Is it 84 Points or 87 Points? Does a Single Score in Coffee Still Describe Quality?

In the specialty coffee world, terms like “84 points”, “87 points”, or “90+ coffee” have transformed into a concise language for quality for both professionals and consumers. Green coffee buyers and roasters have been using these scores for years to compare different lots, establish purchasing thresholds, and categorize their portfolios. Fresh Cup's report dated August 12, 2026, emphasizes that the scoring system provides a common reference in coffee purchasing, but the score alone cannot predict how much a consumer will enjoy the coffee.

The issue is not that the score is ineffective; it is the potential overemphasis placed on a single number. María Esther Thome-López, a Q Grader and SCA trainer, explains that the difference between clean coffees scoring 82, 84, and 87 points cannot always be interpreted as “good-bad”; rather, the difference may manifest more in characteristics like aromatic clarity, body, complexity, and finish. Therefore, a coffee scoring 87 points may not automatically be a better purchase than a coffee scoring 84 points for a specific roaster or customer.

This situation is particularly a commercial issue for cafes and roasters. Shanita Nicholas, whose views are featured in Fresh Cup, shares that in the past, she used a minimum threshold of 84 points when purchasing green coffee; as she gained experience, she found that some coffees with lower scores could also be suitable for her business in terms of price, flavor profile, and customer expectations. Thus, the purchasing decision is shaped not by “finding the highest score” but by the product's alignment with target customers, price level, and brand portfolio.

The Specialty Coffee Association's recent changes to its evaluation system also indicate that this discussion is not merely based on individual opinions. The SCA's Coffee Value Assessment — CVA system uses four distinct perspectives to explain the value of coffee instead of a single final score: physical assessment, descriptive sensory evaluation, affective assessment measuring the evaluator's perception of quality, and extrinsic assessment encompassing information like origin, processing method, certification, or traceability. The SCA states that CVA aims to show in more detail why and in which market coffee may be valuable by using these four layers of information together rather than relying on a single score.

This change does not mean that “coffee scores have been eliminated.” The CVA still includes an affective score, which quantifies the evaluator's perception of quality, and the SCA provides an official calculation tool for this. The difference is that the score is no longer seen as the sole result representing the coffee's entire value. For instance, descriptive evaluation records what flavor and aroma characteristics the coffee possesses, while extrinsic evaluation assesses information about origin or production that cannot be directly tasted in the cup separately.

The SCA's professional training system has also adapted to this transformation. The current Q Grader program is now based on Coffee Value Assessment. The six-day program teaches components of CVA such as physical assessment, descriptive evaluation, affective assessment, and extrinsic assessment. According to the SCA, the Q Grader license continues to be an internationally recognized qualification used in professional roles such as quality control, green coffee purchasing, export-import, roasting, and sensory analysis.

The change has a more nuanced outcome on the producer side. While a coffee's score can affect its commercial value, academic studies show that specialty coffee prices cannot be explained solely by sensory quality scores. A study examining Cup of Excellence data found that physical and sensory characteristics are effective in quality assessment; however, “symbolic” and commercial factors such as origin, rarity, story, and market conditions also play a strong role in auction prices. A more recent study also shows a positive relationship between specialty coffee retail prices and evaluations of aroma, acidity, body, flavor, and overall quality. Therefore, while the score retains its importance in terms of commercial value, it is not the sole determinant of price.

The economic conditions in 2026 make this discussion even more significant. The Coffee Barometer 2026 argues that high coffee prices do not eliminate the structural problems in producer economics; rising input costs, climate risks, and concentrated risks in production continue to persist. According to the report, there is still a serious imbalance between the risks borne by producers in the coffee value chain and the economic value generated in consuming countries.

In these conditions, a producer's investment in more intensive sorting, more complex fermentation, or more costly processing methods solely to achieve a higher cup score may not always yield economically sound results. If the price premium that comes with a high score does not cover the producer's additional costs and risks, then a technical quality increase does not create economic sustainability. This outcome is an operational assessment that can be derived from existing price and value distribution data; it does not apply universally to every producer and market.

Roasters also require a similar balance. While a rare microlot scoring above 90 points may be meaningful for brand reputation or a specialty product portfolio, a coffee in the 83–85 point range that is balanced, stable, affordably priced, and can be sourced year-round may be a more commercially sound choice for daily espresso operations. The fundamental discussion presented by Fresh Cup also focuses here: the score can be part of the purchasing decision, but it should not be the purchasing strategy itself.

One of the most significant changes brought by CVA for the industry is the strengthening of the distinction between “quality” and “definition.” A coffee being floral, tropical, or high-acid is a descriptive characteristic; how valuable this characteristic is considered by a specific market is another assessment. The SCA's separation of descriptive and affective assessment aims to prevent professionals from evaluating “what does the coffee taste like?” and “how valuable do I or my target market find this coffee?” as if they were the same question.

In our opinion: Instead of abandoning coffee scores, it is necessary to place the score in the right context. The cupping score can continue to be a strong common language for roasters, green coffee buyers, and quality control teams. However, if businesses reduce their purchasing criteria to single-digit rules like “we don’t buy anything below 85” or “we sell 90+ coffee,” they may miss both commercial opportunities and consumer expectations. A healthier model for roasters in Turkey could be to evaluate the cup score alongside flavor profile, purchase price, producer relationships, lot size, supply continuity, and target customer. For cafes, teams that can explain why a coffee is different, what kind of flavor it offers, and what drinking expectations it meets will be more valuable than simply saying “this coffee is 88 points.” In the new era, a good coffee professional's competence may be more about accurately reading different types of value than simply recognizing a high score.