I love reading about coffee history and such, and recently stumped upon this [Costa Rican Specialty Coffee: A True Delight » CoffeeGeek](https://www.coffeegeek.com/farming/costa-rican-specialty-coffee-a-true-delight/) Just wonder how much authentic is this page? i.e. is the information trust worthy, mostly truth worthy, or 50:50?

Coffeegeek authenticity

delta76

I love reading about coffee history and such, and recently stumped upon this Costa Rican Specialty Coffee: A True Delight » CoffeeGeek

Just wonder how much authentic is this page? i.e. is the information trust worthy, mostly truth worthy, or 50:50?

MWJB

delta76 Which particular aspect, if any, do you have issue with?

“Coffeegeek” was a website & forum run by Mark Prince (AKA Coffeeheek), but I see the author on this article is named as another party.

At a quick read through, it looks to be correct according to my understanding. I can’t see anything really worth contesting in it.

Few things written about coffee are 100% accurate, 80% correct would be doing very well., In fact, coffee seems to be the home of the commonly held misconception in many cases. Prime territory for bluffers. However, Mark Prince is generally well respected.

I don’t have any great affection for Costa Rican coffee, there are some good ones, as for any origin, but maybe that’s just me. The article seems more like an informational focus piece.

delta76

MWJB I have very little to no knowledge regarding coffee origins so I was asking if I can trust the website or just skip it. I know coffee has much to debate when it comes to brewing but history, (I guess) not so much. only if the writers truly know their stuffs and do the research.

Thanks, it seems like a great source of information. I’d love to learn about the coffee origins as much as taste them

MWJB

delta76 I don’t think there is any difference what is, or isn’t true whether technical (in an objective sense), or historical. I frequently see poor/wrong accreditations and manglings of historical info.

delta76

MWJB there is a difference between misinformation (which can be corrected if you know where to look - which is why I asked about coffeegeek), and opinions (which are probably never settled) 😊

MWJB

delta76 Sure, I’m not talking about opinions/subjective ideas & preferences, more about what things do & don’t physically do, backed up by results. The two aspects can often be considered as separate.

E.g. Someone might like hard water for making coffee, if that’s what they prefer, carry on & enjoy. But, if they claimed it helped them extract more from the coffee (as is often stated), that would objectively be wrong.