New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

coffee-fi - Page 16

post #226 of 279
Milk and sugar are like using eq.
post #227 of 279
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaffeinatedX42 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by buttons252 View Post

I spend about $1200 a year going to star bucks. i dont really care what beans they use as long as it has three pumps of chocolate and 160 degree milk :-)

 

That's the equivalent of saying "I spend $1200 on iTunes and only listen on Beats-by-Dre.  I don't really care about sound fidelity so long it's loud and has bass.".

 

There's nothing wrong with that, but it isn't "coffee-fi".

 

popcorn.gif

 

 

Yeah that's not coffee that's dessert.

post #228 of 279

+1

Quote:
Originally Posted by JadeEast View Post

Milk and sugar are like using eq.

 

post #229 of 279

I don't know why folks are so down on Starbucks coffee? First off so many people go there making them the largest and best known coffee retailers. Obviously a lot of people love them too.

 

They are amazing in that any place you go in the world the Starbucks tastes exactly, absolutely exactly the same. Very few products are that consistent. They figure that if folks get used to how something tastes then the goal is to always produce it. The way they do it is by combining beans from all over. This allows them to maybe not be held hostage by one suppler. The beans are roasted to what would be equal to french roast dark.

 

Obviously there are better tasting coffees out there. I really like their espresso better than their coffee. Still I think they are OK for what they do.


Edited by Redcarmoose - 4/9/13 at 6:06pm
post #230 of 279

I didn't see anybody knocking Starbuck's, just someone that posted that they spent all of their money on mochas, and the rest of us pointing out that the "coffe-fi" component is lost in a concoction like that.

 

I certainly don't hate them politically like I used to. They will never take the place of a good independent roaster/barista but they are a welcome sight at an airport if the line isn't too long. If it is, let's face it Pete's or Seattle's Best or any of the other premium chains are just as good. But Starbucks is coming around politically somewhat and that's a good thing IMO. And I agree that they have consistency down but a bit of mystery and discovery can be a good thing too. Still, Micky D wrote the book on consistency and they do pretty good so there's definitely a place for it.

 

Personally I wasn't even knocking mochas, just pointing out that there's a big difference between that and a good cup a joe.

post #231 of 279

Have been buying the 1lb bags of Starbucks Tribute the past few weeks. 

 

On a side note, while Starbucks has 'Dark Roast' up on their menu it's never available in the evening lately when I'm taking some top-down drives of some nice local roads and want a warm companion to sip along the way. 

post #232 of 279
The reason they are consistent is because they started using automatic machines
They do everything from grinding, tamping, extracting with the push of a button.

You sacrifice a lot of quality that way, yes they are OK at making espresso based drinks. But that's it. Their espresso is heavily masked with gallons of milks, syrups, fruits and whatever they put in there now.
Most people like that and it's fine. They have a target audience.
But for people wanting to experience a real espresso or coffee, sbucks is not the place I would suggest.

I'm not hating on Starbucks though, they have their place, just like picking between McDonald's and a Steakhouse to eat a burger.
post #233 of 279

+1 Tim Hortons

post #234 of 279

I've been on a Guatemalin Atitlan kick lately.  I'm fortunate to live in an area with several local coffee roasters, one of which roasts these beans every Monday.  It has such a wonderful aroma: caramel sweetness, but also what I would consider an earthy quality.  My brewing method is nothing fancy—just an inverted Aeropress which gets the job done quickly, simply, and with consistent results.  

post #235 of 279
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiont View Post

The reason they are consistent is because they started using automatic machines
They do everything from grinding, tamping, extracting with the push of a button.

You sacrifice a lot of quality that way, yes they are OK at making espresso based drinks. But that's it. Their espresso is heavily masked with gallons of milks, syrups, fruits and whatever they put in there now.
Most people like that and it's fine. They have a target audience.
But for people wanting to experience a real espresso or coffee, sbucks is not the place I would suggest.

I'm not hating on Starbucks though, they have their place, just like picking between McDonald's and a Steakhouse to eat a burger.

 

 

Well stated.

post #236 of 279
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redcarmoose View Post

I don't know why folks are so down on Starbucks coffee? First off so many people go there making them the largest and best known coffee retailers. Obviously a lot of people love them too.

 

They are amazing in that any place you go in the world the Starbucks tastes exactly, absolutely exactly the same. Very few products are that consistent. They figure that if folks get used to how something tastes then the goal is to always produce it. The way they do it is by combining beans from all over. This allows them to maybe not be held hostage by one suppler. The beans are roasted to what would be equal to french roast dark.

 

Obviously there are better tasting coffees out there. I really like their espresso better than their coffee. Still I think they are OK for what they do.

 

 

I quite enjoy Starbucks coffee (not espresso).  It's not spectacular by any means but it is definitely in the upper 5% of all coffee sold in the US (not counting Starbucks market share).  Their bean sourcing is good, as is their blend recipes.  The reason why they are not capable of achieving "high fidelity" level of coffee production is that they buy in mass quantities , roast in bulk volumes by timer (rather than by hand), will use beans that are weeks old, and only make coffee via a single "old standby" paper filter drip method.  It is, as you point out, 100% consistently pretty good.  Given the choice I would make my own or go into a better coffee shop, but when Starbucks is the only option (which is often) I don't turn my nose up at it.  The only time it's genuinely bad is when they don't toss it and make a fresh batch as often as their procedures dictate, which leads to a sour/burnt cup.

 

Their actual straight espresso, though, is somewhere between awful and mediocre.  Not undrinkable, but not anything any espresso aficionado would describe as "good" or even "passable" in the world of quality espresso.  However that's masked by the milk and syrups which is how 99% of all their espresso drinks are sold.  For a milk based drink "not undrinkable" is all that's needed.  It's pretty rare to see anyone buy a straight espresso from Starbucks.

 

To continue my earlier analogy, it's the iTunes & Beats of the coffee world.  I listen to iTunes enjoy it in the car; my wife only buys music on iTunes so much of what we own is in their format.  I don't, though, have any illusions about it being audiophile.


Edited by CaffeinatedX42 - 4/12/13 at 1:39pm
post #237 of 279
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaffeinatedX42 View Post

 

 

I quite enjoy Starbucks coffee (not espresso).  It's not spectacular by any means but it is definitely in the upper 5% of all coffee sold in the US (not counting Starbucks market share).  Their bean sourcing is good, as is their blend recipes.  The reason why they are not capable of achieving "high fidelity" level of coffee production is that they buy in mass quantities , roast in bulk volumes by timer (rather than by hand), will use beans that are weeks old, and only make coffee via a single "old standby" paper filter drip method.  It is, as you point out, 100% consistently pretty good.  Given the choice I would make my own or go into a better coffee shop, but when Starbucks is the only option (which is often) I don't turn my nose up at it.  The only time it's genuinely bad is when they don't toss it and make a fresh batch as often as their procedures dictate, which leads to a sour/burnt cup.

 

Their actual straight espresso, though, is somewhere between awful and mediocre.  Not undrinkable, but not anything any espresso aficionado would describe as "good" or even "passable" in the world of quality espresso.  However that's masked by the milk and syrups which is how 99% of all their espresso drinks are sold.  For a milk based drink "not undrinkable" is all that's needed.  It's pretty rare to see anyone buy a straight espresso from Starbucks.

 

To continue my earlier analogy, it's the iTunes & Beats of the coffee world.  I listen to iTunes enjoy it in the car; my wife only buys music on iTunes so much of what we own is in their format.  I don't, though, have any illusions about it being audiophile.

Starbucks isn't all that terrible. I can't deny myself a Frappucino when the opportunity/craving arises. I prefer Chemex coffee myself and my favorite local places both excercise the Chemex method, extending the wait time for a cup of coffee. But I know it's worth the wait, so I dare not complain. :)

 

On the note of iTunes not being audiophile, I find it as a decent competitor in terms of a (free) dedicated source. Of course, this is another topic not related to subject of coffee. Please mind me.rolleyes.gif


Edited by Destroysall - 4/16/13 at 2:49am
post #238 of 279

Ooh, yet another gear-fi thread made for me that I have somehow missed for a long time.

 

I have an Expobar Brewtus II (known as the Minore in some markets, and something else again in the UK), mini mazzer grinder, espro tamp, naked bottomless portafilter etc. I get my Coffeelab beans couriered to me twice a week on their roasting days, and occasionally try out the single origins stuff they bring in.

 

Agree with others that Starbucks have their place, exactly like choosing between McDonalds and a steakhouse for eating a burger. I feel bad for those of you in the US though if Starbucks is truly in the top 5% of coffees there as someone suggested above, it isn't remotely close to that here in New Zealand.

post #239 of 279

I think it depends where you are; if you're in a metropolitan area, you'll be able to find an independent coffee house that knows what they're doing pretty easily. Starbuck's is considered the premium brand for chain stores, but not necessarily on par with what the little guy is doing.
 

post #240 of 279
Quote:
Originally Posted by doublea71 View Post

I think it depends where you are; if you're in a metropolitan area, you'll be able to find an independent coffee house that knows what they're doing pretty easily. Starbuck's is considered the premium brand for chain stores, but not necessarily on par with what the little guy is doing.
 

 

Starbucks is mostly filled with Macbook wielding crowd who seem to be glued to their seats. I've been to starbucks probably thrice, and do not wish to go there again.

 

Oh, and their Tea is the worst I've had. Especially in Asia, where you can find better tea in small tea shops for less than a third of the price.


Edited by proton007 - 4/17/13 at 6:02pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home