Reviewed the thread.
Oils and body are more pronounced.
I have to disagree with this. But not by way of contradiction, per se.
The problem with "body" as commonly understood, is that it's more difficult to judge when fines are present in the cup. The fines
themselves are so predominant in the mouthfeel that body qua body is easily lost in the judgment.
I'll illustrate by appealing to the reader's intuition: take three coffees that cup with greatly differing evaluations of body. I guarantee that if you took the lightest body of them and brewed it in this device, and compared it with the heaviest bodied of the bunch brewed through paper, the former would be assessed by many as having more body.
But is that true? Why should one not simply judge that it has more
fines, which masquerade as
body?
Is body a quality of how we brew? If so, then what business have we rating coffees
as coffees for body, if that quality is so radically subject to variations in how it's brewed? Worse -- how it's
ground, if we're talking about standard cupping and not paper brews.
I'm just really skeptical of referring to this variation as one of
body. In some sense ("well what
else should we call it, Scott?"), I can understand that nomenclature. But if we're willing to call a fluid's turbidity "body," we've lost the value of univocity that body might have.
Heck, can we just say it's "more turgid?" (edit: Argh, I meant
turbid) That has the benefit of being obviously true with such brews, and it doesn't interfere with what this guy, at least, thinks of as a narrower -- and more valuable -- understanding of what we mean by body.
Now, it could be noted that a brew method that is 'cleaner' will allow a clean coffee to present itself as such, as opposed to a less clean brew method that allows more particulates though and the coffee presents itself less 'clean' than it really is.
I think this is another way of pointing in the direction of what I'm trying to say.
Why not?
Hmm. The permeability's variation depending on how the bed is sustained in a stable form or disturbed by the pour, is one of my concerns. The analog of an aquifer is apropos of the 3D character of filtration in such brewing methods.
The KONE cup is much more dependent upon pour than paper.
Frighteningly so, I'd say.
Today I tried a pour in a Clever after screening the fines out of the grind as thoroughly as practical.
Still more turgid (edit: Argh! Turbid!) than a 5 micron polyester Aeropressing, with mouthfeel clearly influenced by the presence of fines. Not a lot of silt in the bottom of the cup.
If I found this "particulate body" somewhat offensive, though, it might be because today I also enjoyed some good paper pours with screened grind, resulting in a noticeably different extraction than I'm accustomed to. I have a pretty dull palate, so when I notice a difference I consider it significant. It was quite good. Weirdly, I'd say it lacked the complexity that over-extracted fines lend to a cup, permitting me to enjoy the proper complexity of a properly consistent extraction.
Heh. Ok, if some wish to refer to suspended fines (turbidity) as "body," then I get to refer to the contribution of over-extracted fines to the cup as enhanced "complexity."
