Jump to content

Talk:Instant coffee: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
SineBot (talk | contribs)
m Signing comment by 20.133.0.15 - "Most coffee drinkers object to its taste: POV comment"
Spuddy345 (talk | contribs)
Line 61: Line 61:
: I agree, definitely a POV. I prefer proper coffee to instant coffee by a factor of 100, but I certainly wouldn't try to claim that most coffee drinkers object to its taste... otherwise there wouldn't be a market for it! Some people I know actually PREFER instant coffee, because then they can make it with BOILING water (despite my cries of horror and recitation of "coffee boiled is coffee spoiled"). Probably comes from living in a cold country where a tepid barrista coffee often won't do. I would also suggest (although this is "original research") that more instant coffee is drunk in many parts of the world than ground or beans.
: I agree, definitely a POV. I prefer proper coffee to instant coffee by a factor of 100, but I certainly wouldn't try to claim that most coffee drinkers object to its taste... otherwise there wouldn't be a market for it! Some people I know actually PREFER instant coffee, because then they can make it with BOILING water (despite my cries of horror and recitation of "coffee boiled is coffee spoiled"). Probably comes from living in a cold country where a tepid barrista coffee often won't do. I would also suggest (although this is "original research") that more instant coffee is drunk in many parts of the world than ground or beans.
:Adam <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/20.133.0.15|20.133.0.15]] ([[User talk:20.133.0.15|talk]]) 12:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Adam <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/20.133.0.15|20.133.0.15]] ([[User talk:20.133.0.15|talk]]) 12:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

I agree too, this comment is POV and demonstrates the preferences of the author. It needs editing straight away. I'll do it if you want. [[User:Spuddy345|Spuddy345]] 18:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:59, 27 October 2007

Dave Kovacs

Who's Dave Kovacs and why does it matter if he inhales coffee grounds?

Price

Should it be noted that over the past few years, instant coffee now cost more than ground coffee? Doesn't matter what brand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.122.193 (talk) 04:26, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

A sophisticated Beverage???

Where exactly in the world is instant coffee considered 'a sophisticated beverage?' I suspect it is held with contempt just about everywhere except on a hiking trail or mountain top where there isn't any alternative.

This entire paragraph badly needs citation or a rewrite; in particular the statement "Due to the fact that it was the norm in American homes until the 1980s, some areas of the world see it as a particularly sophisticated beverage[citation needed]." is remarkably arrogant , and seems to be somewhat spurious original research. The following again is basically original research if not backed up with citation: "This may possibly be due to a society's appeal to novelty. In countries where it is popular, it is often referred to as "Café Puro" (English: pure coffee), much to the horror of those aficionados who dislike instant coffee."
I'll be removing/rewriting this soon unless it's cited or tidied up first. — Estarriol talk 20:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


When I read the "due to the fact that it was the norm in american homes..." I also thought it was arrogant and that it makes no sense. Unless it is properly cited, the statement should be removed.--Reefpicker 17:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I wouldnt describe it as "sophisticated" although I do not view it with contempt - it is good for general use, but if I wanted a quality cup of coffee I would bring out the real thing. 130.246.132.26 16:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good to the Last Drop? or is it?

wast up and hi Is maxwell house coffee considered instant coffee, or just bad coffee?--4.237.23.16 18:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Furthermore, some coffee drinkers object to its taste" -> Does one need a citation that proves that instant coffee tastes bad? i find that rather amusing :)


Instant coffee, like real coffee, tastes different depending on how it's made, which is to say in this case, the manufacturer. There are good instant coffees and bad ones, just as there are good coffees and bad ones. By far the worst coffee I've ever tasted came from a hotel, which used coffee beans but apparently did not wash their coffee maker out very well, if ever. That, at least, is one problem you won't have with instant. --69.140.177.7 01:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Benefits and risks?

Lately I've been drinking a lot of instant coffee and I was wondering if it has the same benefits and risks as regular coffee. I did a little research but I haven't been able to find anything definitive.

Specifically, does instant have similar (if any) levels of antioxidants? And, generally are the benefits the same? I know antioxidants break down rapidly but I don't know if they could 'survive' the drying process.

Conversely, does it contain higher levels of cafestol? I know normal (perc pot) percolation can contain higher levels cafestol than single pass filtration, and I was wondering if the industrial percolation could create even higher concentrations of cafestol. I'm not really worried about the low levels in normal percolated coffee. If the cafestol levels in instant coffee are in the same range as those found in pressed, steamed, and/or boiled coffee, then I might switch to fresh coffee.

Otherwise, the article text looks good but it needs more information that's on par with or at least addresses the same topics covered in the normal coffee section.

Forgot to sign in before that last edit- apologies! Boldymumbles

Taste and quality of source products

Yup, I too think that instant coffee tastes worse than "classic" coffee. However, upon paying this problem a little bit of thought, this might be simply the case because the source products (the coffee beans) are of lower quality. While I have no evidence for this, I still noted that coffee beans of higher quality are treated with more care (high quality coffee reaches the customer in the form of beans and is ground just before the coffee is prepared, while "standard quality" coffee typically reaches the customer already ground. The consistent quality of "standard" coffee is achieved by mixing different batches and types of beans in varying ratios, eliminating changes in quality over the seasons and the years, but also disallowing to achive the topmost quality (this is also common practise with other products; the goal is not highest, but consistent quality)).

Does anyone know of a manufacturer which uses the same coffee source products for both instant and "classic" coffee, or of any tests which have been done with identical source products? --Klaws 10:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Kenco adverts claim that they use the same beans for their instant coffee as their ground coffee. 130.246.132.26 16:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

citation for shelf life

http://www.slashfood.com/2006/03/30/spring-cleaning-shelf-life-of-common-pantry-items/ says the shelf life is 1 year unopened and 3 months opened...Of course, they mention those are only "suggested" and one should follow the shelf/expiration on the package. http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_abstract&pid=S0101-20611998000100006&lng=es&nrm=iso also has a formula available...but that looks complicated hehe. --70.157.222.46 21:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most coffee drinkers object to its taste

Oh so? Who says? I don't "object" to most tastes; granted, instant coffee might be considered lower quality, but that screams OPINION to me. kaiti-sicle 07:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, definitely a POV. I prefer proper coffee to instant coffee by a factor of 100, but I certainly wouldn't try to claim that most coffee drinkers object to its taste... otherwise there wouldn't be a market for it! Some people I know actually PREFER instant coffee, because then they can make it with BOILING water (despite my cries of horror and recitation of "coffee boiled is coffee spoiled"). Probably comes from living in a cold country where a tepid barrista coffee often won't do. I would also suggest (although this is "original research") that more instant coffee is drunk in many parts of the world than ground or beans.
Adam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.133.0.15 (talk) 12:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree too, this comment is POV and demonstrates the preferences of the author. It needs editing straight away. I'll do it if you want. Spuddy345 18:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]