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