PRODUCT REVIEW: Lavazza Gold Selection Coffee

I recently reviewed Lavazza's SUper Crema coffee and found it to be very good. It is an excellent and affordable "every day" espresso blend. Lavazza also sells their Gold Selection as espresso-ready coffee, and since it is a bit more expensive than the Super Crema, I have high hopes.

As with everything Lavazza, the beans are in good shape and well-roasted. I like Italian coffees because they aren't as blasted as North American companies' beans as they chase Starbucks. The aroma from the beans isn't terribly impressive, but it is inoffensive.

Getting right to the espresso, there is a similar amount of crema from the Gold Selection as with the Super Crema, which means that they are either the same coffee or Lavazza was totally lying about their Super Crema blend being super... crema... yeah.

The crema is pale and good, with good oily stability. There is more sourness to the aroma than the Super Crema, but I didn't find that this translated to the tongue all that much.

The Gold Selection is very similar to the Super Crema. It is rich and earthy with a stronger toasted note. The taste is just a bit more complex than Super Crema and has a more pronounced chocolate to it, although it still isn't what I would call a primary flavor. Forgive the plebeian nature of this comment, but the Gold Selection does taste a bit more expensive than the Super Crema.

Is it worth the extra cash? Not for me. I like the Super Crema and since I'm looking for an every day coffee that I can serve in large amounts to friends without breaking the bank, value enters my equation in a big way. Gold Selection is about 25% more, and if I was willing to spend that, I would buy specialty roasts from North American roasters for a bit more money.

That said, this is a very good coffee. It's a massive upgrade if you are buying grocery store coffee and even most Starbucks beans. Moreover, Gold is different enough from the cheaper Super Crema that you may find yourself definitely preferring the Gold Selection in a taste test. You can only easily buy these coffees in 1kg bags, so I would recommend buying one of each, comparing, and then giving the other beans to someone else.

Otherwise, if you want to take my word for it, buy the Super Crema. It's great.

Lavazza Gold Selection: RECOMMENDED

P.S.
Make sure to buy an Airscape to store your beans. They will last for weeks and weeks.

PRODUCT REVIEW: Planetary Design Airscape Canister

Don't bother reading to the end of the review. Go out and buy one immediately.

Still reading? I'll assume that you've already placed your order and are now reading to find out how awesome your canister is going to be when it arrives, because it is going to be awesome.

There are very few products out there that I would call a necessity for the average tea or coffee lover. The Airscape is a necessity. It will keep your tea and coffee fresh for as long as you need it to be fresh.

One of the biggest problems with both tea and coffee is getting it. You have to open the canister to retrieve the leaves or beans. Even if you use an air-tight canister, every time you open it, you are letting in new air. That air will, time after time, degrade your tea and coffee.

For most of us, this degradation is only apparent when we go from the last of the old stuff to a new package. The differences are so stark as to be detectable by even the most uncaring.

For me, the Airscape is a godsend because espresso amplifies the effects of aging beans. I am aware of it from day to day, even hour to hour.

In my old canister, my first couple of days of espresso shots were smooth, accurate, crema-filled cups of pure heaven. But after that, the shots failed increasingly frequently, the crema disappeared, and the rich chocolates and caramels went bye-bye. To compensate for this, I bought coffee in very small amounts — sometimes as little as an eighth of a pound.

The Airscape eliminates the need to do this. I can buy coffee in bulk, store the majority of it in another sealed container and keep my Airscape filled. The act of pressing the air out every time prevents the coffee beans from ever being exposed to new air for a long period of time.

The effects of this are so significant that I barely if at all have to alter my grind settings on my grinder as time passes. The ambient temperature and humidity levels become far more important for determining grind than the age of the beans. That is a revelation.

Tea is more sensitive to aging than coffee. My wife, a tea aficionado of the highest order, can taste the degradation of loose-leaf tea as time goes by. This canister eliminates that entirely. Your tea will always be fresh, punchy, and delicious. Once you determine your ideal steep temperature and time, you will never have to adjust that as the leaves age. You need this.

There are a number of other vacuum canisters out there, but none of them are as good as the Airscape's simple design. The Beanvac is impressive as it automatically sucks out all of the air surrounding the beans. The bad part is that it is battery-powered, thus requiring replacements, costs more, and doesn't do any better a job. There are also a number of other canisters that require you to manually pump the air out. None of these achieve the easy simplicity of merely pressing the cap down until it reaches the beans. It is not a pure vacuum, but it comes so close as to make no difference.

Buy the Airscape. You will not regret it.

Planetary Design Airscape: HIGHLY RECOMMENDED

PRODUCT REVIEW: Lavazza Super Crema Coffee

I love espresso, as I'm sure any regular reader of this website knows. I drink two shots per day: one to begin it, the other to end it... which makes it sounds like I drug my own coffee.

Espresso is an exceptionally demanding mode of coffee preparation. Not only must the beans be good, they must be well-roasted and exceptionally fresh. If anything is off, your shot will come out poorly.

As such, my quest for the perfect espresso roast/blend is neverending. I love Black Cat in all the ways that man should love coffee, and even a few ways that he shouldn't. It's flavor is without peer. Sadly, its crema levels are very low. If you are pouring small amounts of milk for lattes and cappuccinos, this isn't too big of a deal, but if you like to pull triples into a big cup and be heavy on the milk, the crema layer is pushed too far and your latte art suffers.

It may seem absurd to desire a coffee purely for its ability to accept milk designs, but espresso is more than just taste; it's everything involved. As such, I went on the hunt for a coffee that provides thick, rich crema into which I can pour art.

Lavazza's Super Crema fits the bill, as the name would imply. Does it live up to the promise?

Yes. Mostly. For one thing, it is a very good price. $25-$27 will get you 1 kilo (2.2lbs) of coffee. With shipping, Black Cat costs over $20 for a pound. This also works out cheaper than high-quality grocery brands like Starbucks while also being better.

I can also say with confidence that the beans are very fresh and of high quality. As I said, espresso is very demanding. If anything is wrong with the beans, the fault may not necessarily show up in drip coffee. Espresso makes everything apparent. Even under this microscope, Super Crema shines.

The flavor is good. Not great, but good. There is certainly nothing wrong with it, and it more than stands up to other major brands, but after having finely tuned works of art like Black Cat, it does lose a bit of its luster.

It has a very earthy flavor and is low on chocolate and caramel notes. It is very "coffee" flavored, if that makes any sense. It takes very well to flavoring with cocoa and vanilla. This mellow flavor makes shots of espresso go down like water. It holds up better than you would expect under heavy milk. It tastes very good in a cortado, almost as though the blend was created specifically for that purpose.

But what about the name?! Does the crema stand up to scrutiny? I can safely say that yes, it does. Lavazza is not lying. This coffee will produce huge amounts of crema for your latte artistic ambitions. And if you keep it stored in a good vacuum canister like the Airscape, it will produce perfect crema right to the last bean.

To give you an idea of the quality, here's a drink that I poured.

Not the best art that I've ever poured, but not bad. Besides, all drinks end up looking like this anyhow.

As you can see, you get a thick, stable layer of crema and foam that has excellent definition and contrast between the brown and white.

If the coffee was more interesting in flavor, it would easily win my high recommendation. As it stands, it gets close, but not quite there. If you care about your latte art and don't have a nearby roaster, this is a very good purchase. But similarly, if you don't care about that, you aren't missing too much. This is a good coffee, for a good price, that produces great crema.

Lavazza Super Crema: RECOMMENDED

UPDATE: Bonus latte art.

This one is much better.

PRODUCT REVIEW: Archer Farms Colombia La Floresta Coffee

Target continues its march up-market with its own line of "gourmet" food stuffs. And no gourmet selection would be complete without coffee. I had tried a couple of Target's whole bean varieties in the past and found them completely acceptable, but not much worth mentioning.

Target has relatively recently started carrying special blends of coffee that come in their own tins. Their 2011 "Cup of Excellence" winner is a Colombian, and while Cup Of Excellence might be a bit of an overstatement (It was at the bottom of the award winner list) it's still good coffee.

The beans don't have a very good smell. They are tart with little mellow pleasantness that most will expect from roasted beans. The roast is very light and the beans are quite healthy. All good signs. They didn't provide preparation recommendations, so I erred on the side of caution with a standard grind and a 3:30 steep in a Clever Coffee Dripper.

The bloom is surprisingly good. This photo is after it had eased for about thirty seconds. I would say that the full extent of the bloom is among the best, if not the best, grocery store shelf coffee bloom that I have seen.

The nose is incredibly pleasant. It has a very slight tang to the scent with the primary smell of burning wood. To me, it smells like Christmas. As the coffee cools, other notes become apparent, but that roasted wood scent always remains front and center.

The coffee hits right where I expected it to. At full temperature, fruit and roast are the primary flavors. As the temperature decreases, the body evens out while toasted bread, wine, and an apple-y fruitiness become apparent. It has a very mild astringency and light finish. Actually, the best way to describe the coffee is very Colombian.

Overall, it is a good coffee. I like Colombian coffees because they're so damned bulletproof and this variety seems no different. Understeep, oversteep, your cup will come out alright. If you like light-roasted coffee, and your only option is the grocery store shelf, this is an excellent choice.

Archer Farms Colombia La Floresta Coffee: RECOMMENDED

PRODUCT REVIEW: WhoNu? Nutrition Rich Cookies

The shtick behind WhoNu? cookies, aside from the baffling spelling, is that they are "healthy" cookies. I have to admit, this is something that I had long wondered: why had no company made cookies with added nutrients? I always assumed that it could be done cheaply and with little effect on the final product's taste. Well, WhoNu? has confirmed this. It can done.

Each serving of three cookies has 160 calories and a whole bevy of nutrients. Very cool. I'm glad to see a company trying to take something that is traditionally unhealthy and make it healthier. As the box states, the cookies have as much fiber as a bowl of oatmeal, as much calcium as a cup of milk, and as much vitamin C as a cup of blueberries. There is more on the back of the box that I won't bother listing.

Before I talk about the taste, I want to talk about the philosophy. I am very dedicated to dietary health, and as such, I don't like dodges. Not for some vaguely Christian moral reason about not enjoying anything, but because unhealthy foods are unhealthy. Trying to take something unhealthy and make it sorta'-healthy does not eliminate our reliance on the product. The same principle applies to diet sodas. Yes, they are zero calories, but the goal is not to continue drinking soda while simply dodging the calories with some ersatz sugar. The goal is to stop drinking soda altogether.

At the same time, sweets and treats are great. They are an important part of anyone's diet because we very much should be enjoying all elements of the culinary world. Cakes, pies, cookies, and candy, while something that should not be eaten constantly, should be eaten every now and then. They are great! And if, in your periodic treat-eating, you can find a product that is healthier than other, comparable products, it only makes sense to eat it.

So, I guess, my review comes with a caveat. These are STILL COOKIES. They are high in calories and do not fill you up. Just because they are better than other cookies does not mean that they are better than eggs and toast. With that said, on to the review.

These cookies are excellent. No, they are not gourmet, but the company was obviously not shooting for that. They wanted to make a direct competitor to Chips Ahoy and Oreos. I didn't do a direct taste test, but I could tell from memory that the Oreos rip-offs taste slightly different. They are not quite as sweet, but at the same time, they have a slightly better chocolate flavor.

The Chips Ahoy wannabes taste identical to their target. Two of my friends said that they tasted slightly different, though. I would have been happy that the cookies are made with no HFCS and no hydrogenated oils, but they went one step farther and loaded them with nutrients and fiber. Unfortunately, the Oreos use palm oil, which is made with the blood of baby orangutans. Cute ones.

The actual nutrition levels are quite high. These would literally be a better breakfast choice than many cereals. As such, it is impressive that the flavor is the same. If you treat these as cookies, and simply replace extant Chips Ahoy consumption with these, I cannot recommend them enough. But the danger of using them as replacements for otherwise healthy foods is very real. I repeat: these are cookies.

Truly, they needed to be cookies! These needed to not be health food. We already have healthy "cookies" littering the shelves of Whole Foods across the nation. Instead, what the market needed was Chips Ahoy without the crappy ingredients.They did that and did it perfectly. These taste like cookies. Are they the best cookies? No. But neither are Chips Ahoy. So if you eat Chips Ahoy, stop, and start eating these.

WhoNu? Cookies: RECOMMENDED

PRODUCT REVIEW: Starbucks Blonde Roast

Starbucks is making a big deal out of their first light roast, and rightfully so. This is far and away the lightest roast that they have ever produced. In fact, I think that they went further than they needed. Most people would have been happy with a coffee that was merely not charred to a crisp.

This shift in strategy is coming in response to huge pressure from McDonald's and Dunkin Donuts, both of whom offer lighter coffee that, in many taste tests, is significantly preferred over Starbucks house roast, and, as near as I can tell, universally preferred over Pike Place. I have never been a fan of the 'Bucks' blasted house roast, and Pike Place is too bland. Blonde, specifically the Willow Blend, is much better.

The light brown appearance and healthy, undamaged beans bode well.

The roast is such that there is little-to-no oil on the surface of the bean and has a very light-brown color. Compare this to oily-as-hell and nearly black beans of Starbucks' usual selection.

This bloom is slightly down from its peak. Not bad.

I liked that the beans appeared to be fresh, with a much better scent and bloom during brewing. I don't know how well the beans will hold up after sitting on a grocery shelf for awhile, but perhaps Starbucks was forced to use fresher beans because they couldn't hide low quality with an obscene roast.

The nose is significantly better than anything else Starbucks makes, both from the beans, grounds, and final brew. Talking about flavor notes in the coffee is not an academic affair like with everything else at Starbucks because the terroir of the beans has not be cruelly executed.

The initial flavor profile is obviously very similar to Starbucks' ordinary roast, but there's more of it there. Notes of toasted bread, berries, and small amounts of caramel, peanut butter, and chocolate are all noticeable. It is a much more interesting and pleasant roast to drink.

There is a huge caveat to this, though. The coffee brewed in Starbucks locations is weak, watery, and lacking all punch. The Veranda blend is partly to blame: it isn't as punchy as the Willow blend; but that's only part of the story.

Both home preparation methods produced wildly superior cups to what I got at-location. The siphon-pot (3:30 heat, no cold compress) brought out acidity to the detriment of the coffee. It gave it way too much bite and an astringency on the finish that was not hidden by milk. I didn't bother with an espresso double, but the espresso single worked well. I certainly would not opt for this method, but it wasn't bad.

The sweet spot was hit with pour-over, specifically the Clever Coffee Dripper (4-minute steep). It brought out every drop of rich flavor from the beans and produced none of the biting acidity of the siphon pot. There is much more body hidden in these beans than Starbucks' preparation method would indicate.

The brew at Starbucks is not something that I would buy. It is adequate, but compared to the drip coffee available from smaller cafes, and even sometimes McDonald's, it doesn't justify its higher price. The whole beans in a bag, on the other hand, are something that I would certainly buy. While, as always, I recommend finding a local roaster for maximum freshness and quality, both critical for good coffee, blonde is some of the best coffee that you can buy on the shelf. It more than earns its recommendation.

Starbucks Blonde Roast: RECOMMENDED

Peanut Butter Comparison Part Deux

My first, and thus far only, product comparison cum taste test was for peanut butter, which I did, like, a hundred years ago. That analysis resulted in Skippy Natural easily beating all of the other sweetened peanut butters. Since then, Jif has also launched a natural version of their peanut butter, but after trying it, my previous conclusion stands: Skippy Natural is the best sweetened PB available on the market.

In retrospect, I regret not having included natural peanut butters. My rationale was that, since sweetened versions make up the vast majority of sales, an analysis that focused on them would be more useful to buyers. Since then, though, I have given natural versions a fair shake, and let me tell you... once I tasted the rich, delicious, peanutty goodness of natural butters, I will never, ever, EVER go back.

Obviously, that makes the winner of this comparison a forgone conclusion; Skippy is most certainly not taking home any prizes. But does that mean that all natural butters are better than Skippy? Read on!

Yes. Yes, it does. You must admit, I can never be accused of circumlocution. Skippy is inferior to essentially every brand of natural peanut butter on the market. But within the natural brands, there is a great deal of difference.

I tried to find multiple natural, unsweetened peanut butters, but the market is pretty thin.¹ For example, aside from Skippy Natural, Wal-Mart carries Smucker's and nothing else.² Target, with a higher SES target demographic, carries a wider selection, but the majority of their offerings are still sweetened and buffered with some sort of oil. Real, natural peanut butter is, for some reason, just above a niche market. This is sad, because I think that if more people allowed it to become part of their diet, they would wonder how they ever did without.

And speaking of without, further ado. On to the ratings.

Smucker's Natural: 95
Delicious in every way I could expect a peanut butter to be. It's rich, with little bite, and fabulously mellow roll-off into a rich, roasty aftertaste. It tastes the best, but, strangely, I don't usually buy it. Why? Wouldn't you like to know!

Teddy: 88
Teddy has a more acidic bite in the primary taste. It's not as mellow as Smucker's and the roll-off isn't as smooth. It does have a subtle sweetness that Smucker's does not, which is pleasant. Ironically, I buy this more often than Smucker's. Why would I do something so silly? A cool trick to prevent a requisite mix of the peanut butter with every serving is to stick it in the refrigerator, which stops the oils from separating. This also increases the viscosity of the butter, which is helpful with natural PB as when it is warm it has a tendency to ooze out of sandwiches.

Teddy remains soft and spreadable when it is cold. Smucker's, oddly, acquires the consistency of cement after a couple of days in the fridge. This is only fixed with a warming period and a little re-mix. I find this annoying enough to avoid Smucker's and buy Teddy. Smucker's Chunky is not afflicted with this problem, but sometimes I just want creamy, dammit.

Woodstock Farms: 87
This small organic brand lacks the nutty texture of Smucker's and Teddy and is much more comparable to traditional butters like Jif and Skippy. It is very smooth and thus blankets the palate more, but this actually had the counter-intuitive effect of attenuating the flavor. It has a distinct sweetness to it and is brighter than Smucker's, but without the acidic bite of Teddy. Its smell is very weak compared to the rich, peanut flavor that explodes from a jar of Teddy or Smucker's. As far as flavor goes, I like this about as much as Teddy. But that nutty, somewhat crunchy texture of Teddy and Smucker's is far more appealing to me.

Smucker's Organic: 82
Almost like a cross between Teddy and Smucker's, it has a significantly weaker flavor than either. It has no bite, but it is also missing all of the mellow roast of Smucker's Natural. Quite a disappointment. While that bite from Teddy is unpleasant, it has a richer peanut flavor, making it better. Smuck-Org, as I shall now call it, also suffers from the same problem as Smuck-Nat in that it turns into carbonite when chilled. Letting it warm, re-mixing, then cooling alleviates the problem for a day or two, then it becomes carbonite again.

Skippy Natural: 60
Once having the rich, smooth sweetness of natural peanut butters, Skippy is positively cloying and simple. The taste is hollow and has an almost metallic tinge to it. Because of the addition of palm oil as a stabilizer, the butter has an oily yet tasteless quality to it. Real peanut butter is oily, but the peanut oil tastes like peanuts. I could never go back to this peanut butter. If your kids absolutely can't do without sugar in their PB, this is certainly the best variety to buy. But trust me, keep some deliciously-delicious natural PB for yourself.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1: There is a wider variety of peanut butters available online, including variants from Smucker's such as Adams and Laura Scudder's, and smaller companies like Krema. The problem is that most of the time, you cannot purchase a single jar online. You can only buy a pack of three or more. If you do not like the peanut butter, you must either grin and bear it, give it away to friends, or throw the peanut butter away.


2: I didn't include any almond butter, pecan butter, or peanut butter that has been blended with something, since that isn't peanut butter.

PRODUCT REVIEW: Rancilio Rocky Coffee Grinder

PRODUCT REVIEW: Starbucks Anniversary Roast 2011

Starbucks coffees are really hit or miss, what with their massive supply line, and I briefly pondered whether the drastic increases in coffee prices would affect their quality. First, I can safely say that Starbucks quality is generally in-tact. I was surprised by the number of broken beans in the bag, but that could be a result of rough handling by anyone in the supply chain. Prices are significantly higher, though. The half-pound bag was nine dollars, and that makes the proposition of buying coffee from a local roaster all the more attractive. But this is neither here nor there. Neither over hill, nor over dale.

The 2011 Anniversary Blend is the annual release of a blend onto which they slap a brand. I haven't tried earlier versions, but I suspect that the blends are whatever is available in large amounts, and since the anniversary comes out at the same time every year, the blends are undoubtedly similar.

I like the new blend. I'm a bit disappointed by the level of the roast, as I usually am with Starbucks. Instead of relying on my grind level, I'm going to start referencing how much the beans weigh per level tablespoon of unground beans. Most roasts are in the 6-8g range, while Anniversary 2011 is 4.5-5g. That is quite dark indeed.

Luckily, unlike the incredibly disappointing Tribute Blend, Anniversary retains some flavor. It's dark, roasty, very mellow, and goes wonderfully in an espresso double. It's still darker than I would have liked, and the age of the beans is very apparent when extracting a shot: the crema is thin, thin, thin. While these would have been deal-breakers in most circumstances, Anniversary is perfectly balanced and such a good "standard" coffee, that I can't help but give it a thumbs up.

I finally have a siphon pot and pour-over setup, so I can give you more rounded reports of the flavor. Unfortunately for these beans, both pour over and siphon amplify their shortcomings. Espresso does very, very well with rich, simple blends. Truly, in most espresso cases, the simpler the blend, the better. The slow extraction of pour over make the most of vibrant, complex, lightly-roasted coffees. The age of the beans is again apparent with a near-nonexistent bloom. Still, as with the espresso, it's very good "standard"-tasting coffee. Complex? No, but it's leagues better than Folgers.

So while I was disappointed by the roast level, and thus the pour-over extraction, the rich espresso and good basic flavor make up for it. My only serious reservation is the price, and it's the reason why I'm hesitant to recommend it. Nine dollars for half-a-pound is a LOT of money, especially when you can buy excellent coffee fresh from local roasters like Updike's Newtowne or Coffee Exchange for less money. Worse still, prices might get higher, rendering Starbucks a non-option (Starbucks Reserve coffees, at $30 per pound, are already the domain of lunatics).

Price aside, though, it's a good coffee. I just hope that bean prices don't get any higher, or only a maniac would buy Starbucks.

Starbucks Anniversary Blend 2011: RECOMMENDED

PRODUCT REVIEW: Kashi TLC Cereal Bars

If you want to avoid high-fructose corn syrup, palm oil, and hydrogenated oils, your selection is really freakin' thin in the world of pre-packaged foods. And the products that are made not using these ingredients as part of the company's philosophy are usually doing so to cater to some self-righteous/important element of society, like Whole Foods-dwelling hipsters. Thus, the ingredient list is more about whatever ingredients are trendy and not about making the food taste good. Oh, and speaking of Whole Foods...



Kashi is definitely one of those hipster companies. I generally don't like anything they have for sale. Their cookies don't taste like cookies, their cereal tastes like twigs while somehow being less healthy than FiberONE, and their stuff is over-priced.

But their cereal bars are a bright spot. They taste good, with strong fruit flavor, and a complete compliment of real ingredients. Compare this to Kellogg's Nutri-Grain bars, or, more accurately, ANYTHING that Kellogg's makes, and you'll be amazed at the crap that Kellogg's shovels onto your breakfast table.

Even their "healthy" foods like FiberPlus, with 35% your daily fiber, comes with hydrogenated oils, specifically hydrogenated palm oil, so not only are orangutans dying for this oil, you're dying eating it. And remember, if there are hydrogenated oils, and they say 0% Trans Fats on the nutrition label, THEY ARE LYING. It's a legal lie (anything below 0.5 grams per serving can legally be listed as zero), but it's still a lie. And you can be damn sure that the trans fat amount is as close to 0.5 grams as chemically possible.

But back to the Nutri-Grain bars specifically. They're a trainwreck. The only thing that's worse are the Special K 100 Calorie Fruit Crisps, which have near-as-damnit NO fruit in them. Eating a Nutri-Grain bar in the morning is like eating a Reese's cup for breakfast.

Let's dissect a Nutrigrain bar. The filling in the Strawberry Kashi TLC bar lists its ingredients as Pear Juice, tapioca, cane juice, apple powder, strawberry puree, corn starch (unmodified, whatever that means), vegetable glycerin, water, natural flavor (why?), and more fruit juice.

In contrast, the Nutri-Grain bar lists its filling as containing high fructose corn syrup (sugar), corn syrup (sugar), strawberry puree (Yay, fruit!), sugar (more?!), Sodium Alginate, Corn Starch (modified... still puzzeling), Citric Acid, Natural and Artifical flavoring, Sodium Citrate, Dicalcium Phosphate, Methylcellulose, Carambel Color, Malic Acid, RED #40.

Most of the chemicals on that list are scary-sounding but totally harmless and widely used. It's the THREE inclusions of sugar in various ways that boggles my mind. How much actual fruit is in their "fruit" bars?! It reminds me of Family Guy's spoof of Tony the Tiger.



So it was with great happiness that I discovered that Kashi's bars not only have real food in them, but taste good! Let me repeat that, this Kashi product TASTES GOOD. It tastes like it has real fruit in it, because it does, and while the cake part is a little bark-like, it actually matches the sweetness of the filling very well. My only wish was for more filling in any given bar.

They still aren't the healthiest breakfast around, but if you include this as the on-the-road element to your morning meal, it's quite good. I've bought these in bulk from Amazon and use them as an inter-meal snack. I think that they're peachy-keen.

Kashi TLC Soft-Baked Cereal Bars: RECOMMENDED

PRODUCT REVIEW: Turkey Hill Ice Cream

I've mentioned Turkey Hill in a few other reviews, but decided that it's deserving of its own, full review.

What do you want when you get ice cream? For me, ice cream is simple. It needs only three things: smooth, creamy, mouth-coating texture; strong, natural flavorings; and fillings that are larger than five molecules across. Even in ice cream that pretends to be high-quality, Edy's/Dreyer's for example, fillings are pitiful, flavor is artificial and weak, and there's so much air whipped in that the you get only marginally more calories than by simply breathing.

Turkey Hill isn't that ice cream. It gets everything right. The texture is perfect, the flavor is strong, and the fillings are large and delicious. Their cookies & cream, my favorite flavor, is the best that I have found in the grocery freezer. The peanut butter cup, which is actually sweetened peanut butter swirled into the ice cream, is beyond good. It is hands-down the best peanut butter ice cream in Turkey Hill's segment.

I used to refer to this segment as the half-gallon segment, but, compliments of increasing food costs and a marketing belief that people are stupid and won't notice smaller packages, half-gallons no longer exist.

If you want ridiculous fillings, Turkey Hill is not your brand. They produce the standard flavors with standard fillings. But in that arena, they best even many of the premium brands. And in the brands that are better flavor-to-flavor, like Ben & Jerry's, the differences are usually small. But compare Turkey Hill to other half-gallon brands, and the differences are stark. Turkey Hill is vastly superior to Blue Bunny, Hood, and Breyer's.

In the world of wacky fillings, Turkey Hill doesn't perform as well. While they produce their fair share of CRAZY ice cream, it really doesn't hold up to the premium brands. The kind to which I'm referring when I describe their excellence is their, um, standard(?) brand like the kind pictured in my image. If you stick with that, you'll never be let down.

In the world of non-premium ice cream, Turkey Hill is the bar by which others are measured. It's that good.

Turkey Hill Ice Cream: HIGHLY RECOMMENDED

PRODUCT REVIEW: Starbucks Three Regions Blend

Starbucks is back. Last month they released their Tribute Blend, which was a disaster. It was a blasted mess of a bean, with nearly all of the terroir charred from the bean by an aggressive roast. I was doubly disappointed because I had just had Casi Cielo for the very first time, which was a fantastic blend. Starbucks has completely made up for it, though, with Three Regions Blend.

Open the bag and you're hit with a very strong bouquet of fudge and brownies. It's funny, since very little of this initial smell gets to the palate. Also nice, Starbucks' description of the coffee is rather accurate. It's a very toasty coffee, with a lot of bread, mellow roast, and just a small amount of spice. It does better the lighter your serving. A heavy espresso double was blowing out the flavors and delivering too much roast. A light double was good, and an espresso single was very good. Moreover, this isn't a very cremariffic coffee, so there's no real reason to use a double.

I'd imagine that drip coffee will simply blast the beans, since I found that they tasted best with a cooler brew. In this quest, pour-over, or my chosen brewing method, Aeropress are ideal. My favorite method was far and away the espresso single, which drew out all of the best flavors. There was a lot more terroir than in many other Starbucks blends and beans, which was probably helped by a comparably light roast. As I always mention, Starbucks usually needs a low grind on my Rancilio Rocky, sometimes as low as 3, with most good espresso blends needing a 9 or 10.

As far as Starbucks beans go, Three Regions blend is visibly lighter. There's a smaller amount of oil on the surface, and the color has more brown to it. Casi Cielo, still Starbucks' only legitimately impressive blend, required a 9. Three Regions needs around an 8. Still, the roast is more than light enough to give the beans character.

Three Regions Blend is a definite buy. It tastes fresh, and does very well in an Aeropress and a single. Just avoid making any doubles with it.

Starbucks Three Regions Blend: RECOMMENDED

Bodum Double-Walled Latte Glass Review

PRODUCT REVIEW: Wal-Mart Great Value V8 Fusion

Well, much like a musician when Weird Al parodies their work, or an entertainer being roasted by the Friars' Club, a product knows that it's hit when Wal-Mart produces a "Great Value" rip-off. V8 Fusion is officially a mega-hit.

The Great Value version is fifty-nine cents cheaper, $2.39 compared to $2.98, and after checking the ingredients and nutrition info, I had hopes that the flavors would be similar. No such luck. As you can see from the photo, the Great Value variant is significantly lighter in color. The same effect can be seen in the taste. It's both less flavorful and more watery in texture. The official V8 is better in ever regard.

Great Value's juice isn't bad, but one of the reasons why the Fusion is such a hit is because it tastes very good in pretty much every way. It's a tasty combination of vegetable and fruit juices that even picky (also known as pricky) children would like. Wal-Mart's made the juice taste cheaper and more like "kid's" juice. It's not bad enough to not recommend, but at the same time, I have a hard time recommending it. If budget is a serious concern, and you buy a LOT of this stuff, that sixty cents per bottle could mean significant savings over a year. But if if you don't fit that scenario, buy the V8.

Great Value V8 Fusion: RECOMMENDED

PRODUCT REVIEW: Starbucks Tribute Coffee

Starbucks' new Tribute coffee, celebrating forty years of life, is ironically appropriate. But before I get to that, a peeve. Starbucks has not been around for forty years. Yes, the very first Starbucks was founded in 1971, but it is so distantly related to the current permutation of Starbucks as to be significant in name only. They didn't sell drinks until 1987, when Howard Schultz bought the chain from the founders and rebranded his own burgeoning coffee chain, Il Giornale, as Starbucks. Thus, the Starbucks of today is actually Il Giornale with a different name. I've posted the original logo so you can see the strong similarity between it and Starbucks' current logo. Basically, the Starbucks name is forty years old. Starbucks as it is is only twenty-four.

Now on to the coffee. After my last roast review of Casi Cielo was such a success, I came into this one with high hopes. Sadly, I have had my hopes run through a grinder like so many coffee beans. I said that this coffee is ironically appropriate, and by that I mean it is ironic that a company that has been so known for burnt coffee as to earn the moniker Charbucks should celebrate its anniversary with a blend that is burnt indeed. It is further ironic that a company that made its name and fortune with expensive espresso drinks should celebrate with a roast that doesn't go terribly well in espresso.

As a semi-objective measurement of roast level, I use my grinder, a Rancilio Rocky, and the required grind to get a perfect espresso shot. Most good espresso grinds like Black Cat require grinds in the area of 10 on my grinder. Casi Cielo required a 9, the darkest Starbucks I've ever had required a 4, with most Starbucks coffees requiring a 5. Tribute requires a grind of 5-6, so it's right in line with their other offerings. Amazingly, it tastes darker than this would indicate. I can taste almost nothing but roast. Smooth, yes, but roast nonetheless.

I'm left with some confusion. Until Casi Cielo, I always assumed that Starbucks was actually incompetent, but I now know that they aren't. They can produce an excellent roast if they want to, which means that this coffee is a conscious choice. Why would a company knowingly create a dark, blasted husk of a bean (I mean that in general, not to Tribute specifically)? What flavor profile are they shooting for? To what demographic are they trying to appeal? I'm very confused. Regardless, this was a disappointing coffee. Their standard espresso roast is much better for espresso, and I've had better pour over with a multitude of their other blends and single origins. It's certainly not disgusting, and in less-gourmet times, I might give a thumbs up. But in the face of stiff competition from local roasters and even Starbucks' own selection, I can't recommend this coffee.

Starbucks Tribute Coffee: NOT RECOMMENDED

PRODUCT REVIEW: V8 Fusion With Green Tea

I love V8 Fusion, as does, apparently, the entire country. It's been a massive, runaway success for the company, selling tens of millions in product in its first year alone. It's proven to be big enough of a hit where Wal-Mart has even introduced its own Great Value version of the drink.

Capitalizing on this success, V8 continues to release new versions of Fusion and has now introduced an entirely new variant, a sort of double-fusion of Fusion and green tea. I was hyped and grabbed the bottle. I assumed that they just soaked a green tea bag in V8 fusion, but no. That would have been hoping too much, and it also gives me an idea to just do that myself.

V8 Fusion with tea is 50% juice and 50% tea, and the 50% that's tea has been sweetened with, ugh, sucralose. Why couldn't they have just used extra grape juice, or, sacrilege, sugar. Mercifully, the sucralose flavor is mild, here. No, the biggest problem is that the flavor is just so bland and mild compared to ordinary Fusion. That 50% that isn't juice is sorely missed. The flavor is hollow, you kinda' sorta' taste the green tea, and the sucralose makes itself known very quickly as the flavor leaves your palate. And, as with most sucralose-sweetened drinks, that flavor is the last one to leave your tongue after you stop drinking it.

Unlike drinks completely flavored with Splenda or aspartame, which means diet or diabetes, this is not zero calorie nor zero sugar. It has 10g of sugar and 50cal per serving. This is a drink that you drink because you want it, not because you're limited in your choices. As such, the use of sucralose is open to criticism. It makes it taste bad. Yes, yes, I know that not everyone can detect the difference; but I can, and so can most of my friends.

I initially puzzled, who is this drink for?! It's not diabetes or diet friendly, but it's flavor is negatively affected by the presence of sucralose. Why would they put sucralose in at all? Then it hit me. I'm coming at this drink from the wrong angle. It is not V8 Fusion. It is bottled, pre-sweetened green tea with juices added. This is for people who drink bottled Green Tea like crazy, because they think that it's somehow healthy, but want something that tastes, I dunno', good.

That is where my dislike is rooted; the bottle is branded incorrectly. If they had called this Lipton Green Tea with V8 Fusion added, I would never have even considered it, and I would have never been disappointed. As such, if you come at the bottle with this perspective, you won't be disappointed. In fact, you might be ecstatic to find bottled Lipton tea that doesn't taste like butthole. But I'm not reviewing Lipton, I'm reviewing V8 Fusion, and this concoction just isn't up to snuff.

V8 Fusion with Green Tea: NOT RECOMMENDED

Haagen-Dazs vs. Ben & Jerry's

I just bought both a tub of B&J's and H-D's cookie dough ice cream. I keep trying Haagen-Dazs because it just has to be better than it always is. It's the original gourmet ice cream! How the hell is it so disappointing?

I don't know how, but it is. Time and time again, I try it and am let down. It's never bad, certainly, but it's never good and is usually inferior to good half-gallon brands like Turkey Hill. So yeah, continuing, I compared the two and Ben & Jerry's, as always, came out on top. Haagen-Dazs has an excellent finish that B&J's is lacking. It feels like it was made with fresh vanilla. The cookie dough also has a floury taste that makes it taste more like real cookie dough.

Regardless, the Ben & Jerry's vanilla flavor, while not as complex, has much more punch to it. Ben & Jerry's is denser, with a richer, smoother texture to it. The same goes for the cookie dough, which is sweeter than Haagen-Dazs. There's also more of it, and as Ben & Jerry's knows full well, the best ice cream is ice cream that's being used to glue together bits of other things. I tell myself that this will be the last time that I buy Haagen-Dazs, but I'm sure that I'll try again.

So yeah, if you want a cookie dough ice cream, Ben & Jerry's should be at the top of your list.

PRODUCT REVIEW: Lots of Soup

Soup is delicious, doncha' think? The problem with soup is, once you've had fresh soup, canned soups just taste terrible. The meat is all rubbery, the vegetables are lacking any sense of freshness, and there is a shocking deficiency in flavor and punch considering the salt levels. It was with this desire for good soup that I set about trying various small brands on the supermarket shelves.

Most of the soups didn't stand out. No punch. Pea soup. Tomato soup. It's as though the elimination of meat translated to the elimination of flavor. Two brands stood out with some legitimately inventive-sounding flavors: Pacific Foods and Dr. McDougall.

Pacific Foods:

Pacific Foods soups were the real stars of my endeavor. Every soup of theirs that I tried were punchy, flavorful, thick, and filled with fresh-tasting vegetables and ingredients. I tried their Hearty Carton soups, which are all vegetarian, but unlike Dr McDougall, as we'll see, they didn't sacrifice anything. The Chipotle Sweet Potato and Poblano Pepper and Corn Chowder, my personal faves, were hot enough to knock my girlfriend on her ass. Thick, spicy, and fantastically delicious. The most notable difference between the brands was how firm and fresh all of the potato tasted. Coming from canned soups like Progresso, Pacific soup was a whole new world. Once you try these soups, you'll never go back to Progresso. I look forward to trying their canned soups that include meat.

Pacific Foods Hearty Carton Soups: HIGHLY RECOMMENDED

Dr McDougall:

Apparently, Dr. McDougall isn't just a food company, but an entire diet company predicated on minimal processing of vegetable matter. Similar to Pacific Foods, the ingredients were firm and fresh. They tasted like home-made soup. Unfortunately, it was made by your good-for-nothing uncle as opposed to Grandma. Unlike Pacific, Dr McDougall only produces vegetarian and vegan foods, and as any good gourmet knows, vegan is a synonym for flavorless. Their minestrone soup has suitable amounts of flavor and presence and isn't too oily. It's a very good pre-made minestrone. Sadly, that bright spot only makes their other soups all the more disappointing. Both tomato soups are oily and have no complexity to their flavor. I had to load them up with pepper, crackers, and parmesan cheese to make them palatable in large amounts. The black bean soup was similar in its complete lack of depth. It was just overwhelming bean. Dark, bland, palate-covering, bean. But, considering the good minestrone, and the quality ingredients, I think that Dr McDougall is at least worth a shot.

Dr McDougall's Soups: RECOMMENDED

PRODUCT REVIEW: Starbucks Casi Cielo Coffee

I just bought a half-pound of Starbucks to get me through the snowstorm and gave their seasonal roast, Casi Cielo, a shot. I am legitimately impressed. I knew I was in for something different when the usual setting of "4" on my grinder was way too fine. The darker the roast, the finer the grind, and Starbucks ain't called Charbucks for nothing.

After two blown shots, I was amazed to find the coffee requiring a grind in the "8-9" range. Holy crap! So, I knew it was going to be different, but good? I was about to find out.

It's good! Like, really good! This is easily the best Starbucks coffee that I've ever tasted in espresso. Whereas other times, I bought Starbucks because my Black Cat hadn't arrived in time, or I was unable to make it to Updike's Newtowne or Coffee Exchange, with this, I don't feel as though I'm missing out by drinking it. It's very rich and smooth, always good for espresso, but actually has some fruity bite to it. It's an excellent choice for espresso, be it doubles or singles. I haven't tried a triple, but if it works in a double, it usually does well in a triple, too.

Now, I know that I'm late to the game with this. Starbucks introduced Casa Cielo over three years ago. But that knowledge only leaves me more confused. If Starbucks knows enough to make this, why haven't they applied this to their other coffees? Or their in-house espresso? While I still prefer my favorites (UpTowne, CofEx, and B-Cat), this is a legitimately good coffee and everything Starbucks makes should be like this.

Starbucks Casi Cielo Coffee: RECOMMENDED

P.S.

And just for fun, here's a picture of some latte art that I poured into a cup of Casi Cielo. It was tasty.

PRODUCT REVIEW: Nonni's Bakery

I'm doing a double review for two of Nonni's products, their biscotti and their Tusconi.

Cutting straight to the chase, their biscotti is the best biscotti on the supermarket shelf. They come individually wrapped, which helps keep them all supremely fresh. They are crisp, with not too many nuts, and a good, high-quality chocolate. Their turtle pecan biscotti comes with chunks of toffee inside, which adds a sweet, buttery, cruncy, chew to the cookie. And if you prefer, you can get almonds in place of pecans in yet another variety. The selection of cookies alone is enough to recommend Nonni's. I just wish that a variety pack was available.

I still prefer the biscotti available from local Italian bakeries, such as Scialo Bros. on Federal Hill, which are just epic in their dedication to huge amounts of everything in them. But Nonni's more than makes up for that by being available in most major grocery outlets. I very much like Nonni's Biscotti.

Nonni's Biscotti: RECOMMENDED

Nonni's Tusconi is made of fresh, high-quality ingredients, individually wrapped, and looks delicious. Unfortunately, it tastes like the brownie from my fifth grade school lunch.

Nonni's Tusconi: NOT RECOMMENDED.