Critical Assessment of Cola Beverages Served in Morpeth Drinking Establishments

Critical assessment of cola beverages served in Morpeth drinking establishments Bryn Howells & Ben Gorman August 2015 1.Introduction The origins of cola drinks date back as far as 1863 when pharmacist Angelo Mariani created a non-carbonated, non-alcoholic drink based upon coca wine.Cola drinks can generally be defined as those which contain both caffeine from the kola nut and cocaine from coca leaves, or similarly tasting replacements to either.Sugar (or fructose) and caramel colouring are also commonplace amongst most of todays cola drinks. Coca-Cola is both historically and currently the most successful and popular cola drink as judged by a range of criteria.Since its introduction to the marketplace in 1886, Coca-Cola has enjoyed a growth unparalleled to any other commercial beverage.In 2015 the drink isnot available in only two countries worldwide (North Korea and Cuba), and given its strong sales in every territory in which it markets, it can lay claim to perhaps being the only truly global commercial drink in the history of mankind. Coca-Cola is one of many carbonated cola drinks that are currently commercially produced.Some of these drinks, most notably Pepsi, are available in the vast majority of countries across the world.On the other hand, others are only available in certain geographic regions.For example, Cola-Turka is popular in Turkey and in countries with significant Turkish migrant populations such as Germany, Austria, and France.In the UK, Coca-Cola and Pepsi are the only two mainstream cola drinks in the sense that they are sold in nearly all supermarkets and newsagents, however there are many other available including (but not limited too) Barr Cola, Sainsburys Classic Cola, Rola Cola, and Fizz-Time Cola. Additional variety in cola drinks can be found in the substantial lack of consistency in taste and other attributes of a single brand depending on factors such as the serving medium and distributor.Even casual Coca-Cola drinkers would be likely to identify notable differences in Coca-Cola served from a can, a tap, a glass bottle, and a plastic bottle.Furthermore, significant variety in the taste of tap-served Coca-Cola exists from drinking establishment to drinking establishment, owing to factors such as the mixing volumes of syrup to soda water, the quality and condition of the mixing syrup, and the temperature at which the ingredients are held. With such mass popularity and range of products available, one may logically expect that consumers would benefit from and enjoy comparing the incredible diversity of the taste of cola drinks.While it could be argued that the UK Cola Wars of the 1990s in some way encapsulated this spirit, there has not been a critical treatment of the topic in for nearly two decades, especially one free from commercial influences and biases.This realisation is even more surprising when placed in the context of the participation in the comparative tasting of alcoholic drinks, most notably wine tasting and beer festivals.Wine tasting has evolved into a stand-alone activity adopted often by upper-middle class couples, while the success of organisations like CAMRA has made beer tasting an important event to partake in for many middle-income single and pretentious males.The question must be asked as to why cola drinks, which enjoy a much wider fan-base and consumption across all demographics, do not have tasting events on a similar scale to their alcoholic beverage counterparts.This question is far beyond the scope of this investigation, but we would like to suggest that our current theories include the social stigma that is associated with an adult drinking a soft drink in preference to an alcoholic drink despite its undeniably superior taste. In order to try and introduce cola tasting as a legitimate and enjoyable hobby that deserves to be free of social sneers, we present a pioneering review of cola drinks served in the town of Morpeth, Northumberland in the UK, the hometown of the authors.This work is not intended as an all encapsulating review, but rather a highly specific assessment of cola drinks in one particular town.We hope that our study stimulates investigations from other cola fans for other towns and cities across the UK and the world.Removed from the wider social context, the purpose of our work is as follows: To inform residents of Morpeth where the best and worse cola drinks are served. To rate each drink in a variety of categories so that residents who particularly value specific attributes can choose a drinking establishment that caters to their particular preferences. To encourage the people of Morpeth to drink cola drinks at local pubs, clubs, and bars.This can apply to people who prefer to drink alcoholic drinks in such establishments, or to people who do not frequent such establishments at all. To foster a culture of assessment and debate on the merits of the cola drinks served at different establishments in order to improve standards by encouraging consumers to vote with their feet rather than accept a lower quality due their loyalty to a particular establishment. We hope that the reader finds this report both informative and enjoyable.We encourage Morpeth residents to consider the findings of this report when choosing where to go out for a cola drink, but also to conduct their own assessments some of the assessment criteria used here are subjective and so the rankings cannot be considered a hard and fast score that holds true for every individual.Rather, like a review of a film or restaurant, our results should be used a guide that can point the reader in a direction that is most likely to agree with the tastes of the majority of consumers. 2.Assessment criteria We asses each cola drink on a 1 to 5 scale in the following ten categories: 1. Price:The cost of a pint of the drink.To convert a the cost in pounds sterling into a 1-5 rating we take the difference between the highest and lowest price drink of study (prices given per pint for drinks served in ml a conversion is used), divide by 5, and then form 5 price ranges.These ranges are 5 = (1.42-1.76), 4 = (1.77-2.10), 3 = (2.11-2.43), 2 = (2.44-2.78), 1= (2.78-3.10). 2.Service:This category is included in-part due to the scorn with which cola drinkers are often subjected to by the bartender for daring to order a soft drink instead of an alcoholic drink.High marks can only be achieved if the cola drinker is treated no differently to someone purchasing a pint of larger.The more pleasant the service the higher the mark.Additionally, whether ice and lemon/lime are offered is also considered in this category.This is separate from the treatment of ice and lemon/lime in the extras category; in service it relates to whether the consumer is offered the choice of either, not whether they are provided.For example, if the perfect amount of ice and lemon/lime are served, but the consumer is not asked whether he or she want these extras, the drink will score high in extras but low in service.Overall service combines the pleasantness of the bartender and the question of whether the consumer wants the extras a 4 or 5 rating cannot be achieved without either. 3.Presentation:This is largely dictated by the glass the drink is served in.For full marks the glass needs to be specifically used for cola drinks only, i.e. it should have a Coca-Cola or Pepsi logo on it.High marks can also be achieved for unbranded glasses that are easy to hold and of a sensible shape.Low marks are given if the drink is served in a glass with the logo of another brand on, e.g. a Fosters glass.Other factors include how much the drink fills the glass.Here the ideal amount should be full to about a 5mm gap from the top (so that it offers value for money but is not easily spilled during transportation). 4.Extras:The quality of the ice and lemon/lime.For full marks both ice and lemon/lime must be provided (full marks can be obtained if they are provided without being given a choice as to whether you want these or not).The amount and shape/size of the ice is important here.It needs to be sufficient to fully cover the surface (smaller size ice helps in this regard) and keep the drink cold for at least 30 minutes after serving.This usually requires around about 2 inches in depth in the glass (depending on the shape).If the drink is too warm then this is ascribed to insufficient ice, and so the extras category will be marked down accordingly.The ice should also be easy to eat while drinking the coke.In this regard, small pieces of dense ice are preferable as they are effective at maintaining temperature while being able to easily fit into the drinkers mouth. 5.Taste:The most important and yet most subjective of all the categories.Taste can be incredibly dependent on personal preferences which make quantifying it difficult.Taste is also inherently linked to multiple other factors used in our ranking system, especially carbonation and dilution.We have decided not to attempt to remove these linked factors when judging taste as we feel that many readers may look at the taste category alone and we do not want to mislead them.For example, if a drink was flat and tasted worse for it, we would not account for the fact that this flatness will hinder the taste (as well as obviously the carbonation rating).This therefore means that a flat or strongly diluted drink is likely to be subject to low rankings in two categories, in effect a double punishment.However, as taste is the most important category, while carbonation and dilution are also more important categories than some others, we feel that our system allows for a in-built weighting in favour of these more important characteristics.For a high rating, the drink must simply appeal strongly to the taste of both of the authors.We acknowledge again the subjectivity of this, and encourage readers to make up their own minds in this category for themselves by visiting the establishments and sampling the cola drinks. 6.Carbonation:How fizzy the drink is.We are working on the principle that the fizzier the drink is the better it is which we believe to be a principle most cola drinkers would agree upon.A rating of 1 is reserved for completely flat drinks, while a rating of 5 is given to drinks we believe to be very strongly carbonated, i.e. the type where the fizz attacks various taste sensors in your mouth. 7.Dilution:The extent to which the drink diluted to the right amount, i.e. the ratio of syrup to soda water.We believe that an ideal cola drink should be strongly concentrated, but should not be entirely syrup.A 5 in this category is a level of dilution that if the drink were to be diluted more or less it would be worse for it.It is therefore possible for a less dilute drink to score a higher mark than a more dilute drink at the upper boundaries of the syrup to soda water ratio.However, as it is much favourable for a cola drink to be concentrated than dilute, a 1 in the dilution category is for drinks that are so heavily diluted that it is hard to taste the sugary taste of the syrup above the background of soda water.8.Aftertaste:How nice the taste left in your mouth for the 5 to 10 seconds after you have taken a gulp of the drink is.In our experiences as veteran cola drinkers, we have found that some cola drinks leave an aftertaste that actually tastes bad despite the normal taste being good.Some cola drinks have no aftertaste at all.A neutral aftertaste is regarded as being better than an unpleasant aftertaste.Many cola drinks have a nice aftertaste, and this positive aftertaste is required for a 4 or 5 in this category.Furthermore, the addictiveness of the drink is also considered here.If the drinker feels like he or she immediately wants or needs another gulp of the drink having just taken one (either due to a pleasant after taste or some type of addictive chemical or property of the drink) then the drink will score high in the aftertaste category.A 5 is therefore reserved for drinks with a delicious aftertaste that are highly addictive. 9.Refreshment:To what extent the drink quenches your thirst.To score a 5 in this category, the drink must quench the drinkers thirst swiftly after a few gulps, but also in a satisfactory manner.We note that there is a difference between quenching thirst and killing thirst.For example, if a drink tasted so bad that it killed the desire of the drinker to have any more liquid, we would not award it high marks in refreshment.We emphasise that for high marks here the drinker must gain satisfaction and enjoyment in having their thirst reduced or removed by drinking the drink. 10. Longevity:How well factors 4-9 hold up over a 30 minute period after the drink has been served.All of the factors 4-9 matter here, but we believe that extras (temperature, volume of ice) and carbonation are especially important.We note that it is fairly unrealistic to expect carbonation to remain at the same level throughout the 30 minute period.We also note that the longevity of all factors is judged against their initial values.For example, an initially strongly carbonated and cold drink is likely to get a worse longevity rating than a flat and warm one as it is harder for a flat and warm drink to get relatively worse over time.We accept that this can be construed as a flaw in the judging process; however we remind the reader that carbonation does get double counted in the taste and carbonation categories so it is still better for a drink to be strongly carbonated, while temperature (i.e. ice) is also considered in both service and extras.For a 5 in the longevity category, the drink must be the same temperature, have the same taste, and the same refreshment after 30 minutes as it is when first served, while also the carbonation and dilution levels must not vary significantly over the same time period.Marks are deducted for both the severity in the reduction of factors 4-9 after 30 minutes as well as their rate of decrease (i.e. it is better for a drink to become fully flat after 20 minutes than after 10 continuous checks in the quality of factors 4-9 over the 30 minute tasting period monitor for this). 3.Results 3.1Weatherspoons Brand = Pepsi Price = 4 (1.95 per pint) Service = 3: Polite service with no scorn for choosing a cola drink.The bartender checking is Pepsi alright? when we requested Coca-Cola would normally merit a higher score, however, this phrase is a Weatherspoons standard in any venue across the country and so the drinker should not be fooled into considering it a personal act of consideration by the staff.The comment therefore did not increase or decrease the score.The bartender asked whether we wanted ice and/or lime which was much appreciated.What prevented the service from getting a score of 4 was the robot like functionality of the bartender who was presumably under a heavy working load.This is highly understandable, but a little more personable service would need needed for a higher mark. Presentation = 4:Pepsi served in an unmarked cylindrical pint glass which is the Weatherspoons standard.We appreciated the sensible shape of the glass.The Pepsi filled the glass to a perfect amount.The lime was cut cleanly leaving no dregs floating about in the drink.In an interesting observation, we noted that Weatherspoons serve orange squash in a less uniformly shaped pint glass -hence there is some specific variety for the choice of glass for different soft drinks.While we cannot factor this observation into our score, we do feel it is a nice touch. Extras = 4:Ice and lime provided.A good amount of ice was given, but we would have liked a little more.This was reflected in the ice fully melting by the 30 minute mark.Nevertheless, there was sufficient ice to maintain an acceptable and stable temperature of the Pepsi throughout the 30 minute assessment period.The size of the pieces of ice was slightly too large, and this allowed for too many gaps on the surface.The size of the lime piece was perfect, not large enough to get in your way but large enough to provide enough juice to add to the taste of the Pepsi. Taste = 3:Both authors agreed it to be a 3, and perhaps closer to a 2 than a 4. Carbonation = 2:Alarmingly flat after just a couple of minutes.The initial gulps were also fairly flat. Dilution = 4:Taste was nice and strong.Given the low cost of the drink, one may have perhaps expected Weatherspoons to water down their Pepsi, but this was not the case.To get a 5 we would have liked the drink to be ever so slightly less diluted. Aftertaste = 2:About 2-3 seconds after taking a gulp, a weak aftertaste developed that attacked the taste buds at the side of the tongue and was reminiscent of the taste one gets having brushed their teeth and then drinking a flat cola drink.While the taste was only weak it was still mildly unpleasant.There was no tangible addictive quality to the drink either.To have scored a 1 the aftertaste would need to have been stronger so as to put off the drinker from further gulps. Refreshment = 4:Sufficiently quenched our thirst in an amiable manner. Longevity = 3:The drop in carbonation was quicker than one would expect from a tap served cola drink, though the proportional carbonation reduction after 30 minutes was about on par with the tap standard (though this meant this lowly carbonated drink was essentially flat at this point).The ice melted in an approximately linear fashion over 30 minutes, disappearing around about the 30 minute mark.Temperature, taste, and aftertaste showed almost no variation over 30 minutes.The drink became more dilute as a result of the ice melting. 3.2White Swan Brand = Coca-Cola Price = 2 (2.50 per pint) Service = 5: No scorn for asking for coke.We asked for pints of coke, but the bartender misheard us and thought we requested large cokes, an understandable mishap for which no blame is attributed.After serving the drinks the bartender charged us a reduced rate for the drinks and then advised he did so as buying pints offers better value for money.This level of personable and helpful conversation was highly valued by us.Ice was offered (there was no lemon/lime to offer). Presentation = 5:The drink was served in a specific Coca-Cola branded glass.Due to the large coke/pint of coke mix-up, this was not a pint glass.It is a distinct possibility that had we asked for a pint we would not have been served in a Coca-Cola pint glass.However, we could only mark on what we were given.The bartender made sure to fill each glass to the perfect volume. Extras = 2:We would have liked slightly more ice, and this was again reflecting in the ice just about melting by the 30 minute mark.The size of the ice pieces was good, small enough to fit into the mouth and very dense.There was no lemon/lime.Taste = 5:Absolutely delicious.Perfect for tap served Coca-Cola. Carbonation = 3:Sufficiently carbonated to support the lush taste, but we have tasted fizzier tap served cola drinks before.Maintained a respectable level within the first three minutes. Dilution = 5:Exactly the right amount.When the taste is as good as this drink was it is best to be strongly concentrated, and this was the case here.Was viscous enough to feel sticky on our teeth.Aftertaste = 5:The aftertaste was similar to the general taste, and was sufficiently strong to be noticeable for about a 5 to 10 second period after a gulp.Very addictive. Refreshment = 4:Pleasurable at quenching our thirst.Perhaps the strong concentration of the drink prevents it from reaching a 5. Longevity = 3:The carbonation did notably deteriorate over the 30 minutes, but did not reach full flatness owing to the reasonable starting level.Ice fully melted by 30 minutes but temperature remained stable. 3.3Subway Brand = Coca-Cola Price = 5 (1.42 per pint, served as a 0.4l drink costing 1) Service = 4: Guaranteed to be free from judgment for ordering coke as Subway does not serve alcoholic beverages.One member of staff took the order and payment while another handed us the cups, and both were polite.As the Coca-Cola is self-service, the offering of ice and/or lemon/lime cannot be considered here. Presentation = 2:Drink was served in a flimsy paper cup.While drinking straws were provided, the cup did not come with a plastic lid like those in other fast food outlets.The cup had the Subway logo on and made no reference to Coca-Cola.This has to be considered a drawback as outlets like McDonalds have both their own logo as well as the Coca-Cola logo on their cups.What stopped the presentation score from being a 1 is the fact that the Coca-Cola is self service, and hence we were able to guarantee the cup was filled to the perfect amount.A benefit of the self-service was that we had time to drink the bubbles that form on the surface of the drink immediately after the dispensation of the drink; these have a pleasurable texture and only last for about 3 seconds after the drink is poured, and therefore are inaccessible for a drink served by a member of staff at a bar. Extras = 3:As the ice was self-service, it also allowed us to guarantee the perfect amount, and hence the temperature was ideal.Furthermore, the size of the pieces of ice was very small which gave full coverage of the surface of the drink and allowed for easy eating.The ice could not have been any better.No lemon or lime was provided however, and for that reason the extras rating has to be limited to a 3. Taste = 3:The authors were tempted to give a 4 here as the pure taste was good, but it was decided the level of dilution was so high that it affected the taste by strongly neutralising it. Carbonation = 2:Not flat, but not too far from it. Aftertaste = 3:Due to the dilution, the aftertaste was also essentially neutral.However, the dilution did allow for a smooth finish which gave a pleasurable texture at the back of the throat.No real level of addiction. Refreshment = 3:The cold temperature and high dilution did help quench thirst fairly effectively, but it was not as enjoyable as it should have been because of the weakness of the taste. Longevity = 5:Due to the volume of ice used and the surface coverage due to its small size of the pieces, the ice held remarkably well over the 30 minutes assessment period showing almost no signs of melting.This allowed the temperature to remain perfectly cold during the 30 minutes.Additionally, the ice not melting also meant that the dilution of the Coca-Cola did not increase with time.The weak initial carbonation also held well enough during the assessment, not quite going flat.In relative terms, this is very good carbonation longevity. 3.4Sun Inn Brand = Undetermined.The handheld tap behind the bar was blue in colour, typical of a standard Pepsi tap.However, on the edge to the tap was a Coca-Cola logo (perhaps a sticker).The authors believe the taste of the drink to be more like Pepsi, but are not absolutely certain that the drink served to us was Pepsi and not Coca-Cola. Price = 3 (2.30 per pint) Service = 4: Very polite and efficient but non-personable.Ice was offered but lime was not (despite being given). Presentation = 2:One drink was served in a Bombardier ale glass, the other in an unmarked glass similar to Weatherspoons.The fact that one of the drinks was served in a reasonable glass cannot be used as part redemption for the Bombardier glass; the lack of consistency suggests the establishment does not have a specific policy on which glasses to use for coke.The volume was near perfect, perhaps a little too much, but only by a negligible amount.Lime was cleanly cut. Extras = 4:Reasonable serving of ice, but a little on the short side.Pieces of ice were large and dense.The fact that the ice pieces were not hollowed out was much appreciated.Not quite full surface coverage of ice.Lime provided that was freshly cut and of an agreeable size. Taste = 3:Tasted like a fairly average tap served Pepsi. Carbonation = 2:Quite flat to begin, needed to focus hard to really get a tangible sensation of fizzyness.Perilously flat after 10 minutes. Dilution = 5:The drink was optically nearly opaque, usually a good sign of high concentration.We felt that the drink was perhaps slightly too concentrated.The extremely high concentration level would have been ideal for a coke where the syrup taste was of the standard of the White Swan.If more ice was given, we feel that there would have been sufficient water released from melting that the dilution could have become perfect by the 30 minute mark, but this was not the case for the amount of ice provided.However, we do not feel the slightly too strong concentration negatively impacted the drink enough to reduce its score to a 4. Aftertaste = 3:When burping after drinking, the lingering aftertaste in the mouth was fairly agreeable.However, a bit too strong of a heavy texture was left at the back of the throat, likely owing to the strong concentration of the drink. Refreshment = 3:The decent taste and aftertaste made reducing thirst with the drink a nice experience.However, the strong concentration of the drink meant it was not an efficient method of quenching thirst. Longevity = 2:Flattened rapidly and was fully flat before the 30 minute mark.Ice fully melted by about 15 minutes for one of the drinks, and by about 25 minutes for the other.Temperature did not hold for either drink, though this was possibly in part due to the hot conditions on the day in the coke garden.The degrading carbonation and temperature had a particularly noticeable effect on the taste, aftertaste, and refreshment due to the strong concentration of syrup in the drink; warm, flat syrup is not pleasant, especially for the back of the throat.The uncertainly of the effects of the external heat on the temperature saved the drink from scoring a 1 for longevity. 3.5The Wansbeck Brand = Pepsi Price = 2 (2.75 per pint, served as a 0.33l drink costing 1.60) Service = 2:We detected slight scorn when ordering cokes, but the service was polite for the most part.We clearly asked for pints of coke but were served large cokes similar to our experience in the White Swan.Unlike the White Swan, however, there seemed to be no miscommunication about our order the request for pints was simply ignored with no comment to explain why (for example, some establishments only serve large cokes, this could have been the case here.Ice was not offered but was provided. Presentation = 3:The Pepsi was served in a Coca-Cola glass, which could lead to confusion for some drinkers.The volume of the Pepsi was far too low. Extras = 3:Amount of ice given was decent, only slightly too little.Pieces of ice were large in size and hollow, thought the temperature was sufficiently cool (presumably owing to the amount of ice rather than its shape).No lime or lemon was provided. Taste = 3:Fairly average tap served Pepsi taste. Carbonation = 3:Reasonably fizzy for tap served coke.Could detect fizzyness in all areas of the mouth. Dilution = 4:A bit too weak, but relatively strong.Hard to judge transparency fairly due to shape of the glass. Aftertaste = 3:More neutral than positive.Quite smooth on the back of the throat given the dilution. Refreshment = 3:Strong concentration again hindered its thirst quenching ability, but reasonable temperature, carbonation, and aftertaste made it a generally pleasant way to reduce thirst. Longevity = 3:Ice melted at an inconsistent rate in our two drinks, but the temperature held fine in one and nearly fine in the other.In one case the ice lasted until nearly the 30 minute mark.Drinks did not reach 100% flatness by 30 minutes, and hence the taste and refreshment did not determinate too drastically. 3.6The Riverside Brand = No indication given at the bar (there is usually a Coca-Cola or Pepsi logo).This observation, combined with the drinks highly distinct taste, leads the authors to believe that the drink served is neither Coca-Cola nor Pepsi, and is presumably some unbranded budget cola drink. Price = 3 (2.30 per pint) Service = 3:Bartender was polite and not scornful, but also came across as slightly tired or uninterested.Ice was not offered but was provided.There was (perhaps understandably) no mention of what brand of cola drink we were being served, in contrast to establishments like Weatherspoons.We noticed a 2 litre Coca-Cola bottle in the fridge behind the bar but were not offered the option of this instead of the tap served cola. Presentation = 4:An unbranded uniformly shaped glass that is longer and thinner than the type given at Weatherspoons and the Sun Inn.Glass was easy to hold, and its unique dimensions were appreciated.The volume of the 2 drinks ordered were inconsistent, one of them being sufficient while one was too low. Extras = 2:Inconsistent amount of ice given for the 2 drinks, both were too little, with one being clearly too little.Ice pieces were large and hollow, temperature was reasonable.No lemon or lime provided. Taste = 1:One of the foulest tasting tap served cola drinks both authors have ever tasted to the extent that one may have began to question whether it was a cola drink at all. Carbonation = 3:Hard to accurately detect above the general nasty taste, but was clearly and reasonably strongly there was when we focused on identifying it. Dilution = 4:If the taste of the drink was nicer the dilution level would have perfect owing to its strong concentration.However, in the context of the bad taste the concentration was too strong as it made the taste more poignant.Reasonably opaque.Aftertaste = 1:Overwhelming lingering taste of the general taste of the drink which was not good.Poor aftertaste was so strong it was impossible for the drink to have any addictive qualities.Mouth left feeling too sticky.Not as rough on the back of the throat as one may expect given the strong concentration and rank taste. Refreshment = 1:The taste was sufficiently upsetting that it killed thirst rather than quenching it.With a better taste quenching thirst would still be difficult given the concentration and texture of the drink.Longevity = 4:It was effectively impossible for the taste, aftertaste, and refreshment to get any worse.The melting of the ice allowed for improvement to the dilution.Ice was fully melted by 25 minutes but temperature remained stable for the 30 minute testing period.Drink was essentially flat after 30 minutes. 3.7The Office The Office does not serve coke from the tap, instead it serves cans of Coca-Cola.The drinker is offered a pint glass with ice to pour the contents of the can into.As detailed in this video -https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=304&v=wo-Z5BWE4FU-fizzy drinks from a can or bottle can flatten significantly when poured into a glass with ice.A drastic loss of carbonation will affect several of the categories that we are judging coke on in this report.In this regard, Coca-Cola which is drank directly from a can and Coca-Cola which is poured from a can into a glass can essentially be considered two separate drinks.We stress that in The Office it is the drinkers prerogative whether to drink their canned Coca-Cola from the can or the glass.In this report we rate The Office based upon its glass-served Coca-Cola as we feel this offers the fairest comparison to the other establishments.We each purchased 2 cans of Coca-Cola, the combined volume of which is much greater than a single pint.The scores given in each category will reflect the glass served Coca-Cola, however we will comment within the relevant sections about what the can-served Coca-Cola would have scored.Brand = Coca-Cola Price = 5 (1.72 per pint, served as a 0.33l drink costing 1) Service = 5:We asked for pints of coke.The bartender politely informed us that they only served cans of Coca-Cola, and explained to us why this was the case.Ice was offered.The bartender was very personable and enthusiastic, and even made the effort to carry our cans of coke from the bar to our table.Despite The Office being a real ale pub, there was no scorn for drinking Coca-Cola. Presentation = 2:Pint glasses given were inconsistent in both shape and appearance.One was an unmarked and its shape was uneven.The other was a Sharps Brewery Doombar glass which was uniform in shape.What prevented the presentation score from being a 1 was that as we were able to pour our own drinks into the glass we were able to fill it to the perfect volume.Extras = 3:Perfect amount of ice given.The ice was not very dense, but the pieces of ice were a reasonably good small size of cylindrical shape.The temperature was fairly cold, but it would have been better if it were slightly colder.There was no lime or lemon.The cans of Coca-Cola were not stored in a refrigerator.Not only did this contribute to the glass served drink being slightly too warm, it provided the major drawback to the can served Coca-Cola as this was far, far too warm. Taste = 4:Coca-Cola from the can is essentially the nicest tasting cola drink possible.However, the glass served drink does not score a 5 in this category as its complete flatness (see carbonation section) does significantly detract from the taste.Nevertheless, the taste of canned Coca-Cola is so nice that it can still get a comfortable 4 even when flat.The drink served from the can would get a rating of 5 for taste as the warm temperature does not greatly hinder the taste. Carbonation = 1:Completely flat within seconds of pouring into the glass.The flatting could be slightly delayed by sensible pouring technique and smoothing of the ice, but the warm temperature of the can makes it very difficult to obtain any substantial lag on the flattening.The canned drink would score a 5 for carbonation as it is perfectly fizzy. Dilution = 5:Coca-Cola from a can has a perfect concentration (i.e. very, very strong given its perfect taste), and therefore the glass served Coca-Cola also retains this perfect concentration level, even allowing for melting of the ice.Aftertaste = 4:Incredibly smooth, positively tasting, and highly addictive.What stopped the glass served drink from getting a rating of 5 was that its flatness meant that post gulp burps did not carry enough strength or penetration of the senses to give a full complement of aftertaste sensations in the mouth.Can served Coca-Cola would score a rating of 5 for aftertaste.Refreshment = 4:Very enjoyable way to reduce thirst, but the glass served Coca-Cola did not quite fully clench it due to its flatness and slight warmth.Despite its warmth, the can served Coca-Cola would score a rating of 5 for refreshment.Longevity = 4:Ice melted by around 20 to 25 minutes, and the temperature fell slightly as a result.However, all other factors held brilliantly during the 30 minute testing period (obviously the carbonation could not get any worse).The can served Coca-Cola would have score a rating of 5 for longevity as the temperature did not change at all, and the carbonation remained very strong for the 30 minute period. 3.8The Joiners Brand = Coca-Cola Price = 2 (2.45 per pint) Service = 4:Polite, no scorn, and efficient.Offered ice.Accepted a Scottish 5 note. Presentation = 3:Both drinks served in an unmarked and unevenly shaped glass.Slightly too little volume of drink. Extras = 3:Slightly too little ice.Shape of ice pieces was thin, fairly small, and square.Ice pieces had a fairly high density and were smooth.Temperature was pleasingly cold.No lime or lemon. Taste = 3:Not great for tap-served Coca-Cola but still better than an average tap-served Pepsi. Carbonation = 2:Detectable, especially when titling the head backwards, but not abrasive enough on the top of the mouth and back of the throat to warrant a rating of 3. Dilution = 4:The concentration was a bit too weak, but a still relatively opaque to look at. Aftertaste = 3:A slimy texture was left in the mouth for around 5 to 10 seconds after taking a gulp.The pure aftertaste was relatively neutral and the drink was slightly addictive.Smooth on the back of the throat. Refreshment = 4:While the taste could have been nicer, the slightly weak dilution and cold temperature made the drink an effective way to quench thirst, and a reasonably enjoyable way to quench thirst.Longevity = 4:A lot of ice still present after the 30 minute testing period.Temperature held remarkably well.No trace of carbonation after 30 minutes.The refreshment arguably improved as the drink became slightly more dilute while retaining reasonable temperature and carbonation. 3.9The Waterford Brand = Pepsi Price = 2 (2.50 per pint) Service = 3:Polite and mildly enthusiastic, though not particularly engaging.Did not offer ice. Presentation = 1:Both drinks served in a Carling glass.Lack of consistency in the filling volume of the glass between the two drinks, one of which fell several centremeters shorts of the acceptable threshold. Extras = 2:Probably only half of the ideal amount of ice was given.The pieces of ice were very large, cylindrical, and hollow.Despite the problems with the ice, the temperature of the drink was decent, likely as a result of the shape and thickness of the glass which was excellent.No lime or lemon provided. Taste = 4:Exceptional for tap-served Pepsi, nicer than many tap-served Coca-Colas. Carbonation = 2:Not flat, but not immediately apparent. Dilution = 4:Concentration was slightly too weak, but was still strong.We were unsure whether to award a rating or 4 or 5 in this category, but decided that the concentration was not strong enough in the aftertaste to warrant a 5. Aftertaste = 4:Very pleasant sensation at the back of the throat, good texture.Slight positive aftertaste, but the drink could have done with being a bit more concentrated to make this more noticeable.Also the aftertaste tasted a little too chemical at the top of the mouth (but generally fine on the tongue and the back of the throat).Slightly addictive. Refreshment = 4:Drink was cold and slightly diluted so refreshed fairly well.It was also nice in taste, and so was an enjoyable way to reasonably efficiently quench thirst.To get a rating of 5 in this category a little more carbonation and/or better taste would be needed. Longevity = 5:Temperature held brilliantly throughout the 30 minute testing period.Ice was still presented after 30 minutes despite the small amount given to begin with.Carbonation was still detectable after 30 minutes and only reduced slowly during the testing period.We ascribe these observations to the shape and thickness of the glass.The glass had a small exposed surface area, and its walls were relatively very thick.It has been previously observed that the type of glass used can heavily influence the taste and carbonation of cola drinks - http://gizmodo.com/does-a-20-glass-built-just-for-coke-actually-improve-t-1550705817. 3.10Shambles Brand = Undetermined, but from the taste and the lack of branding on the tap we feel it is unlikely to be Coca-Cola or Pepsi. Price = 3 (2.30 per pint) Service = 4:Efficient and courtesy with no scorn.Ice and lime were not offered despite being provided.No mention of what the brand of the cola drink we were given was. Presentation = 4:Both drinks were served in the same unmarked rounded pint glass.Ideal volume of drink was given.Piece of lime was neatly cut.A straw was provided which was a nice touch. Extras = 4:Ice and lime provided.The amount of ice was too little.The pieces of ice were fairly large, smooth, hollow, and a rounded square come cylindrical shape, with only partial surface coverage.Taste of lime apparent noticeable in drink. Taste = 2:Worse than a poor Pepsi, but not offensive to taste sensors like The Riversides unbranded cola drink. Carbonation = 2:Not flat, but only truly apparent when tipping the head back. Dilution = 4:Very good, we were considering giving a rating of 5 due to the poor taste making a slightly weaker concentration more favourable.Overall we felt the concentration was still a bit too weak for full marks. Aftertaste = 3:Poignant tingling at the back of the mouth and in the throat after a gulp which was very enjoyable.Despite the poor overall taste, the aftertaste itself was reasonably natural with a slight hint of chemical taste.Not addictive.Refreshment = 2:The drink was not dilute or well carbonated so did not quench thirst effectively, and the poor taste made reducing thirst as much of a chore as an enjoyment.The cold temperature was beneficial. Longevity = 5:The carbonation slowly and fairly linearly reduced during the 30 minute testing period, but was not flat at the end, which is impressive given the drinks low carbonation to begin with.Most of the ice remained after 30 minutes, the temperature held up brilliantly.The taste did not suffer as the ice partially melted, and the refreshment improved. 3.10The Black Bull Brand = Pepsi Price = 1 (3.10 per pint, served as a 0.33ml drink costing 1.80) Service = 3:Polite and offered ice.We requested pints and were instead served large drinks without any acknowledge or explanation of the fact that we were not given the pints we requested. Presentation = 5:Both drinks were served in a large Pepsi.The design of the glass was equisetic, with a very bright and colourful Pepsi logo on either side.The glass was filled to a nearly perfect volume.Extras = 3:Slightly too little ice, but a more than acceptable amount.The pieces of ice were large and cylindrical which did not allow for full surface coverage, but their smoothness was appreciated.The temperature was sufficiently cold.No lime or lemon was provided. Taste = 3:The pure taste was as nice as possible for tap-served Pepsi, however the drink was so heavily diluted that the lush Pepsi taste was comprised and was too weak to give a rating of higher than a 3. Carbonation = 2:When taking a gulp there was no trace of carbonation in the front of the mouth, just a very slippery texture.However, when swallowing the drink the carbonation became quite strongly apparent in the back of the throat.It felt as though the front and back of the mouth was being washed with two different drinks. Dilution = 2:Very weak concentration of syrup, and this resulted in a lubricated texture.The lack of viscosity made swirling the drink around the mouth (to enjoy the varying sensations) somewhat of a pointless endeavour, and there was no sticky feeling on the teeth.There were still sufficient traces of taste and carbonation from the syrup that we could not award a rating of 1 in this category. Aftertaste = 4:An improvement on the taste for several reasons.Firstly, carbonation was present in the back of the throat, and so this combined with the lingering taste of the Pepsi to provide a pleasant aftertaste for a few seconds after swallowing.Secondly, the smooth texture made swallowing an enjoyable sensation.Finally, despite its weak concentration, the delicious taste of the Pepsi syrup was enough to provide some addictiveness. Refreshment = 4:Cold, dilute, and tasty, the Pepsi was able to amiably quench thirst at a mild pace.Higher carbonation would have been needed for a rating of 5. Longevity = 2:Drink went flat after about 15-20 minutes.Ice heavily reduced by the end of the 30 minute tasting period, and this compounded the dilution issues.The aftertaste suffered as it strongly depended on carbonation.The temperature did hold well, as did the refreshment. 3.11The Tap and Spile Brand = Pepsi Price = 1 (3 per pint) Service = 4:Polite and attentive.Asked whether we wanted ice and lemon, and checked whether we wanted a full fat or diet drink.We considered dropping the score to a 3 as the bartender had to check a price list to find out how much to charge us, but given that the purchase of coke will be rare in a pub such as the Tap and Spile we decided to overlook this issue.Presentation = 2:Both drinks were filled too full and thus required extra caution when in transportation from the bar to the seats.One drink was served in a Dizzy Blonde glass while the other in a Sharp Doombar glass.What saved the score from being a 1 was the shapes of both of the glasses which were simple and cylindrical.Extras = 4:One of only two of the establishments evaluated in this report which provided lemon (as opposed to lime or nothing).The lemon pieces were somewhat roughly cut but of a good size.Far too little ice was provided.The ice pieces were cubic, of medium size and about an average density.Temperature was just about passable. Taste = 4:Very good, the best Pepsi we tasted in Morpeth.We were tempted to give a 5 here, but decided there is a significant enough difference between this and the White Swan (which is the only drink to score a 5 on taste) that we could not quite justify such a score. Carbonation = 3:When putting in your mouth and tipping your head back, the Tap and Spile coke mildly hits the sensors of every part of the mouth, giving a great balance to the effect of its carbonation.Still notably weaker than a can-served drink, this carbonation level is about as good as it gets from the tap.We noticed that the Pepsi came out of the tap at a very high water pressure and wonder whether the relatively high carbonation of the drink is related to this observation. Dilution = 5:Very strong, which is ideal given the lush taste of the drink.The drink would not be any better if the dilution was any weaker, while it would be difficult to get it much stronger within reason. Aftertaste = 5:Extremely addictive without any hint of chemical influence left in the mouth after a gulp.The drink has a smooth texture on the throat and at the top of the mouth despite the high concentration of syrup.The taste survives in the mouth for a relatively long time period after swallowing. Refreshment = 5:Despite the high syrup levels the drink manages to quench the thirst well, while those syrup levels aid in the quenching of the thirst being a pleasurable and tasteful process.The addictiveness of the drink makes you want more, but this is unrelated to thirst issues.The good carbonation only aids the high refreshment score. Longevity = 5:The temperature started off fairly poor and did not regress much further over the 30 minute tasting period.Despite its initial low volume, some of the ice survived the 30 minutes.Carbonation levels held extremely well given how strong they were to begin with.Taste, aftertaste, and refreshment well still extremely good throughout the tasting period. 3.12The Golf Club Brand = No brand displayed at the tap, but we strongly suspect an unbranded postmix is used. Price = 2 (2.60 per pint) Service = 5:Bartender very talkative, polite, and efficient.Asked whether we wanted ice and lemon, as well as confirmation that we did not want diet drinks. Presentation = 4:Both drinks were filled to a perfect volume in unmarked, curved glasses. Extras = 4:Slightly too little ice, which was of large cylindrical pieces and low density.Despite this the temperature of the drink was exceptionally cold.Lemon was cleanly cut with no dregs, and was of a good size. Taste = 2:It was immediately clear from the taste that the drink could not have been Coca-Cola of Pepsi, a fact that almost inevitably consigns the taste to being poor.Of the three unbranded cola drinks we tasted in this report, the Golf Clubs was probably the nicest. Carbonation = 2:Only just scrapped a two as the drink could be construed as flat to the untrained drinker.In order to seek out fizzyness, we needed to allow the drink to linger on the tip of our tongue, while a slight mild fizz can also be sensed when mentally focusing on the front of the throat (nothing at the back).No fizz at all in the resulting burps. Dilution = 3:The concentration is below average, but given the poor taste of the drink this is not necessarily too much of a bad point. Aftertaste = 3:Not addictive, but that is expected given the taste.Overall the aftertaste is neutral in pure taste, but does have a slight trace of chemicals (this is only slightly though, probably owing to the weak dilution).Despite the weak concentration, the drink is still a bit rough on the throat.Refreshment = 2:We considered giving a 3 here owing to the drinks coldness and dilution, but its poor taste and low carbonation made it hard to claim this drink really does anything to pleasurably quench thirst. Longevity = 4:We noticed inconsistency between the two drinks here; one clearly scored a 4 for longevity while the other clearly scored a 3.For the former, the ice held extremely well, the temperature held well (no small feat given how cold the drink was initially), and the carbonation was not too dissimilar from the start of the tasting period.For the latter drink the temperature dropped to what would be considered an average level after 30 minutes, but given the initial coldness of the drink this represented an above average drop.In this drink the carbonation held well (i.e. it was not quite flat at the end of the tasting period).In both drinks the dilution did not really suffer as the ice melted, the initial taste could not get much worse, and the aftertaste even improved slightly as the weak chemical taste disappeared.Overall we decided upon a 4 simply to give the benefit of the doubt in favour of the drink rather than against it. 4.Analysis and discussion 4.1Sensory analysisSensory analysis is a food and drink critiquing technique developed by cookery department at the King Edward VI School Morpeth that most readers will therefore be familiar with.Here we plot the data presented in section 3 in the form of sensory analysis graphs. Figure 4.1:Full data set of results of plotted in sensory analysis form. While figure 4.1 is somewhat difficult to fully comprehend due to the large amount of data on the plot, there are some trends that are immediately apparent.Firstly, no drink scores higher than a 3 on carbonation.This is an inherent characteristic of our scoring system which is intended to be general for cola-drinks served in any form, not just from a tap.It is essentially impossible for a tap-served drink to achieve the carbonation levels of a can or glass bottle, and therefore the drinks in this study which have scored a 3 have effectively scored full marks on carbonation for tap-served coke.Secondly, no drink scored full marks for extras.We find this observation difficult to comprehend as it is one of the easiest categories for an establishment to ensure their drink scores 5; it requires little effort from the bar staff or experience from the landlord in setting up the drink, only the provision of lemon/lime and the right amount of ice is needed.We recommend that all of Morpeths drinking establishments put in the little work needed to achieve full marks for extras by ensuring ice and lemon/lime are always provided, and that the bar staff are trained to serve the correct amount of ice to each drink.Thirdly, and similarly to the previous observation, only one establishment scored full marks on presentation.Again, this is a category which all the other establishments could easily improve upon.Pint glasses with the appropriate Coca-Cola or Pepsi logo that are essential for full marks here on are available from various 0 1 2 3 4 5 Price Service Presentation Extras Taste Carbonation Dilution Aftertaste Refreshment Longevity White Swan Tap and Spile The Office Weatherspoons Subways Joiners Shambles Sun Inn Waterford Golf Club Wansbeck Riverside distributors, and the initial cost in purchasing such equipment should be quickly offset by the increased return in custom from dedicated cola drinkers. 4.2Overall ScoreTo determine the overall best cola drink served in Morpeths drinking establishments, we sum up the scores of the ten ranking categories for each establishment.The results are plotted in figure 4.2.The highest possible score is 50, and the lowest 10. Figure 4.2:Summation of individual rankings category scores for each drinking establishment. As figure 4.2 shows, The White Swan has the highest overall score with a tally of 39.We therefore declare that the White Swan serves the best cola drink out of all of Morpeths drinking establishments.A large contribution to The White Swans winning tally came from ranking categories depend purely on the intrinsic properties of the drink, including full marks for taste, dilution, and aftertaste, as well as a 4 on refreshment.The White Swan also scored full marks on the extrinsic categories of service and presentation, demonstrating that White Swan Coca-Cola is an extremely well rounded drink of the highest standard. Finishing a single point below the White Swan in the overall rankings, an honourable mention must go to the Tap and Spile who achieved such a high placing despite serving Pepsi (which is a common handicap for taste and aftertaste).The Tap and Spile only dropped 3 points out of 30 in the six intrinsic categories, but was let down by a minimum score on price.While the quality of the drink ensures good value for money despite the high price, we feel that The Tap and Spile should consider lowering their price to 2.78 at most for a pint in order to gain an extra point on price and thus draw level with the White Swan in the overall score rankings. The Office came in at a very credible third place, but it is interesting to note that if we were ranking The Office on Coca-Cola drank from the can it is served in, rather than the optional 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 Overall Score glass used in this study, it would have been a clear winner in the overall rankings as it would likely score full marks on the six intrinsic categories.Given that it is the drinkers choice as to whether to drink from the can or the glass, many will consider The Office the rightful winner of the overall rankings.As The Office is the only Morpeth drinking establishment that we are aware of that offers canned cola drinks, we believe The Office has earned the right to make an unofficial claim for best overall cola-drink served in Morpeths drinking establishment when judged outside of this reports somewhat rigid testing parameters. Finally, a dishonourable mention must go to The Riverside for coming comfortably in last place with a score of only two thirds that of the winning tally of The White Swan.The Riverside scored abysmally in the intrinsic categories, presumably owing in a large part to the unbranded post-mix used to form their cola drink which was notably worse than other unbranded cola drinks served elsewhere.We urge The Riverside to take immediate action to rectify this issue by replacing their current cola drink with either Pepsi or Coca-Cola and to take more time when setting up their post-mix recipe (ratio of syrup to soda water, holding temperature, soda gun pressure etc).While the price of the current Riverside drink is unjustifiably high, we accept that a price increase would still likely accompany such an action, but believe that customers would be happier paying a high price for a higher quality drink. 4.3Taste, Aftertaste, and Brand Most cola drinkers would consider taste the most important individual category used to rank the drinks.We therefore plot the score for taste for each of the drinks in figure 4.3.Additionally, we plot the individual scores for the closely related aftertaste category in order to make a comment on the relationship between the two, as well as distinguishing the brand of the cola drink by the shape of each marker on the plot. Figure 4.3:Taste (blue) and aftertaste (red) of each individual drink.Square data points indicate the brand of the drink is Coca-Cola, circles Pepsi, and triangles unbranded. 1 2 3 4 5 Taste Aftertaste We can see from figure 4.2 The White Swan is the only drink to record full marks on taste, with The Tap and Spile, The Office, and The Waterford all scoring 4 out of 5.As we as being the overall best cola drink in Morpeth, The White Swan is also the best tasting Cola drink too.The Riverside is the only drink to score 1 on taste, making it both the worst overall and worst tasting drink. For 7 of the 12 drinks, the score on aftertaste is the same as that for taste.The fact that that over 40% of the drinks do not have the same taste and aftertaste score confirms that that these categories are significantly independent from one another to justify the inclusion of both when summing the overall score.However, it must be noted that the categories are still closely related, as can be seen from figure 4.2 where the two categories never differ by a score of more than 1 for an individual drink. Five of the drinks in this report were Coca-Cola, three were Pepsi, and three were unbranded.The three unbranded drinks were the three worst tasting drinks with a two scores of 2 and one of 1.The aftertaste of the unbranded drinks was, however, a significant improvement as two out of the three unbranded drinks scored a rating of 3, the same as half of the drinks tasted in this report.This suggests that having a non-branded cola drink is more detrimental to taste than it is to aftertaste.The Coca-Cola drinks scored an average of 3.6 on taste and 3.6 on aftertaste whereas the Pepsi drinks scored an average of 3.5 on taste and 3.5 on aftertaste.It should be noted that for all the Coca-Cola drinks each individual drinks taste score was the same as its aftertaste score, but this was not the case for Pepsi.It is possible that the relationship between taste and aftertaste is stronger in Coca-Cola than it is in Pepsi, though more data would need to be collected in order to make a more definitive comment.It is not surprising that Coca-Cola on average scores higher than Pepsi in taste, but it is somewhat surprising that the difference is so small.This demonstrates that the brand of the post-mix is not the sole factor in determining the taste of a cola drink, and that other variables can play a significant role when putting the recipe together.We would generally advise drinking establishments to serve Coca-Cola, but accept that a drink of a similar standard of taste can be obtained by using the cheaper Pepsi post-mix under the correct conditions.

5.Conclusion This report assed twelve cola drinks from Morpeths drinking establishments based upon a ten category evaluation system outlined in section 2.We found that The White Swan serves Morpeths best overall cola drink, as well as the best tasting one.Our assessment also determined that The Riverside serves the overall worst and worst tasting cola drink.We investigated the relationship between taste and aftertaste, as well as taste and brand of cola drink.Throughout the report we suggest various improvements that could be implemented for the evaluated drinks. We demonstrate in this report that there is significant variation in most aspects of tap served cola drinks within twelve drinking establishments of a single town.This indicates that cola drinks have a rich diversity akin to wine or real ales which are commonly tasted and ranked.Unlike these drinks, cola drinks do not have a foul taste, and we therefore suggest cola tasting and evaluating to be a more enjoyable experience than wine or beer tasting.We make four recommendations to that readers of this report may wish to consider: 1. Use our results to as a guide when deciding where to drink cola in Morpeth. 2. Visit the twelve Morpeth drinking establishments in this report and taste the cola drinks for yourself.For the beginner, this would be a useful exercise in understanding the significant and subtle differences that can be found in tap served cola in such a small geographical region.More experienced cola drinkers may wish to conduct their own evaluation of the drinks similar to this study to decide for themselves whether they agree with our results. 3.Perform a similar study to this report in a different town or city.Given the established geographical variance in cola drinks, as well as the variance shown within a single town, it would be interesting to see the differences in cola that may arise in other towns and cities.Performing and publishing such a study would also be of great benefit to the town or citys residents, as well as outsiders who visit the town, who may all wish to use the study as a guideline as to where would be best to drink cola in that location. 4.Perform a similar study for fizzy drinks outside of tap served cola.A simple extension may be to taste tap served lemonade in every drinking establishment within a town.Alternatively, one may wish to evaluate different can served cola drinks, or Coca-Cola served by the various methods (tap, glass bottle, 2 litre bottle etc).A more demanding but worthwhile study would be to rank various can served fizzy drinks (Coca-Cola, Dr Pepper, Irn Bru).This would be a far more subjective study requiring a significantly modified assessment criteria, but would prove an illuminating aide when considering what fizzy drink one may wish to consume under a specific set of circumstances.