Starbucks too dark
Kevin=Stephen%R...@bangate.compaq.com
Even their normal roast is black and oily! Is this the style in the Pacific Northwest?
House of Coffee Beans here in Houston does a much better job of roasting. IMHO.
Easier to brew a cup without that smokey taste.
ArthurC18
Starbucks (a remarkable story--they didn't always make big $$).
My recollection is that he said they were "devastated" when Consumer
Reports said that they "over-roasted" their coffee.
So, my friend, you are not alone....
Joe
Kevin=Stephen%Rel=Eng%PCPD=H...@bangate.compaq.com wrote:
: Does anybody else feel that Starbucks roasts their beans too dark?
ZeroDrag
Lewis Hosier
I can be silent no longer. As coffee is an acquired taste, so is dark
roast. The flavor is so much more interesting! I personally roast my
Tanzanian Peaberry very dark (just this side of charcoal briquets ;))
Starbucks is almost dark enough. House of Coffee Beans only roasts run of
the mill coffees dark. They don't roast anything interesting darker than
Folgers. Try a dark roast and enjoy the intense flavor!
--
Lewis Hosier lho...@phoenix.phoenix.net Houston.Texas.USA.Earth
Michael Holcomb
>Does anybody else feel that Starbucks roasts their beans too dark?
>Even their normal roast is black and oily! Is this the style in the Pacific Northwest?
>House of Coffee Beans here in Houston does a much better job of roasting. IMHO.
>Easier to brew a cup without that smokey taste.
I think companies like Starbucks and Peets are succeeding because
there are enough coffee drinkers out there that like dark and smoky
and ily roasts. I wouldn't buy anything but that and when I roast my own
it's not done till I see the sheen on the beans. Your House of Coffee Beans
probably does a much better job of roasting beans the way you like it.
Jim_...@transarc.com
> I read an interview with the fellow who bought and revamped the original
> Starbucks (a remarkable story--they didn't always make big $$).
>
> My recollection is that he said they were "devastated" when Consumer
> Reports said that they "over-roasted" their coffee.
>
Good God. You mean there is somebody out there who takes Consumer
Reports seriously on matters of taste? This is the same Consumer
Reports who rated 8 O'Clock coffee as the best out there.
******************************************************************
Jim Mann jm...@transarc.com
Transarc Corporation
The Gulf Tower, 707 Grant Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15219 (412) 338-4442
WWW Homepage: http://www.transarc.com/~jmann/Home.html
George Theodoris
myself included. To me lightly roasted coffee(light to medium brown beans)
doesn't taste as rich as darkly roasted coffee(dark brown shiny beans).
Starbucks has some great coffees, especially their Ethiopean coffees and
the New Guinea peaberry.
-George
Jill Rachel Stuart
Julian Vrieslander
Kevin=Stephen%Rel=Eng%PCPD=H...@bangate.compaq.com wrote:
>Does anybody else feel that Starbucks roasts their beans too dark?
>Even their normal roast is black and oily! Is this the style in the
Pacific Northwest?
>House of Coffee Beans here in Houston does a much better job of roasting. IMHO.
>Easier to brew a cup without that smokey taste.
Can't argue with taste. If you really don't like dark roasted coffee,
that's your right. For me, the darker roasts taste richer and more
complex, and the lighter roasts often seem a bit too sour and harsh.
I have a couple of ideas about why most stores (outside Seattle) sell
lighter roasts. With the dark stuff, more oil is brought to the surface
of the beans, so it might have a shorter shelf life before it starts to go
bad. And it might be harder to keep the storage containers clean. Also,
people used to typical restaurant and supermarket coffee might find the
taste a bit strange.
I think the difference between canned supermarket coffee and the stuff I
get from Starbuck's and Peet's is greater than it used to be. At one
time, if I ran out of good beans, I could buy a can of something like
Chock Full 'o' Nuts and brew a drinkable, if not great, coffee from it.
But the last couple of times I tried canned coffee, the results were
really dreadful. Battery acid. Anyone else notice this? Could it be
that the increases in crop prices have forced the mass market roasters to
buy really low grade beans?
--
Julian Vrieslander
j...@netcom.com jd...@cornell.edu
Jill Rachel Stuart
lho...@phoenix.phoenix.net (Lewis Hosier) writes:
>In article <3qi4nt$p...@panix.com>, jd...@panix.com (Joe) wrote:
>> I agree. Can't stand the stuff. And it's way too expensive.
>>
>> Kevin=Stephen%Rel=Eng%PCPD=H...@bangate.compaq.com wrote:
>> : Does anybody else feel that Starbucks roasts their beans too dark?
>> : Even their normal roast is black and oily! Is this the style in the
>Pacific Northwest?
>> : House of Coffee Beans here in Houston does a much better job of
>roasting. IMHO.
>> : Easier to brew a cup without that smokey taste.
>I can be silent no longer. As coffee is an acquired taste, so is dark
>roast. The flavor is so much more interesting!
Okay, so I won't be silent either. Maybe you don't intend this, but do you
realize that this remark about "acquired taste" makes it sound like
"enlightened taste"--i.e., if I don't like Charbucks, I haven't evolved to
appreciate the "intensity" of what, to me, is burnt coffee? Tell you what:
if you don't tell me that those very dark roasts are more "intense" than my
favorite roasts, I won't tell *you* that "over-roasting" destroys delicate
flavors present in the beans. Let's remain respectful of people who like
different styles, okay?
Best wishes, Jill
Jamie Magruder
lho...@phoenix.phoenix.net says...
>
>In article <3qi4nt$p...@panix.com>, jd...@panix.com (Joe) wrote:
>
>> I agree. Can't stand the stuff. And it's way too expensive.
>>
>> Kevin=Stephen%Rel=Eng%PCPD=H...@bangate.compaq.com wrote:
>> : Does anybody else feel that Starbucks roasts their beans too dark?
>> : Even their normal roast is black and oily! Is this the style in the
>Pacific Northwest?
>> : House of Coffee Beans here in Houston does a much better job of
>roasting. IMHO.
>> : Easier to brew a cup without that smokey taste.
>
>I can be silent no longer. As coffee is an acquired taste, so is dark
>Tanzanian Peaberry very dark (just this side of charcoal briquets ;))
>Starbucks is almost dark enough. House of Coffee Beans only roasts run of
>the mill coffees dark. They don't roast anything interesting darker than
>Folgers. Try a dark roast and enjoy the intense flavor!
>
>--
>Lewis Hosier lho...@phoenix.phoenix.net Houston.Texas.USA.Earth
I grew up drinking the dark stuff in the Northwest. Dark roasts are good, but I
find them LESS interesting. A lighter roast of Tanzanian Peaberry is much more
distinctive. In fact, I would say that most dark roasts taste too similar to
warrant buying them regularly. They are good on icecream though!
Jamie
Kamapuaa
>realize that this remark about "acquired taste" makes it sound like
>"enlightened taste"--i.e., if I don't like Charbucks, I haven't evolved to
>appreciate the "intensity" of what, to me, is burnt coffee? Tell you what:
>if you don't tell me that those very dark roasts are more "intense" than my
>favorite roasts, I won't tell *you* that "over-roasting" destroys delicate
>flavors present in the beans. Let's remain respectful of people who like
>different styles, okay?
>
>Best wishes, Jill
Just to put matters in perspective, I think that remaining respectful would include
dropping the term "Charbucks". You certainly can and probably will continue
to use the term but I think it begs repesct.
Norman Dale
lho...@phoenix.phoenix.net (Lewis Hosier) wrote:
> In article <3qi4nt$p...@panix.com>, jd...@panix.com (Joe) wrote:
>
> > I agree. Can't stand the stuff. And it's way too expensive.
> >
> > Kevin=Stephen%Rel=Eng%PCPD=H...@bangate.compaq.com wrote:
> > : Does anybody else feel that Starbucks roasts their beans too dark?
> > : Even their normal roast is black and oily! Is this the style ...etc.
>
> I can be silent no longer. As coffee is an acquired taste, so is dark
> roast. etc.
Yes and hooray for your interrupted silence. As an aficionado of
Starbuck's and their fairly dark roasts I get weary of everyone scrambling
to be the loudest in criticizing what is truly great coffee. You'd think
if they already think it's too dark, they'd hold back on the burning
flames :-)
Gloria Puester
> >> : Does anybody else feel that Starbucks roasts their beans too dark?
Glad to see this thread. We received some Starbuck's Christmas Blend as a
gift for the holidays and liked it so much that I went out and bought a
few bags to keep in the freezer (yeah, yeah,you've already warned me about
not freezing coffee) while it was still available. We immediately noticed
that the roast was much darker than the previous bag, so much darker that
the grounds smell and taste burnt both before and after brewing. Thought
it was my imagination, till I began to read the postings. This batch was
definitely too dark.
Lewis Hosier
ar...@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Jill Rachel Stuart) wrote:
>
> Okay, so I won't be silent either. Maybe you don't intend this, but do you
> realize that this remark about "acquired taste" makes it sound like
> "enlightened taste"--i.e., if I don't like Charbucks, I haven't evolved to
Chill, Jill! It's only coffee. Acquired means just that: I didn't always
like dark roast. Shucks, I didn't even always like coffee (oops, I
shouldn't have said that here). I just thought that offhand dissmissal of
dark roasts was a waste. Disagreement is not always an attack. Please
enjoy your favorite roast as you continue to evolve ;))
Larry Larson
>> I can be silent no longer. As coffee is an acquired taste, so is dark
>> roast. etc.
>Yes and hooray for your interrupted silence. As an aficionado of
>Starbuck's and their fairly dark roasts I get weary of everyone scrambling
>to be the loudest in criticizing what is truly great coffee. You'd think
We drink our coffee at least as dark as Starbucks, and brew it stronger.
We get our dark beans from either a local coffee house (Kofihous in
Alexandria VA), or a couple of places in San Francisco (Roma is one),
and neither of these sources has the objectionable bitter, charred,
and thin taste of Starbucks.
Note that even Consumer Reports has repeatedly advised that the Starbucks
beans obtainable from Starbucks in Seattle are demonstrably better than
what's available in the rest of the country from their other roasting
sites.
-- Larry
Fraser Hannah
or even "natural progression of taste" to these sorts of
discussions, I do note that my own tastes ran from lighter
roasts initially to my current preference of a dark-roasted,
yes, Starbucks, bean.
If there are many people who began with a preference for light
beans then moved to darker, this might suggest that as tastes
mature or otherwise change, the experienced coffee drinker
goes darker and darker (if you see what I mean....)
If, however, people have gone back from dark to light roast -
then my theory is simply nonsense. Any response?
Stephen Schimpf
Like you, I used to like lighter roasts and when I first tried
Starbucks thought it tasted burned. I tried more and more coffees and
started mail-ordering coffees and over time I found that my preference
changed to dark-roasted coffee. It was definitely an acquired taste
for me, and now there is nothing better than a freshly-brewed cup o'
Peet's.
Stephen
--
Stephen Michael Schimpf
Programmer/Analyst
Department of Physics and Astronomy
University of California, Los Angeles
Jeff Goodman
"burning of the bean."
Jeff
In article <3r03j1$m...@scipio.cyberstore.ca> Fraser Hannah
Westst
the "smokey" taste. If you have a Pasqua's coffee in your
area, try them.
I do love Starbucks, though!
Jamie Magruder
>
>While I hesitate to attach judgements of "better" or "worse"
>or even "natural progression of taste" to these sorts of
>discussions, I do note that my own tastes ran from lighter
>roasts initially to my current preference of a dark-roasted,
>yes, Starbucks, bean.
>
>If there are many people who began with a preference for light
>beans then moved to darker, this might suggest that as tastes
>mature or otherwise change, the experienced coffee drinker
>goes darker and darker (if you see what I mean....)
>
>If, however, people have gone back from dark to light roast -
>then my theory is simply nonsense. Any response?
>
>
in the way of gourmet coffee. One day a young woman who had worked in Switzerland
and California opened her own shop. Her philosophy: roast the beans just enough to
hit optimum personality (i.e. flavor and distinctiveness). Now I know what I was
missing. A scientist would confirm that roasting past a certain point begins to
drive off the individual aromatics of a bean and give that smoky, sweet flavor
that most darker roasts have. While I still like some darker roasts (she does a
wonderful Kenya AA Italian roast), slightly lighter roasts seem to have more
personality IMHO.
Whatever your opinion, keep drinking good coffee!
Jamie
Bryan L. Gros
they like it, move on to stronger ones (usually darker).
I have been using Peets beans and brewing coffee stronger and stronger
over the last couple of years.
With beer, I started drinking bitters and pale ales and later learned to
appreciate porters and stouts.
With wine, I drank white wines for several years before I began to enjoy
red wines.
I think the stronger flavored drinks take more getting used to, or more
time to "acquire" the taste.
- Bryan
bg...@mindseye.berkeley.edu
Seth Appell
tastes best to you. When I began home roasting Capulin, I thought
that I would find a light roast most flavorfull. After many small
roasts, I found myself enjoying roasts that where darker than I expected.
If you find a local bean is roasted darker than you enjoy, try
buying some of the same bean green, then taste it "home roasted" to
to different stages of done-ness. With a little practice, you should be
able to roast any bean to your personal favorite degree of darkness.
After a bit of practice, I find home roasting to be akin to
cooking pasta. You quickly develop a feel for under-done or over-done.
--Seth Appell
"a gentleman is always ready to serve coffee at a moment's notice"
email for interesting info about traditonaly dried Capulin
check out Capulin on the WWW! http://eMall.com/
Joe
were overroasted and bitter, and asked them to exchange them for a lighter
roast.
To my surprise, none of the beans they carry were significantly lighter.
I took some "House Blend", and was very surprised and delighted with the
flavor. The dark roast really can and does make the flavor more complex and
enjoyable.
BTW am thoroughly impressed with Starbuck's customer service. They were
very apologetic that the espresso wasn't to my liking, offered refund, replace-
ment, whatever I wanted, and poured me a cup on the house for my trouble.
They can't fail, with their combination of great product and great attitude
(but I still am not a big fan of the espresso).
Lyndon Watson
> If there are many people who began with a preference for light
> beans then moved to darker, this might suggest that as tastes
> mature or otherwise change, the experienced coffee drinker
> goes darker and darker (if you see what I mean....)
>
> If, however, people have gone back from dark to light roast -
> then my theory is simply nonsense. Any response?
Well, I'm one of the latter, but I think that, in my case at least, it
has more to do with the brewing method that is used.
I started with methods that extract rather inefficiently - the Cona
vacuum pot and then filter methods - and found myself using darker
and darker roasts just to get a full flavour. But when I finally
settled on the traditional Arabic method that I still use, I
experimented with different varieties and roasts, and found that the
lighter roasts of coffees such as Mocha and Blue Mountain types gave
much more complex and interesting flavours.
In comparison, in my purely personal opinion, dark-roasted beans and
methods adapted to them such as espresso yield a strong but
uninteresting coffee which I wouldn't consider to be worth a premium
over instant coffee.
You pays your money and you takes your choice. I just wish I could
get some of that Capulin stuff here to try...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lyndon Watson L.Wa...@csc.canterbury.ac.nz
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alanh
We wouldn't want to insult your employer, would we?
Michael Rochman
>I can be silent no longer. As coffee is an acquired taste, so is dark
>roast. The flavor is so much more interesting! I personally roast my
>Tanzanian Peaberry very dark (just this side of charcoal briquets ;))
>Starbucks is almost dark enough. House of Coffee Beans only roasts run of
>the mill coffees dark. They don't roast anything interesting darker than
>Folgers. Try a dark roast and enjoy the intense flavor!
Lewis,
I totally agree both in principal and with your taste buds. ;-)
While I can appreciate the lighter roasts for what they are, there is
something "addictive" (?) to me about darker roasts. The oil on the
bean, the aroma, the long lingering finish. Not sure what it is, but
know that I miss it when I don't get it for a day or so.
For this reason I've developed a taste for many of the West Coast
micros..especially Peet's fuller bodied blends and varietals. Not to
forget that superb Capulin from Seth.
This does not make me correct. Nor does it make me incorrect. As you
said, it's a matter of taste...
Mike
Michael Rochman
>I grew up drinking the dark stuff in the Northwest. Dark roasts are good, but I
>find them LESS interesting. A lighter roast of Tanzanian Peaberry is much more
>distinctive. In fact, I would say that most dark roasts taste too similar to
>warrant buying them regularly. They are good on icecream though!
Jamie,
This is what makes horseracing.
As a newbie, I've tried perhaps 5 different Tanz. Peaberrys over the
past several weeks. I much prefer the darker roasted. While the
differences might be more subtle, they are still there from coffee to
coffee.
I would tend to agree that differences in lighter bodied coffees tend
to be more pronounced, thus easier to discern. But, I've yet to sample
two dark roasts where I could not easily tell a difference.
However, when one is hooked on the long heavy finish that, say, a
dark roasted syrupy Sumatra can provide, one is hooked.
BTW, thanks for the tip on icecream. Been looking for a way to
increase my coffee consumption. ;-)
Mike
John Werner
>I have a couple of ideas about why most stores (outside Seattle) sell
>lighter roasts. With the dark stuff, more oil is brought to the
surface
>of the beans, so it might have a shorter shelf life before it starts
to go
>bad. And it might be harder to keep the storage containers clean.
Also,
>people used to typical restaurant and supermarket coffee might find
the
>taste a bit strange.
>
two of their store managers, IMHO that a large portion of the quality
coffee houses do not lose anything in the way of freshness of the beans
offered on the retail side. Ideally, you should never have coffee
longer than 2 weeks - of course, this is ideal. I think that the
coffeehouses that are quality concerned (and its easy to tell who they
are just by walking in the door) have do not lack in the freshness
quotient.
my two cents worth
--
John Werner
Stauf's Coffee Roasters
Columbus OH 43212 USA
614.637.6828 ph
614.486.4475 fax
Craig Lewis
>
>I just returned a bag of espresso beans to Starbuck's because I felt they
>were overroasted and bitter, and asked them to exchange them for a lighter
>roast.
>
>To my surprise, none of the beans they carry were significantly lighter.
>I took some "House Blend", and was very surprised and delighted with the
>flavor. The dark roast really can and does make the flavor more complex and
>enjoyable.
After a day or 2, the beans naturally darken a bit, and it's not
always easy to tell just exactly the level of roast by gauging the
color. I use temperature and sound as guides for my roasting;
I have a hot air roaster, with an oven-type thermometer for the temp,
and listening for the second crack to start.
>BTW am thoroughly impressed with Starbuck's customer service. They were
>very apologetic that the espresso wasn't to my liking, offered refund, replace-
>ment, whatever I wanted, and poured me a cup on the house for my trouble.
It is always nice finding a company that provides service. :=)
>They can't fail, with their combination of great product and great attitude
>(but I still am not a big fan of the espresso).
It's an acquired taste. You didn't mention whether you were
brewing espresso, or using the espresso beans but brewing normally.
I assume the latter, based on the tone of your comments. I think
that as you get more used to the darker roasts, you'll find
espresso more appealing.
--
Craig Lewis cle...@psl.nmsu.edu
Romantic: "A loaf of bread, a jug of wine, and thou."
Dreamer: "A baguette, Dom Perignon 75, and Cindy Crawford..."
Craig Lewis
lho...@phoenix.phoenix.net says...
Indeed. Anything which is intense or unusual tends to be an
'acquired taste'...espresso, single-malt Scotch (especially
Islay malts), Prokofiev and Shostakovich, the movie A Clockwork
Orange, cyberpunk fiction, etc., etc.
Of course, Jill has a point too...that in acquiring a taste for
one of these things, it's common to become a snob about it.
"Oh, you just don't *understand* what this is all about..."
Gods know we've seen a similar debate here (and in r.f.d.tea),
about the 'proper' cup of coffee/tea...with or without milk/
cream/sugar/other additive. And the flavored vs. unflavored
coffee debate.
>--
>Lewis Hosier lho...@phoenix.phoenix.net Houston.Texas.USA.Earth
--
Michael Rochman
>>Okay, so I won't be silent either. Maybe you don't intend this, but do you
>>realize that this remark about "acquired taste" makes it sound like
>>"enlightened taste"--i.e., if I don't like Charbucks, I haven't evolved to
>>appreciate the "intensity" of what, to me, is burnt coffee? Tell you what:
>>if you don't tell me that those very dark roasts are more "intense" than my
>>favorite roasts, I won't tell *you* that "over-roasting" destroys delicate
>>flavors present in the beans. Let's remain respectful of people who like
>>different styles, okay?
>>
>>Best wishes, Jill
>Just to put matters in perspective, I think that remaining respectful would include
>dropping the term "Charbucks". You certainly can and probably will continue
>to use the term but I think it begs repesct.
Actually, it goes further than that.
While Jill has put "over-roasting" in quotes, it still means the same
thing. Why must one assume that a dark roast is over-roasting?
Mike
Michael Rochman
>I think the difference between canned supermarket coffee and the stuff I
>get from Starbuck's and Peet's is greater than it used to be. At one
>time, if I ran out of good beans, I could buy a can of something like
>Chock Full 'o' Nuts and brew a drinkable, if not great, coffee from it.
>But the last couple of times I tried canned coffee, the results were
>really dreadful. Battery acid. Anyone else notice this? Could it be
>that the increases in crop prices have forced the mass market roasters to
>buy really low grade beans?
Julian,
Yes. I've noticed a deterioration. Especially in Chock Full O' Nuts.
We purchased CFON for the office for years. It was a compromise
somewhere between supermarket stuff and specialty coffee.
We felt it was always pretty much in the middle. About 3 years ago
(maybe a bit longer) something changed. CFON became simply a more
expensive supermarket coffee in our opinion. Haven't had it lately and
don't intend to try it.
Mike
Jill Rachel Stuart
>mhol...@cruzio.com (Kamapuaa) wrote:
>Mike
Just to set the record straight, since two people have commented on my
complaint: I grant that 'Charbucks' is derisive, mea culpa. But I did not
claim that *all* dark-roasting is over roasting! I regularly drink *both* a
"city-roast" *and* a "Vienna roast" (dark, but on the lighter side of dark,
I would assess) of Sumatra from Coffee Connection.
(CC calls their city roast "Full Flavor roast." I don't call it that in this
post to avoid reinforcing the source of this argument.) If I
thought all dark-roasting was over-roasting, I wouldn't drink it at all.
I was annoyed at the implication (denied by poster--fine) that liking dark
roasts was somehow more sophisticated. I was suggesting that this argument
could be constructed from either side of the roasting fence. Implicit in
this suggestion is that one side is *not* more justified than the other. I
didn't intend a mud-slinging fest on this, honest! As original poster
suggested to me, can we lighten up on this a bit? 8-)
Best wishes to drinkers of ALL roasts! Jill
Dan Masi
>I agree. Can't stand the stuff. And it's way too expensive.
>
>Kevin=Stephen%Rel=Eng%PCPD=H...@bangate.compaq.com wrote:
I'm still laughing...
I decided to try Starbucks, so I ordered a 4-variety sampler as
well as a 1/2 pound of Blue Note Blend. I opened them all and
began laughing hysterically... they're all WAY too dark! I mean, they
go through a whole spiel about the intricasies of their different
blends, then they roast all the character out of them so they're
almost indistinguishable!
ROTFL!
--
Dan Masi
Mentor Graphics Corp.
da...@warren.mentorg.com
Kamapuaa
>We drink our coffee at least as dark as Starbucks, and brew it stronger.
>We get our dark beans from either a local coffee house (Kofihous in
>Alexandria VA), or a couple of places in San Francisco (Roma is one),
>and neither of these sources has the objectionable bitter, charred,
>and thin taste of Starbucks.
>
>Note that even Consumer Reports has repeatedly advised that the Starbucks
>beans obtainable from Starbucks in Seattle are demonstrably better than
>what's available in the rest of the country from their other roasting
>sites.
>
>-- Larry
>
operational and that is just outside of Seattle in Kent. The York, PA
facility is not cooking yet.
The difference in the beans is due to the time the bag is opened.
There is an open bag shelf life of X days. When you buy at the store
you don't really know when the count started. With those you order by
mail your count starts when you open your bag.
Rowell Sotto
> >
> As far as I know there is only one roasting plant that Starbuck's has
> operational and that is just outside of Seattle in Kent. The York, PA
> facility is not cooking yet.
>
> The difference in the beans is due to the time the bag is opened.
> There is an open bag shelf life of X days. When you buy at the store
> you don't really know when the count started. With those you order by
> mail your count starts when you open your bag.
At Starbucks, from the time a bag of coffee is opened (from the big
five-pound hermetically-sealed, mylar bags) to the time it remains on the
shelves, is exactly seven days. So depending on the particular instance
you purchase coffee, you can get coffee opened that day, or coffee opened
6 days ago. As far as I know, they have one of the best freshness
standards among the big coffee chains. Of course, smaller coffee places
may pull coffee quicker, but I doubt it, simply because they probably
can't afford to throw away so many beans at a time. But hey, I could be
wrong. If I am, I'm sure someone will correct me (-8
R O W E L L S O T T O
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
d e c k a r d 1 @ m c s . c o m
F A B O O
Michael Rochman
>Note that even Consumer Reports has repeatedly advised that the Starbucks
>beans obtainable from Starbucks in Seattle are demonstrably better than
>what's available in the rest of the country from their other roasting
>sites.
Larry,
Interesting. So, then, the quality of a given Starbuck's coffee roast
varies from location to location.
This brings up some questions...
Where else does Starbucks roast coffee? I thought it was all done in
Washington. Have you tried the same coffee of theirs from various
locations (roasters)? If so, what differences do you notice?
Mike
Michael Rochman
>>If there are many people who began with a preference for light
>>beans then moved to darker, this might suggest that as tastes
>>mature or otherwise change, the experienced coffee drinker
>>goes darker and darker (if you see what I mean....)
>>If, however, people have gone back from dark to light roast -
>>then my theory is simply nonsense. Any response?
Jeff,
Sure. But, then, I'd respond to almost anything. ;-)
Chalk me down on the list for a coffee drinker who has "progressed"
from light to darker roasts.
Mike
Michael Rochman
>Like you, I used to like lighter roasts and when I first tried
>Starbucks thought it tasted burned. I tried more and more coffees and
>started mail-ordering coffees and over time I found that my preference
>changed to dark-roasted coffee. It was definitely an acquired taste
>for me, and now there is nothing better than a freshly-brewed cup o'
>Peet's.
Stephen,
As I sit here sipping a cup of Major Dickason's I have the feeling
that *I* wrote the above quote and not you. ;-)
Mike
Scott Kurki
Scott Kurki
>>
>>We drink our coffee at least as dark as Starbucks, and brew it stronger.
>>We get our dark beans from either a local coffee house (Kofihous in
>>Alexandria VA), or a couple of places in San Francisco (Roma is one),
>>and neither of these sources has the objectionable bitter, charred,
>>and thin taste of Starbucks.
>>
>>beans obtainable from Starbucks in Seattle are demonstrably better than
>>what's available in the rest of the country from their other roasting
>>sites.
>>
>>
>As far as I know there is only one roasting plant that Starbuck's has
>operational and that is just outside of Seattle in Kent. The York, PA
>facility is not cooking yet.
>
>The difference in the beans is due to the time the bag is opened.
>There is an open bag shelf life of X days. When you buy at the store
>you don't really know when the count started. With those you order by
>mail your count starts when you open your bag.
Does this iply that mail order coffee is fresher than store bought?
Scott Kurki
between. For me it's variety, I've got to have some choices.
Karl EIL
find that every bag contained fairly dark, incredibly oily beans. So much
oil, in fact, that the beans left small gobs of oil on my measuring scoop,
and formed a dry paste when grinding them for my Krups drip machine. While
I like the taste of dark roasts, I did notice that I had a difficult time
distinguishing differences between the coffees in the sampler. Starbuck's
roasting style seems to homogenize the flavors so that I could barely tell
one coffee from another. I'm surprised that they seem to roast all their
coffees to the same degree.
On the other hand, despite the unexpectedly dark and greasy beans, the
five varietals and two blends I have sampled so far have been delicious.
I'm especially fond of their Mexican Altura. Just got my first plunger pot
today and brewed some Starbuck's Altura in it. Man, I thought I died and
went to coffee heaven.
That's my two cents worth of confusion to the issue.
--Karl
CrlsonComp
any thing but burnt coffee reguardless of what type you use. if you want
to taste the real taste of a special coffee try roasting it to its moment
of full development. anybody that tastes starbucks coffee, ( charbucks )
and likes it will certinaly be thrilled to the bone when they experience
any coffee roasted fully developed. the diffucult thing to do is to find
a roaster that knows how to give you and the public a fully developed
roasted bean. but then thats what specility coffee is all about. burnt
coffee or underdeveloped coffee can be found anywhere, coffee made with
tender love and consideration you will have to hunt for, but when you
find it you will be a true coffee lover not just a brickett swaller.
dick forquer PIACERE INTERNATIONAL
CrlsonComp
WOULD LIK YOUR FOOD BURNED OR THAT YOU COULD GET USED TO IT. SO FEW
PEOPLE KNOW HOW TO RUN ESPRESSO MACHINES THAT ITS HARD TO FIND A PROPERLY
BREWED ESPRESSO, KEEP LOOKING SOMEWHERE IN YOUR VAST LAND THERE IS
SOMEBODY AND WHEN YOU MEET THAT PERSON YOU CAN HAVE A GOOD LAUGH AT THE SO
CALLED EXPERTS THAT EXCEPT THE LOWER STANDARDS, BEANS ARE NOT MENT TO BE
CHARED. DICK FORQUER PIACERE INTERNATIONAL
Halo7nin
(CrlsonComp) writes:
Caps key off! Upper case makes it look like you're screaming all the
time. Lower case is normal speach on the newsgroup!
Thanks,
Gary
Rob Stone
CrlsonComp <crlso...@aol.com> wrote:
>dark roasted coffee or burned coffee,ifyou will , will never taste like
>any thing but burnt coffee reguardless of what type you use. if you want
>to taste the real taste of a special coffee try roasting it to its moment
>of full development. anybody that tastes starbucks coffee, ( charbucks )
>and likes it
>dick forquer PIACERE INTERNATIONAL
Dick, personal taste means what you PERSONALLY enjoy. Try not to get this
confused with what others might like.
This public service announcement is brought to you by:
--
Rob Stone (rst...@atl.com) Pump your Pavoni!
Why limit yourself?
Lewis Hosier
> NOBODY GETS USED TO THE TASTE OF BURNT BEANS. THATS LIKE SAYING THAT YOU
> WOULD LIK YOUR FOOD BURNED OR THAT YOU COULD GET USED TO IT. SO FEW
> PEOPLE KNOW HOW TO RUN ESPRESSO MACHINES THAT ITS HARD TO FIND A PROPERLY
> BREWED ESPRESSO, KEEP LOOKING SOMEWHERE IN YOUR VAST LAND THERE IS
> SOMEBODY AND WHEN YOU MEET THAT PERSON YOU CAN HAVE A GOOD LAUGH AT THE SO
> CALLED EXPERTS THAT EXCEPT THE LOWER STANDARDS, BEANS ARE NOT MENT TO BE
> CHARED. DICK FORQUER PIACERE INTERNATIONAL
You're screaming your bias. I guess only you sell properly roasted beans
and only you know how to extract the juice from the bean. Puh-lease
lighten up and allow other opinions.
m.j.miller
>
>>NOBODY GETS USED TO THE TASTE OF BURNT BEANS. THATS LIKE SAYING THAT YOU
>>WOULD LIK YOUR FOOD BURNED OR THAT YOU COULD GET USED TO IT. SO FEW
>>PEOPLE KNOW HOW TO RUN ESPRESSO MACHINES THAT ITS HARD TO FIND A PROPERLY
>>BREWED ESPRESSO, KEEP LOOKING SOMEWHERE IN YOUR VAST LAND THERE IS
>>SOMEBODY AND WHEN YOU MEET THAT PERSON YOU CAN HAVE A GOOD LAUGH AT THE
>SO
>>CALLED EXPERTS THAT EXCEPT THE LOWER STANDARDS, BEANS ARE NOT MENT TO BE
>>CHARED. DICK FORQUER PIACERE INTERNATIONAL
>
>time. Lower case is normal speach on the newsgroup!
>
>Thanks,
>
>Gary
Maybe he is screaming - carbonized Charbucks beans can have such an
effect.
Mark Miller
Michael
Jeez. So many experts around here. How does one find the "truth?"
Is someone's opion here the absolute truth?
Barry Jarrett
>Jeez. So many experts around here. How does one find the "truth?"
>Is someone's opion here the absolute truth?
drink it the way one likes it.... Certainly there are guidelines to
help make coffee taste better, but the ultimate judge is the consumer.
If you like your coffee boiled with an egg and filtered through the
sock, then who am I to say that is a 'bad' method?? If you do not
like that method, but use it because that is all you know, then surely
there are many experts to suggest alternative methods.
It all boils down to drinking what you like. If you don't like it, then
you won't drink it. If you don't drink it, then I can't sell it....
--Barry
Bogiesan
>>>It all boils down to drinking what you like. If you don't like it,
then
you won't drink it. If you don't drink it, then I can't sell it....
--Barry<<<
:)
Eegads, for Grid's Sake . . .
Don't boil it!
If you boil it, I won't drink it.
If I won't drink it, it can't possibly be any good.
If it isn't any good, I won't buy it.
If I don't buy it, who will pay for your Net access?
;-}
David Bogie, Boise ID
hopeless espresso hound,go player,inline skate instructor,parent,Mac-head
bogi...@aol.com
Ian Bersten
good cup of coffee. There are two questions that must be answered in the
affirmative before you can say something is a good cup of coffee. The
first question is, " Does this taste like coffee ?" or "is this
recognisable as coffee ?" There is no escaping this question - if the
brew tastes like hot stout then it cannot be a good cup of coffee. Then
comes the second question - is it nice ? Yes or No ? Both answers
affirmative, it IS a good cup of coffee.
There is another approach. This coffee is a gourmet coffee from the high
mountains of Monte XY. If the coffee is roasted to the point where the
distinctive characteristic which makes it a good coffee is roasted out so
that all that can be tasted is a burnt carbon taste, then the point can
be made that it is waste of good money to pay for good flavor
characteristics and then roast them out. It does not make it a bad cup of
coffee - just a waste of money. Lighter roasted coffees tend to retain
more of their flavor characteristics than dark roasted coffees.
Ian Bersten Sydney AustraliaBarry Jarrett <t...@delphi.com> wrote:
>Michael <mhol...@cruzio.com> writes:
>
>>Jeez. So many experts around here. How does one find the "truth?"
>>Is someone's opion here the absolute truth?
>
>
>We must remember that coffee is a hedonistic beverage. One should
>drink it the way one likes it.... Certainly there are guidelines to
>help make coffee taste better, but the ultimate judge is the consumer.
>If you like your coffee boiled with an egg and filtered through the
>sock, then who am I to say that is a 'bad' method?? If you do not
>like that method, but use it because that is all you know, then surely
>there are many experts to suggest alternative methods.
>