From: jcarroll@ferris.cray.com (Jeff Carroll)
Newsgroups: rec.food.drink
Subject: Re: Looking for a *great* coffeemaker
Date: 1 Sep 92 18:45:11 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Originator: jcarroll@ferris


In article <1992Sep1.130224.2083@stsci.edu>, yen@stsci.edu (Felix Yen) writes:
> 
> Jeff Carroll (jcarroll@ferris.cray.com) writes:
> ]  David Sternlight (strnlght@netcom.com) writes:
> ]  >On the subject of Krups vs. Bunn, Starbucks, which sells both, claims
> ]  >that the Bunn makes better coffee because of its flat-bottomed filter
> ]  >paper. I have both and if there's any difference, it's marginal.
> ]
> ]  I got exactly the opposite opinion from the last Starbucks barista I
> ]  talked to about this. Starbucks is highly unlikely to have a corporate
> ]  doctrine on which Mr. Coffee clone is better - they're more likely to
> ]  try to sell you a French press.
> 
> and David Sternlight (strnlght@netcom.com) responds:
> >  Jeff Carroll may be correct that the cone filters extract a better
> >  brew than the flat-bottomed ones, but the official Starbucks position
> >  is contained in their newsletter issued when they started carrying the
> >  Bunn. It is an extended paean of praise to the Bunn, with invidious
> >  comparisons with the cones. They claim it comes close to the coffee
> >  they make in their shops. This is not surprising since they use a
> >  flat bottomed commercial coffee machine there.

I am no longer a shill for Starbucks. It's been several months since I've
been able to go to Starbucks on a regular basis (or read their newsletters),
and I am now firmly aligned with the opposition. All I can say is that if
you go to a Starbucks in Seattle, you get *pretty good* coffee, especially
if you like the varietals. I've learned a lot about coffee since I came to
the Washington area, though, and now when I visit Seattle I go to someone
else's espresso bar unless I want a cinnamon roll (which are still awesome
at Starbucks in Bellevue even if a little dry).

I have noticed a marked difference between what I personally get from
cone filters vis-a-vis Mr. Coffee. The Bunn is a substantially different
animal than Mr. Coffee, due to its ability to put lots of water through the
coffee in a short amount of time; I'd guess that the power of the Bunn
pump has more to do with the quality of the coffee you get out of it than
does the basket filter, whatever Starbucks says notwithstanding. I'm not
sure that I would judge my Melitta cone as obviously superior to a Bunn
machine as it is to Mr. C.

 
> The newsletter article says:
> 
> 	Starbuck's favorite brewing methods are those that deliver
> 	maximum coffee flavor: the French Press, espresso machines,
> 	vacuum pots, and so on.  But wonderful as these methods are,
> 	none offer the combination of clean, sediment-free flavor
> 	and supreme convenience that have made electric drip coffee-
> 	makers so dominant in recent years.  [...]
> 
> This is accompanied by an illustration of the Bunn Home Brewer with a
> caption that says (among other things): "Contrary to popular misconception,
> it is the basket rather than the cone shaped filter that provides optimum
> extraction of the coffee's flavors."

I think that Starbucks people are of the opinion that flavor in coffee is
made up largely of what you and I would think of as aftertaste. In order to
get to that point you have to roast it pretty dark and overextract it just
a teensy bit.

One problem with the Melitta method is that you have to be careful to wet
the coffee gradually at the beginning; otherwise some of it will float
to the top and not get wet. I guess even properly wetted coffee is not
likely to be uniformly extracted in a cone filter, as the stuff in the
bottom would be a lot more so than the stuff near the top edge of the cone.

> Their premise, also described in this issue (Winter '92), is that a good
> cup is achieved by:
> 
>     1)	using the right proportion of coffee to water,
>     2)	using the appropriate grind,
>     3)	using good water heated to the right temperature, and
>     4)	brewing just before serving.
> 
> Their newsletter neglects to mention two other fundamentals:
> 
>     a)	using freshly roasted coffee, and
>     b)	wetting or blooming the grounds.
> 
> Obviously (b) does not apply to espresso, but I would say that these two
> are just as important as the other four.  (I would also guess that any
> machine that brews a pot in less than four minutes, e.g. the Bunn Home
> Brewer, probably doesn't do a good job of wetting the grounds.)

Actually an analogue of b) is quite important to making good espresso.
If the coffee is packed too tightly in the filter head (if you use too
much coffee, or if you just pack the right amount too tightly) the
resulting brew will come out tasting muddy. Similarly, if the coffee
is too loosely packed, it will be underextracted. 
> This omission and my experience with their blends left me thinking that
> Starbuck's is controlled by its advertising department.

I wonder if there are any Starbucks old-timers on Internet. What would they
say about what's happened to the company over the last few years? Remember,
this is a company that's been around since the early 70s, delivering a product
that was until pretty recently superior to anything else in the Seattle area.

When I met Starbucks' personnel director at a cocktail party a few years ago,
she was very excited about their personnel policies - full benefits for part-
timers, elaborate training program, flexible scheduling, and what not - but
not by appearances knowledgeable on or excited about coffee.

Jeff Carroll
carroll@reston.cray.com