Pointwashing: Coffee Scores Are Just a Sticker

I won’t surprise you — using the outdated CQI/SCAA grading scale is often the scam in our industry.

It’s a silent scandal that this scale is still used — or rather, abused — to sell average or even defective coffee as “outstanding.” I call it pointwashing.

Let’s talk about numbers.

I Drank the Evidence

It's been the same for years. I buy excellent, “competition” coffee, and what I get in my cup is disappointing.

This time, I couldn't resist the advertisement for this coffee, out of pure — malicious — curiosity. There was a one-in-a-million chance that I would get what they were promising.

So, today I drank a coffee that claimed to be 92.25 SCA points.

What was promised?

“This is a coffee with great complexity, sticky sweetness, and higher acidity. We want to draw attention to its extremely high score and good price/quality ratio.”

Indeed, €64 per kilogram for perhaps the best coffee from this country's recent harvest? Awesome — I bought a small sample (I used a local group for joint coffee purchases — thanks for sharing the order!).

So good, because I tried it and now I won't have to struggle with this coffee to finish the whole package.

Something was off. The roast, the aroma, flavour, mouthfeel… None of the descriptors referred to the “outstanding” level. The story didn’t match the experience in the cup. So I started digging.

But First: What Is This 100-Point System?

Let's go back to 2004. The SCAA tasting form — now used worldwide — was introduced to standardize how professionals evaluate coffee. It assesses ten attributes, such as aroma, flavor, acidity, body, and balance.W

hen all the points are added up, you get a score on a scale from 22 to 100.

The form became the standard for Q Graders, green coffee buyers, exporters, and

roasters. Its influence spread throughout the entire supply chain.

But the thing is, it was never meant to be absolute. It was never designed to be put on labels without context, recalibration, or honest conversation. However, specialty coffee has become widely associated with “some SCA points,” and if they are listed, it means that the coffee is “better.”

Now, a well-known non-governmental organization is doing its best to replace this system with a new system and quality assessment forms. The familiar points are to be consigned to history. I doubt the market will accept this, because points are what sell. Pointwashing.

Do you use a cupping form in your work — or rely on notes, memory, and instinct? Or do you just repeat the importer’s score?

Let’s recall the scale:

• 90+ = Outstanding

• 86–89.99 = Excellent

• 80–85.99 = Very good

• <80 = Maybe good, but not a special coffee

Guess the Score?

So what did I actually experience?

The aroma was low in intensity — some stone fruit and chocolate, hints of extended fermentation. But there were also acetic notes that pushed it into imbalance. The wet aroma was muted, grassy, with a chocolate-citrus haze that lacked complexity.

Flavor?

Citrusy, nutty, with some chocolate and fruit — but also grassy, musty, and straw-like.The aftertaste was short to medium, edged with alcohol notes and musty bitterness.The body? Thin and very astringent — tea-like, not in a pleasant way.

Acidity was basic and citrusy but added no complexity or vibrance.

The roast was light — very light — to the point of being colloquially “under-roasted.”Probably a fast profile, too quick after first crack. The visual assessment of the grain after cutting was thought-provoking — I noticed clearly uneven burning of the outer and inner structure of the grain. That, in itself, shaped the cup’s bitterness more than any origin characteristics.

I didn’t have enough of this coffee to do a full, professional evaluation.But from a consumer’s perspective — an affective one, a real one — I didn’t like it very much.And that matters.

The Investigation

I did some “investigating” and contacted the roaster, the producer, and the importer. I wanted to confirm their scores.

Let me walk you through this coffee I had:

• Claimed score on the roastery’s website: 92.25 points, with the comment “we are not entirely convinced about the score of 92.25, but 90 would be well deserved.”

• From the importer: 92.25 points

• Farmer’s QC lab: 85–86

• Me? Generously: 72 to 74 (peapod & Pphenolic - taint).

• No defects? Maybe 78–80, when clean cup — I call such coffees “borderline.”

Yes — up to 20 points of difference across the chain.

What Was Promised?

This is a very common botanical variety of coffee, typically with unremarkable sensory potential, from Central America. I will not provide any further information, as I do not wish to stigmatize the producer, importer, or roaster in any way.

Processing: anaerobic (4 days in a tank)I must admit that the flavor description left

me in no doubt that this was pointwashing.

“Cinnamon, cherries, passion fruit, citrus, Turkish delight (what?!)”And elsewhere they also added — ta-da — a hint of Cini Minis — Nestlé cereal.

Sounds like a 90+?

Curiously, I think we drank the same coffee, didn’t we?

The Pointwashing Chain

So we have a situation where coffee is listed higher by an importer than by the producer (a 6.25-point difference in consumer country vs. origin).

All companies claim that these are the results of their internal cuppings. I don't question this, as I didn't participate in these panels, so maybe that's how it was. The producer was genuinely surprised by the roaster's score, and the importer did not comment on the difference with the green coffee producer.

The roaster commented as above — they themselves did not fully believe the importer's assessment and probably had no idea about the green coffee producer's scoring, because they had maybe never had any contact with him.

I did not investigate further, as I did not want to accidentally ruin their business relationship. It is not about who twisted what or who promised what.I assume that none of them did it on purpose. It is just a coincidence.

Anyway, this is pointwashing: when numbers exceed reality. When they become a tool of persuasion rather than a sign of quality.This is not just a mistake — it is a distortion of value.

It does not have to be intentional; many people do it without realizing it, with good intentions, wanting to stand out, measure themselves against other roasters, and be the best.

Why It Matters

The farm representation tried to convince me that maybe their coffee gained points during transport (because it had been left to rest — maybe they did cupping on very fresh coffee?). It’s possible, but somehow I don't believe it.

Importer — more points always means a higher price and a higher margin, doesn't it?

The roastery trusts in the mythical honesty of the importer?

Now the saddest part: The consumer educates themselves, believing the roastery. They buy expensive coffee, probably don't like the taste, but appreciate it because it has so many points — it’s “outstanding.

”The astringency surrounds the mouth, but they drink it and rave about it because it's embarrassing to admit that something is wrong. They learn bad habits or become discouraged from drinking high-quality coffee.

It's Not Just About One Cup

It’s about:

• Producers who are honest but are exploited by unfair rates

• Producers who are dishonest by inflating the ratings of their coffees

• Consumers who pay more for inferior quality and learn bad habits

• Coffee roasters who rely on the ratings of others instead of their own senses

• Coffee roasters who deliberately manipulate scores for profit

• Quality controllers who inflate scores for profit

• Coffees with an average taste, "upgraded" using trendy methods

• A system that not only allows this but makes it the standard

It undermines trust.

It rewards manipulation.

It means that few people know what “high-quality coffee” or “specialty coffee” really tastes like.

It has turned a common “language” into a marketing gimmick.

The Way Forward

There are solutions.They include:

• Sensory science-based tasting of coffee lots at every stage, including after each roast

• Transparent panel calibration

• Real-time updates throughout the supply chain

• Information flow

• Multi-stage ranking systems (such as the one I am developing) that integrate process, ethics, context, and taste

• And above all, simply: honesty, respect for the dignity of others in the chain, and a rejection of exploitation

A scoring system is not inherently bad.

Nor is it correct, let alone perfect (so that we defend it like our lives against the “offensive” of Coffee Value Assessment).

However, when it loses all connection to the coffee itself, it becomes meaningless.It is no different from a scam.

Closing

I encourage you to stop treating SCA/Q scores on packaging as magic.

Okay, I know many roasters who can honestly and reliably give a score on the package, and you can brew something similar at home (especially in a lab).I know importers who respect farmers and coffee roasters so much that it would never occur to them to buy coffee cheaper and then inflate the points and sell it at a higher price.I also know farmers who are able to not only bring out the beautiful character of their coffees in their teams but also describe and score it accurately.

If they were the standard, we probably wouldn't need anything better.

However, the entire industry deserves better. Consumers too.

It was just one cup.But it told a story that repeats itself every day in the world of specialty coffee.

Let’s stop pointwashing — let’s believe that honesty pays off.

***

Call to action!

Thank you for reading to the end! If you enjoyed our article, share it with your friends on social media and help us reach them.

Pointwashing is real — and it’s everywhere.

If you care about coffee, taste, fairness, or truth, this matters.

📝 Read. Talk. Share.

And if you’re ready to build something better — start with The Better Coffee White Paper.

Coffee meeting

Book Now

And if you are interested in coffee education, follow our blog or take part in our training courses, including the free “Learn at Home" and 30-minute consultation.

Red Ink Coffee