my last few cups at McD's were very bad, and recently had a very good couple of cups at Starbucks.
but i'm going to have to point that at the cleanliness of the machines, because a year ago or so it was vice versa. (and the recent cups i had at Starbucks were actually lattes, but very good. and this was at an almost-new Target, so the machines SHOULD be cleaner.)
Originally posted by KazetNagorra What kind of twisted sort of masochism would drive anyone to have coffee at either place?
Yes all of starbuck's success is pure marketing. They are a coffee empire that can't make a cup of coffee. Is that what you are saying? I avoided starbucks until two years ago and now I love'em. Pricey but if you ask for the "$1" coffee they give it to you.
Originally posted by cheshirecatstevens Yes all of starbuck's success is pure marketing. They are a coffee empire that can't make a cup of coffee. Is that what you are saying? I avoided starbucks until two years ago and now I love'em. Pricey but if you ask for the "$1" coffee they give it to you.
A few months ago I was visiting a friend in Rome, who told me that an American visitor had spent much energy complaining that you couldn't get Starbucks in Italy and that the Italians didn't know how to do proper coffee.
maybe espresso is an acquired taste. an Italian colleague took me to the espresso machine his company had installed in their break room and made a cup for me. he loved it but i didn't, much.
Originally posted by zeeblebot maybe espresso is an acquired taste. an Italian colleague took me to the espresso machine his company had installed in their break room and made a cup for me. he loved it but i didn't, much.
It's tough to pull a proper shot. The grind has to be right, the coffee needs to be evenly distributed in the portafilter and tamped at the right pressure, the temperature and pressure of the water needs to be precise, the machine components need to be flushed and/or cleaned regularly to prevent the buildup of oils and residue, etc. Also, if you were made italian espresso, it was probably a super dark roast (i.e., burned) which yields a weak coffee (since heat destroys caffeine) with a strong charred taste. Italian and French roasts are used to mask variations or defects in coffee beans; after a bit of roasting, the acids and oils in beans that give them their particular flavor profile are just turned to sugar and carbon. Try the Blue Bottle Coffee Co., I think they're in your area.
Originally posted by zeeblebot thanks ... how about Illy, are they good?
Some of this depends on taste. Illy is a blend of a whole bunch of different beans, and it comes (last time I checked) in either a medium or dark roast. So, a lot of the particular qualities of different bean types are being lost in the blend and the roast. Then, their coffee is packed and shipped and stored and shelved. Coffee begins to break down after roasting, and even Illy's packing methods (no oxygen, filled with inert gas) don't prevent the breakdown of oils and acids in the bean. That's a chemical reaction that begins after roasting and continues thereafter. Look, Illy is not bad espresso. It's typical of an Italian espresso; balanced, sweet and bold. If you want something brighter, with fruit and citrus flavors, or with more of a kick, you'll need a lighter roast than Illy offers. If you get a chance in your local market try Intelligentsia (out of Chicago). They are excellent. But nothing beats freshly roasted beans, and I'm sure you can find a local roaster. Hell, I could send you half a pound of the espresso or single-origin varietal we roast here in Seattle if you're of a mind to taste the difference.
Originally posted by bbarr Some of this depends on taste. Illy is a blend of a whole bunch of different beans, and it comes (last time I checked) in either a medium or dark roast. So, a lot of the particular qualities of different bean types are being lost in the blend and the roast. Then, their coffee is packed and shipped and stored and shelved. Coffee begins to break down after r ...[text shortened]... gle-origin varietal we roast here in Seattle if you're of a mind to taste the difference.
Starbuck's coffee always tastes burned, no matter how you dress it up.
Originally posted by zeeblebot this taste test (at link) preferred McD's.
my last few cups at McD's were very bad, and recently had a very good couple of cups at Starbucks.
but i'm going to have to point that at the cleanliness of the machines, because a year ago or so it was vice versa. (and the recent cups i had at Starbucks were actually lattes, but very good. and this was ...[text shortened]... es SHOULD be cleaner.)
It's a matter of taste of course. Plenty of sugar can cover up some errors. I'd give the edge to Starbucks (I'll admit, being from Seattle did affect my decision)
McDonald's vs. Starbucks coffee
24 Aug '10 16:461 edit
Back to Top