How can Starbucks Espresso beans be so horrible??

Cafe Society
1

Okay, I’ve long known that Starbucks espresso sucks. Even moreso now that they all use automatic espresso makers, so there’s absolutely no skill involved in making the crap they call a shot of espresso. But even back when they used semi-automatic makers it tended to be a thing of horror.

But how can their beans themselves be sooooo bad??

Backstory: We ran out of espresso beans in the QtM household. :eek:

The Mrs. was sent out to procure an emergency supply until we could visit our usual coffee roaster, Colectivo (a maker of superior espresso and a fine roaster). She was encouraged to make sure she did NOT get Starbucks beans (out of general principle) but after visiting the two nearest stores, came back with a 1 lb bag of Starbucks espresso roast.

Mildly disappointed, I figured I could make something decent out of it.

And when I opened the bag, I was surprised. Dark, oily, a very, VERY rich coffee aroma. I thought “Aha! They use bad machines/techniques on good beans. I can work with this!”

So I set to grinding the proper amount. And oddly, it took more volume of Starbucks beans to produce the needed amount of ground espresso. The grind was a bit stickier too. No matter, I brewed a shot in my Rancilio Silvia, got what looked like the perfect amount in the perfect time, with a rich, tiger-striped crema. Looking good, I thought.

Then I tasted it. <<shudder>>. The bitterest brew I’ve ever consumed in my life, even including at 3 AM during my internship. Repeat attempts, varying temperature, tamp, and volume did not improve it one iota. A ristretto was even more distressing. The Mrs. said her cappuccinos were undrinkable, despite copious sugar and flavorings.

An emergency trip last night got us 5 lbs of Colectivo Toro espresso roast, and now things are returning to normal.

So how can such good looking/smelling beans be soooo bad? What is Starbucks trying to prove?

2

That’s been my impression of any of the Starbucks whole bean coffees I’ve tried. I assumed the beans were just over-roasted to my taste.

3

Agree, I think they just roast the shit out of them. It’s a common trend in American coffee shops, I’ve noticed. My (wholly unscientific) theory is that as long as the coffee TASTES strongly, Americans will think it is strong coffee, hence full of caffeine and wakefulness. Which is obviously NOT the point of espresso at all.

4

Man, who’d over-roast like that on purpose? That’s a good way to put someone off coffee drinks for good, if they’re just starting out. Plus the more you roast, the less caffeine the resulting beans have. Bitter and no buzz, what a deal.

5

What puzzles me is that a competitor chain, Peet’s, seems to always have good beans. They’re of decent quality, they don’t over-roast them, and the stores always have actual baristas who know how to do a good short pull.

They’re in direct competition with Starbucks, but they do everything better than Starbucks. They’re widespread here in California but I don’t know what other states they might be in.

So why can’t Starbucks pull it off as well?

6

I’ve had okay results making espresso with other Starbucks roasts. My theory is that their “espresso” roast isn’t designed for use in an espresso machine but rather for making foul bitter drip coffee that when mixed with copious amounts of cream and sweetener creates an approximation of one of the uber-sweet $6 espresso drinks you’d get in one of the stores. This would explain why they sell the “espresso” roast in ground form.

7

They don’t taste bitter to me. I find them to be far less bitter than a lot of the beans of independent roasters, plus, they are obviously very popular in terms of sales, even though most people prefer non-bitter flavors in general.
And what does the “skill” involved have to do with the flavor of the result?

8

When you’re making espresso at home with a decent semi-automatic machine, everything. How much you grind per shot, how finely you grind it, how hard it’s tamped, how long it’s brewed to produce the proper volume, all impact tremendously on the quality of a decent espresso. Even the best beans can make a horrible espresso if they’re improperly handled.

And I won’t even get into fussing about the proper water temperature, compensating for ambient humidity, making sure your machine is producing the proper 9 atmospheres of pressure, proper age of the beans, or roasting your own beans at home.

QtM, espresso snob.

9

This makes sense to me, sadly. Thus putting their ‘espresso’ beans into an actual espresso machine would magnify all those flaws by about a factor of 10.

10

Pretty much I find all of their “coffees” to be poor. Mind you, yes, their sugared and fatted up Mochalottas or whatever they are called are kinda tasty in a cheap chocolate milk/shake kinda way.

11

The first rule of making espresso is “Don’t use Espresso beans”

12

That’s what I get for generally using a local roaster whose espresso bean product is specifically meant for use in an espresso machine. :dubious:

13

I know those things have an impact on the taste, but I’m evaluating the final product. I don’t care how skilled the maker is… If the result is good, that’s what counts. I like the Starbucks result for its lack of bitterness. If it’s made by a baboon on his first day at work but tastes good, that’s the important part.

14

Alfred Peet could be regarded as the mentor of Starbucks.

The three Starbucks founders – Jerry Baldwin, Zev Siegl, and Gordon Bowker – learned how to roast coffee beans from none other than Alfred Peet, the founder of Peet’s Coffee.

When they began their store in 1971, they bought their beans directly from Peet’s, and continued to do so for the first year of business.

As far as I can tell, it’s purely a matter of business decisions. Peet’s chose not to expand rapidly, and kept the quality high. Starbucks seems to have fairly quickly assumed the business model whereby every crossroads on the planet should have four of their coffeeshops, requiring supply chains and staff training methods that inevitably led to an inferior product (IMHO).

15

Heh, you sound like my brother, who is also an espresso and general coffee snob. These days he is roasting his own beans. I have to say, he does make good cuppa.

Starbucks coffee is ok, l like their Sumatra. But l agree their espresso is horribly bitter…l use one of those little ltalian stove top espresso makers.

Peets is way better, l used to order it back in the 90s. Now l find Peets at the more upscale Krogers.

16

I remember when Starbucks coffee would taste different depending on the type. Sumatra was very different from sulawesi as it was from their blends. Now they all taste the same (and not in a good way) except for a couple of their special blends.

17

I like their espresso, and y’all can suck my con panna. :stuck_out_tongue:

There is little excuse for their over-roasted drip coffee, but at least they started offering lighter roasts as of late. High roasted espresso, can help power through all the crap confections people buy and have a few shots of caffeine thrown in.

18

What they’re serving you may lack bitterness, but the brew I extract from their espresso beans I used at home is bitterness personified. And magnified.

I too make my final judgement based on taste. Which is why I am unhappy with the ‘espresso’ beans they sell.

19

Maybe you’re doing it wrong.
I find the taste pleasing and obviously so do many others or the brand would not be so popular. If you dislike it, that’s completely understandable, as it is a subjective preference. That does not make the beans “bad,” just not to your personal taste.

Making your “final judgment based on taste” is rather telling… After building up the idea that Starbucks product is terrible every step of the way, you grudgingly take a sip. Lo and behold, bias confirmed! You should have sampled this blind to get any sort of realistic assessment.

20

I’ve had access to a cheapish espresso machine, and discovered that I much preferred using regular roasts/blends to Espresso Roast, for at least a couple different coffee brands.