Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 alpha 4/15/85; site amdcad.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!bellcore!allegra!amdcad!mike
From: mike@amdcad.UUCP (Mike Parker)
Newsgroups: net.wines
Subject: Re: Storage of fine vintage soda
Message-ID: <1234@amdcad.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 3-May-85 16:07:49 EDT
Article-I.D.: amdcad.1234
Posted: Fri May  3 16:07:49 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 4-May-85 01:16:36 EDT
References: <419@sftri.UUCP> <10364@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Distribution: na
Organization: AMDCAD, Sunnyvale, CA
Lines: 24
Summary: old coke

In article <10364@brl-tgr.ARPA>, wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) writes:
> 
> What I have not understood about all this Coke-flavor-change brouhaha
> is why they didn't maintain the old flavor as a sideline. They now have 
> various forms and flavors of soda, some diet, some low-caffiene, etc.
> Why not have "Coke 1" and "Coke 2"? 
> 
> (Or, now that they've changed, why wouldn't Coca-Cola license the use of
> their old formula to bottlers catering to people preferring the "old Coke"?)
> 

This totally inapproprite to net.wines, so flame me. My mail is 
boring lately.

As I hear it the oke recipe change is not marketing driven, if you
think about it *is* kind of hard to see why they would do it. I'm
told that Cokes 99 year old recipe contains some now exotic "things"
thus making it expensive to produce. The recipe change is a cost
cutter.

Mike @ AMDCAD

Then again I could be totally off base