A single review of a cheap coffee by caffeine magazine does not prove anything. I commend you for doing a good job, and it's good that people enjoyed it. That is one opinion (by caffeine no less).
Of course people shift older coffee by roasting it darker and shoving it in a blend, and just because this is common practice, doesn't make it good. In an ideal world we'd always have fresh coffee and not be sacrificing it's subtleties by blending it.
This is touching upon the biggest challenge in specialty, that of the defect named "bag" which I'm sure you are aware of.
I have also enjoyed darker roasted coffees in the past, but nothing comes close to beautiful high scoring delicate and lightly roasted coffees, this is pretty strongly reflected by cupping scores. CoE is a good reference for this.
To me it does prove the point that you don't have to use the very best to get great results. Personally it was a test to myself rather than proving the point, it only came as a result.
In the ideal world, you say... Maybe on a different planet.
I mean this in the nicest way possible.
A single review of a cheap coffee by caffeine magazine does not prove anything. I commend you for doing a good job, and it's good that people enjoyed it. That is one opinion (by caffeine no less).
Of course people shift older coffee by roasting it darker and shoving it in a blend, and just because this is common practice, doesn't make it good. In an ideal world we'd always have fresh coffee and not be sacrificing it's subtleties by blending it.
This is touching upon the biggest challenge in specialty, that of the defect named "bag" which I'm sure you are aware of.
I have also enjoyed darker roasted coffees in the past, but nothing comes close to beautiful high scoring delicate and lightly roasted coffees, this is pretty strongly reflected by cupping scores. CoE is a good reference for this.