“I don’t believe in Q graders…”

… a phrase I heard earlier this month has been stuck in my head ever since. We were discussing coffee production, the logistics of exporting and importing to Europe, when someone said:

“I don’t believe in Q-graders.”

It lingered in my mind, not because I’m a Q-grader and it hurt my feelings, but because I like to look at topics from different angles. I felt there was something deeper in that statement that I needed to think about.

So, I wrote it down and allowed time for it to sink in, giving myself space to process it.

If you know me even a little, you know how much quality means to me. Quality of drinks in a café, quality of roasting, quality of green coffee. When I was younger, I was far less forgiving in my pursuit of perfection. Over time, I grew more understanding of the industry as a whole, recognizing that coffee is bigger than specialty and that compromises happen for various reasons—be it the number of quakers in a batch, the change in screen size, or the general decline in quality standards.

Years of mistakes and learning made me more empathetic. Coffee is a vast ecosystem, and my perspective broadened as I gained more experience.

But the question remains: Do I believe in Q-graders?

Or to put it differently: Are they helping? Are they contributing to something meaningful?

Let’s start with this: if there are no clear rules for what defines quality, it becomes elusive, even meaningless.

I won’t dive into how the way we buy coffee needs to evolve—how specialty needs to become more value-based and relationship-oriented rather than purely a transaction. That’s a discussion for another day.

Q-graders are essentially a highly trained panel of coffee tasters. These are people who undergo extensive training, pass rigorous exams, and fine-tune their ability to evaluate coffee quality. The goal? To create a common understanding of what quality looks, feels, and tastes like.

So far, so good. Q-graders are a tool—nothing more, nothing less.

It’s important to remember, though, that Q-graders aren’t trained to determine what’s “good” or “bad” based on personal preference. They are trained to grade quality objectively, using flavor and defect-based analysis. No emotions. No biases. Ideally.

Yes, there’s an urgent conversation around the values inside the coffee trade—ethics, sustainability, fair compensation—but without understanding the technical rules of the game, we can’t even begin to address those issues. To build meaningful, value-based relationships in coffee, we first need to speak the same language when it comes to quality.

For those involved in buying coffee, you need to know what you’re looking for: flavor profile, defect tolerance, processing quality, and so on. Only then can you sign the contract. And this is where Q-graders come in handy—they provide a standardized way to evaluate coffee quality across regions and origins.

Ideally, Q-graders should be able to communicate with each other in a shared language of coffee quality. Even if their scores vary due to personal experience or differences in calibration, the system allows them to quickly realign and find a common ground. This makes the Q-grading system an efficient tool for quality control.

But here’s where the details matter.

Being a Q-grader shouldn’t be seen as an end goal. 

And a Q-grader’s evaluation should never be taken as an ultimate truth.

Q-grading is just one step on a much longer ladder—a step toward a deeper understanding of coffee. In this case, it helps refine the sensory and quality component of that understanding. It’s a crucial step, but not the final one.

So, do we need Q-graders?

Yes, we need people who are trained to understand coffee on a technical level. But understanding coffee is an ongoing process—it’s never finished. As soon as you think you’ve mastered one aspect of it, there’s another dimension to explore.

You might think you know everything about quality, but there’s always more to learn. What about the social and economic contexts of coffee production? What about the differences between the Global North and Global South, the economics of pricing, labor laws, logistics, or even marketing? What about extractivism in coffee production, and how that impacts local communities? The list goes on and on. Even quality as it is is evolving – look at all the new processing and fermentation practices.

The point is, learning about coffee never stops. And Q-graders are part of that learning process, but they aren’t the whole picture.

I think my biggest issue in this case is standardization. 

One of the strengths of the Q-grading system is the standardization. In an industry as diverse as coffee, we need a common language—something that lets producers, traders, roasters, and buyers communicate effectively, no matter where they are in the world. Q-grading helps us doing that.

But here’s the problem: while standardization is essential, it can also be limiting. Coffee is not a static product. It’s an agricultural one, influenced by so many factors—climate, altitude, processing methods, and cultural and social practices. 

The risk with any rigid system is that we might miss out on something truly unique or remarkable, simply because it doesn’t fit the mold of what we’ve decided is “good quality.”

And this raises an important question for me: Does standardization push us toward certain coffee profiles while undervaluing others? Coffees with unconventional or distinct flavors, often tied to a specific origin or local tradition, might not perform as well in a Q-grading setting. But that doesn’t make them any less valuable or extraordinary—at least not to the people who appreciate them.

I’ve also been wondering about the impact of globalization of taste—how standardizing what’s considered “good coffee” might lead us to prioritize certain flavors at the expense of diversity. Different cultures, different palates. So while Q-grading is great for providing structure, we have to remember that quality in a broader sense of the word sometimes goes beyond technical sheets.

So, do we need Q-graders?

Yes. As a tool. A highly trained tasting panel that allows us to speak a common language and evaluate coffee quality in a consistent way. It would be foolish not to use such a resource. But we also need to keep learning, keep asking questions, and keep challenging the limitations of our tools.

Q-grading is one chapter in the book of coffee, not the whole story.