# Paper filters for espresso brewing



## Colio07 (Mar 9, 2015)

Some of you may have seen this already (or indeed may be doing this already), but Scott RaoÂ's latest Instagram post is about him experimenting with using paper filters above and below the puck when brewing espresso. He says it enables him to grind finer and increase extraction yields while significantly decreasing channeling. Apparently itÂ's something Andy Schechter started doing years ago...

Using this method with his normal 1:3 ratio with light roast beans on a Decent Espresso machine & Baratza FortÃ© grinder gets Rao regularly to around 24%-25% extraction yield, which he expects could be optimised to around 26% with darker roast, aged beans.

He is using a pre-wetted 55mm, 10 micron paper filter (sometimes 20 microns... Whatman 1 or 4 paper filters, apparently) below the puck and a dry Aeropress filter on top of the puck. Both filters are available on Amazon. IÂ've already got Aeropress filters, and IÂ've ordered some Whatman paper filters tonight (due to arrive on Friday). I will try this method as soon as they arrive, and will report back.

In the meantime, does anyone else have any experience with this method and feedback to share on the results?


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

It was Sang Ho Park that I first heard of doing this with an Aeropress filter under the puck, as a get around to lifting extraction on very recently roasted coffee. I don't like my espresso too silty/chewy so I had also tried it.

It's easy to do.

I wouldn't assume you'll hit the same extractions (as an average) as Scott Rao, just by adding the filter papers though.


----------



## Colio07 (Mar 9, 2015)

MWJB said:


> It was Sang Ho Park that I first heard of doing this with an Aeropress filter under the puck, as a get around to lifting extraction on very recently roasted coffee. I don't like my espresso too silty/chewy so I had also tried it.
> 
> It's easy to do.
> 
> I wouldn't assume you'll hit the same extractions (as an average) as Scott Rao, just by adding the filter papers though.


Thanks. It's worth a try, anyway.

On extraction yields - as with seemingly everything in coffee, really - I realise it's about progression / incremental improvement, so I don't expect the filters to be a panacea.

Sounds as though you haven't carried on with this. Why not? Too much of a faff for too little improvement in taste?


----------



## Mrboots2u (May 10, 2013)

Sooo 2016









Yeah Andy Schecter was doing this too, I gave it a go with aeropress filters ( one and two, above and below ) along with a couple of other people.

Using an EK i didn't find the resulting drink was more preferable , it lacked something , mouthfeel, clarity couldnt put my finger on it.

Try it though, it amazing how things come round and people re invent ideas , go to one minute for filters


----------



## ashcroc (Oct 28, 2016)

Mrboots2u said:


> Sooo 2016
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It may be something worth trying if you can't get a bean to behave any other way.


----------



## Mrboots2u (May 10, 2013)

ashcroc said:


> It may be something worth trying if you can't get a bean to behave any other way.


Not sure what "behave" means in this situation.


----------



## Mrboots2u (May 10, 2013)

With the EK I can to the conclusion that I think the paper filer stopped some micro channeling , that could be especially prevalent using the earlier EKs

By this I mean that fines blocking the whole on the basket . Could just be pocket science and nonsense .

@coolio07 presume you are using vst baskets already ?


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

Colio07 said:


> Thanks. It's worth a try, anyway.
> 
> On extraction yields - as with seemingly everything in coffee, really - I realise it's about progression / incremental improvement, so I don't expect the filters to be a panacea.
> 
> Sounds as though you haven't carried on with this. Why not? Too much of a faff for too little improvement in taste?


25% vs 19% (a reasonable average for typical espresso) is massive, rather than an increment. But 25% might be around the ceiling for soluble coffees with very fine grinds & paper filters. The average extraction is likely a couple of % lower than this with a bigger range of coffees, maybe as low as 21% for less soluble? This is the thing with EY 'top trumps', figures are based on tiny samples with coffees that play ball.

I haven't much carried on with it mainly because I mostly make singles and it's too faffy unless you have a flat bottomed basket.


----------



## Colio07 (Mar 9, 2015)

Mrboots2u said:


> With the EK I can to the conclusion that I think the paper filer stopped some micro channeling , that could be especially prevalent using the earlier EKs
> 
> By this I mean that fines blocking the whole on the basket . Could just be pocket science and nonsense .
> 
> @coolio07 presume you are using vst baskets already ?


Thanks. Yes, I'm using VST baskets. I've also got an EK that I'm using for filter coffee. Might try it again for espresso with the paper filters method, just to contrast/compare vs the Titus.


----------



## Colio07 (Mar 9, 2015)

MWJB said:


> 25% vs 19% (a reasonable average for typical espresso) is massive, rather than an increment. But 25% might be around the ceiling for soluble coffees with very fine grinds & paper filters. The average extraction is likely a couple of % lower than this with a bigger range of coffees, maybe as low as 21% for less soluble? This is the thing with EY 'top trumps', figures are based on tiny samples with coffees that play ball.
> 
> I haven't much carried on with it mainly because I mostly make singles and it's too faffy unless you have a flat bottomed basket.


I agree with you on EY 'top trumps'. In my view it's about improving the flavours one gets from the beans, and clearly the EYs for different beans will be, well, different!

I don't really care whether I can reach a particular absolute figure - it's not meaningful to cross-compare across experiments. But I do think achieving incremental increases in yield for a particular lot of beans using a number of 'levers' (including, possibly, paper filters) is useful in trying to find the 'sweet spot' of flavour.

Looking forward to receiving the filters tomorrow so I can try it out.


----------



## jlarkin (Apr 26, 2015)

Interested to hear how you get on with this. I read some of this yesterday on instagram and had seen it come up before. I think the suggestion was that the paper on top might help prevent channeling?


----------



## Colio07 (Mar 9, 2015)

jlarkin said:


> Interested to hear how you get on with this. I read some of this yesterday on instagram and had seen it come up before. I think the suggestion was that the paper on top might help prevent channeling?


Yes, that's right. Sounds reasonable in principle. That said, I'm not sure how necessary this would be if you've already got adequate measures in place to mitigate this - e.g. good grinder, good puck prep, low pressure pre-infusion, etc. But I suppose it's always helpful to have additional safeguards in place in case something goes wrong in the process!

Anyway, I'll let you know how I get on. I'll be looking at yields, but the primary tests are a noticeable improvement in taste and/or consistency.


----------



## Mrboots2u (May 10, 2013)

Colio07 said:


> Yes, that's right. Sounds reasonable in principle. That said, I'm not sure how necessary this would be if you've already got adequate measures in place to mitigate this - e.g. good grinder, good puck prep, low pressure pre-infusion, etc. But I suppose it's always helpful to have additional safeguards in place in case something goes wrong in the process!
> 
> Anyway, I'll let you know how I get on. I'll be looking at yields, but the primary tests are a noticeable improvement in taste and/or consistency.


EK is classed as a good grinder, but its not unimodal , no grinder is.

When you go really fine with it , my suspicion was that you get really small bits causing micro channeling. Really fine on an E is finer and different to really fine on most other grinders. Low pressure can help as can puck prep.

Alot depends on the coffee your using too, how developed , origin , how it shatters etc etc etc


----------



## Rhys (Dec 21, 2014)

Just looking through YouTube as I know there's a vid of someone using AeroPress filters when making espresso, and found a vid I did..

[video=youtube;0xY-MCqY8_M]






Was trying to make a pourover style shot using a couple of Aeropress filters and line pressure only. Don't think it turned out too bad.


----------



## Colio07 (Mar 9, 2015)

Rhys said:


> Just looking through YouTube as I know there's a vid of someone using AeroPress filters when making espresso, and found a vid I did..
> 
> [video=youtube;0xY-MCqY8_M]


Nice. Looks good!


----------



## Colio07 (Mar 9, 2015)

I've had a few days of experimenting with paper filters when making espresso. Still early days with relatively small sample sizes, but here are my initial observations...

First, the conditions. I've been experimenting with 3 different beans: Coffee Collective's La Esperanza, Square Mile's Red Brick and HasBean's El Yalcon decaf. They're fairly similar (single- or part-origin Colombian; broadly similar roast profile), and all about the same age (roasted c. 2 weeks ago). I've been keeping my recipe pretty similar across each to try to maintain consistency - though obviously this is not by any stretch exact - dosing finely ground 18.4/18.5g coffee to achieve c. 38g-39g of espresso. All coffee ground in a Titus grinder and brewed with a Londinium I machine and VST 18g ridgeless baskets. London tap water filtered through a BWT Mg+ filter. I've been using pre-wetted 55mm CamLab paper filters (Whatman 1 equivalent; 5-13 microns) below the puck, and dry, cut-down Aeropress filters on top of the puck. Naked portafilter to check evenness of extraction.

Anyway, I have found that using paper filters on the bottom and top has increased extraction yield by an average of c. 1% for each bean compared with not using filters.

As Rao found, I have to grind a little finer when I'm using the filters. The CamLab filters are pretty thick, and don't seem particularly high quality in terms of fineness or consistency - maybe the Whatman filters are better - but by and large they seem to stop fines from clogging the basket holes.

I haven't noticed materially less channeling, but I'm pretty meticulous in my puck prep so I don't normally get much channeling anyway. Less crema - the filters seem to soak up some of the oils.

So the method is generally achieving what it's claimed to. What I can't decide, however, is whether the increased extraction yield (EY) is particularly noticeable in taste. My "control" (without filters) EYs for these beans are around 20%-21%, so bumping absolute EY up by 1% equates to around a 5% increase in extraction versus the control.

I think I should be able to taste the difference, but to be honest I'm not sure I can. My wife says she can't.

I'll keep experimenting. It could be that different beans benefit more from using filters than others. But if I continue not to be able to really taste the difference, I won't persist.


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

Colio07 said:


> I've had a few days of experimenting with paper filters when making espresso. Still early days with relatively small sample sizes, but here are my initial observations...
> 
> First, the conditions. I've been experimenting with 3 different beans: Coffee Collective's La Esperanza, Square Mile's Red Brick and HasBean's El Yalcon decaf. They're fairly similar (single- or part-origin Colombian; broadly similar roast profile), and all about the same age (roasted c. 2 weeks ago). I've been keeping my recipe pretty similar across each to try to maintain consistency - though obviously this is not by any stretch exact - dosing finely ground 18.4/18.5g coffee to achieve c. 38g-39g of espresso. All coffee ground in a Titus grinder and brewed with a Londinium I machine and VST 18g ridgeless baskets. London tap water filtered through a BWT Mg+ filter. I've been using pre-wetted 55mm CamLab paper filters (Whatman 1 equivalent; 5-13 microns) below the puck, and dry, cut-down Aeropress filters on top of the puck. Naked portafilter to check evenness of extraction.
> 
> ...


I'm not sure that a 1% increase in EY over 3 different beans qualifies as a significant rise in extraction. What's the extent of the overlap?


----------



## foundrycoffeeroasters.com (Jun 19, 2014)

Interesting thread. I've all but given up on EK espresso these days. Don't get me wrong, I've had some amazing results but I've also found it almost impossible to get consistent results too. It seems to me that this is mostly about flow restriction (and I can see that the paper filters may just help slow down the water).


----------



## Colio07 (Mar 9, 2015)

MWJB said:


> I'm not sure that a 1% increase in EY over 3 different beans qualifies as a significant rise in extraction. What's the extent of the overlap?


Yes, sorry. Was using 'significant' to suggest that using filters seemed to consistently lead to higher extraction yields than not using them, not to mean 'a lot'. But I can see that wasn't particularly clear!

The groupings are pretty tight, ranging between +0.7% - +1.9%. NB: I didn't count brews where the espresso ran too fast or too slow. This was usually when dialling in, but a couple of times it ran too slow seemingly for no reason - in those cases I put it down to a shoddy CamLab filter, but I can't be sure.

As to the extent of the rise, Rao said Andy Shechter was reporting a 1.5% EY increase (with no details regarding the conditions under which he achieved this). With all the usual caveats about cross-comparability, I know I have not on average reached that sort of increase, but I'm not too far off so I haven't been overly concerned that I'm missing something.


----------



## Colio07 (Mar 9, 2015)

foundrycoffeeroasters.com said:


> Interesting thread. I've all but given up on EK espresso these days. Don't get me wrong, I've had some amazing results but I've also found it almost impossible to get consistent results too. It seems to me that this is mostly about flow restriction (and I can see that the paper filters may just help slow down the water).


I've reached the same thinking regarding EK43s for espresso. I have an EK43 but only use it for filter brewing. I use a Titus grinder for espresso, with my Londinium, and I'm very happy with the consistency and taste in the cup.

As to your sense that using filters is mostly about flow restriction, I am inclined to agree. Just not sure about whether (for me) it leads to noticeably better taste! But I'm going to stick with it for a little longer to see...


----------



## foundrycoffeeroasters.com (Jun 19, 2014)

Experimentation is always a good thing I think. Again, just my opinion but higher EY doesn't necessarily correlate with better taste at all - in any brew method. Good grinders just allow us to get to higher EY without undesirable flavours spoiling everything. I wonder if the papers allow for more consistent extractions?


----------



## fluffles (Sep 4, 2012)

Colio07 said:


> I've reached the same thinking regarding EK43s for espresso. I have an EK43 but only use it for filter brewing. I use a Titus grinder for espresso, with my Londinium, and I'm very happy with the consistency and taste in the cup.
> 
> As to your sense that using filters is mostly about flow restriction, I am inclined to agree. Just not sure about whether (for me) it leads to noticeably better taste! But I'm going to stick with it for a little longer to see...


Didn't get on too well with L1/EK combo either, but with Sage DB no such problems


----------



## bwhat (Aug 9, 2019)

I've been doing this for several years now, with the same Whatman filters (grade 4, 55mm), and a generic coffee filter cut to size on top to keep fines out of the shower.

Purpose was different though - it was to intentionally reduce the oils - avoiding cholesterol and joint pain issues. It's not the same mouthfeel as unfiltered, but still better than none.

Nice to find others doing this.


----------



## Step21 (Oct 2, 2014)

Just been experimenting with this using a cut out 48mm chemex paper underneath and a 54mm on top in the flat bottomed basket in the Cafelat Robot. It really cleans up the mouthfeel considerably, which is my preference.


----------



## TomHughes (Dec 16, 2019)

Resurrecting this thread as Ive been trying this method in an effort to improve the taste of my espresso whilst my new grinder beds in (I hope things will improve)

The grind from the new mignon visibly contains significant fines, potentially as the burrs bed in?

This *I believe* has resulted in migration and clogging of the PF. 
I came to this conclusion because the grind seemed far coarser for the same bean than on my other grinder (64mm flat, well bedded in).

So I tried it! Cut Aeropress filter paper under the basket. The pour was faster, so grind made finer (I believe this is part of reason behind the increased EY).

But the taste is impressively good! Significant reduction in sour notes, just the right amount of crema and mouthfeel. More intensity in the cup, particularly through milk.

I'm sure someone will be along in a minute to tell me I'm a moron, but for now this has worked a treat and added a tiny amount of faff.


----------



## Martin R (May 2, 2020)

Jumping in late in the day as I'm sure you guys know the recommended extraction range for all coffees is between 18-22%, by adding filter papers anywhere in an espresso shot is going to change significantly the taste profile and the chemistry of the shot.

Paper filters trap oils and remove significant coffee solids that no metal filter screen can do, just as water being the main part if any brewed coffee can have a dramatic impact upon extraction and taste reliant upon the water chemistry, water degree of hardness also affects filter paper pore size and therefore extraction contact time and chemistry.

Adjusting any of the more common parameters I.e grind size / brewing temp / water chemistry or at least k owing your water is good for brewing will have far more impact on taste flavour profile and be more consistent than placing filter papers in a porta filter.

I'm happy with anyone playing with their brewing process but why make an espresso shot with paper if you like filter coffee then brew that, if your espresso is not to your liking it's either your recipe machine set up or just the wrong coffee any of which can be corrected .


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

Martin R said:


> Jumping in late in the day as I'm sure you guys know the recommended extraction range for all coffees is between 18-22%, by adding filter papers anywhere in an espresso shot is going to change significantly the taste profile and the chemistry of the shot.
> 
> Paper filters trap oils and remove significant coffee solids that no metal filter screen can do, just as water being the main part if any brewed coffee can have a dramatic impact upon extraction and taste reliant upon the water chemistry, water degree of hardness also affects filter paper pore size and therefore extraction contact time and chemistry.
> 
> ...


 18-22% isn't a strict rule, it's just where most coffees achieve flavour balance, you still get coffees that taste great a little lower, or higher than that range.

Even if you're happy with your paperless extractions, there's no reason to eschew using paper if you want to try it.

Espresso is made up of a significant amount of non-dissolved solids, if you'd rather have less of them, even at a comparable extraction, why not? You might also be concerned about cholesterol & want to limit it with paper filters.

Sure all the factors you mention have an effect on taste, paper filtering is just another one.

Water affects taste but not measurable extraction.


----------



## Martin R (May 2, 2020)

MWJB said:


> 18-22% isn't a strict rule, it's just where most coffees achieve flavour balance, you still get coffees that taste great a little lower, or higher than that range.
> 
> Even if you're happy with your paperless extractions, there's no reason to eschew using paper if you want to try it.
> 
> ...


 I think it's great that we play and employ many varied brewing extraction principles, I'm not suggesting anyone should not experiment, but my opinion was if you were unhappy with your extraction or you wish to push extraction beyond th range recommended to achieve Gold Cup then other factors are easier to adjust play with. If your desire is to limit like and solids then yes any paper filtration will do this.

The whole subject is very subjective with the exception of actual measurement of extraction and tds with appropriate tools, only full chemical analysis will reveal which components have been restricted or boosted by introducing filter papers to an espresso brewing method.

I don't understand why you say Water quality does not affect measurable extraction and only taste. Water quality does affect extraction when water becomes fully saturated with dissolved solids it's ability to dissolve more or less coffee solids into solution varies. If you brew with varying water qualities various TDS hardness etc and a reference brewing method (weighing volumes consistent temp grind size and distribution) varying water quality will give varying extractions with all else being equal ? When running SCA training one exercise is to brew coffee with pure water/ WBC Specification water and very hard water and I can assure each produces different extractions.

Adding paper filters may increase water coffee contact time (increased extraction)provide more even wetting potential less extraction or prevent channelling and resulting over extraction.

Totally agree if cholesterol is a concern then any paper filter is better as unfiltered coffee appears to increase LDL, total cholesterol, and triglycerides in some studies. Two diterpenes found in high amounts in unfiltered coffee, cafestol, and kahweol, have been found to actually *raise cholesterol levels*.unfiltered coffee appears to increase LDL, total cholesterol, and triglycerides in some studies. Two diterpenes found in high amounts in unfiltered coffee, cafestol, and kahweol, have been found to actually raise cholesterol levels.


----------



## Rob1 (Apr 9, 2015)

Do those chemicals cause problems in the quantities found in espresso and brewed (what the hell is unfiltered coffee?).


----------



## TomHughes (Dec 16, 2019)

Rob1 said:


> Do those chemicals cause problems in the quantities found in espresso and brewed (what the hell is unfiltered coffee?).


 No.


----------



## Martin R (May 2, 2020)

Hi Rob as advised the chemicals found in unfiltered and by unfiltered we are referring to not through a paper filter, as most other brewing methods use no paper but a metal sieve or filter do not cause any concern the main point is that paper filtration studies have shown is healthier if you have high cholestrol.

If you have a reasonable Cholesterol level drinking Espresso based drinks or anything brewed via a metal sieve is fine.I

In my World Brewed usually refers to traditional pour over or hand brewed via V60 etc, all of which use traditional paper filtration, Espresso usually is referenced to a specific type and production style of making coffee, 9 bar pressure darker roast bean to increase solubility etc.

None of these are hard and fast rules and brewing methods like Aeropress employ a few different factors Steeping \pressure when we plunge which is greater than atmospheric\ and of course a paper filter usually.


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

Martin R said:


> I don't understand why you say Water quality does not affect measurable extraction and only taste. Water quality does affect extraction when water becomes fully saturated with dissolved solids it's ability to dissolve more or less coffee solids into solution varies. If you brew with varying water qualities various TDS hardness etc and a reference brewing method (weighing volumes consistent temp grind size and distribution) varying water quality will give varying extractions with all else being equal ? When running SCA training one exercise is to brew coffee with pure water/ WBC Specification water and very hard water and I can assure each produces different extractions.


 I say it because I have tested it, CH Hendon & Chahan Yeretzian have also found this to be the case.


----------



## Martin R (May 2, 2020)

Hi Mark

I also regurly do this exercise when running SCA training and using a Marco precision brewer (SP9) and I find that not only is the taste flavour profile of a brew is affected by balance of minerals but also the extraction % varies with just the water TDS varying.

My experience also shows that the variance in hand brewing has a much more dramatic affect on Extraction as water transfer pour time etc affects water temperature throughout brew significantly, any draughts height of pour also adversely affect the ability to consistantly brew owing to temperature fluctuations.

Can you repeatedly brew and get identical extraction and tds when tested ? I have in over 20 years of training only seen a couple of Baristas that have been very accurate from pour to pour ?

I would also note that a small variance in extraction most consumers would never even notice, sometimes we can become obsessed with the science and loose sight of why we make coffee, and that should be to obtain the best cup that we or our customers like, and get the best from the roast coffee we are brewing.

Understanding which variables are best easiest to adjust to increase flavour taste profiles to individual preferences in our brew is in my opinion the most important factor.


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

Martin R said:


> Hi Mark
> 
> I also regurly do this exercise when running SCA training and using a Marco precision brewer (SP9) and I find that not only is the taste flavour profile of a brew is affected by balance of minerals but also the extraction % varies with just the water TDS varying.
> 
> ...


 Nobody can brew with anything and hit identical extraction (we'll say to the 1st decimal point) repeatedly, this isn't reasonable consistency, it's a pipe dream. Changing your coffee can shift EY by 3%. Most folk interested in this scenario agree +/-0.4%EY over 10 brews with the same coffee is acceptable consistency. My last 10 V60s, with the same coffee were 21.3%EY +/- 0.3%, bev mass 189g +/-1.1g.

My last 146 V60s, using selection of grinders, & over 50 different origins were 20.2%EY average, +/-0.9%EY.

My last 496 drip brews, were +/-1.1%EY and there's some experimentation & dialling in in those.

I gave up looking for differences in water make up on extraction when I got to 9 brews +/-0.3%EY (bev mass196g +/-1g) using waters as diverse as Hildon (250GH:111KH) & very soft Icelandic (25GH:25KH).


----------



## tripleshot (Jun 3, 2020)

Came across this thread and related YouTube videos. Has anyone tried only filters on top of the coffee puck, no filter paper below? Or are both needed in order to work? Reading this thread sounds like filter on top could improve evenness of extraction further without altering taste or chemical makeup as all this seems to do is more evenly distribute water through the puck. Would that be a reasonable conclusion?


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

tripleshot said:


> Came across this thread and related YouTube videos. Has anyone tried only filters on top of the coffee puck, no filter paper below? Or are both needed in order to work? Reading this thread sounds like filter on top could improve evenness of extraction further without altering taste or chemical makeup as all this seems to do is more evenly distribute water through the puck. Would that be a reasonable conclusion?


 I doubt using/omitting filters anywhere can affect the chemical make-up, beyond slightly higher extractions (which were first noted some years back with papers below the puck only).


----------



## ZwiGGy (Jun 21, 2020)

tripleshot said:


> Came across this thread and related YouTube videos. Has anyone tried only filters on top of the coffee puck, no filter paper below? Or are both needed in order to work? Reading this thread sounds like filter on top could improve evenness of extraction further without altering taste or chemical makeup as all this seems to do is more evenly distribute water through the puck. Would that be a reasonable conclusion?


 Yes thats exactly what I do and I think it helps extraction


----------



## ting_tang (Jul 26, 2020)

How do you cut your filters? Has anyone tried rotary compass cutters to cut aeropress filters? Wondering how does affect the needle hole from rotary cutter.


----------



## mathof (Mar 24, 2012)

I've tried trimming what looks like the right amount with a scissors, going around the aero press filter about 3mm from the edge. It's a clumsy method that works, although the resulting disk is hardly even. I'd be grateful to hear if anyone has discovered an efficient way to do this.


----------



## Jomo04 (Mar 25, 2019)

My crude but quick method is to staple several aero press filters together, trace around the tamper base, then cut them out with scissors - this way you can get 10-12 done in one go.


----------



## Bolta (May 11, 2014)

I cut (6) 55mm discs out of a #4 cone filter, using the ring from a canning jar as a template to scribe the circles, for the bottom and for the top I use an aeropress filter. The top filter can be rinsed for reuse.


----------



## mathof (Mar 24, 2012)

Jomo04 said:


> My crude but quick method is to staple several aero press filters together, trace around the tamper base, then cut them out with scissors - this way you can get 10-12 done in one go.


 How do you remove the staples without damaging the filters?


----------

