to the Coffee Quality Institute, that requires a score of over 80 points, and a Rwandan standard that sets specialty grade for fully washed Arabica at 80–90 points.¹⁴ The original SCAA protocol was designed to distinguish specialty-grade from commercial coffee.^4,6 None of the SCA documents opened for this entry, however, states where the 80-point line was first set, and its origin is therefore not given here.

Under the 2004 form most coffees scored between 80 and 88, which the SCA calls too narrow for a 100-point scale.⁴ The CVA formula was designed to use more of the scale.⁴ The SCA itself now defines specialty by attributes and value, not by a single score.⁴ It notes that a 90 still says the assessor appreciated a coffee more than an 80, and expects future contracts to add descriptive and extrinsic assessments to the score.⁴

A short history#

By the SCA’s account, tasting was added to coffee grading in the 19th century, when it showed that some small beans thought inferior had better flavour than larger ones.⁴ “Cup testing”, as it was first called, predates sensory science.⁴ Ted Lingle’s Coffee Cupper’s Handbook later brought sensory-science ideas and a systematic approach into it.⁴

The SCAA cupping form took shape in 1999, inspired by the 100-point scores used for wine, and settled five years later into the 2004 protocol.^4,6 It was designed to separate specialty-grade from commercial coffee and leaned on ideas from green grading.^4,6 The SCA began reviewing it in 2020; a survey of more than 1,500 users was part of that review.^4,6 Alpha and beta versions of the new system were piloted with groups of cuppers and an early-adopter programme of nearly 800 individuals and businesses.^1,4 A provisional version followed in June 2024, and the SCA adopted Standards 102, 103 and 104 later that year.^4,5

The score formula#

The equation in Standard 104-2024 is printed as a graphic. Its text states the inputs (the eight section ratings, non-uniform cups and defective cups), the two anchor points, the deductions and the rounding.² A straight line through the two anchors gives:

S = 52.75 + 0.65625 × Σ − 2u − 4d, rounded to the nearest 0.25,

where Σ is the sum of the eight ratings (8–72), u the number of non-uniform cups and d the number of defective cups. This is our own derivation from the published anchors. Rounding halves upwards, it reproduces every row of the SCA’s two-way table, from a sum of 8 (58.00) to a sum of 72 (100.00).²

Open questions#

• Adoption. The SCA expected the two systems to coexist for a time, and 2004 scores can still appear in contracts.⁴ No independent survey of how widely the CVA has been adopted was found.
• Comparability. The SCA does not expect old and new scores to correlate linearly.⁴ A 2026 study calls for comparing the CVA with other methods.¹¹ Until such data exist, a 2004 score and a CVA score should not be treated as equivalent.
• Physical assessment. The SCA says new research is needed on how green-bean defects affect cup quality, and its physical assessment still covers only washed Arabicas.⁴
• Sweetness. The SCA notes that research is under way to define coffee sweetness and to establish whether it is a taste or a cross-modal effect of sweet-smelling compounds.⁴
• Other species. The CVA has not been tested for species other than Arabica.⁴

Key studies#