# Brew methods



## MikeHag (Mar 13, 2011)

Regarding brewed coffee, a question that many customers might ask is "what's the difference in the coffee it makes?"

I'd love to hear peoples thoughts/findings on different brew methods. e.g....

- What are the strengths/weaknesses?

- Is there any effect upon flavour versus using an alternative brew method? (e.g does one method bring out more acidity?)

- Is the brew method easy to perform?

...and any other things you consider relevant.

The methods I'm particularly interested in are as follows, but feel free to add any others if you think they should be there.

- french press

- aeropress

- V60

- clever coffee dripper

- chemex

- syphon

For example, the V60...

A V60 will obviously result in a cleaner cup than, say, a french press, but in addition I think also gives a more 'delicate' taste - a lighter mouthfeel. Neither a good not a bad thing, just different. I do find the V60 a little tricky to get right at first, as getting the wrong grind and dosage can easily result in overextraction. But with practise and the right tools (such as a pourover kettle) it's a quick and easy way to get a great cup.

Ta!


----------



## marbeaux (Oct 2, 2010)

Providing I get the right beans and grind right I think a nicer mouth taste coffee comes from a cup filter I use Melitta filters without any issues. I also use a French press with good results but this always leaves a small amount of sediment in the cup. I have, on occasions used Thai style cloth filters which is a cheap and quick way to make a nice tasting cup of coffee.

But I'm no expert and possess only a small amount of equipment.


----------



## RolandG (Jul 25, 2010)

There are definitely differences, both in taste and in ease of use. Personally, I'm a big believer that most brew methods offer both advantages and disadvantages, and are all good - but different. My personal thoughts would be:

- french press

Gives the most complex/honest/dirtiest flavour, heaviest mouth-feel, very easy, very cheap, very accessible, very forgiving of grind (and can be done using a blade grinder), annoying to clean up.

- aeropress

Very versatile, very easy to travel with, very easy to clean/maintain, quite clean flavour, takes work to get a good recipe and doesn't suit all coffees

- V60

Best pour-over I've tried, very easy to clean, more forgiving of grind than other filters - but still more sensitive than the other brew methods, clean flavours, less mouthfeel.

- clever coffee dripper

Not one I've had a chance to play with









- chemex

Moderately easy to clean, unforgiving of grind, can brew for multiple people (depending on size), very clean flavours, less mouthfeel.

- syphon

Complex and difficult to maintain, looks great!, super clean flavours, least mouthfeel

and others

- moka/stove-top pot

Makes a uniquely intense coffee (not espresso, but similar), quite demanding of grind, distinctive, accentuates acidity & body

- cevze/ibrik/turish coffee

Totally unique flavour, time-consuming, easy to clean, supresses acidity, accentuates fruit flavours, not filtered.

I've got FP, AP, chemex, v60, stove-top & ibriks at home and wouldn't be without any of them - they all bring something different and fit different moods and coffees.


----------



## MikeHag (Mar 13, 2011)

Thanks Roland... helpful distinctions you've drawn there. Must say, I used to be quite dismissive of the french press but now that I've been messing around with coffee for a while, I'm a big fan and also really like the ease of use. I do wonder whether there have been attempts to combine french press with a filter, perhaps pouring from the press into the cup/decanter via a paper filter. I suppose it would alter the taste, however, due to the filter altering the percentage of undissolved solids.



RolandG said:


> - cevze/ibrik/turish coffee
> 
> Totally unique flavour, time-consuming, easy to clean, supresses acidity, accentuates fruit flavours, not filtered.


I was in a Turkish restaurant the other day and showing interest in their coffee, so the manager got his wife to make one using the ibrik. I was quite surprised to find that it tasted exactly like the coffees I was getting in Bali and Flores, but then again I probably should have expected a similarity since they both involve using a powder-fine grind that eventually lands in the bottom of the cup.


----------



## lookseehear (Jul 16, 2010)

If you read 'everything but espresso' by scott rao he uses a spectrum of high flavour clarity and light body at one end, and low flavour clarity and heavy body at the other to distinguish brew methods.

If I remember correctly you have chemex at one end with the thick paper filters meaning it absorbs oil and doesn't let particles through but gives a very clean, distinct cup, and french press at the other end with a heavy body from all the oils and particles, but as a result the flavours are more 'muddied'.

From one end to the other its something like: Turkish -> French press -> Eva solo -> syphon (cloth filter) -> woodneck -> aeropress -> v60 -> chemex -> clover (?!)

Feel free to disagree though 

Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk


----------



## marbeaux (Oct 2, 2010)

I'm afraid some of the subtle coffee differences that people talk about are beyond my capability to recognize. Coffee to me either tastes nice or it doesn't. I appreciate that some flavours are more pronounced i.e. Thai hill tribe. Lao PDR, Brazil, Sumatra and many more I'm sure. Whether it tastes of chocolate, spices and so on is well beyond my ability but then I'm new to this tasting business.

As somebody mentioned earlier during my learning curve on the French press I tried pouring through a cup filter which was successful. I've no idea if this altered the taste.


----------



## MikeHag (Mar 13, 2011)

lookseehear said:


> If you read 'everything but espresso' by scott rao


I have it at my bedside but I haven't finished his espresso book yet







Good to know that it'll answer some of the above questions. Ty


----------



## Fran (Dec 27, 2010)

MikeHag said:


> I do wonder whether there have been attempts to combine french press with a filter, perhaps pouring from the press into the cup/decanter via a paper filter. I suppose it would alter the taste, however, due to the filter altering the percentage of undissolved solids.


I think James Hoffman from Square Mile did this recently at the UK Brewers Cup. I pondered this too - I'm always temped to pour all the liquid from my press to reduce wastage, therefore making my cup dirtier and probably taste worse!


----------



## MikeHag (Mar 13, 2011)

Fran said:


> I think James Hoffman from Square Mile did this recently at the UK Brewers Cup. I pondered this too - I'm always temped to pour all the liquid from my press to reduce wastage, therefore making my cup dirtier and probably taste worse!


I think this is where ExtractMojo would be brilliant, to see what difference the filter does make. Maybe one day it'll come down in price.


----------



## garydyke1 (Mar 9, 2011)

marbeaux said:


> I'm afraid some of the subtle coffee differences that people talk about are beyond my capability to recognize. Coffee to me either tastes nice or it doesn't. I appreciate that some flavours are more pronounced i.e. Thai hill tribe. Lao PDR, Brazil, Sumatra and many more I'm sure. Whether it tastes of chocolate, spices and so on is well beyond my ability but then I'm new to this tasting business.
> 
> As somebody mentioned earlier during my learning curve on the French press I tried pouring through a cup filter which was successful. I've no idea if this altered the taste.


IMHO Its all about the grind.

My case study - As good as the Porlex is for the money and travel ability, it only ever makes 'quite good generic' coffee in both my Aeropress & V60. This was even with multiple attempts on different settings, water temps, infusion times etc. Regardless for my money there are too many fines in the grind. My old MC2 produced better results too but changing from espresso to v60 etc was far to annoying and wasnt repeatable enough, had to dial everything in all over again each time.

Now I use my Mazzer (nb its super easy to change grind setting + with 100% repeatablility) it seems I cannot make a bad cup! Without any regard to many of the variables mentioned above I am now getting nuances of flavours and aromas which the porlex kept locked away.

At first I thought this was a case of perception = clouded reality. However im not the only one to notice the difference. In summary grind is everything (quality beans aside).


----------



## lookseehear (Jul 16, 2010)

garydyke1 said:


> IMHO Its all about the grind.
> 
> My case study - As good as the Porlex is for the money and travel ability, it only ever makes 'quite good generic' coffee in both my Aeropress & V60. This was even with multiple attempts on different settings, water temps, infusion times etc. Regardless for my money there are too many fines in the grind. My old MC2 produced better results too but changing from espresso to v60 etc was far to annoying and wasnt repeatable enough, had to dial everything in all over again each time.
> 
> ...


It's good to hear someone else say that. Every now and then I'll get a really nice cup with berries and cherries and caramel and whatever else the packet says! Normally though it's just a lot better than stale pre ground, but unremarkable otherwise. This has left me wondering what I should do for work, as I'm quite happy having a baratza maestro plus at home as well as an espresso grinder, however I'm not buying another maestro plus for work (they look at me weirdly enough already when I'm weighing out beans and cranking on the porlex!).

These reasons are why I'm looking keenly at the Orphan Espresso Pharos and the Rosco Hand grinder as something for the future. Otherwise, Doug from OE has found modifications which stabilise the bottom burr on a Hario Skerton, so that's another option.


----------



## MikeHag (Mar 13, 2011)

So Gary, supposing you get the grind right, what are the notable differences between the aeropress coffee and the V60 coffee if you use the same beans? (I guess this is kind of a variation on comparative cupping)


----------



## garydyke1 (Mar 9, 2011)

MikeHag said:


> So Gary, supposing you get the grind right, what are the notable differences between the aeropress coffee and the V60 coffee if you use the same beans? (I guess this is kind of a variation on comparative cupping)


I would echo Roland's comments tbh.

V60 is lighter bodied, for me crazy sweet-tinged aromas, clean, and becomes more and more delicious as it cools slightly.

Aeropress is a lot more body, still clean but the aromas are deeper, complex and more in the direction of the french press. Depends if you grind courser and leave to brew for longer

French press allows you to get really close to the bean, it isnt as clean but really full bodied, sometimes chewy, noticably less sweet than V60.

Only had one Syphon - it was poorly made so shall decline to comment, but from what I have heard it gets better as it cools and is very light, clean and sweet when done right.


----------



## marbeaux (Oct 2, 2010)

Yes indeed. I have now changed to a finer grind for my cup filter and my Northern Thai Peabody certainly tasted nicer. Hence, I'll try similar grind adjustments with the Press.

Perhaps this is where my thinking has been too basic as I thought I had got that part right.

Thanks for the advice.


----------

