Anda di halaman 1dari 30

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 is
not 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 = (1.772.10), 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
3.1 Weatherspoons

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.

3.2 White 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.

3.3 Subway

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 selfservice, 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.

3.4 Sun 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 CocaCola.
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.

3.5 The 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.

3.6 The 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.

3.7 The 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 CocaCola 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.

3.8 The 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 tapserved 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.

3.9 The 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-20glass-built-just-for-coke-actually-improve-t-1550705817.

3.10 Shambles

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.

3.10 The 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.

3.11 The 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.

3.12 The 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


4.1 Sensory analysis
Sensory 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.
White Swan

Longevity
Refreshment

5
4
3
2
1
0

Tap and Spile

Price
Service

The Office
Weatherspoons

Presentation

Subways
Joiners
Shambles

Aftertaste

Extras

Sun Inn
Waterford

Dilution

Taste
Carbonation

Golf Club
Wansbeck
Riverside

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

distributors, and the initial cost in purchasing such equipment should be quickly offset by
the increased return in custom from dedicated cola drinkers.

4.2 Overall Score


To 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.

Overall Score
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20

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

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.

4.3 Taste, 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.
5
4
3
Taste
2

Aftertaste

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.

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 postmix 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.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai