Almost immediately, a Twitter discussion broke out about the propriety/intelligence of such a deal:

To be clear, I do not understand the Blue Bottle allure. I want good coffee, but I also want it fast. Blue Bottle’s stores use a drip-brewing process that is slow enough to make me long for a rush-hour Starbucks (SBUX) line.

That said, it is not completely out of character for tech-focused VCs to back non-tech startups. For example, Benchmark once invested in Chicago-based sandwich shop Potbelly (PBPB), which last year went public in a very successful IPO.  Moreover, a number of today’s e-commerce plays are really more about the commerce than the “e” — making their own consumer goods rather than just serving as a middle-man (think Warby Parker, Harry’s, etc.).

Moreover, venture capitalists constantly talk about how they’re investing in the entrepreneur more than in the product. In this case, that entrepreneur is an old business school buddy of a True Ventures partner, and also previously sold a pair of specialty retail chains: Fresh & Wild to Whole Foods (WFM) in 2004 and Nude Skincare to LVMH in 2011. In other words, the VCs have reason to believe in the guy (and most VC fund docs give firms leeway to do a couple ‘off strategy’ deals).

Blue Bottle is never going to be the type of company that produces a 100x return. And it may eventually succumb to an incumbent like Starbucks choosing to enter the high-end niche market (either organically or via acquisition).

But Blue Bottle could easily produce a decent multiple in the end, particularly given how the company’s wholesale business complements its retail stores. The kind of multiple that serves as a VC fund backstop, helping to establish a sturdy floor for future profits.

Yeah, I think it’s dumb. But only because of the long waits. Not because tech investors are ill-equipped to do the occasional brick-and-mortar deal.

Sign up for Dan Primack’s daily email newsletter on deals and deal-makers: GetTermSheet.com