5 ms·

This is call a 'ristretto shot'. In some of the starbucks reserve locations you can get a large volume of ground coffee and a ristretto shot, and it is very cr

This is call a 'ristretto shot'. In some of the starbucks reserve locations you can get a large volume of ground coffee and a ristretto shot, and it is very creamy without as much acid/tannins. Also, the ristretto shot is often used in flat whites - one of the main differences (the other lesser one being milk texture)

lock-the-spock 3y ago
Starbucks is rather bad coffee though, without all the syrups you will notice it more. Honestly I have a bean to cup (Krups, previously also had DeLonghi) and prefer to take a small thermos along for decent lukewarm coffee all day rather than to pay outrageous amounts for mediocre coffee and a throwaway cup. Living in Italy or Portugal I'd probably not need that as there is excellent espresso at every corner, but most other countries it's hit and miss and the Anglosphere generally just bad coffee.
- ajkjk 3y ago
  Trendy cities in the US tend to have great coffee everywhere nowadays. Although I've noticed a slight backslide in this in the last few years :(
- agloe_dreams 3y ago
  Starbucks Reserve Roasteries !== Starbucks. The reserve locations are better seen as flashy celebrations of coffee and basically ignore the entire Starbucks Corporate supply chain, in that way they are: 1: Vastly better quality coffee with actual light roasts available. 2: Absolutely not Scalable. I'm not saying they aree somehow better than other high-end roasters but
  - mbirth 3y ago
    And some of them have the Clover machine which makes coffee in a way you can’t get anywhere else.
- gattilorenz 3y ago
  Can't speak for Portugal, but "decent espresso at every corner" in Italy is sort of a myth. There is uniform espresso at every corner, with quite dark roasts that cover up potential differences in flavor for the beans/crops. That's a side effect of expecting coffee for ~1 Euro, regardless of quality: quality generally goes down. We Italians are used to that (you could say we don't know better), and dislike any variation from the norm, so that doesn't bother most people; in actual coffee countries you have places that do care about coffee quality and experiment with single-origin, different roasts, etc. In Italy these places are a tiny minority, and for the rest is the same burnt expresso everywhere (and, if you're unlucky, very acid). It might be different in big cities like Milan, but I doubt it.
  - mazugrin2 3y ago
    This is something I've always wondered about. I _loved_ the coffee in Rome almost universally. Even in Madrid I enjoyed the coffee, although it was totally different than the stuff in Rome. I knew it wasn't the best beans. Sometimes it wouldn't even be freshly ground. However, in the US, even at the fanciest hipster coffee places, the espresso is incredibly bitter and astringent/acidic. Is that on purpose? Do Americans actually want their coffee to be super bitter and astringent/acidic? The other thing I've noticed is that in Rome and Madrid, most coffee drinkers are just drinking the coffee. But in the US it is rare to actually see someone drink a coffee without milk. So I just assumed that the reason for the bitterness and astringency was because the people making it never actually drank it as espresso. So - American espresso drinkers - tell me - do you actually prefer that super bitter taste of the thin espressos that you get at supposedly good coffee places like, e.g., Blue Bottle over the rich and frothy espressos of Rome?
    - flyingshoes 3y ago
      > the espresso is incredibly bitter and astringent/acidic. Is that on purpose? Do Americans actually want their coffee to be super bitter and astringent/acidic? Haha, yeah. The new "hipster" coffee I'd tend to say leans more on the side of expressing the acidity of the bean through light-roasts over the chocolate-y flavors from dark roasts. > But in the US it is rare to actually see someone drink a coffee without milk. I think this is true with espresso, but not with pourovers. I think the people who like to drink espresso by itself won't go to a cafe to get an espresso since they'll likely get a better shot with their own machine than a cafe's machine. The reason being is that cafes don't have time to re-dial in their shots midday, and they don't need to be as detailed with their shot-pulling since most customers order milk-based espresso drinks (so most bitterness/sourness from over/under extraction gets masked with milk).
- dboreham 3y ago
  > Starbucks is rather bad coffee though Hmm. I roast my own beans and I feel like I know good coffee when I drink it. For me Starbucks (I've tested in US, UK, and Japan mainly) provides a) a reliably consistent quality that is b) about 80% of ideal. To me this is the killer feature of Starbucks, and it's why I'm a stockholder. When I buy coffee at non-Starbucks coffee shops, it's a total crap shoot what I get. Perhaps 10% of the time I get a stellar cup. But perhaps 40% of the time I get undrinkable crap. Starbucks solves this problem for me by giving me an experience where I have perhaps a 95% probability of getting a pretty decent cup of coffee. Disclosure: I drink mostly their Latte drinks with extra shots (depending on size and regional variations in base shot count).
  - dghughes 3y ago
    > To me this is the killer feature of Starbucks, and it's why I'm a stockholder. Well seeing you are a stockholder you may want to know my experience. I'd say Starbucks at least in my city in Canada has degraded mainly due to the talent or workload of its staff. They got too fancy and also try to make orders too fast. Getting it fast but junk is pointless. It seems to have started when mobile orders became a thing if I had to guess when it began. I used to like their flat white when they actually made it correctly. They used to bang the pitcher to get out the big bubbles, it had a nice uniform beige with a white dot of milk on the top. It had a nice astringent taste from the ristretto shot. Then the workers started (told to?) pouring milk ending with a leaf on the top for every cup. I felt like saying who cares or don't worry just pour it and move on to the next person. They don't seem to bang the pitcher to remove big bubbles. The look of it is mostly white not beige as if someone dropped their latte picked it up and gave it to you. What a mess! And it's 100% time. I ask for a flat white now and then but realize there no way they'll ever make it right again.
  - giantrobot 3y ago
    This is where Starbucks shines and is impressive. Their coffee isn't all objectively bad and they have options for different tastes. But their best feature is consistency. If you like a particular bean/blend in a particular format it's going to be consistent at pretty much any Starbucks you go to. I've found Indy hipster coffee shops can rarely deliver a consistent cup at their single location on any two days. I don't know what I actually like from those places. Sure Monday's cup made by Alex in the morning was good but Sam's cup of the same roast on Wednesday was a waste of money. It's impressive that a chain with thousands of locations can provide such a consistent experience. It's definitely not as bad as most people claim provided you like a roast they sell.

lock-the-spock 3y ago

Starbucks is rather bad coffee though, without all the syrups you will notice it more. Honestly I have a bean to cup (Krups, previously also had DeLonghi) and prefer to take a small thermos along for decent lukewarm coffee all day rather than to pay outrageous amounts for mediocre coffee and a throwaway cup. Living in Italy or Portugal I'd probably not need that as there is excellent espresso at every corner, but most other countries it's hit and miss and the Anglosphere generally just bad coffee.

ajkjk 3y ago
Trendy cities in the US tend to have great coffee everywhere nowadays. Although I've noticed a slight backslide in this in the last few years :(
agloe_dreams 3y ago
Starbucks Reserve Roasteries !== Starbucks. The reserve locations are better seen as flashy celebrations of coffee and basically ignore the entire Starbucks Corporate supply chain, in that way they are: 1: Vastly better quality coffee with actual light roasts available. 2: Absolutely not Scalable. I'm not saying they aree somehow better than other high-end roasters but
- mbirth 3y ago
  And some of them have the Clover machine which makes coffee in a way you can’t get anywhere else.
gattilorenz 3y ago
Can't speak for Portugal, but "decent espresso at every corner" in Italy is sort of a myth. There is uniform espresso at every corner, with quite dark roasts that cover up potential differences in flavor for the beans/crops. That's a side effect of expecting coffee for ~1 Euro, regardless of quality: quality generally goes down. We Italians are used to that (you could say we don't know better), and dislike any variation from the norm, so that doesn't bother most people; in actual coffee countries you have places that do care about coffee quality and experiment with single-origin, different roasts, etc. In Italy these places are a tiny minority, and for the rest is the same burnt expresso everywhere (and, if you're unlucky, very acid). It might be different in big cities like Milan, but I doubt it.
- mazugrin2 3y ago
  This is something I've always wondered about. I _loved_ the coffee in Rome almost universally. Even in Madrid I enjoyed the coffee, although it was totally different than the stuff in Rome. I knew it wasn't the best beans. Sometimes it wouldn't even be freshly ground. However, in the US, even at the fanciest hipster coffee places, the espresso is incredibly bitter and astringent/acidic. Is that on purpose? Do Americans actually want their coffee to be super bitter and astringent/acidic? The other thing I've noticed is that in Rome and Madrid, most coffee drinkers are just drinking the coffee. But in the US it is rare to actually see someone drink a coffee without milk. So I just assumed that the reason for the bitterness and astringency was because the people making it never actually drank it as espresso. So - American espresso drinkers - tell me - do you actually prefer that super bitter taste of the thin espressos that you get at supposedly good coffee places like, e.g., Blue Bottle over the rich and frothy espressos of Rome?
  - flyingshoes 3y ago
    > the espresso is incredibly bitter and astringent/acidic. Is that on purpose? Do Americans actually want their coffee to be super bitter and astringent/acidic? Haha, yeah. The new "hipster" coffee I'd tend to say leans more on the side of expressing the acidity of the bean through light-roasts over the chocolate-y flavors from dark roasts. > But in the US it is rare to actually see someone drink a coffee without milk. I think this is true with espresso, but not with pourovers. I think the people who like to drink espresso by itself won't go to a cafe to get an espresso since they'll likely get a better shot with their own machine than a cafe's machine. The reason being is that cafes don't have time to re-dial in their shots midday, and they don't need to be as detailed with their shot-pulling since most customers order milk-based espresso drinks (so most bitterness/sourness from over/under extraction gets masked with milk).
dboreham 3y ago
> Starbucks is rather bad coffee though Hmm. I roast my own beans and I feel like I know good coffee when I drink it. For me Starbucks (I've tested in US, UK, and Japan mainly) provides a) a reliably consistent quality that is b) about 80% of ideal. To me this is the killer feature of Starbucks, and it's why I'm a stockholder. When I buy coffee at non-Starbucks coffee shops, it's a total crap shoot what I get. Perhaps 10% of the time I get a stellar cup. But perhaps 40% of the time I get undrinkable crap. Starbucks solves this problem for me by giving me an experience where I have perhaps a 95% probability of getting a pretty decent cup of coffee. Disclosure: I drink mostly their Latte drinks with extra shots (depending on size and regional variations in base shot count).
- dghughes 3y ago
  > To me this is the killer feature of Starbucks, and it's why I'm a stockholder. Well seeing you are a stockholder you may want to know my experience. I'd say Starbucks at least in my city in Canada has degraded mainly due to the talent or workload of its staff. They got too fancy and also try to make orders too fast. Getting it fast but junk is pointless. It seems to have started when mobile orders became a thing if I had to guess when it began. I used to like their flat white when they actually made it correctly. They used to bang the pitcher to get out the big bubbles, it had a nice uniform beige with a white dot of milk on the top. It had a nice astringent taste from the ristretto shot. Then the workers started (told to?) pouring milk ending with a leaf on the top for every cup. I felt like saying who cares or don't worry just pour it and move on to the next person. They don't seem to bang the pitcher to remove big bubbles. The look of it is mostly white not beige as if someone dropped their latte picked it up and gave it to you. What a mess! And it's 100% time. I ask for a flat white now and then but realize there no way they'll ever make it right again.
- giantrobot 3y ago
  This is where Starbucks shines and is impressive. Their coffee isn't all objectively bad and they have options for different tastes. But their best feature is consistency. If you like a particular bean/blend in a particular format it's going to be consistent at pretty much any Starbucks you go to. I've found Indy hipster coffee shops can rarely deliver a consistent cup at their single location on any two days. I don't know what I actually like from those places. Sure Monday's cup made by Alex in the morning was good but Sam's cup of the same roast on Wednesday was a waste of money. It's impressive that a chain with thousands of locations can provide such a consistent experience. It's definitely not as bad as most people claim provided you like a roast they sell.