# Pouring technique and bed shape



## MikeHag (Mar 13, 2011)

I've held several changing opinions on this subject as time has gone on and I've tried different things. I've tried the V Shaped bed method. I've advocated Rao's stirring method with a domed bed. Then switched to a centre pour. All seemed to gradually improve the quality and consistency of my brews.

But now I'm coming to the conclusion that as long as my pouring method is consistent with my grind, brew time, etc, it seems to make absolutely no difference whether there is a v-cone, a dome, or a lumpy mess left in the filter cone. Infact, most often my best brews are from a lumpy mess. There are no signs of under&over, no wild swings of TDS/ext% against my target (when the grind is correctly dialed in to the particular bag of beans I'm using), and no inconsistent flavour profiles. Lumpy mess pours ftw









(Opinions may change again later!!)


----------



## jimbow (Oct 13, 2011)

I think that is a great observation Mike. I have recently been experimenting with slightly different pouring techniques in the Chemex and Wave brewers and reached a similar conclusion. Different pouring techniques sometimes needed different grinds and so I realised the most important thing was to pick a technique that could be reproduced consistently brew after brew and then dial in the grinder for that technique.


----------



## MikeHag (Mar 13, 2011)

jimbow said:


> .....and then dial in the grinder for that technique.


Thanks jimbow - exactly the bit I find most essential

This is where I struggle with the concept of a "filter grind", or "chemex grind", or "cafetiere grind". I don't see that there is such a thing. If I'm making a large chemex I'll have to grind coarser than when I'm making a small chemex. It's dose-dependent, bean dependent and pouring-technique-dependent, so dialing in the grind is always required.


----------



## Earlepap (Jan 8, 2012)

What technique do you two currently favour?

I've had some decent results recently with a pretty simple method of blooming, then pouring all the water in by 2mins, giving the whole thing an aggressive swirl and letting it draw down. Ground to have the whole thing done in 4mins.


----------



## MikeHag (Mar 13, 2011)

Aah, well that raises a good point on a different aspect from bed shape. As you know, whilst pouring it's important to minimise temperature loss any way you can. A long, slow pour is better than a quick pour with a long drawdown because the kettle retains heat better than the brewer does. If you finish the pour at 2 mins, then have a 2 min drawdown then I'd try to cover the slurry somehow... for example if I find that the chemex is drawing down slowly then I use the lid from a Clever Dripper to retain slurry temperature.

As for where to pour, I'm still doing a pre-wet, but I'm often not content that the grinds have sufficiently hydrolyzed - especially if I continue to see bubbles appearing during the rest of the pour, indicating pockets of dry areas where air is trapped and eventually releasing. So I'm experimenting with using short bursts of faster pours to agitate the grinds a little and open up those pockets. I don't really mind too much where I'm aiming the pour... centre, circles, close to edges (but not too close for too long) - my aim is to make sure it is all fully wet. This contributes to the bed becoming lumpy, but does (I would argue) ensure better wetting of the grinds and more even extraction. And as long as I don't overdo the agitation then it doesn't seem to result in overshooting on TDS.


----------



## Earlepap (Jan 8, 2012)

I'd never thought of covering the top - I'll give it a go. Every now and then when I make a press pot, I take an enthusiastic first slurp forgetting that it retains temperature a shit ton better than the Chemex and burn my mouth.


----------



## MikeHag (Mar 13, 2011)

Amazing what a difference the lid makes. The fact that it immediately steams up just shows how much heat is trying to escape vertically. It really helps create a more balanced profile instead of peaks/hints of sharpness.

But only used if the pourover has turned into a semi-immersion due to incorrect grind


----------



## garydyke1 (Mar 9, 2011)

When finished the bed of my v60 is flat with a 3mm lip around the outside .


----------



## Outlaw333 (Dec 13, 2011)

That is very interesting about your takes on Chemex brewing in particular. I have also reached the conclusion with the bed thing and I too have observed that some of my best Chemex brews have resulted in lumpy beds, often I finish the drawdown watching most of the brew disappearing down a pit about 1/3 the surface area of the rest of the bed, however the resultant brew can be sublime!

My Chemex technique is actually two deep immersions, say I'm brewing 750ml, I will fairly quickly pour the first 450ml to intentionally bring the level up to 10/15mm from the rim, I pour quite quickly and in a small spiral for agitation(I think the quick pouring and spiral seem to create the balance needed so i'm neither over agitating by spiraling nor under agitating by pouring quickly) and I dont worry about heat loss at that stage to be honest, as Keith O'Sullivan observed in a study and reported on TTL the Chemex is extremely temperature stable and the only heat loss throughout the brew was 2 degrees at the very beginning when pouring water over cold grinds. I let about two thirds draw down and the second part I pour half of the remaining quite quickly again in a spiral and then I slow down to a speed which is an estimate in order to hit 750ml at the tide line, the second drawdown is always slower as the crust left up the side from the first part has been washed down onto the bed.

To me the Chemex is an immersion method and a hybrid of press and pourover(slightly more in favour of pourover than a CCD) The design of the Chemex over say the V60 is in it's smooth sides which create a seal with the paper, meaning you can fully fill the cone but the only place the brew can escape is through the bottom via the bed itself(except a small amount down the spout area, however the due to the double skin of paper on the spout side I actually witness very little escaping down there!) so while I struggled with the Chemex early on not to treat it like a V60, I soon went in favour of the immersion method as I find it far more controllable/repeatable and I just prefer the flavour profile.


----------



## garydyke1 (Mar 9, 2011)

garydyke1 said:


> When finished the bed of my v60 is flat with a 3mm lip around the outside .


I should explain now I have 5 mins.

- coffee gets bloomed with double its weight in water, start in centre work outwards in circles, medium pace pour, trying not to allow the water to overspill the 'tide'. (if the water easily overspills this 'tide' i know the grind is usually a little too fine)

- After 30-40 seconds and bloom has losts it sheen and is about to deflate, start a very slow pour in the centre, again working outwards in circles , 'riding the bloom', when I am about 3mm from the paper i stop, by this stage about 1/5th of the total water has been added.

- I then pulse 30-50g of water at a time, starting in centre and working outwards in tiny circles, never going over the 3mm at the edge and never rising the coffee bed over that lip. Another pulse occurs as soon as I can see the coffee start to appear from under the water.

-When I have nearly reached target water weight the pulses increase in frequency as the water drains quicker due to less solubles left in grinds

- With total water weight added I let all but the last few drips make it into the jug/decanter, so remove the v60.

-observing the final bed , it is almost completely flat, with the only feature being the 3mm x 3mm lip round the edge


----------



## MikeHag (Mar 13, 2011)

I haven't used the V60 for a while, Gary, and must admit that my 'lumpy mess bed' comment came primarily from my brews with different sized chemexes, kalita waves and woodnecks rather than a V60. I think the V60 does have brewing peculiarities stemming from it's larger hole (and the ridges Nick mentions), and it has been said for a long time that the pouring technique is more important with a V60 - and maybe that is indeed true, as well as the resulting bed shape. I used to find that my best V60 brews came from the same sort of bed shape that you end up with. Think I'll get my V60-01 out and have a bash for old times sake


----------



## garydyke1 (Mar 9, 2011)

Ive given up with the 01 for now, for some reason I end up with a better brew more often using the 02 with the 01 papers! perhaps more coffee and more water = better heat stability. Either way the 02 has given me some of the best filter coffee of my life but some of the time its 'meh not too bad'. v60 = the high-risk high-reward brewer! Im using 19-20g coffee & 333g water, in the 01 it was more like 14-15g coffee 250g water.

Having a ghetto-flow-restrictor in the homeloo has made a huge difference, I made this out of plastic hose trimmed down and wedged inside the base of spout with pliers, at full pour it takes twice as long to empty the kettle prior to installation


----------



## radish (Nov 20, 2011)

FYI: Another V60 video from Matt 'Stir it like a Bandit' Perger ->


----------



## JamesG (Mar 29, 2012)

Interesting that he taps it after the last pour. Has anyone else tried that?


----------



## ross007 (Aug 9, 2012)

Interesting video.


----------



## Earlepap (Jan 8, 2012)

I dug out the v60 recently after months of just using aeropress for single cup brews. First one I made was cracking, the rest have been over or under. I'll give the technique in that video a try. He must be doing something right to be brewers cup champ right?

Cheers for the link, I think that's a perfect brew guide video. Clear text, no annoying edits, all the info you need, you can even see the grind size. Can't say I like Frank Ocean, but that doesn't matter!


----------



## Outlaw333 (Dec 13, 2011)

After watching that video and thinking that everything seems all wrong with the method, it doesn't really make sense why it would be particularly good, ie 50ml/12g/30second bloom, raising the level way up allowing excess water to gush down the outside of the paper, spiraling right out to the edges, short extraction time etc etc anyway I decided to try it out to the letter to see what would happen, I went for the finest grind I have ever used for pourover in attempt to counter all the things that scream underextraction, total brew time ended up on the button 2.20/2.22 which i was pretty happy with. While I wasn't altogether surprised, the result was truly excellent! I say I wasn't surprised because it is obviously the method that works well for Matt Perger and also the fine grind I knew would balance to a degree the wierd mechanics of the extraction method but how all that would translate in the cup I didn't know but having tried it I can now endorse this as a method worth trying. I cannot say anything for its consistency though having tried it only once:good:


----------



## Earlepap (Jan 8, 2012)

Dude, are you drinking coffee this hour?!


----------



## Outlaw333 (Dec 13, 2011)

Glutton for punishment!


----------

