|
||||||||
Starbucks 'foam' |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,146
|
Starbucks 'foam'
I reluctantly went into a Starbucks the other day (as the Costa next door was closed). But my caffe latte when I got it had this thick white stuff at the top. The guy said it was foam, but it was thicker and creamier than any foam or froth ought to be. There was 3 cm of it too, and very messy to get rid of!
I was going to ask for a top-up with plain hot milk, but from the look of the dirty-brown coffee underneath, I doubted it would be worth the trouble, as the chap was ignoring me (and I've never had a decent coffee there anyway), so I walked out (only to find the Costa was actually still open...). So, what was this stuff likely to be? And what are you supposed to do with it? It was far too thick to stir into the coffee. I know when you order a hot chocolate these days, they like to turn it into a dessert, but a coffee is still supposed to be a drink isn't it? |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 15,890
|
Lattes are supposed to have a thin layer of froth or foam on the top, unlike cappuccinos which should technically be a third foam. When I used to make them I'd put a dollop of foam on top of the espresso which would protect the crema while I used a spoon to hold back rest of the foam as I poured the milk.
The problem is that right after you first steam the milk the froth will be all mixed up with it, making my spoon technique useless. Ideally the milk should be allowed to sit for a few seconds as the espresso shot is pulled so the froth and liquid can separate. Starbucks uses mystery shoppers, and they should weigh the drinks to make sure customers are getting what they ask for. |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 414
|
I thought lattes were supposed to have some foam on top?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 1,380
|
That's why I never drink the shit they sell.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,146
|
Quote:
I thought lattes were supposed to have some foam on top?
But why should 'lattes', which just signifies milk, have foam anyway; what are the rules? I now that cappucinos have foam, but when I order milk with coffee in Italy, or make it at home, there is little or no foam or froth. |
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 15,890
|
If you sink the steam wand to the bottom of the pitcher, and it sounds like a 747 taking off when you steam your milk, you're doing it wrong imo. Properly steamed milk, even if you don't want any foam, is aerated, giving it a smooth silky texture. Otherwise you may as well just heat the milk in a pan on the hob.
Plus you can't make latte art without it. http://www.latteart.org/photos-latte-art.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Lufbra
Posts: 3,149
|
Quote:
If you sink the steam wand to the bottom of the pitcher, and it sounds like a 747 taking off when you steam your milk, you're doing it wrong imo. Properly steamed milk, even if you don't want any foam, is aerated, giving it a smooth silky texture. Otherwise you may as well just heat the milk in a pan on the hob.
Plus you can't make latte art without it. http://www.latteart.org/photos-latte-art.html ![]() |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 17:37.

