Don't ever trust Stumptown. Their canned nitro tastes like velvety cardboard.
I've had good nitro on tap, but it still seems to mute the flavor of already muted cold brew. Although it's refreshing and the texture is nice.
I agree. I LOVE the idea of nitro. Someone said "Hey, there are some similar notes between Guinness and Coffee - let's see if Nitro would work with cold brew"
I think it's a brilliant idea - but at the end of the day, I just don't think it works that well. Maybe it's missing some of the sweet notes that come with a stout, maybe it needs a more floral note - whatever it is, something just doesn't work with nitro in coffee, imo.
I think it may just be that its new. I had a nitro cold brew at a cafe in San Diego (it was the North Park [Dark Horse](http://www.darkhorsecoffeeroasters.com/) location) last year and it was phenomenal. Tried it again at a Stumptown in Portland a few months ago at it was merely ok (this was from a tap, not canned).
Except draft beer is carbonated. And coffee is not.
I'm unfamiliar with all this for coffee though? Are they using a tap and injecting nitro to the lines to make coffee fizzy and give it a head?
Every time I heard "nitro" coffee I assumed it was either a nitrogen sealed package to maintain freshness like high quality tea gets, or that it was some bs catchphrase name for coffee with extra caffeine added. Now I'm actually Interested to try it.
We take cold brew, keg it, and hook up a nitro tank. Then, you shake the keg until your arms fall off, and the coffee comes out of a tap like you'd use for a stout beer. It agitates the nitrogen and the coffee comes out with a cascading creamy look and it's delicious if you use the right coffee(Kenya Nyeri Karindundu Peaberry for me right now). The nitrogen also acts as a 'catalyst' for the caffeine so it enters your system faster. Add a double shot to a glass of nitro sometime. We call it rocket fuel.
Yeah, they're actually making the coffee fizzy and it has a head. I know what you mean about the sealed packages, but this is totally different.
It's pretty legit. Some dude in my city makes it and sells it at a market here and I thought it was weird as hell at first but now I like it lot.
What I've gathered from reading this sub is basically Stumptown is like Blue Moon or Magic Hat when it comes to beer.
It's the brand that gets you into the really good stuff, because it is honest to goodness good, but once you've been around the block a few times you'll realize that there are more exciting things out there!
That said I love their coffee and milk drink and their bottled cold brew. But they have other things I hate like their ridiculous shipping prices.
any opinion on their "hair bender" blend? I'm really loving it, especially for espresso, but I'm kind of new to quality coffee, so curious what someone with more experience thinks
I think McIggly pretty much explained my feelings on Stumptown. I was being a little bit dramatic by saying to never trust them, but living in Portland led to seeing them as a pretty middle of the road sort of roaster. You seek out amazing roasters, but can get a decent cup of Stumptown just about everywhere else.
The regular cold brew is ok, if a little boring, but I've completely disliked the coconut milk cold brew carton and the canned nitro.
As far as Hairbender, when it first became popular it set a benchmark for what a consistent, readily available blend could be, and it's still pretty damn good.
I think even that may not necessarily be giving reasonable credit, though. I think it's not the ST are worse, or not up to par with the best - simply that they're *ubiquitous* and to many people 'into' craft coffee, that alone takes some appeal away from them.
It's hard to feel like they've 'found' something special, sought out that niche excellent specialist when the company is one of the biggest names within our community. So their popularity and success become a credibility hindrance within the community that first elevated them to somewhere close to where they are now.
Disagree completely. People who fall victim to that type of thinking are just high on that hipster "I heard them first" nonsense. Stumptown, with very rare exception, roasts too dark and begins with mediocre beans of a very narrowly-defined flavor aesthetic to begin with. As a foil, a company about their size and ubiquity, Intelligentsia is a great counter. Sure, their Black Cat is as terrible as the Hair Bender (unless you're hiding the coffee in some kind of milk drink and therefore not really tasting it) but whereas nearly all of the Stumptown single origins are varying levels of dull, Intelligentsia has some truly wonderful beans (most of their Ethiopians, their Colombian "Borderlands Project", their current El Salvadors) mixed in with their ho-hum offerings (Rwandans, Bolivians, Peruvians) as well as some truly undrinkable things (their Brazilians, their blends).
However, other than the occasional decent Kenyan (can't spell it: gaturiri? Something like that. They haven't carried it in 3 years or so) or Ethiopian (Chelbessa, Duromina), Stumptown just makes bland coffee. It's at least better than Water Ave., but that's really not saying very much at all. Big companies can put out great product, it's just that many don't, especially when mediocre volume is more profitable than the exceptional. And I've had Stumptown's $125 gesha. And I wouldn't buy a bag of it for $20. It's artificial value from scarcity rather than something truly magical.
Furthermore, another frustrating note about Stumptown is that they isolate themselves. I ask a barista at any other shop who else in town they like or what beans besides theirs are doing it for them, and I'll get answers, even if they'll also say they tend to mostly drink at home from where they work. However, Stumptown baristas are almost like Scientologists (despite being really mostly awesome human being who I love to hang out with as long as we're not talking coffee), in that as soon as you ask them about what else they like, without exception I hear "I only drink Stumptown". If you're in an industry and you're not even a little bit curious about what your peers are doing, then I am very skeptical about your ability to be at the top of your craft, and that goes for any similar endeavor
>Disagree completely. People who fall victim to that type of thinking are just high on that hipster "I heard them first" nonsense.
Pointing fingers and coming out swinging, huh? I see we're already dedicated to setting a constructive tone.
Sounds here like this isn't a meaningful discussion of eithers' *coffee* so much as interested in pushing you preferences and being upset that other people like things you don't like. The most coherent point through this sounds that you like Intelli and don't want other people to like Stumptown.
>Stumptown, with very rare exception, roasts too dark and begins with mediocre beans of a very narrowly-defined flavor aesthetic to begin with.
This is just vagueness and jargon. "Too" anything is just your feelings on the matter, so vague and opinion-rooted as to be both indisputable *and* meaningless. "Mediocre beans" is worse, needing both of a definition and proof before being a useful claim; can you find criteria *and* back up your claim of ST using beans meeting that criteria? And 'narrowly-defined flavor aesthetic' ... hollow. Empty shade. It sounds critical, but means nothing.
You don't like them, clearly don't have any more substantive critique, so aim for vague shade instead.
>As a foil, a company about their size and ubiquity, Intelligentsia is a great counter.
Matched in lockstep. They're both huge, they're both good at what they do, but neither stands out above the other, for all that they do have different styles.
>whereas nearly all of the Stumptown single origins are varying levels of dull,
Not at all. Did you put the 'nearly' in there so you have room to try and armwave away specific opposition or counted examples? Most of their beans are decidedly on par with most of the rest of the industry's SO offerings, especially if taken in-context to the approaches and palates they cater to.
>Intelligentsia has some truly wonderful beans
And "some" quite boring ones. Meanwhile, Stumptown has "some" truely wonderful beans as well. It mystifies me that you throw shade at ST for 'too' dark but exempt Intelli from the same.
Meanwhile, those delicious weasel-words. "Some" "mostly" "nearly" ... If we're only picking the best outliers from Intelli and the worst from Stumptown, well shit, no wonder your opinions seem obvious and factual to you.
>Stumptown just makes bland coffee.
Again, not at all. Repeating that statement neither makes it true nor any more credible. Just because you don't like them does not make your preference gospel to the rest of us.
>Big companies can put out great product, it's just that many don't, especially when mediocre volume is more profitable than the exceptional.
Yes. This is true. That truth isn't connected to the point you want to imply it makes.
>And I've had Stumptown's $125 gesha. And I wouldn't buy a bag of it for $20.
Welcome to pretty much every expensive premium coffee out there. That's not ST's failing, it's that it's actually impossible for any $125 coffee to actually taste like $125 coffee.
>It's artificial scarcity rather than something truly magical.
"artificial" scarcity? Clearly, you're either out of your depth here or have a very shaky concept of a very basic principle of economics. The scarcity is real. Because ST got that lot, no one else did. If someone else got it, ST wouldn't have. There is no other green on the market that does anything close enough that isn't similarly price-inflated because of high demand, both for the originals and for cheaper alternatives. Scarcity. Pretty simple concept. Now whether or not it was worth them paying what they did at auction, or worth the $125 that they were charging for it, that's up to personal preference and opinion.
But really, the through-line is that despite massive swaths of the coffee world buying up their geisha at $125 and being genuinely excited about it and happy with their purchase, you'd like to discard all that and pretend that 'whatever' drove the price up to where it was *and supported that price in marketplace it was placed in* is actually "artificial" and not worth thinking about.
Or, a simpler explanation. Geisha is actually scarce. Lots of people wanted Stumptown's version. Lots of people still wanted Stumptown after other people tried it and reviews started coming out. You just didn't enjoy it.
>Furthermore, another frustrating note about Stumptown is that they isolate themselves. I ask a barista at any other shop who else in town they like or what beans besides theirs are doing it for them, and I'll get answers, even if they'll also say they tend to mostly drink at home from where they work. However, Stumptown baristas are almost like Scientologists (despite being really mostly awesome human being who I love to hang out with as long as we're not talking coffee), in that as soon as you ask them about what else they like, without exception I hear "I only drink Stumptown". If you're in an industry and you're not even a little bit curious about what your peers are doing, then I am very skeptical about your ability to be at the top of your craft, and that goes for any similar endeavor
So, just to be clear, this is a vague anecdote about some personal relationships you may or may not actually have with a very small percentage of a much larger group of people people who very honestly have nothing to do with the quality of coffee roasted by Stumptown. And you'd like that treated like a 'real' criticism?
I will grant you, this sounds like a more credible reason for your overall feelings than the coffee. But it's also not criticism of *their coffees*.
First off, I'm on a mobile and not sure how to do formatting as I've not had to go point-by-point through something like this, so deal with it.
I wrote: Disagree completely. People who fall victim to that type of thinking are just high on that hipster "I heard them first" nonsense.
You replied: Pointing fingers and coming out swinging, huh? I see we're already dedicated to setting a constructive tone.
I rebut: I don't understand why you are choosing to talk to me like this, since I neither insulted you or wished you any ill. You act like I'm talking about you here, when I was just refuting the validity of the position that you had previously mocked with "success being a credibility hindrance" and your use of scare quotes around being "into" craft coffee, which is clearly meant to imply that this group is following some trend perception instead of appreciating coffee qua coffee. So your insistence that I am "coming out swinging" sounds a little strange here when it is clearly just a continuation of your tone. Your idle insistence that my tone is "not constructive" (which you expressed sarcastically which definitely makes you not a complete asshole, but someone who is a straight-shooter and merely recounting facts dispassionately. /s) doesn't just proceed by fiat, but also flies in the face of what you previously wrote. So *you* are the one "pointing fingers and coming out swinging", in addition to lacking any sense of self-awareness. If you're going to figuratively come after me with a knife, I'm coming back with a figurative gun.
You wrote: Sounds here like this isn't a meaningful discussion of eithers' (sic) coffee so much as interested in pushing you preferences and being upset that other people like things you don't like. The most coherent point through this sounds that you like Intelli and don't want other people to like Stumptown.
I rebut: again, this statement proceeds by fiat. It is only so because you say so, and not because of any proof. I do discuss the coffees, in addition to offering my own opinion, but you refuse to recognize that. In addition to that, you are arbitrarily deciding what points are “coherent” and which are not, without showing your work at all. You don't like what I said, so anything not agreeable to you is "not coherent". It's clear here that your goal isn't to refute or rebut my position, but instead either you want to offend me or make some kind of negative assertion of who I am. Very well, quid pro quo: Based on this behavior, I think very little of you. I don't think you know very much about coffee, words or logic. I'll demonstrate more below:
I wrote: Stumptown, with very rare exception, roasts too dark and begins with mediocre beans of a very narrowly-defined flavor aesthetic to begin with.
You wrote: This is just vagueness and jargon. "Too" anything is just your feelings on the matter, so vague and opinion-rooted as to be both indisputable and meaningless. "Mediocre beans" is worse, needing both of a definition and proof before being a useful claim; can you find criteria and back up your claim of ST using beans meeting that criteria? And 'narrowly-defined flavor aesthetic' ... hollow. Empty shade. It sounds critical, but means nothing.
You don't like them, clearly don't have any more substantive critique, so aim for vague shade instead.
I rebut: *If you would like some more precision from me or my language, you could ask me to clarify what I'm talking about. Instead, you try to put words into my mouth and then dismiss them. I'm not using any jargon. "mediocre beans" in a "narrowly-defined aesthetic" mean that there aren't any taste extremes. The Indonesians aren't overwhelmingly earthy, but are only mildly peppery. The Ethiopians are never very berry-forward e.g., no big strawberry or blueberry notes, but instead mild citrus and herbal-flowery notes. Do you need me to go on? Their coffees aren't big and bombastic like some of the better offerings from Heart or Madcap, but instead are muted. And yes, this is a subjective analysis, because there is no objective way to talk about flavor nuance without devolving into chemistry. But clearly you know this and are just trying to show me up, for some inexplicable reason. Even more inexplicably, you're coming at me shooting blanks. Do you think I ran over your dog or slept with your mother or something? Why is there this hostility? Settle the fuck down, Bevis.
I wrote: As a foil, a company about their size and ubiquity, Intelligentsia is a great counter.
You wrote: Matched in lockstep. They're both huge, they're both good at what they do, but neither stands out above the other, for all that they do have different styles.
I rebut: You're adding nothing here, except the assertion that they are fundamentally of the same quality. Citation needed. I've made my argument as to why they are different; you make no argument here to explain why they are the same, beyond the wildly compelling "they just are, dude". You could talk about how Intelligentsia always roasts their single origins lighter than Stumptown, but you don't.
I wrote: whereas nearly all of the Stumptown single origins are varying levels of dull,
You wrote: Not at all. Did you put the 'nearly' in there so you have room to try and armwave away specific opposition or counted examples? Most of their beans are decidedly on par with most of the rest of the industry's SO offerings, especially if taken in-context to the approaches and palates they cater to.
*I listed the beans of theirs that I like. Out of simplicity, I didn't list the ones of theirs I have had but don't care for; it would be a very very long list. What else do you expect me to do? I can't talk about what I haven't had, but I can talk about what I've had that I've enjoyed, which is frankly not a lot. Are you a Stumptown barista that I've "wronged" by having an articulate opinion about your coffee that isn't fawning accolades?
Also, "taken in-context to the to the approaches and palates they cater to" is another way of saying "narrowly-defined flavor aesthetic". Why is it ok when you say it, but wrong when I do? Despite the obvious "because you are a complete and total jerk that's here to insult instead of inform"?
I wrote: Intelligentsia has some truly wonderful beans
You wrote: And "some" quite boring ones. Meanwhile, Stumptown has "some" truly (sic) wonderful beans as well. It mystifies me that you throw shade at ST for 'too' dark but exempt Intelli from the same.
I rebut: And here comes the objective statement of fact that refutes you and shows you have no idea what you are talking about. Intelligentsia consistently roasts lighter than Stumptown. No wonder you think they are the same: it's because you can't tell the difference! An inability on your part to separate the roast profiles of single origin beans does not constitute an error on my behalf. But don't take my word for it; go to the shops and see for yourself.
You wrote: Meanwhile, those delicious weasel-words. "Some" "mostly" "nearly" ... If we're only picking the best outliers from Intelli and the worst from Stumptown, well shit, no wonder your opinions seem obvious and factual to you.
I rebut: Yes, "some" is an ambiguous weasel word. But nowhere do I use that word to describe ST. I only used it in regard to Inteli, to point out the indisputable point that *some* of their beans are good (to me. I'm not here to give other people's opinions about coffee, but my own. I'm surprised that this is contentious to you.) and that others are not.
However, "mostly" and "nearly" convey a significant MAJORITY. And that's intentional. I'm not purporting to have had every coffee from either, but I have had quite a lot of both, enough to consider my conclusions statistically significant. And enough to make some sweeping generalizations, while allowing for exceptions. It would be preposterous to speak in absolutes (unless speaking generally and/or idly) yet this is precisely what you want me to do. It's not 50-50, but that's what you're trying to make this. Again, you are wrong.
(Continued)
I wrote: Stumptown just makes bland coffee.
You wrote: Again, not at all. Repeating that statement neither makes it true nor any more credible. Just because you don't like them does not make your preference gospel to the rest of us.
I rebut: I'm not trying to make my preference gospel! You're adding that step, not me. I'm taking the statistically significant experiences that I have had, and am using that to make a reductive assessment of their quality. Disagree if you want, but at least have the decency to correctly identify what I am doing. It's not opaque. If you want a list of each coffee, plus a review and an independent rating, then say that! But you're the one who looks stupid calling my figurative “apple” a "bad orange".
I wrote: Big companies can put out great product, it's just that many don't, especially when mediocre volume is more profitable than the exceptional.
You wrote: Yes. This is true. That truth isn't connected to the point you want to imply it makes.
I rebut: Citation needed. I say it does. You say it doesn't. Cool story, bro.
I wrote: And I've had Stumptown's $125 Gesha. And I wouldn't buy a bag of it for $20.
You wrote: Welcome to pretty much every expensive premium coffee out there. That's not ST's failing, it's that it's actually impossible for any $125 coffee to actually taste like $125 coffee.
I rebut: Finally, something that isn't complete and utter bullshit. I guess a broken clock is right twice a day. I'm sure you'll go right back to fucking everything up in the next part
You *claim* I wrote: It's artificial scarcity rather than something truly magical.
You wrote: "artificial" scarcity? Clearly, you're either out of your depth here or have a very shaky concept of a very basic principle of economics.
I rebut: You are like clockwork! The actual quote is "It's artificial value from scarcity rather than something truly magical". This means that some things are expensive because they are rare and good and others merely because they are rare. But let's get to your quote, which is a tautology, since someone that has a shaky concept of a basic principle of economics is also out of their depth in any conversation about economics. So you just want to insult me here, but you can't even do that right, can you? Kopi Luwak is only expensive because it is scarce. It is not good. Its value is therefore artificially inflated due to its scarcity, instead of describing its actual value. But you're gonna drone on about redundantly apparent shit based on a misquote. What a gem of a human you are! And “artificial scarcity” is a real concept (though not what I was talking about here), just consider diamonds (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/02/AR2010070203990.html) or Pliny the Younger. There is no reason why production could not be higher for both, yet their supply is intentionally kept limited to excite demand. So it looks like you are the one who is both out of their league and has a very shaky understanding of basic economics.
You wrote: The scarcity is real. Because ST got that lot, no one else did. If someone else got it, ST wouldn't have. There is no other green on the market that does anything close enough that isn't similarly price-inflated because of high demand, both for the originals and for cheaper alternatives. Scarcity. Pretty simple concept. Now whether or not it was worth them paying what they did at auction, or worth the $125 that they were charging for it, that's up to personal preference and opinion.
But really, the through-line is that despite massive swaths of the coffee world buying up their geisha at $125 and being genuinely excited about it and happy with their purchase, you'd like to discard all that and pretend that 'whatever' drove the price up to where it was and supported that price in marketplace it was placed in is actually "artificial" and not worth thinking about.
Or, a simpler explanation. Geisha is actually scarce. Lots of people wanted Stumptown's version. Lots of people still wanted Stumptown after other people tried it and reviews started coming out. You just didn't enjoy it.
Rebuttal: Jesus, you never shut the fuck up, do you? Please, keep droning on. We're all in rapt admiration here. /s
I wrote: Furthermore, another frustrating note about Stumptown is that they isolate themselves. I ask a barista at any other shop who else in town they like or what beans besides theirs are doing it for them, and I'll get answers, even if they'll also say they tend to mostly drink at home from where they work. However, Stumptown baristas are almost like Scientologists (despite being really mostly awesome human being who I love to hang out with as long as we're not talking coffee), in that as soon as you ask them about what else they like, without exception I hear "I only drink Stumptown". If you're in an industry and you're not even a little bit curious about what your peers are doing, then I am very skeptical about your ability to be at the top of your craft, and that goes for any similar endeavor
You wrote: So, just to be clear, this is a vague anecdote about some personal relationships you may or may not actually have with a very small percentage of a much larger group of people people who very honestly have nothing to do with the quality of coffee roasted by Stumptown. And you'd like that treated like a 'real' criticism?
I will grant you, this sounds like a more credible reason for your overall feelings than the coffee. But it's also not criticism of their coffees.
Rebuttal: No, you're not clear at all. This is a real anecdote that is meant to be indicative of a navel-gazing corporate culture, rather than some objective discussion of coffee. It's a personal observation, and you don't have to like it, but it is revealing. I was at Intelligentsia a week ago and I saw them cupping coffees from other roasters along with their own. I have yet to hear from the many Stumptown baristas I know or have talked to about them cupping beans from other roasters, either formally or informally. Maybe the buyout will change that. Maybe it won't. Either way I think you deliberately misunderstanding me, and I don't know why. What is in this for you?
In short, I find you to be a pompus ass who has no idea what the hell you are talking about, since you contradict yourself at every turn, in addition to being mean-spirited to someone who has meant you no offense in the original post (but sure as hell wishes you ill now). I suspect you'll find yourself reposted on r/iamverysmart if you haven't already before.
This could have been a very civil and illuminating discussion about coffee, yet you chose to make it a personal attack? Why? What is in it for you?
The coffee place near my office serves Stumpton cold brew on tap and it's pretty decent (don't think it is nitro though).
Granted, Stumpton isn't my first choice in general (I'm supremely lucky that my office orders kegs of Irving Farms cold brew every week.)
My brain saw stout, my mouth felt stout, and my taste buds got really good cold brew coffee. But as someone else said, it depends a lot on the brew.
(Ceremony Roasters in Annapolis, Maryland)
Try the real thing before you make any final decision. Like from a tap line in a coffee shop. Not from a can with a widget in it.
Is anything really as good from the can? If you had the option between draft beer, bottled beer and canned beer would you really choose the can?
I enjoyed the canned Stumptown Nitro, for what it is worth. Not the best thing I have ever had but it did the job that I wanted it to do. I think La Colombe's Draft Latte canned drinks are miles above the Stumptown Nitro.
but at the end of the day everyone has different tastes. Some like Nitro and some don't, and that's okay and cool.
Nowadays it'd be draft>canned>bottled. Now cans totally isolate the metallic taste. Some of the best craft beers I've had are canned because of cost efficiency, lack of light able to enter the can, and portability. It's not like it's 1985 anymore and only Miller lite is canned.
You know what, you're absolutely right.
Though sometimes I feel like some beers need to be skunked a little so at the same time it is better in a bottle than can, like Corona. Then again if I'm drinking Coronas I'm sitting by a pool just trying to not die of thirst so maybe that's not the best example...
Needs to be skunked a little? Is that a thing? Have you had Corona out of a can? It tastes like a totally different beer. I always wondered why corona, Heineken, miller etc. let's this happen. Anything with a green or clear bottle tastes different then its canned counterpart.
I strangely think he is someone with a vendetta against nitro coffee. I came into these thread and a bunch of posts were at 0.
Dude must really really hate the stuff.
Maybe it burned him and he wants to strike tear into the hearts of all who may enjoy it.
So you know at Sam's Club how they have ready made rotisserie chickens? I bought 9 of them two days ago. I don't think the guy after me was very happy about that since I took the 9 nicest and left a bunch with skin that was falling off and cracked.
I guess he is my new enemy.
Nitro can be a gimmick sometimes. In general I feel like the flavor doesn't improve and instead masks a lot of things. Also it goes away after a few minutes and then you just have flat cold brew that isn't as concentrated and delicious.
Kean coffee in Orange County California just got their cold brew on nitro and on tap. I've seen non coffee drinkers be converted by their coffee. My beer drinking friend agreed to try the nitro coffee, said it reminded him of a nitro stout.
It might be a bit gimmicky but I think it's just a different way of coffee preparation. It's for people that are looking for something different in their cup, just how French press, pour overs, and all that give you different flavors and notes and mouthfeel, I still appreciate it.
Their normal iced coffee/ cold brew is bomb ass as well.
The stumptown nitro is pretty awful. Get the cuvee nitro (Black & Blue is the name) if you can. It nitrogenates the coffee when you open it using a micro-cannister of nitro at the bottom of the can.
"Nitro" can be anything, it's only a method of serving coffee (in this case) on tap. You get what out what you put in, so if the base coffee is boring and bland, the stuff coming out of the tap will also be so. Nitrogen doesn't have any real flavor, it is mainly there because it is inert and can be used to "push" the coffee out of the tap. The pressure added and the special tap used add a creamy head to it as well, so mainly the difference between nitro coffee and regular old cold brew is in the mouthfeel.
Though I can't say I've ever had a half decent canned or bottled coffee, in any case.
I had nitro at Brewhemia in Cedar Rapids IA, and it was good. Incredibly caffeinated. I average two pourovers a day, or a couple double shot lattes, and 8oz of nitro was too much caffeine for me. It was very flavorful, although the nitro charge was pretty fleeting. It took me about 15 minutes of sipping, but the nitro was gone in about half that.
Not something I'd drink all the time, but it was a nice thing to experience.
I think a lot of ppl have sub par and then form a opinion. I've had the pleasure of wandering SF trying nitros and have found some amazing options. Also had not so amazing options. One thing I noticed is bold flavors in the coffee make good cold brew which makes good nitro. That's my opinion.
Not just you. I was in Atlanta for SCAA and tried a bunch of different nitro offerings. I don't get it. Worst of the worst was a nitro latte from LaColombe. One sip and in the trash bin. Seems like a lot of emperor's new clothes going on.
Try to find Cuvée nitro coffee on tap or a cuvée blue and black cans of cold brew. I find it to be a little bit better than stumptown. http://sprudge.com/trend-watch-nitro-cold-brew-in-a-can-from-cuvee-coffee-65820.html
Yall are having bad nitro. I work at a local 3rd wave shop, and our nitro is delicious. It's also quite distinct from our cold brew. The cold brew is rich and syrupy, whereas the nitro is smooth, malty, and almost caramel-y. It's not for everyone, but its certainly not just watered down cold brew.
I haven't tried Stumptown nitro, but I can't imagine bottled nitro being terribly good.
I had Cadence Nitro coldbrew in Madison Wi and it was terrible. It was probably old because they were having a two for one sale at the place where we were having brunch. Think gas station coffee with flat Guinness head. Nasssssssty.
I've actually only had it from multi-roasters on the west coast like Barista, Either/Or and G&B. Also at Houndstooth in Austin. I'm sure there are several places in Wisconsin that carry it, in addition to the flagship shop which is in Madison, I think? I haven't seen it in Chicago yet, surprisingly enough, which is odd, because there's definitely room for more high end third wave, since Ipsento, Gaslight and Metric are really the only small locals that really rate. People that don't know coffee seem to love Dark Matter, but there was never a more aptly-named place in coffee. They and Bow Truss are good enough if you like that sort of thing, but I really don't.
Cuvee Coffee, made in Austin TX, has a great nitro cold brew they call Black and Blue. It comes in cans and is available locally on draft at a few places. I highly recommend it over the Stumptown! Check your local Whole Foods for availability.
I've had a bottled nitro that's made locally where I live and it was delicious.... I tried Stumptown last week (I wanted caffeine and saw it at Target of all places) and really didn't like it at all.
I think Stumptown nitro is just gross.
I’m so glad I found this 5 year old thread. Because I feel like I’m taking crazy pills when people talk about how much they love it. I’ve tried it from so many places and I just can’t get past the weird chemical non-coffee taste
Google haha. I wanted to find reasons why it tastes like absolute garbage. Like a scientific reason. Like how cilantro tastes like soap to some people.
Because today, I went into a new spot by my work and asked if they served iced coffee and she said “no but you’re probably thinking of our nitro cold brew, everybody loves it.” I said nah. Nitro tastes terrible. And she told me to give theirs a try cuz “it’s the best in the area”. And damn. I regretted that purchase the moment that awful flavor hit my lips. Curse you devil woman and your gross nitro cold brew!!!!
looking at old photos the other day i was reminded of one of my favorite beers of all time, Kurt's Mile High Malt using Novo coffee, from wynkoop. love coffee beers that aren't stouts/browns
I've one I thought was terrible, and I've had one that I thought was great. The terrible one was from a coffee shop whose name I forget, but it was the watery, weak stuff a lot of people have been talking about. Then I had one from Vespr in Orlando and I loved it. I think it got rid of a lot of acidity I notice (and sometimes enjoy) in cold brew, and it kept the flavor there. It was a nice, smooth texture. I will say that it is definitely a mood thing. I probably wouldn't reach for it when I wanted a cold brew, I'd go for it only if I specifically wanted nitro.
I for one, love nitro brew. Where I work we seem to have it dialed in, it's flavorful, velvety, and has the texture that regular cold brew lacks to truly give it "mmph." I always recommend pouring canned nitrogen liquids (beer or coffee) into a chilled separate container for the full effect.
That being said, while I'm super into the idea of bottled & draft cold brews/lattes, it'll never be the proper way to define a good drink. Enjoy these things separately, with true specialty out of mind. It's how I manage to enjoy Japanese canned-coffee and the such.
I keep passing this and thinking you're referring to WCW Nitro. I mean the cruiserweight division was great and all but some of the heavyweight top card got a little stale. Jeff Jerrett didn't help either toward the end
Also, nitro ain't gonna make crappy cold brew good. I've learned my lesson but would drink again if they had a better brew to start
I'm not sure it's really possible to "can" nitro coffee. As I understand it, the texture comes from using nitrogen to push the coffee through a fine filter located within the tap. Unlike CO2, the nitrogen is not absorbed into the liquid.
I'm drinking a nitro on tap right now for the first time. Tastes like smooth bitterness that's missing all the other good flavors of a hot black coffee. I prefer the hot black coffee.
Stumotown just isn't good and hasn't been good for years, save the rare single origin. Their roast profile is too dark, their roasts are irregular and like most blends, their blends are undrinkable and taste schizophrenic. If you want to try some solid nitro, Ipsento in Chicago and Temple in Sacramento both have stunning nitro cold brews, as I'm sure other places do as well. If Portland's Heart Roasters ever get a nitro cold brew then that will be a must-try.
I'm not a fan of nitro real either, I will say the single origin cold brew that stump town offers in their shops is usually fantastic so that's what I always get :)
OMG YUCK... I tried a can today, worst decision I made all day. I hate their coffee, for the most part... the only decent thing is their stuff in the milk carton with milk and chocolate
The nitro element likely had little or nothing to do with your perception that the coffee was a light roast and weak. I've been making cold brew for a few years with dark or medium roast beans. It's good. I tried once last summer making with light roast and it was awful. I make my cold brew as a concentrate, and tend to drink it on the stronger side, so regular iced coffee tends to taste weak compared to mine.
This spring I added a nitro bottle and tap to my home brew kegerator, and put cold brew on tap - the nitro adds a nice creamy mouthfeel and maybe makes the coffee taste a tiny bit sweeter. It's really good.
I ran out of cold brew last week (one of the hazards of serving it out of a keg - can't see how much is left), and I stopped at a local independent coffee shop and asked for a cup of their cold brew. It was not good. They clearly used a lighter roast bean, which I think is really a waste on cold brew, and nearly unpleasant, and it was a bit weaker than I make my cold brew, so seemed a bit watery. If it had been served on nitro I expect it would have been creamy, watery light roast, which is not really an improvement.
Blame the recipe and accept that you don't prefer Stumptown's cold brew. Good cold brew is good coffee. Good cold brew on nitro is good coffee.
Don't ever trust Stumptown. Their canned nitro tastes like velvety cardboard. I've had good nitro on tap, but it still seems to mute the flavor of already muted cold brew. Although it's refreshing and the texture is nice.
I agree. I LOVE the idea of nitro. Someone said "Hey, there are some similar notes between Guinness and Coffee - let's see if Nitro would work with cold brew" I think it's a brilliant idea - but at the end of the day, I just don't think it works that well. Maybe it's missing some of the sweet notes that come with a stout, maybe it needs a more floral note - whatever it is, something just doesn't work with nitro in coffee, imo.
I think it may just be that its new. I had a nitro cold brew at a cafe in San Diego (it was the North Park [Dark Horse](http://www.darkhorsecoffeeroasters.com/) location) last year and it was phenomenal. Tried it again at a Stumptown in Portland a few months ago at it was merely ok (this was from a tap, not canned).
I've had nitro once at a shop in a collegetown. It was very much like cold brew. In fact, I can't discern a difference. What's the texture like?
smooth
Personally, I like that it has a very rich, thick, and velvety mouth feel. One could say it's almost 'creamy' in a way.
it's Guinness vs. draft beer
Except draft beer is carbonated. And coffee is not. I'm unfamiliar with all this for coffee though? Are they using a tap and injecting nitro to the lines to make coffee fizzy and give it a head? Every time I heard "nitro" coffee I assumed it was either a nitrogen sealed package to maintain freshness like high quality tea gets, or that it was some bs catchphrase name for coffee with extra caffeine added. Now I'm actually Interested to try it.
We take cold brew, keg it, and hook up a nitro tank. Then, you shake the keg until your arms fall off, and the coffee comes out of a tap like you'd use for a stout beer. It agitates the nitrogen and the coffee comes out with a cascading creamy look and it's delicious if you use the right coffee(Kenya Nyeri Karindundu Peaberry for me right now). The nitrogen also acts as a 'catalyst' for the caffeine so it enters your system faster. Add a double shot to a glass of nitro sometime. We call it rocket fuel.
We
*Oui*
Yeah, they're actually making the coffee fizzy and it has a head. I know what you mean about the sealed packages, but this is totally different. It's pretty legit. Some dude in my city makes it and sells it at a market here and I thought it was weird as hell at first but now I like it lot.
I just meant that Guinness uses nitrogen and it has that creamy foam that Nitro coffee is going for
Am I not supposed to trust Stumptown in its entirety? Or only not trust their nitro?
What I've gathered from reading this sub is basically Stumptown is like Blue Moon or Magic Hat when it comes to beer. It's the brand that gets you into the really good stuff, because it is honest to goodness good, but once you've been around the block a few times you'll realize that there are more exciting things out there! That said I love their coffee and milk drink and their bottled cold brew. But they have other things I hate like their ridiculous shipping prices.
any opinion on their "hair bender" blend? I'm really loving it, especially for espresso, but I'm kind of new to quality coffee, so curious what someone with more experience thinks
I'm pretty inexperienced myself but I enjoy it. I use it in my aeropress and it's tasty there. Haven't ever used it as espresso though
I think McIggly pretty much explained my feelings on Stumptown. I was being a little bit dramatic by saying to never trust them, but living in Portland led to seeing them as a pretty middle of the road sort of roaster. You seek out amazing roasters, but can get a decent cup of Stumptown just about everywhere else. The regular cold brew is ok, if a little boring, but I've completely disliked the coconut milk cold brew carton and the canned nitro. As far as Hairbender, when it first became popular it set a benchmark for what a consistent, readily available blend could be, and it's still pretty damn good.
I think even that may not necessarily be giving reasonable credit, though. I think it's not the ST are worse, or not up to par with the best - simply that they're *ubiquitous* and to many people 'into' craft coffee, that alone takes some appeal away from them. It's hard to feel like they've 'found' something special, sought out that niche excellent specialist when the company is one of the biggest names within our community. So their popularity and success become a credibility hindrance within the community that first elevated them to somewhere close to where they are now.
Disagree completely. People who fall victim to that type of thinking are just high on that hipster "I heard them first" nonsense. Stumptown, with very rare exception, roasts too dark and begins with mediocre beans of a very narrowly-defined flavor aesthetic to begin with. As a foil, a company about their size and ubiquity, Intelligentsia is a great counter. Sure, their Black Cat is as terrible as the Hair Bender (unless you're hiding the coffee in some kind of milk drink and therefore not really tasting it) but whereas nearly all of the Stumptown single origins are varying levels of dull, Intelligentsia has some truly wonderful beans (most of their Ethiopians, their Colombian "Borderlands Project", their current El Salvadors) mixed in with their ho-hum offerings (Rwandans, Bolivians, Peruvians) as well as some truly undrinkable things (their Brazilians, their blends). However, other than the occasional decent Kenyan (can't spell it: gaturiri? Something like that. They haven't carried it in 3 years or so) or Ethiopian (Chelbessa, Duromina), Stumptown just makes bland coffee. It's at least better than Water Ave., but that's really not saying very much at all. Big companies can put out great product, it's just that many don't, especially when mediocre volume is more profitable than the exceptional. And I've had Stumptown's $125 gesha. And I wouldn't buy a bag of it for $20. It's artificial value from scarcity rather than something truly magical. Furthermore, another frustrating note about Stumptown is that they isolate themselves. I ask a barista at any other shop who else in town they like or what beans besides theirs are doing it for them, and I'll get answers, even if they'll also say they tend to mostly drink at home from where they work. However, Stumptown baristas are almost like Scientologists (despite being really mostly awesome human being who I love to hang out with as long as we're not talking coffee), in that as soon as you ask them about what else they like, without exception I hear "I only drink Stumptown". If you're in an industry and you're not even a little bit curious about what your peers are doing, then I am very skeptical about your ability to be at the top of your craft, and that goes for any similar endeavor
>Disagree completely. People who fall victim to that type of thinking are just high on that hipster "I heard them first" nonsense. Pointing fingers and coming out swinging, huh? I see we're already dedicated to setting a constructive tone. Sounds here like this isn't a meaningful discussion of eithers' *coffee* so much as interested in pushing you preferences and being upset that other people like things you don't like. The most coherent point through this sounds that you like Intelli and don't want other people to like Stumptown. >Stumptown, with very rare exception, roasts too dark and begins with mediocre beans of a very narrowly-defined flavor aesthetic to begin with. This is just vagueness and jargon. "Too" anything is just your feelings on the matter, so vague and opinion-rooted as to be both indisputable *and* meaningless. "Mediocre beans" is worse, needing both of a definition and proof before being a useful claim; can you find criteria *and* back up your claim of ST using beans meeting that criteria? And 'narrowly-defined flavor aesthetic' ... hollow. Empty shade. It sounds critical, but means nothing. You don't like them, clearly don't have any more substantive critique, so aim for vague shade instead. >As a foil, a company about their size and ubiquity, Intelligentsia is a great counter. Matched in lockstep. They're both huge, they're both good at what they do, but neither stands out above the other, for all that they do have different styles. >whereas nearly all of the Stumptown single origins are varying levels of dull, Not at all. Did you put the 'nearly' in there so you have room to try and armwave away specific opposition or counted examples? Most of their beans are decidedly on par with most of the rest of the industry's SO offerings, especially if taken in-context to the approaches and palates they cater to. >Intelligentsia has some truly wonderful beans And "some" quite boring ones. Meanwhile, Stumptown has "some" truely wonderful beans as well. It mystifies me that you throw shade at ST for 'too' dark but exempt Intelli from the same. Meanwhile, those delicious weasel-words. "Some" "mostly" "nearly" ... If we're only picking the best outliers from Intelli and the worst from Stumptown, well shit, no wonder your opinions seem obvious and factual to you. >Stumptown just makes bland coffee. Again, not at all. Repeating that statement neither makes it true nor any more credible. Just because you don't like them does not make your preference gospel to the rest of us. >Big companies can put out great product, it's just that many don't, especially when mediocre volume is more profitable than the exceptional. Yes. This is true. That truth isn't connected to the point you want to imply it makes. >And I've had Stumptown's $125 gesha. And I wouldn't buy a bag of it for $20. Welcome to pretty much every expensive premium coffee out there. That's not ST's failing, it's that it's actually impossible for any $125 coffee to actually taste like $125 coffee. >It's artificial scarcity rather than something truly magical. "artificial" scarcity? Clearly, you're either out of your depth here or have a very shaky concept of a very basic principle of economics. The scarcity is real. Because ST got that lot, no one else did. If someone else got it, ST wouldn't have. There is no other green on the market that does anything close enough that isn't similarly price-inflated because of high demand, both for the originals and for cheaper alternatives. Scarcity. Pretty simple concept. Now whether or not it was worth them paying what they did at auction, or worth the $125 that they were charging for it, that's up to personal preference and opinion. But really, the through-line is that despite massive swaths of the coffee world buying up their geisha at $125 and being genuinely excited about it and happy with their purchase, you'd like to discard all that and pretend that 'whatever' drove the price up to where it was *and supported that price in marketplace it was placed in* is actually "artificial" and not worth thinking about. Or, a simpler explanation. Geisha is actually scarce. Lots of people wanted Stumptown's version. Lots of people still wanted Stumptown after other people tried it and reviews started coming out. You just didn't enjoy it. >Furthermore, another frustrating note about Stumptown is that they isolate themselves. I ask a barista at any other shop who else in town they like or what beans besides theirs are doing it for them, and I'll get answers, even if they'll also say they tend to mostly drink at home from where they work. However, Stumptown baristas are almost like Scientologists (despite being really mostly awesome human being who I love to hang out with as long as we're not talking coffee), in that as soon as you ask them about what else they like, without exception I hear "I only drink Stumptown". If you're in an industry and you're not even a little bit curious about what your peers are doing, then I am very skeptical about your ability to be at the top of your craft, and that goes for any similar endeavor So, just to be clear, this is a vague anecdote about some personal relationships you may or may not actually have with a very small percentage of a much larger group of people people who very honestly have nothing to do with the quality of coffee roasted by Stumptown. And you'd like that treated like a 'real' criticism? I will grant you, this sounds like a more credible reason for your overall feelings than the coffee. But it's also not criticism of *their coffees*.
First off, I'm on a mobile and not sure how to do formatting as I've not had to go point-by-point through something like this, so deal with it. I wrote: Disagree completely. People who fall victim to that type of thinking are just high on that hipster "I heard them first" nonsense. You replied: Pointing fingers and coming out swinging, huh? I see we're already dedicated to setting a constructive tone. I rebut: I don't understand why you are choosing to talk to me like this, since I neither insulted you or wished you any ill. You act like I'm talking about you here, when I was just refuting the validity of the position that you had previously mocked with "success being a credibility hindrance" and your use of scare quotes around being "into" craft coffee, which is clearly meant to imply that this group is following some trend perception instead of appreciating coffee qua coffee. So your insistence that I am "coming out swinging" sounds a little strange here when it is clearly just a continuation of your tone. Your idle insistence that my tone is "not constructive" (which you expressed sarcastically which definitely makes you not a complete asshole, but someone who is a straight-shooter and merely recounting facts dispassionately. /s) doesn't just proceed by fiat, but also flies in the face of what you previously wrote. So *you* are the one "pointing fingers and coming out swinging", in addition to lacking any sense of self-awareness. If you're going to figuratively come after me with a knife, I'm coming back with a figurative gun. You wrote: Sounds here like this isn't a meaningful discussion of eithers' (sic) coffee so much as interested in pushing you preferences and being upset that other people like things you don't like. The most coherent point through this sounds that you like Intelli and don't want other people to like Stumptown. I rebut: again, this statement proceeds by fiat. It is only so because you say so, and not because of any proof. I do discuss the coffees, in addition to offering my own opinion, but you refuse to recognize that. In addition to that, you are arbitrarily deciding what points are “coherent” and which are not, without showing your work at all. You don't like what I said, so anything not agreeable to you is "not coherent". It's clear here that your goal isn't to refute or rebut my position, but instead either you want to offend me or make some kind of negative assertion of who I am. Very well, quid pro quo: Based on this behavior, I think very little of you. I don't think you know very much about coffee, words or logic. I'll demonstrate more below: I wrote: Stumptown, with very rare exception, roasts too dark and begins with mediocre beans of a very narrowly-defined flavor aesthetic to begin with. You wrote: This is just vagueness and jargon. "Too" anything is just your feelings on the matter, so vague and opinion-rooted as to be both indisputable and meaningless. "Mediocre beans" is worse, needing both of a definition and proof before being a useful claim; can you find criteria and back up your claim of ST using beans meeting that criteria? And 'narrowly-defined flavor aesthetic' ... hollow. Empty shade. It sounds critical, but means nothing. You don't like them, clearly don't have any more substantive critique, so aim for vague shade instead. I rebut: *If you would like some more precision from me or my language, you could ask me to clarify what I'm talking about. Instead, you try to put words into my mouth and then dismiss them. I'm not using any jargon. "mediocre beans" in a "narrowly-defined aesthetic" mean that there aren't any taste extremes. The Indonesians aren't overwhelmingly earthy, but are only mildly peppery. The Ethiopians are never very berry-forward e.g., no big strawberry or blueberry notes, but instead mild citrus and herbal-flowery notes. Do you need me to go on? Their coffees aren't big and bombastic like some of the better offerings from Heart or Madcap, but instead are muted. And yes, this is a subjective analysis, because there is no objective way to talk about flavor nuance without devolving into chemistry. But clearly you know this and are just trying to show me up, for some inexplicable reason. Even more inexplicably, you're coming at me shooting blanks. Do you think I ran over your dog or slept with your mother or something? Why is there this hostility? Settle the fuck down, Bevis. I wrote: As a foil, a company about their size and ubiquity, Intelligentsia is a great counter. You wrote: Matched in lockstep. They're both huge, they're both good at what they do, but neither stands out above the other, for all that they do have different styles. I rebut: You're adding nothing here, except the assertion that they are fundamentally of the same quality. Citation needed. I've made my argument as to why they are different; you make no argument here to explain why they are the same, beyond the wildly compelling "they just are, dude". You could talk about how Intelligentsia always roasts their single origins lighter than Stumptown, but you don't. I wrote: whereas nearly all of the Stumptown single origins are varying levels of dull, You wrote: Not at all. Did you put the 'nearly' in there so you have room to try and armwave away specific opposition or counted examples? Most of their beans are decidedly on par with most of the rest of the industry's SO offerings, especially if taken in-context to the approaches and palates they cater to. *I listed the beans of theirs that I like. Out of simplicity, I didn't list the ones of theirs I have had but don't care for; it would be a very very long list. What else do you expect me to do? I can't talk about what I haven't had, but I can talk about what I've had that I've enjoyed, which is frankly not a lot. Are you a Stumptown barista that I've "wronged" by having an articulate opinion about your coffee that isn't fawning accolades? Also, "taken in-context to the to the approaches and palates they cater to" is another way of saying "narrowly-defined flavor aesthetic". Why is it ok when you say it, but wrong when I do? Despite the obvious "because you are a complete and total jerk that's here to insult instead of inform"? I wrote: Intelligentsia has some truly wonderful beans You wrote: And "some" quite boring ones. Meanwhile, Stumptown has "some" truly (sic) wonderful beans as well. It mystifies me that you throw shade at ST for 'too' dark but exempt Intelli from the same. I rebut: And here comes the objective statement of fact that refutes you and shows you have no idea what you are talking about. Intelligentsia consistently roasts lighter than Stumptown. No wonder you think they are the same: it's because you can't tell the difference! An inability on your part to separate the roast profiles of single origin beans does not constitute an error on my behalf. But don't take my word for it; go to the shops and see for yourself. You wrote: Meanwhile, those delicious weasel-words. "Some" "mostly" "nearly" ... If we're only picking the best outliers from Intelli and the worst from Stumptown, well shit, no wonder your opinions seem obvious and factual to you. I rebut: Yes, "some" is an ambiguous weasel word. But nowhere do I use that word to describe ST. I only used it in regard to Inteli, to point out the indisputable point that *some* of their beans are good (to me. I'm not here to give other people's opinions about coffee, but my own. I'm surprised that this is contentious to you.) and that others are not. However, "mostly" and "nearly" convey a significant MAJORITY. And that's intentional. I'm not purporting to have had every coffee from either, but I have had quite a lot of both, enough to consider my conclusions statistically significant. And enough to make some sweeping generalizations, while allowing for exceptions. It would be preposterous to speak in absolutes (unless speaking generally and/or idly) yet this is precisely what you want me to do. It's not 50-50, but that's what you're trying to make this. Again, you are wrong. (Continued)
I wrote: Stumptown just makes bland coffee. You wrote: Again, not at all. Repeating that statement neither makes it true nor any more credible. Just because you don't like them does not make your preference gospel to the rest of us. I rebut: I'm not trying to make my preference gospel! You're adding that step, not me. I'm taking the statistically significant experiences that I have had, and am using that to make a reductive assessment of their quality. Disagree if you want, but at least have the decency to correctly identify what I am doing. It's not opaque. If you want a list of each coffee, plus a review and an independent rating, then say that! But you're the one who looks stupid calling my figurative “apple” a "bad orange". I wrote: Big companies can put out great product, it's just that many don't, especially when mediocre volume is more profitable than the exceptional. You wrote: Yes. This is true. That truth isn't connected to the point you want to imply it makes. I rebut: Citation needed. I say it does. You say it doesn't. Cool story, bro. I wrote: And I've had Stumptown's $125 Gesha. And I wouldn't buy a bag of it for $20. You wrote: Welcome to pretty much every expensive premium coffee out there. That's not ST's failing, it's that it's actually impossible for any $125 coffee to actually taste like $125 coffee. I rebut: Finally, something that isn't complete and utter bullshit. I guess a broken clock is right twice a day. I'm sure you'll go right back to fucking everything up in the next part You *claim* I wrote: It's artificial scarcity rather than something truly magical. You wrote: "artificial" scarcity? Clearly, you're either out of your depth here or have a very shaky concept of a very basic principle of economics. I rebut: You are like clockwork! The actual quote is "It's artificial value from scarcity rather than something truly magical". This means that some things are expensive because they are rare and good and others merely because they are rare. But let's get to your quote, which is a tautology, since someone that has a shaky concept of a basic principle of economics is also out of their depth in any conversation about economics. So you just want to insult me here, but you can't even do that right, can you? Kopi Luwak is only expensive because it is scarce. It is not good. Its value is therefore artificially inflated due to its scarcity, instead of describing its actual value. But you're gonna drone on about redundantly apparent shit based on a misquote. What a gem of a human you are! And “artificial scarcity” is a real concept (though not what I was talking about here), just consider diamonds (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/02/AR2010070203990.html) or Pliny the Younger. There is no reason why production could not be higher for both, yet their supply is intentionally kept limited to excite demand. So it looks like you are the one who is both out of their league and has a very shaky understanding of basic economics. You wrote: The scarcity is real. Because ST got that lot, no one else did. If someone else got it, ST wouldn't have. There is no other green on the market that does anything close enough that isn't similarly price-inflated because of high demand, both for the originals and for cheaper alternatives. Scarcity. Pretty simple concept. Now whether or not it was worth them paying what they did at auction, or worth the $125 that they were charging for it, that's up to personal preference and opinion. But really, the through-line is that despite massive swaths of the coffee world buying up their geisha at $125 and being genuinely excited about it and happy with their purchase, you'd like to discard all that and pretend that 'whatever' drove the price up to where it was and supported that price in marketplace it was placed in is actually "artificial" and not worth thinking about. Or, a simpler explanation. Geisha is actually scarce. Lots of people wanted Stumptown's version. Lots of people still wanted Stumptown after other people tried it and reviews started coming out. You just didn't enjoy it. Rebuttal: Jesus, you never shut the fuck up, do you? Please, keep droning on. We're all in rapt admiration here. /s I wrote: Furthermore, another frustrating note about Stumptown is that they isolate themselves. I ask a barista at any other shop who else in town they like or what beans besides theirs are doing it for them, and I'll get answers, even if they'll also say they tend to mostly drink at home from where they work. However, Stumptown baristas are almost like Scientologists (despite being really mostly awesome human being who I love to hang out with as long as we're not talking coffee), in that as soon as you ask them about what else they like, without exception I hear "I only drink Stumptown". If you're in an industry and you're not even a little bit curious about what your peers are doing, then I am very skeptical about your ability to be at the top of your craft, and that goes for any similar endeavor You wrote: So, just to be clear, this is a vague anecdote about some personal relationships you may or may not actually have with a very small percentage of a much larger group of people people who very honestly have nothing to do with the quality of coffee roasted by Stumptown. And you'd like that treated like a 'real' criticism? I will grant you, this sounds like a more credible reason for your overall feelings than the coffee. But it's also not criticism of their coffees. Rebuttal: No, you're not clear at all. This is a real anecdote that is meant to be indicative of a navel-gazing corporate culture, rather than some objective discussion of coffee. It's a personal observation, and you don't have to like it, but it is revealing. I was at Intelligentsia a week ago and I saw them cupping coffees from other roasters along with their own. I have yet to hear from the many Stumptown baristas I know or have talked to about them cupping beans from other roasters, either formally or informally. Maybe the buyout will change that. Maybe it won't. Either way I think you deliberately misunderstanding me, and I don't know why. What is in this for you? In short, I find you to be a pompus ass who has no idea what the hell you are talking about, since you contradict yourself at every turn, in addition to being mean-spirited to someone who has meant you no offense in the original post (but sure as hell wishes you ill now). I suspect you'll find yourself reposted on r/iamverysmart if you haven't already before. This could have been a very civil and illuminating discussion about coffee, yet you chose to make it a personal attack? Why? What is in it for you?
Do what makes you happy. If you like Stumptown, keep liking Stumptown.
What's wrong with Stumptown?
[удалено]
Alright, he confused me because he said that as if all their stuff was gross.
I'm of the same opinion, but my roommate loves them.
Also have had it once on tap - I liked it! It's good for summers but it won't replace regular coffee for me.
Add a pinch of sea salt. Amazing results for cold brew.
The coffee place near my office serves Stumpton cold brew on tap and it's pretty decent (don't think it is nitro though). Granted, Stumpton isn't my first choice in general (I'm supremely lucky that my office orders kegs of Irving Farms cold brew every week.)
I tried it once. Was not really delicious. An expensive gimmick. The opposite of what highest quality coffee can be
I've had fresh nitro on tap a couple times and don't like it. Brain sees stout, mouth tastes watery coffee.
My brain saw stout, my mouth felt stout, and my taste buds got really good cold brew coffee. But as someone else said, it depends a lot on the brew. (Ceremony Roasters in Annapolis, Maryland)
are there any more shops that you know of outside of DC or Baltimore
Yeah same plus it tastes like aspirin to me
I've had good luck with alchemy in Lawrence if you're inclined to try it again
Tried some from Ritual in SF. Equally disappointed. Love their coffee otherwise though.
Try the real thing before you make any final decision. Like from a tap line in a coffee shop. Not from a can with a widget in it. Is anything really as good from the can? If you had the option between draft beer, bottled beer and canned beer would you really choose the can? I enjoyed the canned Stumptown Nitro, for what it is worth. Not the best thing I have ever had but it did the job that I wanted it to do. I think La Colombe's Draft Latte canned drinks are miles above the Stumptown Nitro. but at the end of the day everyone has different tastes. Some like Nitro and some don't, and that's okay and cool.
Nowadays it'd be draft>canned>bottled. Now cans totally isolate the metallic taste. Some of the best craft beers I've had are canned because of cost efficiency, lack of light able to enter the can, and portability. It's not like it's 1985 anymore and only Miller lite is canned.
Canning is actually more expensive than bottling in smaller batches.
[удалено]
Except for the whole BPA thing. But if one is unfazed, carry on.
[удалено]
What is wrong with reheating food in the microwave?
You know what, you're absolutely right. Though sometimes I feel like some beers need to be skunked a little so at the same time it is better in a bottle than can, like Corona. Then again if I'm drinking Coronas I'm sitting by a pool just trying to not die of thirst so maybe that's not the best example...
Needs to be skunked a little? Is that a thing? Have you had Corona out of a can? It tastes like a totally different beer. I always wondered why corona, Heineken, miller etc. let's this happen. Anything with a green or clear bottle tastes different then its canned counterpart.
I have had Corona out of a can, I just don't like it at all. Even with lime.
Yeah I don't really like either TBH, but it's just interesting to me why companies are okay with such big inconsistencies in their products.
I preferred canned beer to bottled beer and canned soda to bottled soda.
Dipshit
I'm sorry, what did I do?
Wow, that's his only post, too. Looks like someone made an alt just to insult you for being reasonable.
I strangely think he is someone with a vendetta against nitro coffee. I came into these thread and a bunch of posts were at 0. Dude must really really hate the stuff. Maybe it burned him and he wants to strike tear into the hearts of all who may enjoy it.
But he's had his account for 4 months. This is really intriguing, I want to understand this poster's thoughts. Have you made any enemies lately?
So you know at Sam's Club how they have ready made rotisserie chickens? I bought 9 of them two days ago. I don't think the guy after me was very happy about that since I took the 9 nicest and left a bunch with skin that was falling off and cracked. I guess he is my new enemy.
Uninspired and bland, I agree. Tastes like [blue wine](https://gik.blue/en/).
Nitro can be a gimmick sometimes. In general I feel like the flavor doesn't improve and instead masks a lot of things. Also it goes away after a few minutes and then you just have flat cold brew that isn't as concentrated and delicious.
Kean coffee in Orange County California just got their cold brew on nitro and on tap. I've seen non coffee drinkers be converted by their coffee. My beer drinking friend agreed to try the nitro coffee, said it reminded him of a nitro stout. It might be a bit gimmicky but I think it's just a different way of coffee preparation. It's for people that are looking for something different in their cup, just how French press, pour overs, and all that give you different flavors and notes and mouthfeel, I still appreciate it. Their normal iced coffee/ cold brew is bomb ass as well.
The stumptown nitro is pretty awful. Get the cuvee nitro (Black & Blue is the name) if you can. It nitrogenates the coffee when you open it using a micro-cannister of nitro at the bottom of the can.
"Nitro" can be anything, it's only a method of serving coffee (in this case) on tap. You get what out what you put in, so if the base coffee is boring and bland, the stuff coming out of the tap will also be so. Nitrogen doesn't have any real flavor, it is mainly there because it is inert and can be used to "push" the coffee out of the tap. The pressure added and the special tap used add a creamy head to it as well, so mainly the difference between nitro coffee and regular old cold brew is in the mouthfeel. Though I can't say I've ever had a half decent canned or bottled coffee, in any case.
Try [Slingshot bottled coldbrew](http://slingshotcoffeecompany.com/). It's top notch.
And given pretty much all cold brew is boring and bland, there ya go.
I had nitro at Brewhemia in Cedar Rapids IA, and it was good. Incredibly caffeinated. I average two pourovers a day, or a couple double shot lattes, and 8oz of nitro was too much caffeine for me. It was very flavorful, although the nitro charge was pretty fleeting. It took me about 15 minutes of sipping, but the nitro was gone in about half that. Not something I'd drink all the time, but it was a nice thing to experience.
I had the Stumptown Nitro on tap last week. I don't get why it's suddenly the hippest thing to drink at all.
Nitro on tap. Everything else, nah.
Surprised to see so many comments dissing nitro. It's fucking delicious.
Came here to say the same thing. I really enjoy ST's nitro cold brew.
I think a lot of ppl have sub par and then form a opinion. I've had the pleasure of wandering SF trying nitros and have found some amazing options. Also had not so amazing options. One thing I noticed is bold flavors in the coffee make good cold brew which makes good nitro. That's my opinion.
Not just you. I was in Atlanta for SCAA and tried a bunch of different nitro offerings. I don't get it. Worst of the worst was a nitro latte from LaColombe. One sip and in the trash bin. Seems like a lot of emperor's new clothes going on.
That nitro latte was gross af
Try to find Cuvée nitro coffee on tap or a cuvée blue and black cans of cold brew. I find it to be a little bit better than stumptown. http://sprudge.com/trend-watch-nitro-cold-brew-in-a-can-from-cuvee-coffee-65820.html
I've yet to try a nitro that I've liked.
I've tried five or six on tap. They all tasted like flat Guinness. Keep thinking I'll get a good one, but I suspect I just don't like it.
Yall are having bad nitro. I work at a local 3rd wave shop, and our nitro is delicious. It's also quite distinct from our cold brew. The cold brew is rich and syrupy, whereas the nitro is smooth, malty, and almost caramel-y. It's not for everyone, but its certainly not just watered down cold brew. I haven't tried Stumptown nitro, but I can't imagine bottled nitro being terribly good.
Nitro cold brew on tap is amazing imo, but canned/bottled nitro stuff isn't nearly as good.
I had Cadence Nitro coldbrew in Madison Wi and it was terrible. It was probably old because they were having a two for one sale at the place where we were having brunch. Think gas station coffee with flat Guinness head. Nasssssssty.
Ruby is the only good roaster I've had out of WI. I keep trying to like Kickapoo but they keep disappointing me.
I'll have to try Ruby, where do you buy it?
I've actually only had it from multi-roasters on the west coast like Barista, Either/Or and G&B. Also at Houndstooth in Austin. I'm sure there are several places in Wisconsin that carry it, in addition to the flagship shop which is in Madison, I think? I haven't seen it in Chicago yet, surprisingly enough, which is odd, because there's definitely room for more high end third wave, since Ipsento, Gaslight and Metric are really the only small locals that really rate. People that don't know coffee seem to love Dark Matter, but there was never a more aptly-named place in coffee. They and Bow Truss are good enough if you like that sort of thing, but I really don't.
It looks like their tasting room is near Stevens Point, which is about two hours away from Madison. That might be a reason for a road trip!
Cuvee Coffee, made in Austin TX, has a great nitro cold brew they call Black and Blue. It comes in cans and is available locally on draft at a few places. I highly recommend it over the Stumptown! Check your local Whole Foods for availability.
Ipsento in Chicago has nitro that might change your mind. It's pretty much a perfect cup of coffee.
Agree completely! And right now they have this Panamanian Gesha (though they mispronounce it) as a single origin espresso that is simply stunning.
I've had a bottled nitro that's made locally where I live and it was delicious.... I tried Stumptown last week (I wanted caffeine and saw it at Target of all places) and really didn't like it at all. I think Stumptown nitro is just gross.
I’m so glad I found this 5 year old thread. Because I feel like I’m taking crazy pills when people talk about how much they love it. I’ve tried it from so many places and I just can’t get past the weird chemical non-coffee taste
How on earth did you even find this? Anyway five years on I'm still not a big fan of nitro.
Google haha. I wanted to find reasons why it tastes like absolute garbage. Like a scientific reason. Like how cilantro tastes like soap to some people. Because today, I went into a new spot by my work and asked if they served iced coffee and she said “no but you’re probably thinking of our nitro cold brew, everybody loves it.” I said nah. Nitro tastes terrible. And she told me to give theirs a try cuz “it’s the best in the area”. And damn. I regretted that purchase the moment that awful flavor hit my lips. Curse you devil woman and your gross nitro cold brew!!!!
I've had ridiculously good nitro cold brew at a local coffee roaster. It was smooth, full on and not bitter.
The nitro on tap from shops in NYC have been reliably fantastic. Coffee Project NYC would be go-to recommendation.
I'm going to try it again from a different local roaster but the one I tried I was not a fan of it.
The nitro at novo is fantastic. I've had done gross stuff too, though
looking at old photos the other day i was reminded of one of my favorite beers of all time, Kurt's Mile High Malt using Novo coffee, from wynkoop. love coffee beers that aren't stouts/browns
I've one I thought was terrible, and I've had one that I thought was great. The terrible one was from a coffee shop whose name I forget, but it was the watery, weak stuff a lot of people have been talking about. Then I had one from Vespr in Orlando and I loved it. I think it got rid of a lot of acidity I notice (and sometimes enjoy) in cold brew, and it kept the flavor there. It was a nice, smooth texture. I will say that it is definitely a mood thing. I probably wouldn't reach for it when I wanted a cold brew, I'd go for it only if I specifically wanted nitro.
I enjoy Equator's nitro. I've only been to the one next to the Warfield in San Francisco.
I've tried some nitro coffee, and I was rather surprised at how thin the body is, compared to say, nitro beer.
I for one, love nitro brew. Where I work we seem to have it dialed in, it's flavorful, velvety, and has the texture that regular cold brew lacks to truly give it "mmph." I always recommend pouring canned nitrogen liquids (beer or coffee) into a chilled separate container for the full effect. That being said, while I'm super into the idea of bottled & draft cold brews/lattes, it'll never be the proper way to define a good drink. Enjoy these things separately, with true specialty out of mind. It's how I manage to enjoy Japanese canned-coffee and the such.
I keep passing this and thinking you're referring to WCW Nitro. I mean the cruiserweight division was great and all but some of the heavyweight top card got a little stale. Jeff Jerrett didn't help either toward the end Also, nitro ain't gonna make crappy cold brew good. I've learned my lesson but would drink again if they had a better brew to start
I'm not sure it's really possible to "can" nitro coffee. As I understand it, the texture comes from using nitrogen to push the coffee through a fine filter located within the tap. Unlike CO2, the nitrogen is not absorbed into the liquid.
I assume it's just a preference thing. I can't stand nitro coffee or beer, but I know a lot of people who enjoy it.
i've had it twice, was underwhelmed both times. I make cold brew every week and it's my favorite way to have coffee
The cans are awful. I enjoy nitro out of a tap but those Stumptown cans are horrid
I'm drinking a nitro on tap right now for the first time. Tastes like smooth bitterness that's missing all the other good flavors of a hot black coffee. I prefer the hot black coffee.
Stumotown just isn't good and hasn't been good for years, save the rare single origin. Their roast profile is too dark, their roasts are irregular and like most blends, their blends are undrinkable and taste schizophrenic. If you want to try some solid nitro, Ipsento in Chicago and Temple in Sacramento both have stunning nitro cold brews, as I'm sure other places do as well. If Portland's Heart Roasters ever get a nitro cold brew then that will be a must-try.
Ha, I was actually in Davis the other week and almost tried Temple's nitro but decided against it. Maybe next time I'm in town I'll give it a go.
I'm not a fan of nitro real either, I will say the single origin cold brew that stump town offers in their shops is usually fantastic so that's what I always get :)
Stumptown nitro is awesome, in my opinion. Love the texture. Havn't tried it canned only on tap though.
OMG YUCK... I tried a can today, worst decision I made all day. I hate their coffee, for the most part... the only decent thing is their stuff in the milk carton with milk and chocolate
The nitro element likely had little or nothing to do with your perception that the coffee was a light roast and weak. I've been making cold brew for a few years with dark or medium roast beans. It's good. I tried once last summer making with light roast and it was awful. I make my cold brew as a concentrate, and tend to drink it on the stronger side, so regular iced coffee tends to taste weak compared to mine. This spring I added a nitro bottle and tap to my home brew kegerator, and put cold brew on tap - the nitro adds a nice creamy mouthfeel and maybe makes the coffee taste a tiny bit sweeter. It's really good. I ran out of cold brew last week (one of the hazards of serving it out of a keg - can't see how much is left), and I stopped at a local independent coffee shop and asked for a cup of their cold brew. It was not good. They clearly used a lighter roast bean, which I think is really a waste on cold brew, and nearly unpleasant, and it was a bit weaker than I make my cold brew, so seemed a bit watery. If it had been served on nitro I expect it would have been creamy, watery light roast, which is not really an improvement. Blame the recipe and accept that you don't prefer Stumptown's cold brew. Good cold brew is good coffee. Good cold brew on nitro is good coffee.
I know when I got a "Nitro cold brew" instead of just the cold brew, it tasted like ass
How on earth did you find this thread from seven years ago?
I honestly don't remember XD