Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site lll-crg.ARpA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!ucdavis!lll-crg!sorkin From: sorkin@lll-crg.ARpA (Art Sorkin) Newsgroups: net.misc.coke Subject: Classic Coke vs. The Real Thing Message-ID: <892@lll-crg.ARpA> Date: Fri, 4-Oct-85 13:38:03 EDT Article-I.D.: lll-crg.892 Posted: Fri Oct 4 13:38:03 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 5-Oct-85 14:51:46 EDT Organization: Lawrence Livermore Labs, CRG, Livermore Ca Lines: 22 I just returned from Europe and brought with me a can of Coke which was canned in Gent, Belgium and which said that it was made with sugar (actually sucre), not fructose. I did a small taste test comparing that can with a can of Coke Classic. The tastes of the two Cokes were very similar, but the Belgian Coke had a little more "bite" than the Classic Coke. That was very slight. There was a marked difference in one respect however. The Belgian Coke had an intense Coke aroma if you put you nose near it. The Classic Coke had little aroma by comparision. It appeared that the Classic Coke foamed up more than the Belgian Coke, but I'm not sure that difference is real. I tasted them cold; it is possible that the taste difference would be more pronounced if they had been warm, but, again, I can't say for sure. All in all, you would have a hard time telling the difference by taste alone without having the other there for comparison. Art Sorkin sorkin@lll-crg.ARPA