# Scott Rao - Observations on Hand Pours



## the_partisan (Feb 29, 2016)

Scott Rao has a new article on hand pours, and makes some interesting points

http://scottrao.com/blog/some-observations-on-hand-pours/



> There is, and always has been, a serious problem with hand-pour extraction quality in specialty coffee. Of the 2,000 or so hand pours I've ordered and paid for (ugh) at cafes, perhaps two dozen were as well-made as a good batch brew. WTF? That's a 1% success rate, and almost $8,000 USD spent on mediocre brews. (I won't even mention the ones that turned out to be naturals after the baristas had assured me they were washed coffees!)


----------



## Mrboots2u (May 10, 2013)

I enjoyed it as a read ... save the chemex for naturals and your least favourite customers , also brought a smile to my face .


----------



## Thecatlinux (Mar 10, 2014)

Nice read


----------



## aaronb (Nov 16, 2012)

I'll read it later but I agree with the quote. Lots of variables at play with a hand brew.

I've had great batch brew before, as good as the best hand brews. Also bad batch brew too though.


----------



## ShortShots (Oct 2, 2013)

Mrboots2u said:


> I enjoyed it as a read ... save the chemex for naturals and your least favourite customers , also brought a smile to my face .


Also my favourite part haha


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

aaronb said:


> Lots of variables at play with a hand brew.


The notion of 'variability' & consistency across brew methods is of particular interest to me. I see it mentioned a lot but I wonder what datums/comparisons people are using to come to these conclusions?


----------



## aaronb (Nov 16, 2012)

Read it.

I've had better filters out of the chemex than in the clever or kalita (using beans from roasters I use regularly). I'd agree the kalita produces slightly better results than the clever, but is a more complicated procedure.

I'd definitely agree that in a cafe batch brew beats them all, especially for consistency on a day to day basis.


----------



## aaronb (Nov 16, 2012)

MWJB said:


> The notion of 'variability' & consistency across brew methods is of particular interest to me. I see it mentioned a lot but I wonder what datums/comparisons people are using to come to these conclusions?


It's a hard one to measure scientifically for sure.

There are loads of cafe's where I am who have served me a really nice coffee one day and a crap coffee the next. No scientific basis to this whatsoever other than what I find tasty coffee and not tasty coffee!

The couple of places I frequent regularly consistently make coffee I find tasty, despite rotating beans and even roasters.


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

aaronb said:


> It's a hard one to measure scientifically for sure.
> 
> There are loads of cafe's where I am who have served me a really nice coffee one day and a crap coffee the next. No scientific basis to this whatsoever other than what I find tasty coffee and not tasty coffee!
> 
> The couple of places I frequent regularly consistently make coffee I find tasty, despite rotating beans and even roasters.


Indeed, but this strikes me more as being an issue with barista/training inconsistency (which is also part of Scott's rationale), rather than inconsistency of brew method/brewer.


----------



## aaronb (Nov 16, 2012)

Very fair point, and many times it is different baristas.


----------



## tambu (Sep 7, 2015)

I subscribe to a lot of Scott Rao's ideas and techniques and really like his books (his post draws heavily on Everything but Espresso iirc), but I've never understood his anti-Chemex zealotry. It takes time to master, but once you're used to it I don't find it any easier/harder than any other method. Maybe it's harder to master than a v60, but I think the filters make it different and worthwhile taste wise. I've never had a great pour over in a coffee shop (well maybe once or twice) but I've never found chemex noticeably worse than a v60 in any given place. I just wonder how much time he's spent using a chemex given that it doesn't meet the requirements of his hypothetical 'good brewer'.


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

I recently did a slew of brews, same method, same coffees, same grind, water etc....I found that the Chemex brews just didn't taste as good (drier/less even), then I swapped the Chemex paper for V60 paper and they averaged out the same as V60 in taste preference.

I haven't perservered (I like to drink & enjoy my experiments as much as possible), but in a few exploratory brews, V60 with Chemex paper - at the same extraction - still didn't taste as good as V60 paper.

I don't think Scott is the kind of guy to write publicly simply based on hypothesis, he does note in the comments section how his comments on Chemex/naturals are usually a little tongue in cheek.  He does offer advice as to how he thinks you might still get the best out of it.


----------



## the_partisan (Feb 29, 2016)

He has another blog post regarding prewetting/blooming, might be interesting to those who do immersion brewing:

http://scottrao.com/blog/prewetting-when-to-do-it-when-not-to/


----------



## Hairy_Hogg (Jul 23, 2015)

the_partisan said:


> He has another blog post regarding prewetting/blooming, might be interesting to those who do immersion brewing:
> 
> http://scottrao.com/blog/prewetting-when-to-do-it-when-not-to/


In the comments there is a link to Truthcoffee where they try various cold (50 degrees C) pre infusions in a CCD. Just trying the 5 minute one that they rated as the best. Certainly makes a lovely cup


----------



## Phil104 (Apr 15, 2014)

Just caught up with this and subscribed to his blog. I think he writes well, thoughtfully and with a good sense of humour/tongue in cheek.


----------

