1.Posted by Priya the Thursday 15 October 2015 at 07:59
We hear what you're saying about ctoenxt and citation. And, for example, copy editors can be the bane of any writer for slapping on a headline that takes an article's subject matter in a completely different direction.But at least among all of the coffee aficionados we know, the question of, Is Stumptown the new Starbucks? honestly never comes up. At all. Ever. None of them even take the question seriously. Among the coffee aficionados we regularly encounter, the question is as nonsensical as asking James Beard Foundation winners, Is the next ? In the past several months, we've received more than a few e-mails from roasters and other coffee professionals linking to the article and pointing out its perceived absurdity.Not that this is based in a defense of Stumptown per se. Most people have honestly forgotten how Starbucks modestly started with a much greater attention to quality detail before their obsession with scale completely commoditized the product quality and the brand. But objections to the comparison are rooted in bewilderment over how such an apples-to-oranges comparison can be made. We may lament gourmet burgers from the likes of Thomas Keller, , and as the most tiresome and unimaginative Great-Recession-era restaurant concept going today, but their sense of scale is an entirely different universe from McDonald's.In fact, the only people we've witnessed who legitimately ask the question Is Stumptown the next Starbucks? are coffee journalists on the outside looking in. So your subtlety argument is a red herring: one cannot suggest they are paraphrasing others, and disavow themselves of originating the quote, when those others could claim false words are being put into their mouths.