Green Coffee Buying Club
Coffee Discussion boards => Hardware & Equipment => Topic started by: iluvpop15 on March 12, 2015, 01:11:09 PM
-
The title says it all, which is best and why? I enjoy both methods very much, there is no right answer but Im interested in hearing what you guys have to say.
-
Pourover.
Somebody lock the thread now. ;D
-
French Press. Easy brewing. No filter. You have all coffee oil in your mug.
-
I agree with John, except for one thing... He's the one who should lock the thread.
;D
-
Pourover most of the time, and preferentially for lighter roasts. Press for darker roasts.
French Press. Easy brewing. No filter. You have all coffee oil in your mug.
Swiss gold works great in a pourover. You get even fewer fines than with a press, but all the oil. I'm usually too lazy, though. Mine are boxed up somewhere...
-
Swiss gold works great in a pourover. You get even fewer fines than with a press, but all the oil. I'm usually too lazy, though. Mine are boxed up somewhere...
That's my current a.m. setup; a Freiling Gold #4, and a Clever Dripper.
-
I like the vac pot the best!
However if the boss (Patti) is gone I'll get out the 4 cup chemex and gold filter for a pourover. I prefer the pourover rather than a French pressfor the same reasons given by Peter and Buttwhiskers. I also believe the pourover brings out more brightness in the cup. The Sulawesi I offered a month or so back SHINES in a pourover!
-
Pourover most of the time, and preferentially for lighter roasts. Press for darker roasts.
French Press. Easy brewing. No filter. You have all coffee oil in your mug.
Swiss gold works great in a pourover. You get even fewer fines than with a press, but all the oil. I'm usually too lazy, though. Mine are boxed up somewhere...
If you don't mind, may you give more details (grinding size, water temperature, water/coffee ratio) how you prepare your pourover? Maybe with this information, I could be capable to brew delicious pourover.
-
My opinion is that in the art/science balance of coffee pourover is weighted heavily towards the art side.
As long as you have a reasonable grind/temp the rest becomes very difficult to explain on paper. A capable pouring kettle gives you a lot of control and you need to feel how you are pouring and learn from experimenting.
So I say start with a grind you think is right, off boil water, a capable pouring device and let the art part take hold.
-
Question, are the other methods allowing the same amount of oil to transfer to the results as a french press? Oil is lighter than the water and french press is the only method that promote the results to the top versus pressing or dripping out through the bottom.
Fat or oils can change the taste dramatically by blocking taste. Try having some olive oil or butter before wine for example.
-
My opinion is that in the art/science balance of coffee pourover is weighted heavily towards the art side.
As long as you have a reasonable grind/temp the rest becomes very difficult to explain on paper. A capable pouring kettle gives you a lot of control and you need to feel how you are pouring and learn from experimenting.
So I say start with a grind you think is right, off boil water, a capable pouring device and let the art part take hold.
I couldn't agree more. I used to get all ANALytical about brewing (and roasting for that matter), and have spent years trying to cultivate a more intuitive sensory-based approach. There are enough variables in play that when I get wrapped up trying to precisely control a few of them, I risk missing the forest for the trees. This is probably the most objective description of what I do:
Water: Filtered, mine is fairly soft and has rested for about a day after filtration. I'd estimate 80mg/L (ppm) hardness, based on back when I used to measure it. It works fine, so I don't futz with it.
Grind: Based on the roast level, finer for lighter, coarser for darker, burrs exclusively. Sometimes through the Jolly, sometimes through the Bunn commercial, depending on what else is going on.
Temperature: Electric kettle to boil, wet filter with a splash allowing that rinsate to dribble out, set cone on the insulated pot, add grounds, wet grounds about 15 seconds off the boil, allow to moisten up/bloom for 10 seconds or so. I gradually pour until cone is full (takes about a minute), then I reheat the water to a boil (takes maybe 10-15 seconds), cut power, refilling the cone and keeping 80% full until water used up. This process was established when I measured temperature, with a goal of a 198-203°F extraction environment, but what I do now without even really thinking about it is close enough.
Pour: Turbulence seems to be the key with a pourover, try side by side extractions with a constant pour vs. "all at once" and you'll see over double the extraction in a constant pour. I often use a spoon and do a little stir if I am lazy on the pour to effect the proper extraction.
Ratio: Typically ~80g in a #4 metal or #6 paper cone for a 1.7L ~56oz insulated pot. This is entirely estimated these days, but I bet if I weighed it would be well within 10% I have done it so much. This is below 'gold cup' standard, but usually makes the best (sweetest, that is) coffee IMO. [If I do a single cup pourover, the ratio is often much larger, typically 2.5-3g per ounce of water instead of about 1.5, since the extraction is rarely as efficient and is quicker]
Time: Averages 4 minutes, again, I roll with it.
I usually drink less than half of what is brewed before my next brew (dump the excess), but my process is fairly routine since there is often someone else sharing, in which case it will get used within 15 minutes or so. I have a large excess of coffee so I'm not going to be frugal about it. If I didn't wind up giving away 5#+ a week, I might be tempted to be more thrifty with my coffee, but tossing several half-pots a day is in the noise around here.
-
ButtWhiskers,
Great summary and details. I will try pourover by following your explanation.
Thanks
-
i have both and i don't really care :D i use the press at the office because I have to share my coffee. Pourover at home when I'm to lazy to fire up the lever machine.
-
Temperature: Electric kettle to boil, wet filter with a splash allowing that rinsate to dribble out, set cone on the insulated pot, add grounds, wet grounds about 15 seconds off the boil, allow to moisten up/bloom for 10 seconds or so. I gradually pour until cone is full (takes about a minute), then I reheat the water to a boil (takes maybe 10-15 seconds), cut power, refilling the cone and keeping 80% full until water used up. This process was established when I measured temperature, with a goal of a 198-203°F extraction environment, but what I do now without even really thinking about it is close enough.
Pour: Turbulence seems to be the key with a pourover, try side by side extractions with a constant pour vs. "all at once" and you'll see over double the extraction in a constant pour. I often use a spoon and do a little stir if I am lazy on the pour to effect the proper extraction.
Why do you let the coffee bloom for only 10 seconds? I have have heard that 20-30 seconds works best. What difference does a longer bloom have on the coffee? I always figured that by removing more of the CO2 from the beans it allows for a more full extraction, but that is only speculation.
-
Why do you let the coffee bloom for only 10 seconds? I have have heard that 20-30 seconds works best. What difference does a longer bloom have on the coffee? I always figured that by removing more of the CO2 from the beans it allows for a more full extraction, but that is only speculation.
I would agree - removing CO2 is the goal. My reasoning is that after about 10 seconds of moistening/blooming (following the actual addition of the water to do that, which takes a few seconds as well), the grounds tend to form their own little bubbles and dry pockets where there is insufficient moistening, and hence, less degassing. Getting the agitation going again seems to effect the desired outcome of degassing and moistening. This agitation is done with a spoon or a stirrer by some, prior to the pour, and if you try this after about 10 seconds you will see that the grounds are not always homogeneously wet. My goal is to get the grounds wet, hot, and liberating their essence without cooling back down - the CO2 is driven off by the heat, as well, so I try to use the water column to do this. We could debate and speculate on what is "ideal", but this is what works for me, and is the culmination of many years of pourover as my primary brewing method. Undoubtedly there are more skilled brewers of coffee with prestigious pedigree that would freak out on my barbaric practices, but my ritual is quite adequate to get the job done for me. ;)
-
Exactly what BY just said.
I've tried a zillion different pouring concepts. Sometimes I've got thermometers in the slurry, sometimes I'm pausing, ssometimes never not pouring.
You do this enough and you will develop a sense of things the scientists will never see.
-
The closest to perfect cup of coffee I've ever had was by cold water brewing.
Simple, relatively effortless, and little to no caffeine is extracted.
You REALLY get to taste the coffee.
:)
(Well ... someone had to hijack. :o)
-
The closest to perfect cup of coffee I've ever had was by cold water brewing.
Simple, relatively effortless, and little to no caffeine is extracted.
You REALLY get to taste the coffee.
You do get to taste the coffee (the pyrazine compounds that "taste like coffee"), but it's the tannins, not the caffeine, that get left behind in cold brewing. They tried to tout the Toddy as reducing the caffeine, but in HPLC analysis of a couple dozen different extractions by different labs compared to the same amount in hot water, the range was -30% to +20% by comparison - hardly "little or no caffeine"... And when compared to total dissolved solids, there was actually a greater ratio of caffeine to dissolved solids in the cold-brewed coffee. The solubility of caffeine is much lower in cold water than in boiling water, but it is still something like 2g (2000mg) per 100mL. 100mL of regular old coffee (about 3.4 fluid oz) typically only has about 75 milligrams of caffeine, so it isn't anywhere near the max solubility - cold or hot.
-
You do get to taste the coffee (the pyrazine compounds that "taste like coffee"), but it's the tannins, not the caffeine, that get left behind in cold brewing. They tried to tout the Toddy as reducing the caffeine, but in HPLC analysis of a couple dozen different extractions by different labs compared to the same amount in hot water, the range was -30% to +20% by comparison - hardly "little or no caffeine"... And when compared to total dissolved solids, there was actually a greater ratio of caffeine to dissolved solids in the cold-brewed coffee. The solubility of caffeine is much lower in cold water than in boiling water, but it is still something like 2g (2000mg) per 100mL. 100mL of regular old coffee (about 3.4 fluid oz) typically only has about 75 milligrams of caffeine, so it isn't anywhere near the max solubility - cold or hot.
I wouldn't even begin to counter that.
All I know is that the Kenya AA bean I had when extracted by a drip brew was no where near as sweet and the flavor was no where as near pronounced as the cold brew.
You can probably explain the chemistry behind that.
:)
-
BW wasn't contesting the flavor comment, but the low-caffeine comment. I make cold-brewed concentrate for iced coffee in the summertime, and that stuff will mess you up if you're not careful, like awake-for-2-days messed up.
-
I must have done it wrong.
My cold brew left me with a low caffeine headache and I gave up on it.
-
BW wasn't contesting the flavor comment, but the low-caffeine comment. I make cold-brewed concentrate for iced coffee in the summertime, and that stuff will mess you up if you're not careful, like awake-for-2-days messed up.
Agree. I make a cold brew concentrate for the wife, and it should have warning labels.
-
Are you guys sure?
My bloodstream tells me a different story....the opposite story.
-
Why do you let the coffee bloom for only 10 seconds? I have have heard that 20-30 seconds works best. What difference does a longer bloom have on the coffee? I always figured that by removing more of the CO2 from the beans it allows for a more full extraction, but that is only speculation.
I would agree - removing CO2 is the goal. My reasoning is that after about 10 seconds of moistening/blooming (following the actual addition of the water to do that, which takes a few seconds as well), the grounds tend to form their own little bubbles and dry pockets where there is insufficient moistening, and hence, less degassing. Getting the agitation going again seems to effect the desired outcome of degassing and moistening. This agitation is done with a spoon or a stirrer by some, prior to the pour, and if you try this after about 10 seconds you will see that the grounds are not always homogeneously wet. My goal is to get the grounds wet, hot, and liberating their essence without cooling back down - the CO2 is driven off by the heat, as well, so I try to use the water column to do this. We could debate and speculate on what is "ideal", but this is what works for me, and is the culmination of many years of pourover as my primary brewing method. Undoubtedly there are more skilled brewers of coffee with prestigious pedigree that would freak out on my barbaric practices, but my ritual is quite adequate to get the job done for me. ;)
What do you use to brew your coffee? It sounds like a Hario or something along those lines a 52 oz vessel, do you use 52 oz of water or fill the vessel up all the way? What is the "golden ratio"? Sorry for all these questions, I am incredibly new to fine coffee haha:)
-
What do you use to brew your coffee? It sounds like a Hario or something along those lines a 52 oz vessel, do you use 52 oz of water or fill the vessel up all the way? What is the "golden ratio"? Sorry for all these questions, I am incredibly new to fine coffee haha:)
I am a barbaric savage. I have an old school polycarbonate cone :o that fits right into a 56oz vacuum insulated pitcher (thermos-like container). I use an electric kettle that boils 1.7L of water. It is crude and not very elegant, but it makes damn good coffee. Every time I buy something to replace it (like Hario glassware), I soon find that stuff gathering dust as I go back to my tried-and-true device. I really like that cone as it has a round spout and also fits into an airpot. It has made thousands of pots of coffee.
The 'golden ratio', actually the "Gold Cup Standard" of the SCAA, is:
"between 3.25 and 4.25 ounces in weight (92 grams and 120 grams, respectively) of coffee per 64 fluid ounces of water (1.9 L), resulting in a coffee strength between 1.15% to 1.35% dissolved coffee flavoring material."
I'm fine with that concentration, myself, but a large percentage of 'the common folk' will sputter at that strength, and beg for dilution. ;)
-
The best ratio I have found for drip coffee is 11ml of water for every 1g of ground coffee. I also find 2ml/s to be the best flow rate. The time it takes to brew all the water (let's say 500ml) should be half the the volume of water in seconds. (so 500ml divided by 2 in seconds, 250 seconds) I bloom the coffee for 30-50 seconds by pouring in twice the weight of the coffee. (If there's 20g of coffee, then it would be 40ml of water) Hope you guys can try this out and let me know if you get as great results as I do :)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Much of the good stuff already said.
One aspect unmentioned - the french-press is a b*tch to clean up compared to pour-over. Those spirals on most FP pots tangle w/ the coffee granules and require a brush and TOO MUCH TIME to get free, then a de-oiling wash. I sincerely appreciate my several FPs, but it's a few tweaks short of a love affair.
Gotta disagree with the venerable BW on a few MINOR points.
IMO the FP will release more oils than the pour-over+swiss-gold. This is pretty apparent in the body/mouthfeel.
Yes swiss-gold type metal filters are a LOT better than paper, but they still create a filter-bed effect in the grounds that retains a lot of oils. So as much as hate the clean-up, something pretty wonderful happens when the granules "go commando" in hot free FP water.
If someone-else is doing the clean-up and doing a really good job - then definitely FP over pour-over. I never put these in the dish-washer, but ... maybe someone else can comment on that. Somewhere closer to Realityville (where we must face our own messes in the morning light by the kitchen sink) - FPs are a dirty greasy mess-about-to-happen, but can produce a really good cup w/ a modest effort. You get more, you pay more.
I'd need to crack out my coffee-sci lit, but I seriously doubt coffee has much true tannins - that is polyphenolic matte able to cross-link proteins. Simple phenolic compounds produce an amazing array of colors and flavors, some good & important, many awful. These tend to polymerize under oxidative conditions (like roasting or even aging), and the smaller poly-phenolic compounds *tend* to be perceived as bitter (in a bad, coarse way, unlike the good/sharp-bitter goodness of caffeine). As the size of the phenolics (molecular DP, degree of polymerization) increases to "tannoids" these lose any characteristic flavor, but fall into the modestly bad-bitter realm and begin to produce a tongue-drying effect usually called "astringent". Coffee seldom get to the astringent range, much less the tannin range, tho' I recall one monster-bean Mexican that was offensively "woody" (like adding a pinch of toasted hardwood sawdust to a pot) and was astringent, but that was exceptional. The solubility of these phenolic compounds drops dramatically w/ DP, but since we swirl up clouds of insolubles, particularly in a FP .... We probably get more from a FP. The solubility of polyphenolics is highly dependent on pH, which leads to the next topic.
===
The "water hardness" issue needs to be seriously addressed .. somewhere. The nostrums (like 80ppm hardness) are a crude start, but fail to address the basic issues. This is no thread for a treatise on water chemistry, but in broad strokes ....
Harness is defined as the concentration of multivalent metal ions in solution - *mostly* Calcium(Ca) & Magnesium(Mg).
In "natural" water sources there is commonly a prevalence of Ca(calcium) over Mg ions (maybe 3:1 or 4:1)
These metal ions can be associated with Carbonates (called temporary hardness) and also (most commonly Sulfates called) permanent hardness. There are other forms of permanent hardness, like chlorides or other metal salts, for example
Generally speaking, well water has high level of hardness, primarily temporary (carbonate) hardness. Surface water (lakes, rivers) have similar or lower levels, and rain-water is relatively free of ions. Local conditions can of course vary. Municipal water facilities "treat'" water for two issues - temporary hardness and sanitation.
The sanitation measures include addition of sodium hypochlorite (bleach) at ~2-3ppm Cl- ions which is expected to produce ~0.2 - 0.3ppm Cl- at the tap. *OR* (increasingly popular) the addition of "chloramines". These are chlorine/amino acid compounds that dissociate slowly and are intended to retain 0.2-0.4ppm of Cl- in solution. The chloramines are more effective at sanitation b/c they persist longer throughout the pipes, BUT they also generally persist at higher levels in tap water. Tap filter methods do not remove chloramines.
Since chloro-phenolic compounds have horrific flavor profiles, de-chlorinating water is a very good measure. The commercial methods of chlorinating water include the addition of sodium or potassium meta-bisulfite (available at any home-brew or wine-making shop) , OR the addition of ascorbic acid, OR the addition of peroxide (hydrogen peroxide available at any drugstore). Any anti-oxidant can do the job, but meta-bisulfites & peroxide are particularly quick-acting. Typical additions rates are 600mg of sodium metabisulfite / 1000 l (a hot-tub full) of water, but ~2.5 tsp (10ml) of the 3% hydrogen peroxide per 1000l works as well. I use UNchlorinated, too-hard well water at home, but I did and would suggest using hydrogen peroxide (3% HP in diluted by 1:100 (to 0.03%), store in fridge, added at 1ml[1/4 tsp] per liter or quart. Add to water and mix well. Don't be afraid to add 2tsp/57fl.oz of the very dilute peroxide. Any peroxide excess is likely to oxidize something else (perhaps coffee oils) - but would be overwhelmed by the relatively huge qty of oils. Metabisulfite excess will reduce rather than oxidize, but will increase the available SO2 level to noticeable levels only in massive excess.
The other FUNK wrt hardness is that not all hardness is alike, and it dramatically impacts acidity (which in turn impacts polyphenolic solubility). Temporary hardness is entirely due to carbonates, and these have a major impact on acidity & pH (two distinct concepts). Muni water supplies prefer to get TEMPORARY hardness <80ppm so they don't produce a scum-ring when the water is boiled. Folks operating commercial boilers have a similar problem with this carbonate scum & accretion.
Carbonates in solutions have 3 forms; carbonates (high pH, limited solubility), bi-carbonates (intermediate pH, very soluble), carbonic-acid (low pH=CO2-carbonation). Muni-water suppliers reduce *TEMPORARY* hardness by two methods, MOST add slaked lime, this increases the pH, and causes a lot of the carbonates to drop out of solution as chalk and these have limited solubility and so drop out of solution. Another method that is common in homes and rarer (but still used) in muni-supplies is a permutit filter. There is a resinous material that traps the Ca & Mg ions and replaces these with Na or K (sodium or potassium mono-ionic ions) and these also replace carbonics with (primarily) chloride (very soluble, NOT temporary).
So (again in broad strokes) the carbonate & bi-carb (TEMPORARY hardness) in your water (typically 80+% of hardness) acts as an acidic buffer, It prevents the natural acids in coffee beans from pushing the water toward lower pH, more acidity. The PERMANENT hardness in softened water or de-carbonated water does NOT do this. So its sorta-stupid to talk about hardness w/o taking about the TYPE of hardness.
Not dumping on BW at all. Normally most hardness is temporary (even in Muni supplies) so his <80ppm is at least reasonable but not IMO a correct or reasoned position.
---
For many years I have believed the UK penchant for adding citrus or lemon to tea was all about adding acid, reducing phenolic solubility (tea flavor is primarily abt phenolics, and tea can form a phenolic "scum"ring that is clearly defined) by reducing the pH of their typically temporary hard water. My suggestion is that reducing the water pH (adding acid to water) and removing the TEMP hardness by CO2 evolution before making tea.
I *suspect* the coffee suggestions to use modestly hard water is all about avoiding the problems of very hard, heavily buffered water (which overwhelm the coffee acids), and perhaps adding the benefit of the flavor active sodium ions (from permutit filtration) to the water which tends to accentuate sweetness [note all the early comments about adding salt(NaCl) to coffee].
-
I like to keep it simple:
I just love seeing that bloom in the BeeHive pourover. Might be my background in fine cooking and baking but I go after the beauty of the bloom and the aroma and ya know that makes it taste better too. I even go to the extreme of using my coffee scoop to make a nice big indention in the grounds to get more of the hot water to act as a pre infusion. I've had some really good french press coffee but the whole process is just to complicated for me anymore. I love my pour over!
Simple is best for me...