Consumer Reports did a taste test of coffee from various restaurants and
found that McDonalds beat Starbucks.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...949.shtml?s=us



--
Peter Aitken

On Feb 2, 11:28 am, Peter A > wrote:
> Consumer Reports did a taste test of coffee from various restaurants and
> found that McDonalds beat Starbucks.
>
> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...949.shtml?s=us
>
> --
> Peter Aitken

I guess they finally threw out the dishwater they used to use.

maxine in ri

"maxine in ri" > wrote

> On Feb 2, 11:28 am, Peter A > wrote:
>> Consumer Reports did a taste test of coffee from various restaurants and
>> found that McDonalds beat Starbucks.
>>
>> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...949.shtml?s=us

> I guess they finally threw out the dishwater they used to use.

What amused me was that they said Starbucks tasted burnt. That's what
I thought when I tasted it, then I saw people call it Starburnt, something
like
that. Never did get the attraction, but then I'm no coffee connoisseur,
either.

nancy

On 2007-02-02, Nancy Young > wrote:

> What amused me was that they said Starbucks tasted burnt. That's what
> I thought when I tasted it, then I saw people call it Starburnt, something
> like that.

"Charbucks" is a common slander. It's deserved.

nb

notbob wrote:
> On 2007-02-02, Nancy Young > wrote:
>
>> What amused me was that they said Starbucks tasted burnt. That's
>> what
>> I thought when I tasted it, then I saw people call it Starburnt,
>> something like that.
>
> "Charbucks" is a common slander. It's deserved.
>
> nb

I've never been able to figure out the popularity. Now, I have to admit
I've never tasted Starbuck's coffee. But I have heard so many negative
comments about the stuff (not to mention the price!) it's hard to believe
there is practically one on every corner.

Jill

jmcquown wrote:
>
> notbob wrote:
> > On 2007-02-02, Nancy Young > wrote:
> >
> >> What amused me was that they said Starbucks tasted burnt. That's
> >> what
> >> I thought when I tasted it, then I saw people call it Starburnt,
> >> something like that.
> >
> > "Charbucks" is a common slander. It's deserved.
> >
> > nb
>
> I've never been able to figure out the popularity. Now, I have to admit
> I've never tasted Starbuck's coffee. But I have heard so many negative
> comments about the stuff (not to mention the price!) it's hard to believe
> there is practically one on every corner.
>
> Jill

I think the popularity relates not to their mediocre coffee, but to
their slew of sugar laden foofie drinks...

On Fri, 2 Feb 2007 14:09:52 -0600, "jmcquown" >
wrote:

>notbob wrote:
>> On 2007-02-02, Nancy Young > wrote:
>>
>>> What amused me was that they said Starbucks tasted burnt. That's
>>> what
>>> I thought when I tasted it, then I saw people call it Starburnt,
>>> something like that.
>>
>> "Charbucks" is a common slander. It's deserved.
>>
>> nb
>
>I've never been able to figure out the popularity. Now, I have to admit
>I've never tasted Starbuck's coffee. But I have heard so many negative
>comments about the stuff (not to mention the price!) it's hard to believe
>there is practically one on every corner.
>
the commentary is made by mental midgets, that all.

--
See return address to reply by email

On Feb 2, 2:59 pm, notbob > wrote:
> On 2007-02-02, Nancy Young > wrote:
>
> > What amused me was that they said Starbucks tasted burnt. That's what
> > I thought when I tasted it, then I saw people call it Starburnt, something
> > like that.
>
> "Charbucks" is a common slander. It's deserved.
>
> nb

I love strong coffee but it did taste a bit charred. I don't think
I've ever had McDonald's.

John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 13:59:34 -0600, notbob > wrote:

>On 2007-02-02, Nancy Young > wrote:
>
>> What amused me was that they said Starbucks tasted burnt. That's what
>> I thought when I tasted it, then I saw people call it Starburnt, something
>> like that.
>
>"Charbucks" is a common slander. It's deserved.
>
Only by people who don't know dark roast from dirty dishwater.

--
See return address to reply by email

sf wrote:
>
>
> >"Charbucks" is a common slander. It's deserved.
> >
> Only by people who don't know dark roast from dirty dishwater.

I have never had a problem with Starbucks coffee. I object to their
smallest size being so large, for using pretentious names for like "tall"
instead of (not so ) small, and being so expensive. I object to their
limited seating being taken up by loiters who buy one over priced coffee
and sit there for three hours reading or doing homework. But I don't think
their coffee is bad.

I can go into Tim Hortons and get a medium size good cup of good coffee and
a decent muffin for $2.29 and have a place to sit down to enjoy it, or pay
over $4 for a Starbucks coffee and a mediocre muffin, if they have any, and
then find that after waiting an eternity to be served that there is no
place to sit.

"Peter A" > wrote in message
...
> Consumer Reports did a taste test of coffee from various restaurants and
> found that McDonalds beat Starbucks.
>
> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...949.shtml?s=us
> --
> Peter Aitken


This, from the same testing organization that said Japanese home stereo
speakers sounded terrific in the mid-1980s, when they were made out of
cardboard.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
> "Peter A" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Consumer Reports did a taste test of coffee from various restaurants
>> and found that McDonalds beat Starbucks.
>>
>> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...949.shtml?s=us
>> --
>> Peter Aitken
>
>
> This, from the same testing organization that said Japanese home
> stereo speakers sounded terrific in the mid-1980s, when they were
> made out of cardboard.

I recall when they said that Haagen Daz vanilla ice cream was "too rich."
They preferred Friendly's, IIRC.

Right.

You always have to be careful and read the criteria they use for judging.
They probably don't like dark roasts. BTW, isn't MacDonald's selling Paul
Newman organic coffee nowadays?

"Janet Puistonen" > wrote in message
news:8lRwh.85$FM3.84@trndny06...
> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>> "Peter A" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Consumer Reports did a taste test of coffee from various restaurants
>>> and found that McDonalds beat Starbucks.
>>>
>>> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...949.shtml?s=us
>>> --
>>> Peter Aitken
>>
>>
>> This, from the same testing organization that said Japanese home
>> stereo speakers sounded terrific in the mid-1980s, when they were
>> made out of cardboard.
>
> I recall when they said that Haagen Daz vanilla ice cream was "too rich."
> They preferred Friendly's, IIRC.
>
> Right.
>
> You always have to be careful and read the criteria they use for judging.
> They probably don't like dark roasts. BTW, isn't MacDonald's selling Paul
> Newman organic coffee nowadays?


I don't trust any test that doesn't involve measurements with instruments,
and even those tests can be designed incorrectly, as we saw with the baby
seat debacle.

In article <8lRwh.85$FM3.84@trndny06>,
"Janet Puistonen" > wrote:

> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
> > "Peter A" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> Consumer Reports did a taste test of coffee from various restaurants
> >> and found that McDonalds beat Starbucks.
> >>
> >> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...949.shtml?s=us
> >> --
> >> Peter Aitken
> >
> >
> > This, from the same testing organization that said Japanese home
> > stereo speakers sounded terrific in the mid-1980s, when they were
> > made out of cardboard.
>
> I recall when they said that Haagen Daz vanilla ice cream was "too rich."
> They preferred Friendly's, IIRC.
>
> Right.
>
> You always have to be careful and read the criteria they use for judging.
> They probably don't like dark roasts. BTW, isn't MacDonald's selling Paul
> Newman organic coffee nowadays?

That's what I like about Consumer Reports. They tell you their
criteria. If you like them, you look at their results. If you don't,
then their results are irrelevant. Some people think that is a flaw. I
don't.

"Dan Abel" > wrote

> That's what I like about Consumer Reports. They tell you their
> criteria. If you like them, you look at their results. If you don't,
> then their results are irrelevant. Some people think that is a flaw. I
> don't.

Agreed. I look at what features they cover and then I know what
to look for or what I am not interested in paying for; things like
that. I appreciate that information, especially when I'm looking to
buy something I know nothing about.

nancy

"Dan Abel" > wrote in message
> That's what I like about Consumer Reports. They tell you their
> criteria. If you like them, you look at their results. If you don't,
> then their results are irrelevant. Some people think that is a flaw. I
> don't.

You mean like testing car seats at 70 mph and reporting they don't work at
35 mph? The makers should sue them for every penny of sales lost from CR's
stupidity.

"Peter A" > wrote in message
...
> Consumer Reports did a taste test of coffee from various restaurants and
> found that McDonalds beat Starbucks.
>
> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...949.shtml?s=us
>
> Peter Aitken

I've found McDonald's coffee is excellnt at breakfast time but not at
lunchtime, since it has probably been sitting a while due to lack of demand.
(Coke is then king). At least, that's what I've found at our local McD's.

Dora

"> Consumer Reports did a taste test of coffee from various restaurants and
> found that McDonalds beat Starbucks.
>
> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...949.shtml?s=us
>
>
>
> --
> Peter Aitken


I must agree. Near my work, there is a McDonalds 100 feet from a Starbucks.
I drive by every morning and go straight to the McDonalds and order my usual
Medium coffee. With tax $1.29. I drink it black and find it excellent.

Funny thing is I do this every day at the same time, and I know they know
me, but every day they ask if I want cream or sugar. Then when I get to the
pick up window, they ask me again. Must be some sort of rule.

Larry T

On 2007-02-02, Peter A > wrote:

> found that McDonalds beat Starbucks.

Who's doesn't? A properly made cup of Folger's instant is better than
*$.

nb

"Peter A" > wrote in message
...
> Consumer Reports did a taste test of coffee from various restaurants and
> found that McDonalds beat Starbucks.
>
> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...949.shtml?s=us


Hmm, here in Seattle all of the McDonalds' serve Seattle's Best Coffee, so
that's no big surprise here...

Hasta,
Curt Nelson

"Peter A" > wrote in message
...
> Consumer Reports did a taste test of coffee from various restaurants and
> found that McDonalds beat Starbucks.
>
> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...949.shtml?s=us

Starbucks must taste like poop then because I can not stand Mc Donalds
coffee! just tastes burnt.

Tori

Say what you want Guys I tried it and liked it even before this report
came out !



Live The Moment

In article >,
says...
> Consumer Reports did a taste test of coffee from various restaurants and
> found that McDonalds beat Starbucks.
>
> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...949.shtml?s=us
>
>
McDonalds may strive for uniformity in their products, but the
definitely don't achieve it. In our area there are McDonalds that are
just plain scuzzy, and the stuff they serve is usually pretty bad in my
experience, coffee included. In contrast, other outlets are clean,
bright, efficient and serve decent food, within the limitations of their
menu.

My wife and I were out early one morning last week and stopped at a McD
about 35 miles from home for breakfast. Everything was freshly-
prepared, and the coffee was quite good. Like night and day compared to
the one five minutes from the house, which is truly nasty.

Much depends on the store manager and his area boss, I'm guessing.

Bob

On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 16:42:34 -0500, yetanotherBob
> wrote:

>In article >,
says...
>> Consumer Reports did a taste test of coffee from various restaurants and
>> found that McDonalds beat Starbucks.
>>
>> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...949.shtml?s=us
>>
>>
>McDonalds may strive for uniformity in their products, but the
>definitely don't achieve it. In our area there are McDonalds that are
>just plain scuzzy, and the stuff they serve is usually pretty bad in my
>experience, coffee included. In contrast, other outlets are clean,
>bright, efficient and serve decent food, within the limitations of their
>menu.
>
>My wife and I were out early one morning last week and stopped at a McD
>about 35 miles from home for breakfast. Everything was freshly-
>prepared, and the coffee was quite good. Like night and day compared to
>the one five minutes from the house, which is truly nasty.
>
>Much depends on the store manager and his area boss, I'm guessing.

That's interesting. I've always thought of McDonald's restaurants as
being pretty much the same (with some regional differences). But it
makes sense that one that is poorly managed and maybe has poor staff
as well might serve sub-par food.

Laurie

Peter A wrote:
> Consumer Reports did a taste test of coffee from various restaurants
> and found that McDonalds beat Starbucks.
>
> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...949.shtml?s=us

When I was but a teen (LOL) I worked at an ice cream parlor which also had
permission to use some of the original fat for 'Dyer's Hamburgers'. And the
coffee they served was Kava instant coffee granules. Tasted pretty good;
sure kept me awake!

Jill

On Fri, 2 Feb 2007 11:28:32 -0500, Peter A >
wrote:

>Consumer Reports did a taste test of coffee from various restaurants and
>found that McDonalds beat Starbucks.
>
>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...949.shtml?s=us

I go to coffee shops occasionally, but more to have someplace
relatively quiet to visit with someone than for the coffee.
Coffeehouse coffee may taste different than McDonald's or Country
Kitchen, but I really wouldn't notice. I do order a light roast at
coffee shops, but I do that anytime I have a choice.

We don't have a Starbucks around here (but I've been to a few of them
elsewhere), but we have Caribou Coffee. Otherwise, all the places are
local. To me they're all the same. I'm such a boring coffee person.

Laurie

Peter A > wrote:
>Consumer Reports did a taste test of coffee from various restaurants and
>found that McDonalds beat Starbucks.
>
>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...949.shtml?s=us

Not surprising in the least.

Starbucks coffee is total crap.

--Blair

On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 05:11:35 GMT, Blair P. Houghton > wrote:

>Peter A > wrote:
>>Consumer Reports did a taste test of coffee from various restaurants and
>>found that McDonalds beat Starbucks.
>>
>>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...949.shtml?s=us
>
>Not surprising in the least.
>
>Starbucks coffee is total crap.
>

Like I care what some no name website says about Starbucks.

I can't believe I'm defending Starbucks, but the number of people who
are just plain ignorant dirty dishwater drinkers who think they can
begin to comment about/criticize decent coffee amazes me. Comments
seem to be unilateral, so I'll assume it's aimed at the beans
themselves and the way they are brewed.

I DO NOT like frufru drinks. I'm only talking about a simple cup of
coffee because latte is as fancy as I take it and rarely at Starbucks.

--
See return address to reply by email

On Feb 2, 11:28 am, Peter A > wrote:
> Consumer Reports did a taste test of coffee from various restaurants and
> found that McDonalds beat Starbucks.
>
> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...949.shtml?s=us
>
> --
> Peter Aitken

==============
I have always thought that to be true. McDonalds coffee is always
good, but I do not like Starbucks coffee. Here in MA we have Dunkin
Donuts, which, to me, has the best coffee; then McDonalds.