3 ms·
I'm surprised that I haven't seen this opinion expressed in the comments so far, so I'll just say it - I think Philz coffee tastes bad. They can't keep that man
by philip1209 12y ago
I'm surprised that I haven't seen this opinion expressed in the comments so far, so I'll just say it - I think Philz coffee tastes bad. They can't keep that many different kind of beans all fresh. They tend to overextract the coffee, making it bitter. Their claim-to-fame is coffee-based drinks, like mojitos, which don't really showcase quality coffee.
They get the brand right, but the beans are just not up-to-par. I hesitate to call them third-wave coffee because they don't push whole bean sales (at least here in SF), they don't have multiple brewing methods, and their brewing seems inconsistent.
I think that Blue Bottle is much better positioned to be a Starbucks competitor because of their excellent roasting, quality products besides coffee (e.g. Tcho chocolate, foods), and high-end feel that justifies the higher cost.
- nazgulnarsil 12y agohave you sampled a variety of branches?
- philip1209 12y agoYes, four of them
- state 12y agoI agree, but I also think Starbucks tastes pretty bad. Philz seems to have a well defined market, and their customers seem really devoted. Perhaps they'll be successful.
- redmattred 12y agophil on philz
- dilap 12y agoIt's definitely a different taste than blue bottle/sightglass/stumptown -- darker, more old school. Somewhere in between a modern "overtones of fig with hints of wet grass and fog" or whatever and reallllly old-school burned-mud served to you by a wheezing italian dude. But I think its pretty damn tasty, in it's own way. (I also like the lack of a "high-end" feel...it's friendly + funky, and reminds me of the hippie-run shops of my childhood in Oregon.)