Starbucks has a bitter plan (http://dailybriefing.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2008/07/01/starbucks-has-a-bitter-plan/). Not only that, they have bitter coffee too, but I forestall. So Starbucks is to close 600 stores in the US. Now what about the rest of the world? Is that good or bad? I think the answer depends on how evil you rate Starbucks.

I have sympathy for the workers there, so the closing will be a clear minus in that regard. And Starbucks has those comfy chairs and nice interior. Competition with Starbucks that has forced other chains and restaurants to pretty up theirs (great effect). But that's about it.

It has always irked me to see Starbucks spread like the flu. In Cologne one could barely walk a mile in the city center without stumbling over three to five Starbucks stores. Not even the evil McDonalds (which I occasionally frequent) is as prevalent. I guess it was Starbucks that has brought to Germany the coffee-to-go culture, which in itself is ok.

As for Starbuck's coffee itself, it sucks. Bad. They ruin their coffee beans and the resulting noxious brew is not for me. That is why I think Starbucks is very evil. This silly coffee-ciato-with-extra-flavour-whatever nonsense annoys me - try order a normal cup of coffee there - they look at you like you're from Mars (I insist, I am not). I want coffee flavoured coffee, thank you.

Missing option: "Since when is closing 600 stores deemed evil?" I've never seen a Starbucks coffeeshop, but I have heard that there was only one in the Netherlands, at Schiphol in the tax-free zone. So they're not that prevalent.

No Starbucks in Serbia at all, as far as I know. :)

As such, I have no idea what to vote on this...
"No experience with Starbucks"? as an option maybe? :p

Why does having bad coffee make Starbucks evil? If you don't like their coffee, don't buy it. If you like coffee flavored coffee, I'm sure Germany is just like the US in that there are tons of other coffee shops that serve regular coffee. I don't frequently go to Starbucks, although I have tried it. I don't think their coffee is bad, I just don't think it's so good that it justifies the high price charged for it. My wife and I generally look at it this way: Why should we spend $5 for a cup of flavored coffee at Starbucks, when you can go to any doughnut shop, get any type of flavored or unflavored coffee you want - plus a doughnut or a bagel to boot - for about $3? If you just want a large coffee it's only $2.

The other thing I don't like about Starbucks is you have to go inside and get your coffee - they don't have drive-throughs. The only time I stop for coffee is when I'm taking a trip somewhere in the morning. I don't want to sit around in a coffee shop - no matter how comfy their chairs are - sipping my drink and wasting time. I want to get back on the road. So a place like Dunkin' Donuts that charges less than half the price as Starbucks (and DD has good coffee IMO) and doesn't even make me get out of my car is definitely for me.

I guess I just don't see why you think Starbucks are evil. Yeah, they're all over the place, but it's not like they're the only people selling coffee. It's capitalism at work - if you don't like their coffee, buy someone else's coffee. The only problem I have with SB is that's it's so overpriced. $5 for a large coffee is outrageous.

Oh yes, overpriced, how could I forget that?! It would have been a marvellous 5th poll option! Selling bad coffee for a high price apparently deludes some people into thinking it is actually good. That's immoral, but I guess that's my moralist/missionary streak on coffee.

And in fact, I don't buy Starbucks coffee. Last time I went there it was because of the comfy seats; I had a coffee that, as I fully expected, was miserable, but it was way better than standing in the rain.

Besides, and I freely admit I only know that second hand - but from passionate coffee lovers I trust - coffee in America is something *cough* different *cough* than here. That applies to Britain too. I can testify to the latter from my own experience. French coffee is way better. Coffee in Germany and Austria is in comparison better, too. Reportedly the Swiss are the odd one out in that regard, it is apparently hard to get garden variety German coffee there. Italian coffee again is good.

The lack of dive-through's in Starbucks actually is a good thing about them. Oh, and they have a nice logo.

Now that is odd. I'm not all that surprised that there may be slight variations on coffee from one place to another (and once you go with flavored coffee the variations are limitless), but just regular coffee made from hot water and coffee beans should be pretty much the same no matter where you drink it. That American coffee is marketly different from European coffee is just ... odd. Coffee only grows in tropical climates so it's not like Europe is growing their own. Germans are (presumably) buying their coffee beans from the same places that the US buys theirs - which is primarily Central and South America.

Having never been to Germany, I must admit that I have no idea how Germans drink their coffee. However, I do not think there is a typical American style coffee - and even if I'm wrong and there is traditional American coffee, Starbucks certainly is not it. The strength of the coffee varies somewhat depending on the type of bean you use, and the quantity of ground bean you use. The darker the bean and more ground bean you use generally results in stronger coffee. But that's really the only variety in regular coffee. I like strong coffee with some sugar, no cream.

So I guess now, I'm still confused as to what you don't like about American coffee. When you said you didn't like Starbucks flavored coffee, I thought your problem with it was that it wasn't regular coffee - not that it was American coffee. Not liking flavored coffee isn't unusual - I know quite a few people who won't drink flavored coffee, and just like traditional coffee. I'm interested to hear what your impression of American coffee is, and how it supposedly differs from European coffee.

Different regulations could easily mean different chemicals are used in different coffee bean... farms? That and different variations of the plant will have different flavours different ways of preparing the beans, different water, cream/milk, some places traditionally use certain types of sugar. Apparently water temperature changes the flavour as well :skeptic:

As to the company being 'evil' :rolleyes: it looks like the redirection of cutting back is neccessary due to the inappropriate nature of the previous designs on expansion. They were pretty much a novelty that spread in the UK and Europe and stuck. Can you blame them for expanding? It was a profitable venture and until recently was stable in a growing economy.

I think there's not a single Starbucks in Finland.

We drink poison named as 'coffee' here and I think it might be aganist company regulations for Starbucks to start serving such swill anywhere.

Honestly. Foreigners congratulate our coffee's commendable laxative abilities. Starbucks can't compete with that.

Aldeth,
according to the horrific stories I heard the average office/diner coffee is of tea-like consistency (that is no joke btw), which says everything. Coffee that one can look through is here known under various names, like Mucke**** (no relation to the US four letter word) or Schlöres, none of which are flattering. Under that premise I have a splendid explanation for the otherwise inexplicable popularity of Starbucks: If you don't know anything better, then of course Starbucks must be like ... good. :evil:

A friend of mine told me that in Chile and Peru and probably throughout South-America, the peasants drink 'coffee', which is some thinned syrup made from coffee beans (it is said to be quite crappy).

In coffee there are many factors that can account for differences: The sort of beans (arabica [=expensive, mild] vs. robusta [=cheaper, sour] or a mix of both) you take and the way (temperature, duration, intervals) you roast them (German roasting is different than French or Italian roasting), how fine (espresso machines) or rough (push-staff-sifter-type) you grind the coffee beans and finally how you then brew the ground coffee (how much coffee you take; 'soft' or 'hard' water), whether you use filter papers and whether you put them into quick flux filters with three to four (fast = milder) holes vs. slow flux filters with one (slow = bitter) hole vs. machines vs. Italian screw-type espresso machines vs. those high-tech-toys vs. push-staff-sifter-type coffee cans vs. no tools at all* - and a litany of other factors. And then, of course, there is Turkish Mocca which is once again different.

*Romanian/Turkish style - larg-ish spoon of coffee into a large glass, hot water, stir, let the coffee rest - voila. Good variant.

As to the company being 'evil' :rolleyes: it looks like the redirection of cutting back is neccessary due to the inappropriate nature of the previous designs on expansion. They were pretty much a novelty that spread in the UK and Europe and stuck.

While overexpansion no doubt has contributed to SB's current problems, also remember that the economy in the US just sucks. With the price of necessary items like gas and food skyrocketing in the past year, I imagine part of their problem is that spending $5 per cup of coffee isn't in many people's budget.

If you buy a cup of Starbucks every day going to work, you will spend over $100 per month. I can buy about a week's worth of groceries for my family with that money. (Actually, with the recent increase in food prices, I'm spending more than $100 per week on groceries - it's more like $130 per week.) The point being that a lot of people are feeling the squeeze on their wallets as high gas prices have increased the cost of nearly everything. Cutting back on something that can only be characterized as a luxury purchase is an easy way for people to save money.

Many Starbucks in France.
I hate having to give my name and having to spell it so they can write it on a paper cup.

Do you guys (and gals) use aliases?

The big problem is actually remembering them when they call out to hand you your cup of black mud.

The other thing I don't like about Starbucks is you have to go inside and get your coffee - they don't have drive-throughs.Oh, I know of at least one and I don't even drink coffee let alone ever been into a Starbucks. It's near a freeway onramp I often take and there's always a line of cars around it going to the drive-through.

Oh, and I have no opinion on their evilness so I didn't vote :)

Aldeth, on my last line
It was a profitable venture and until recently was stable in a growing economy.

I should have elaborated, I blame the cat for harrassing me :D, I am aware of the economy situation of the US lately, it has also greatly affected the situation in the UK.

I believe there is another topic relating to the price of petrol, around here it's up to £1.20, food shopping once a week again is costing over £100 in most shops.

I also said, as you quoted me, that they were a novelty around here, and to expand so grossly on luxury isn't generally a wise business decision in most markets without providing more basic options or alternatives, or even investing in similar markets to tide over when their luxury market is in decline.

I agree 8 people.

I just saw Ragusa's reply now. See-through coffee with tea like consistency? Where did your friend get coffee? That sounds terrible and not indicative of what most Americans want coffee to be! I'm no coffee expert, but even my home coffeemaker can do much better than that, and anything that's served in a restaurant is usually much better. I really question your friend on diner coffee. From my experience late night places like diners and doughnut shops cater to truckers and other people who take coffee breaks for the caffeine to keep them going on overnight drives. From my experience with them, diners have some of the darkest, strongest coffee that you'll find. I'm talking like put hair on your chest strong - not see through at all.

I have to admit I like Starbucks. I was thrilled when one opened down my road. The only thing that annoys me is that they don't carry raspberry syrup in the UK stores, so I can't have my iced skinny grande raspberry latte unless I go all the way to America. Boo.

Aldeth,
apparently the intricacies of the American coffeescape warrant further research. I want my coffee black as a nightmare, and drink it with some milk so it's dark brown. Which incidentally reads like a splendid idea ....

:skeptic: That doesn't excuse Starbucks coffee, and I'll stick with my theorem unless proven otherwise. :skeptic:

Starbuck's coffee is OK, if not over priced. I certainly would not claim that they are "evil." Also, the quality of coffee seems to vary from one Starbucks to another, so maybe they just don't know how to make coffee in Deutschland.

I don't know if they are indepentently owned, or if they are mostly corporate stores, which could account for some differences. Also, most of the shops that I've seen have drive-throughs, except the ones inside the malls, of course.

Starbucks in Germany is a franchise, which means everything is standardised.

Never been and don't plan on it. It's all about Coffee Nation.

Starbucks in Germany is a franchise, which means everything is standardised.

In theory. But generally corporate stores are more standardized....

Starbucks was never about the cofee, but rather about the cultural phenomenon. It didn't matter if the coffee sucked (I'll take your word for it, as a Mormon, I don't drink coffee). What mattered was that you were seen drinking "gourmet" coffee. What mattered is that you kept up your smug appearances and yuppie lifestyle.

They weren't selling coffee, they were selling pride. And when the economy falters, pride is something you have to quit buying first...

They had to charge an obscene amount of money for their cheap coffee because it must be hard to drink it with your head that far up your @$$...

I don't think Starbucks is evil, just useless to me, since I almost never drink coffee.

(I'll take your word for it, as a Mormon, I don't drink coffee).

You guys don't drink coffee cause you're Mormons? I can't wait to hear what that's about. :)

It's part of the Word of Wisdom. We Mo-folk are discouraged from putting impurities into our bodies, which means no alcohol or stimulants, so that pretty much covers all caffeinated beverages. The personal prohibition on caffeine isn't nearly as commonly adhered to as the alcohol one, but it's still pretty standard. It's essentially a health code, but some take it more seriously than others, as its adherence is a prerequisite for temple access.

Just so this topic doesn't turn into an "ain't Mormons wacky?" thread, here's a relevant article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_of_Wisdom) so we can all move on. :)

On topic: Starbucks is not evil, they're just one damn savvy business. They attempt to give back to the community more, and treat their employees better, than most companies in their league, especially in the fast food category. I love their coffee, hate their pretentiousness (grande? Venti? Really?), and think they're generally overpriced. But I worked at a Starbucks for about a year and I've gotta say, I quite enjoyed it all things considered. That we see so many Starbucks all over the place is a result of demand for their product. Their PR strategy is and always has been top notch.

Starbucks make some damn fine coffee and that's all that matters.

so we can all move on

Yes, let's get back to the "serious" topic of Starbuck's being "evil." :p

Starbucks is evil because Howard Schulz sold the NBA franchise formerly known as the Seattle SuperSonics to a carpet bagging Okie.

OK, now two people have mentioned that Starbucks have drive throughs. I've seen dozens of them in Pennsylvania, Maryland and New Jersey, and I have yet to see one with a drive through. Of course, I've also never seen a Starbucks as a store all by itself (which is kind of necessary for it to have a drive through). They have all been parts of malls, supermarkets, airports, turnpike rest stops, or other businesses. I've never seen a Starbucks as a store unto itself, so maybe that's why they never had drive throughs.

I still don't get why people are calling Starbucks "evil" though (with the exception of ChickenIsGood - that's a valid excuse). If you don't like their coffee go to one of hundreds of other places near where you live that serves coffee more to your liking. Or heck, invest $20 in a coffee maker and brew your own in the morning - then you can get any kind of coffee you want!

Ragusa's OP implies Starbucks is evil because it's closing 600 stores, has spread like the flu in Germany and makes bad coffee. The poll implies it could be evil just because it's American.

Is Starbucks a "strangler" company? In other words, do they bully out the competition and thus appear to be on the way to a monopoly on the high end coffee market? If so then I suppose you could call them "evil", though I would say the word is a little harsh.

Since I don't drink coffee I cannot comment on the quality of their product as compared to other places, but in terms of being pretentious twerps I think they rate high -- it's just coffee for pity's sake! Get over yourselves. Also, are they the ones who don't call their coffees "small, medium, large" but rather "large, venti and grande venti" or something like that? If so, on that basis alone I would call them evil -- I hate that self-absorbed, ridiculous posturing.

LKD,
Starbucks, high end?! I object!

In Germany Starbuck's greatest competitor is McDonalds with their new McCafé concept, which also spreads quite aggressively (an evil in the making?).

Ragusa's OP implies Starbucks is evil because it's closing 600 stores, has spread like the flu in Germany and makes bad coffee. The poll implies it could be evil just because it's American.Oh, no. I didn't say they are evil because they are closing 600 shops. Rather I asked whether that, considering Starbucks' bad coffee and that they are evil, can be seen as a good thing for the coffeesphere.

The poll implies it could be evil just because it's American.
Are you foolishly suggesting that it isn't evil to be American? :p

Anyway, I like Starbucks coffee. The $5.00 myth is just that. If you want one of their blended drinks, then yes - it'll cost you. But here, regular coffee ranges from $1.70 for a "tall" (i.e. small :rolleyes:) to about $2.25 for the big one. But in fairness, their smallest is still pretty big (compared to other coffee places).

Are you foolishly suggesting that it isn't evil to be American?I suggested no such thing foolishly or not. I merely pointed out the implications of the poll. :)

The poll implies it could be evil just because it's American.Well, it IS one of Ragusa's threads, isn't it?

I felt I owed it those whose expectations I otherwise wouldn't meet.

The $5.00 myth is just that. If you want one of their blended drinks, then yes - it'll cost you. But here, regular coffee ranges from $1.70 for a "tall" (i.e. small :rolleyes:) to about $2.25 for the big one. But in fairness, their smallest is still pretty big (compared to other coffee places).

But why would you go to Starbucks if you wanted a regular coffee? It's the equivalent of going to McDonalds when you're in the mood for a salad. Just like the reason McDonalds serves salads is to offer a healthier alternative when you're in a group and everyone else wants a burger, SBs offers regular coffee for when you're in a group and one person doesn't like flavored coffee. While I do not frequent SBs, I have never seen anyone order a regular coffee there.

Well, OK, but that's a bit of a different arguement. To me, coffee and blended/specialty coffee are two different things. Are you saying that you would never pay for a cup of "regular" coffee? If not, then I can see why you might object to paying $1.70 for it at Starbucks (or $1.25 somewhere else). Otherwise, we're (or at least I'm) really talking about the price difference for regular coffee between Starbucks and somewhere else, which might amount to a whopping $0.25 - $0.50.

I'm not sure, but I assume the cost difference (at least as a percentage) between SB and elsewhere for blended coffees is somewhat similar.

Edit: And yes, people do buy regular coffee from Starbucks.

Just as an aside, here in Canada I don't think that Starbucks has the presence that it does in the US -- here the biggest retailer for coffee is Tim Hortons -- there's practically one on every corner. Apparently the coffee is quite good (I wouldn't know) and for a while there was an urban myth going around that Tim Hortons put nicotine in their coffee to get people addicted to it.

Well, why I personally think all the people calling Starbucks "Evil" and their coffee "rubbish" are idiots/tasteless I wont delve into name calling. Personally I love Starbucks coffee, usually I just order a Latte, but occasionally I order a Mocha, both are done to perfection. Also, up here, they may be a little bit more expensive than getting coffee from some little restaurant/doughnut stand or something, but they aren't THAT expensive and you pay for the quality. Also my friend worked for Starbucks for 4 years and they are brilliant employers.

The Starbucks in Boulevard des Capucines (near the opera) in Paris is exquisitely evil:

http://idata.nomao.com/1/c/9/f/d/b/5/95834070c67aff62937030afe3/110208/110209.jpg

http://idata.nomao.com/1/c/9/f/d/b/5/95834070c67aff62937030afe3/110208/110210.jpg

LKD: The Hot Chocolate at Timmies is excellent--especially with the Butter Caramel Flavour shot that they offer...

I'm not willing to call Starbucks "evil", but I still refuse to drink their coffee. Aside from the fact that a lot of their stores don't even have one fair trade product (which, in a pinch, I'll buy), the beans they use for espresso are never fair-trade. Given that I can just get my fair trade espresso from one of the numerous locally owned shops that exclusively serve fair-trade coffee for less than what Starbucks charges (although I'd gladly pay a little more), I take my business elsewhere.

Are you saying that you would never pay for a cup of "regular" coffee? If not, then I can see why you might object to paying $1.70 for it at Starbucks (or $1.25 somewhere else). Otherwise, we're (or at least I'm) really talking about the price difference for regular coffee between Starbucks and somewhere else, which might amount to a whopping $0.25 - $0.50.

If you're just talking about the price, then I agree. My point was that if I wanted a regular coffee, I probably wouldn't go to Starbucks. Just like I probably wouldn't pick McDonalds if I wanted a salad (which is why I used that as a comparison). To me, SB is known for their speciality flavored coffee, and that's the reason the vast majority of the customers go there. I don't think they would have expanded to their current prevalence if they just served regular coffee, scones, and muffins.

While I'm sure some people buy the regular coffee - they wouldn't offer it at all if no one did - I imagine it's about the same percentage of people who order a salad at McDonalds.

I don't think they would have expanded to their current prevalence if they just served regular coffee, scones, and muffins.
Agreed.

While I'm sure some people buy the regular coffee - they wouldn't offer it at all if no one did - I imagine it's about the same percentage of people who order a salad at McDonalds.
Well, I'm not so sure about that. I go to the Starbucks in our office 2-3 times a week, and just get regular coffee (either their house coffee or the "featured" coffee, which is the same price). There are often 4 or more people in line ahead of me, and it's not unusual for half of them to order regular coffee. While I suspect that more people order the specialty coffee than regular, I don't think the ratio is as high as you suggest. But then again, that's just in this one store.

Everytime I see this topic the kid's voice from Time Bandits keeps entering my head:

Don't drink that! It's EVIL!

I'm not willing to call Starbucks "evil", but I still refuse to drink their coffee. Aside from the fact that a lot of their stores don't even have one fair trade product (which, in a pinch, I'll buy), the beans they use for espresso are never fair-trade. Given that I can just get my fair trade espresso from one of the numerous locally owned shops that exclusively serve fair-trade coffee for less than what Starbucks charges (although I'd gladly pay a little more), I take my business elsewhere.

Are you suggesting that a coffee company can only be ethical if it follows what the 'Fair Trade' brand decrees to be ethical? Or more to the point, slavishly follows every one of Fair Trade's decrees? I'd be with Starbucks on this one. They have a good reputation for their work practices and will usually pay over the minimum rate required by Fair Trade anyway as they have to source 'premium' beans for their high value products. I don't mean to knock the work Fair Trade do but Starbucks's reputation stands up well on its own without having to borrow another organisation's fuzzy feel-good factor.

My liking them may be helped by the fact that there's only about three or four Starbucks in my entire country. They provide a very good service if one wishes to get a drink and have a sit down in the middle of town. I'd also find their prices competitive. Not to take away but to sit down certainly.

The only issue I would have with Starbucks is that, um, I don't like coffee. Which is kinda a big thing seeing as how they do pretty much nothing else. Their hot chocalate is only OK and I'm not sure if they do tea. I even got a chilled fruit drink at an airport a while ago to find that it was laced wth caffeine. It was awful.

but just regular coffee made from hot water and coffee beans should be pretty much the same no matter where you drink it. That American coffee is marketly different from European coffee is just ... odd.

Sorry, Aldeth, but I've never had a decent coffee in the USA. For some reason, there seem to be very few people there who know how to make it properly. I'm not sure why.

What mattered was that you were seen drinking "gourmet" coffee.

I don't think anybody seriously thinks that Starbucks is "gourmet coffee" - for the same reason that nobody seriously thinks a Big Mac is gourmet burger.

invest $20 in a coffee maker and brew your own in the morning - then you can get any kind of coffee you want!

A $20 coffee maker will probably not make you a decent coffee!

Sorry, Aldeth, but I've never had a decent coffee in the USA. For some reason, there seem to be very few people there who know how to make it properly. ... A $20 coffee maker will probably not make you a decent coffee!

You see, most of you have me at a disadvantage. While many of you have drank coffee here in the U.S., I have not drank coffee in many of your native countries, so I cannot compare.

The $20 coffee maker comment was more hyperbole than anything. Come to think of it, even replacing the carafe will probably cost you more than $20, so you're right - it's more than that. However, the point was that coffee makers for "regular coffee" are fairly inexpensive. Now obviously, if you want an expresso or a cappacino you're going to have to spend more.

My wife and I are both coffee drinkers, and we like our coffee strong. It's been a while since we have purchased a coffee maker, and I don't remember what we paid for it, but it couldn't have been that expensive. In fact, we go through coffee bean grinders much more quickly than we go through coffee makers. I think we're on our third grinder, but on our first coffee maker.

I certainly have had my fair share of bad coffee experiences over here in the US. There are definitely places where it is bad. What surprises me is people like Ragusa who think all US coffee is bad, and Harbourboy who "never" had a good cup of coffee in the US, even though he lived here for quite a while. It seems unbelievable to me that anyone who has expereinced a fair cross section of coffee houses here in the states would come to that conclusion. And, as I have previously stated, there are even diners and doughnut shops that make decent coffee.

Aldeth,
seriously, what Harbourboy said matches what I heard from friends who went to the US. I trust their judgement. Very diverse group, too, from professionals working in the US, exchange pupils and students to tourists and au-pairs and my cousin ...

I for myself am perfectly willing to change my view if proven otherwise, but I have yet to visit the US. Thinking about it, British coffee is pretty rotten, too, and Irish coffee (not THAT Irish coffee) I also found unconvincing. Maybe coffee is just a continental thing.

Going back to the thread, my sister finds that Starbucks is evil because they are overpriced, have pretentious names and because the cream on a latte-majore-tralala-royal-XS is gooey. She also likes the couches :D

I learned to drink coffee in the Navy. A common practice to lower cost is the "reseed method" -- you take the old grounds and add about 50% more fresh grounds to it to make another pot (30-50 cup pots, by the way).

Even McDonalds coffee is gourmet compared to that. I don't have any problem with drinking any coffee as long as it's not burned (or overpriced like Starbucks). Since my coffee palate is not very refined I am unwilling to pay much for a cup of coffee -- even the best cup I've drank is not much better than what I make at home in my $50 coffee maker.

seriously, what Harbourboy said matches what I heard from friends who went to the US.

OK, this has become really silly - I mean, for the most part, coffee is nothing more than beans and water. You grind the beans, add the water and you get coffee. Now I know some beans are flavored, thusly, you get flavored coffee.

There IS a difference in the quality of beans, and particular harvests of beans, and there are different types of beans (like Arabica) used in coffee. Also, there is a difference in the ripeness of the coffee beans: unripe beans are used in cheaper coffee.

Juan Valdez sits under his coffee tree and sorts the beans. He sends all the unripened beans to America and all the mature, ripe beans, with all the good flavor to Europe. Everyone knows that why the coffee is better in Europe than it is in America. Just ask Juan. ;)

even the best cup I've drank is not much better than what I make at home in my $50 coffee maker.

I agree. It's the same coffee.

Are you suggesting that a coffee company can only be ethical if it follows what the 'Fair Trade' brand decrees to be ethical? Or more to the point, slavishly follows every one of Fair Trade's decrees? I'd be with Starbucks on this one. They have a good reputation for their work practices and will usually pay over the minimum rate required by Fair Trade anyway as they have to source 'premium' beans for their high value products. I don't mean to knock the work Fair Trade do but Starbucks's reputation stands up well on its own without having to borrow another organisation's fuzzy feel-good factor.They are definitely better than Maxwell of Folgers, but they still aren't on par with Fair trade standards. Their beans aren't shade-grown and are often grown in clear-cut land, and while they pay more for their premium beans, what they pay still isn't on par with fair trade standards. Further, I don't have the time or patience to constantly be checking Starbucks' buying habits when I could just purchase higher quality shade grown fair trade coffee for a lower cost.

Contrary to what some people seem to be asserting, there is a noticeable difference between different types of coffee. Just as some people develop a high appreciation of different wines or beers, some people develop such a palate for coffee.

Contrary to what some people seem to be asserting, there is a noticeable difference between different types of coffee.

Well, I'm sure there is. But I have a feeling that there may be a difference in the water. Whenever I travel it's one of the first things I notice, that the water is different, especially the chemicals, or the hardness or softness of the water. SInce its the main ingedient in the coffee it could be that those from other countries are tasting that difference. It's just a thought. I know people who use only bottled water to make coffeee. They claim it's smoother. And I agree.

Good point on the water, Chandos. While that very well may explain some of the possible difference between the European and American coffee experiences, several other factors also come to mind. Where the beans were grown, whether they were shade grown or grown under direct sunlight, how long and at what heat the beans were were roasted, and how recently it was roasted (fresher is always better) all play a huge role in the flavor of the coffee. Once you get used to drinking shade-grown coffee purchased directly from a local roaster (when you buy it directly, the beans are a day or two old at most), everything else - even what you get at most high-end coffee shops - tastes like ****. Assuming (a big assumption, since I haven't looked this up) that Starbucks roasts their beans at several centralized locations, the quality difference could simply be a matter of how freshly roasted the beans are.

Example then: in all my time in the USA, I could not find anywhere that would serve a basic flat white. This is a pretty staple cup of coffee that any barista should be able to make but in the USA, I could never find one. You might get a cappuccino or a latte, but no flat white.

And don't get me started on "non-dairy creamer" . . . shiver . . . . .

OK, this has become really silly - I mean, for the most part, coffee is nothing more than beans and water. You grind the beans, add the water and you get coffee. Now I know some beans are flavored, thusly, you get flavored coffee.

And thus, you prove my point. If you believe that coffee is just beans and water, then that explains why there is so much bad coffee in the USA. There is a real skill and art to making a nice coffee that depends on how you roast, store, grind, and brew your coffee. Then, of course, there is the skill in getting the milk right.

Where's Chevalier when you need him?

Harbourboy, you just didn't know what to order. A flat white is the same as a properly made North American Cafe Latte, which you can order pretty much anywhere. It does differ from a Starbucks style latte in the preparation of the milk, but Starbucks does lots of things wrong.

OK, this has become really silly - I mean, for the most part, coffee is nothing more than beans and water. You grind the beans, add the water and you get coffee. Now I know some beans are flavored, thusly, you get flavored coffee.... If you believe that coffee is just beans and water, then that explains why there is so much bad coffee in the USA. There is a real skill and art to making a nice coffee that depends on how you roast, store, grind, and brew your coffee. Then, of course, there is the skill in getting the milk right.:thumb: Harbourboy :thumb: is absolutely right, Chandos. Decidedly coffee is not just about water and beans. For illustration, just read this earlier post (http://www.sorcerers.net/forums/showpost.php?p=646266&postcount=9).

This thread made me reflective and two days ago I made genuine Turkish mocca (recipe per cup): give a largish spoon of very finely ground coffee (best Turkish brand is 'Mehmet Efendi', alternatively Greek coffee comes close - they may hate each other's guts but their coffee is similar) and a small spoon of sugar (orta şekerli - half sweet, the most popular variant) into an open pot (the Turkish use a special pot called cezve that has a handle at the side), and add cool water and heat it slowly under constant stirring until it boils. Voila. If you're good, the mokka has a fine foam. Once in the cup, don't stir to let the coffee grains sink to the bottom. The process is time consuming but the result is excellent. The sugar has an interesting function, it corrects some of the inherent bitterness resulting from that method. (In Turkish shops there is also an ingenious device, a vibrator/cooker that spares you the stirring. Use with caution as I don't consider Turkish electric devices safe. :D )

That is how the Austrians discovered Mocca after the siege of Vienna, and on that basic recipe all later coffee cooking built in the countries with a real coffee culture - which the more I think of it, means continental Europe. The Vienna coffeehouse culture then spread throughout Europe. Melitta Bentz was a housewife from Dresden, Germany, who invented the first coffee filter. She was looking for a way to brew the perfect cup of coffee with none of the bitterness caused by over brewing (this is important!). The first lever-type espresso machine was invented by Bezzera in 1901. The plunger filter, or Presso that I called wrongly 'push-staff-sieve', also called the "French" press, was actually invented by an Italian named Calimani in 1933. The first stove-top espresso maker was developed in 1933 by Alfonso Bialetti, and has been in production since the 1950's (I am a proud owner of a Bialetti machine). I am also fortunate to have a unique Krupps coffee machine, the T8, that also works with steam pressure and uses flat filter papers, and that, with spectacular visual and sound effects (think of a missile launch), produces excellent coffee.

The US contributions were instant coffee and the percolator. In 1901, just-add-hot water "instant" coffee was invented by Japanese American chemist Satori Kato of Chicago. Instant coffee is for emergency use only; given the choice I'd take Ersatz-'coffee' (my preference is the Caro brand) any day. And then there is the stereotypical American electric drip flter/percolator - in comparison the fastest and easiest but also the worst method. All percolators I have seen so far have one hole for the coffee to drip through (Ms. Melitta Benz' first commercial filters had four * [see above for 'over brewing']) - which means that in your average percolator the water stands in the filter and extracts the bitter tastes from the coffee. By design it over brews almost inevitably. This also explains why from all coffee variants percolator coffee has the highest caffeine content, and the poorest taste. The hotplate then ruins the already questionable result even further. Compared to the traditional use of filter paper, the percolator is clearly inferior.

My thoroughly biased analysis leads me to conclude that American coffee innovations were aimed on producing more and stronger coffee faster and easier. That is not at all at odds with the American way of doing things I think. Different countries, different priorities, different tastes.

* My brother has an original pre-war 4-hole filter and I envy him; I have two pre-war 3-hole filters. They don't make them anymore. Recent production only has single hole ones, which is lamentable.

according to the horrific stories I heard the average office/diner coffee is of tea-like consistency (that is no joke btw), which says everything.

Sorry, I missed your earlier post, professor. Well, no, that may have been what you have "heard," but that has not been my experience. Most coffee here is of the "non-see-through" variety, I assure you (And I'm not just being patriotic). Don't believe "everything" you hear, I guess. But I will take your word for it that your "Turkish Technique" results in better, if not more exotic, tasting coffee. I also have to take your word for it that your Krups coffee maker is "superior" to my Mr. Coffee maker that I bought at Krogers for $29.99 (actually I got it on sale for 24.99).

I had a Krups coffee make once that I bought from Target. It lasted about 3 months and stopped working. Oh well, its manufacture was probably out-sourced to China anyway...Blaming the Chinese...how American is that? :)

I would question the quality of the coffee you get from a machine that was much less than $100, unless it was a stovetop espresso maker, but that's not really a "machine".

which means that in your average percolator the water stands in the filter and extracts the bitter tastes from the coffee.

I don't think your terminology is right. When I was a kid they used have "percolators." In fact, they did the reverse: They heated the water and shot it through the canister that held the coffee. It had a bunch of holes in it to let the coffee through. In fact, the coffee does not stand in the canister of percolators at all, IIRC.

Now we have drip makers. The coffee no longer precolates, but is just heated and dumped into the canister with the coffee. And yes, it stands in the canister with the coffee. It makes it very strong. The trick here is to use just the right amount of coffee so that it is neither too strong nor too weak. It's kind of a trial and error process, but not too difficult. When you come to Houston I will prove it to you. We will have a coffee challenge. Coffee made with bottled water is better, IMO. I think the tap water has all the bad tasting chemicals, like a lot of chlorine and Flouride. But that's why we have better teeth than you guys do. :grin:

Chandos,
you're correct. I meant drip filters then. My dictionary didn't have pictures or explanations.

As for Krups, this beauty (http://home.planet.nl/~rjeroenv/brewing/other/krups_t8.html) is the one I have.

:D Btw, I made the part about the water-like-consistency up out of pure silliness :shake: The idea was to describe generic really bad coffee. What I did not make up was that my sources were unanimous about that they didn't like whatever they got.

I have to issue a retraction. I talked about this subject to my wife, who has visited Europe on several occassions. While she pointed out that it is a matter of opinion whether European or American coffee is better, she did say that she felt European coffee was stronger on average than American coffee, and seemed to have a higher caffeine content. She likes strong coffee, and thus thought that European coffee was better, and thought that I would think the same. Acknowledging that, she pointed out that if you make your own coffee at home, you can make it as strong as you want.

Heh, that would explain why my friends say I make coffee "European style" I just make it the way my family does, since I don't drink it.