I agree in part I use a clever dripper with supermarket beans - just picked up 500g of alleged peruvian beans from lidl for £3.50
I like the taste of my drip coffee and I find most instant coffees harsh even the upmarket ones with micro grounds.
However in europe I do like my nescafe 3 in one sachets
I think coffee is stuational
The case for bad coffee (2015)
11–20 of 631 posts
Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)
#12Like most things, coffee is subject to diminishing returns. I have also owned nearly every device invented to make coffee - as I'm sure many others here have - and I've settled on a simple over-the-mug pour-over cone, but mainly because there's no moving parts or tubes to worry about cleaning. I don't even know what "correct" pour-over technique is, so I'm basically making bog-standard single-serving drip coffee with…
You can take my espresso machine from my cold dead hands. Then again I don’t understand why Americans pay so much for their coffee. Here 1kg of fairly good single origin coffee is 22€ and the quality is miles ahead of instant. You don’t have to become an insufferable snob to enjoy better coffee.
[deleted]
Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)
#13I've never felt the need to pay extra for whole-bean, locally, ethically roasted, gourmet coffee.
Even when I started making way more money I've stuck with the can of ground coffee.
The reason is cause most days I just down the cup really quickly, black. Or with a little cream.
I don't savor it. To me, coffee is a utility. Not a lifestyle.
I just need a couple of cups to stay awake and do my job.
But after that I don't touch it for the rest of the day. Not if I want to fall asleep at a reasonable time anyways.
Every now and then I will pay for an expensive gourmet coffee but that's not the norm.
Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)
#14Like most things, coffee is subject to diminishing returns. I have also owned nearly every device invented to make coffee - as I'm sure many others here have - and I've settled on a simple over-the-mug pour-over cone, but mainly because there's no moving parts or tubes to worry about cleaning. I don't even know what "correct" pour-over technique is, so I'm basically making bog-standard single-serving drip coffee with…
No post body was provided.
Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)
#15Anyone here worried about cafestol content? [1] What is your brewing technique that avoids this substance from getting into your coffee? Do you make your own filters? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cafestol
it sounds like if you don't have cholesterol issues there isn't an issue with cafestol, and potentially some benefits. Just drink filtered coffee if you're worried.
Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)
#16People talk about 'bad coffee' but many times they don't say what constitutes bad coffee. We all have different preferences. There are some very expensive fancy coffees that I dislike because I taste them as overly sour or acidic. Meanwhile I can drink very expensive blue mountain or a very cheap nabob full city dark in an aeropress and enjoy both. I used to occasionally get starbucks on the way to work but the line…
Agreed. Everyone has different definitions of bad coffee.
Luckily, for me, my definition also coincides with the overpriced coffee.
In short: my version of bad coffee is burnt, over roasted stuff. Like Starbucks.
I'd rather have Maxwell House. Which thankfully for me is also cheap.
Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)
#17Like most things, coffee is subject to diminishing returns. I have also owned nearly every device invented to make coffee - as I'm sure many others here have - and I've settled on a simple over-the-mug pour-over cone, but mainly because there's no moving parts or tubes to worry about cleaning. I don't even know what "correct" pour-over technique is, so I'm basically making bog-standard single-serving drip coffee with…
Or people drink fancy beer because it tastes good. Does "fancy" mean "not produced by a global corporation?" If High Life is your favorite, great, stroll down to the local brewery and buy their pale lager.
Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)
#18"I don't know when it happened, but I've devolved into an unexpected love affair with bad coffee" - if I'd hazard a guess, maybe around the time the author joined Starbucks? :-)
That was my thinking - I can't imagine anyone who takes their coffee seriously deciding Starbucks was a good place to work. But then again I live in a city of 5+ million people that until recently had almost no Starbucks at all (and still only has about 15 I think). I could care less for single-origin microplot hand-roasted beans, but there's still a world of difference between what you get at Starbucks and the typical cafe here.
Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)
#19People talk about 'bad coffee' but many times they don't say what constitutes bad coffee. We all have different preferences. There are some very expensive fancy coffees that I dislike because I taste them as overly sour or acidic. Meanwhile I can drink very expensive blue mountain or a very cheap nabob full city dark in an aeropress and enjoy both. I used to occasionally get starbucks on the way to work but the line…
Agreed. Everyone has different definitions of bad coffee. Luckily, for me, my definition also coincides with the overpriced coffee. In short: my version of bad coffee is burnt, over roasted stuff. Like Starbucks. I'd rather have Maxwell House. Which thankfully for me is also cheap.
I got used to starbucks coffee but it is definitely a strong flavour. The coffee I mentioned before Nabob Full City Dark (Which might just be a thing in Canada only?) is a dark roasted coffee but when I drink it I get caramel overtones and not 'burned', but others might think it tastes burned.
I wish I could justify drinking nothing but blue mountain but that has to be reserved for when people I know go to jamaica and get some because the prices have reached insanity levels here - $50-100/lb.
Re: The case for bad coffee (2015)
#20"I don't know when it happened, but I've devolved into an unexpected love affair with bad coffee" - if I'd hazard a guess, maybe around the time the author joined Starbucks? :-)
That was my thinking - I can't imagine anyone who takes their coffee seriously deciding Starbucks was a good place to work. But then again I live in a city of 5+ million people that until recently had almost no Starbucks at all (and still only has about 15 I think). I could care less for single-origin microplot hand-roasted beans, but there's still a world of difference between what you get at Starbucks and the typic…
If their checks clear, it's a good place to work.