OK, results are in.
This was a water tasting exercise, with no coffee involved. Three women and three men assisted. I gave general instructions about scoring, allowing for some flexibility (see below).
The procedure was to use heated carbon filtered water from our office's water dispenser, boil it in a clean pitcher in the microwave, and pour it through each filter into a clean glass, using the dripper. These in turn were distributed among numerous small styrene cups (not ideal, but I selected these particular ones as sample cups for my coffee booth because they seem to introduce no off flavors). The cups were marked on the bottom. I also removed the filter from the dripper and placed it in the glass for about 90 seconds, in each case, to steep.
A control cup was poured across the surface of the empty dripper, into the glass, with no filter involved.
The pours were conducted quickly, so that the temperatures in each cup would be comparable as the subjects were sampling them. All subjects sampled the water and formed judgments within the first 5 minutes after receiving the cups. The water was, in my judgment, between 110 and 140 while being evaluated. Subjects were free to sample them in any order, as often as they wished. A couple of the subjects, informed in advance of the test, took pains to clear their palates from morning snacks and beverages.
| | HW | MW | HB | MB | control |
| Linda | ok | ok | ok | ok | ok |
| Nicki | ok | yes | ok | no! | yes |
| Nicole | no | yes | no | no | yes |
| Chuck | | | no | yes | |
| Jim | | | yes | | |
| Scott | 4 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 3 |
Nicki's exclamation point wasn't surprising, since she exhibited a visceral negative reaction to the
brown color the Melitta brown filter (aka: cardboard) suffused into the water.
One note: the brown Melittas I used are actually several years old. The paper may actually have degraded in a way that results in worse flavors, than had I used such filters fresh from the store. However, the white Melittas are at least two years old as well, and look how they fared.
Assigning points, let's go with 3 for yes, 2 for ok, 1 for blank, and a -1 for no (an arbitrary weirdness, but what the heck -- we have to defeat indifference somehow). And let's make emphatic nos a -2. I'll leave my numbers as they are. We can cancel out Linda entirely, I see. That yields:
| | HW | MW | HB | MB | control |
| Nicki | 2 | 3 | 2 | -2 | 3 |
| Nicole | -1 | 3 | -1 | -1 | 3 |
| Chuck | 1 | 1 | -1 | 3 | 1 |
| Jim | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 |
| Scott | 4 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 3 |
This yields:
| | HW | MW | HB | MB | control |
| Summary | 7 | 10 | 4 | 1 | 11 |
The Melitta whites nearly tied the winning control, with the Hario whites close behind, followed by the Hario brown and then the Melitta brown.
My own scores surprised me for a couple reasons: First, I scored pretty much according to my already-established judgment of all these filters (the inversion of the control and the HW was the only oddity). Secondly, my final lineup came after some furious secondary taste-offs between cup pairs, and I had to shrug a couple times as I settled on my preferences. To have nailed it just so, having thus shrugged, is interesting.
Score the results differently if my method seems odd, arbitrary or, perhaps, insane. Personally, I prefer the Hario Whites. However, the Melitta whites faired as well as the control -- which is really interesting. The browns both have two negative votes against 'em. As for Nicole's vote against the white Hario, I shall be dealing with her on that.
