Dr. Bunsen's Experiment
October 11, 2013 8:54 AM   Subscribe

A comprehensive, double blind, experimental approach to making the best cup of coffee.
posted by hydrobatidae (58 comments total) 15 users marked this as a favorite
 
This kind of double-blind experimentation does not account for subtle preferences that may manifest themselves over a long period of time.
posted by shivohum at 9:02 AM on October 11, 2013 [1 favorite]


I like the idea of an Aeropress, but I can't get behind buying filters.
posted by 2bucksplus at 9:06 AM on October 11, 2013


Problem solved, 2bucksplus.
posted by Lyn Never at 9:08 AM on October 11, 2013 [3 favorites]


Interesting, but why is he deciding what sort of coffee to make for himself but surveying other people's coffee tastes?

I know what I like in coffee, and it's quite different from many coffee aficionadi because I use milk (actually, half-and-half) and sugar. No survey will convince me that I want my coffee black, no matter how the binomial test comes out.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 9:09 AM on October 11, 2013 [6 favorites]


French press has lots of advantages. We make "eight" cups at a time (which means about three full sized mugs) - and the filters are completely re-useable. Plus, we can make it extra strong for those mornings when we can't get up...

Some of the money that we saved by getting a $20 French press went into getting a $25 thermos, into which the coffee goes immediately. Means I can get another cup an hour later and it still tastes good.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 9:13 AM on October 11, 2013 [2 favorites]


This is quasi-experiment, not experiment. He randomized the independent variable, not the SUBJECTS. A true experiment (with human subjects) as to comprise random placement of subjects into treatment and control groups- though since there is no "control" here, that's impossible- this is like a drug study without a placebo. The stupid focus on statistical criteria doesn't make this "experimental."
posted by ethnomethodologist at 9:18 AM on October 11, 2013 [6 favorites]


Thing is, there is no perfect cup of coffee. What I love in my coffee - like a layer of fine grinds at the bottom of my cup - is exactly what someone else might hate. Some people love their roast to be smoky, other people hate it. Me, I love a French press coffee and even good paper-filtered tastes like donut-shop coffee to me now. Other people actively dislike French Press and love filtered. They are no more wrong than a pilsner-lover is wrong for loving that and not a sweet English Ale.

I did recently have what was - for me - the best cup of coffee I've ever had in my life, from Manic Coffee in Toronto. It was an heritage Ethiopian coffee; I think it was sun-dried (need to go back and ask); and it tasted like blueberries and cherries and it wasn't bitter at all, even black without milk or sugar. It made me moan with the deliciousness. I normally always have milk/cream, even in fancy coffee (I have free Hawaiian or Jamaican Blue Mountain coffee at work), but I didn't even want anything in this coffee because it was so beautiful.
posted by jb at 9:18 AM on October 11, 2013 [1 favorite]


i've often wondered about this topic. I'd like to see it happen again, using my personal preference - the moka pot
posted by rebent at 9:19 AM on October 11, 2013


I might have also used a triangle test to see if people could actually tell the difference at all ... but that's me.

In any case, I've given up on spending real money on coffee, and mostly just drink cold-brew iced coffee from May through October or so, made from whatever's on sale that's not Folger's (turns out Eight O'Clock makes really great iced coffee), and pour-over drip of the same in the winter. It's not great, but it beats the office coffee and Dunkin Donuts (which are, admittedly, low bars).
posted by uncleozzy at 9:19 AM on October 11, 2013 [1 favorite]


This kind of double-blind experimentation does not account for subtle preferences that may manifest themselves over a long period of time.

There are a couple of problems with that objection. One is that the claims made in favor of burr grinders over blade grinders (and so forth) are not of that type. That is, the claim is not, typically, "it makes a really subtle difference that will all but imperceptibly improve your experience over years of coffee drinking" but "Oh my God! You use a blade grinder? How on earth can you drink that swill?"

The second is that the testing used to establish the claim that "burr grinders are better" (or that wine tastes better if it is allowed to breathe or that your music sounds better with expensive speaker cables or any of these kinds if claims) was never if the longue duree kind that is suddenky being required to refute the claims. It may well be that there are super subtle differences between A and B that only reveal their benefits over hundreds of tests, but no one has run the experiment to support that claim on either side.

There 's no reason, by the way, why you can't extend the double blind experiment in time to test the hypothesis.
posted by yoink at 9:24 AM on October 11, 2013 [2 favorites]


This is quasi-experiment, not experiment. He randomized the independent variable, not the SUBJECTS. A true experiment (with human subjects) as to comprise random placement of subjects into treatment and control groups- though since there is no "control" here, that's impossible- this is like a drug study without a placebo. The stupid focus on statistical criteria doesn't make this "experimental."

So, beanplating sans plate?
posted by Celsius1414 at 9:26 AM on October 11, 2013 [1 favorite]


The stupid focus on statistical criteria doesn't make this "experimental."

He acknowledges that in the comments.
posted by yoink at 9:26 AM on October 11, 2013


Thing is, there is no perfect cup of coffee.

agreed. but if you're brewing for more than just yourself, there is one RULE accepted and adhered to by all decent folk, everywhere in the coffee drinking world.

DON'T FUCKING BREW IT WEAK !!!

Overly "thick" coffee can always be "thinned" by adding a little hot water. But coffee brewed "thin" cannot be made "thick". It remains what it is, an insult to the taste buds of folks who like their coffee to carry a certain gravity.
posted by philip-random at 9:31 AM on October 11, 2013 [1 favorite]


No, these three pages show you how to make a perfect cup of coffee.
posted by Old'n'Busted at 9:31 AM on October 11, 2013


Poor Gale.
posted by bicyclefish at 9:36 AM on October 11, 2013 [8 favorites]


there is one RULE accepted and adhered to by all decent folk, everywhere in the coffee drinking world...

It's not: Don't talk about brew club?!?
posted by fairmettle at 9:44 AM on October 11, 2013 [3 favorites]


This kind of double-blind experimentation does not account for subtle preferences that may manifest themselves over a long period of time.

It depends on what you mean here.

If you mean that he is not controlling for heterogeneity in unobserved coffee preferences, then I disagree. Insofar as it's double-blinded, I'm assuming that therefore it's a randomized assignment of individuals to the two treatments (treatment or control). That would mean unobserved preferences are on average distributed approximately equally across groups. Though he notes he wishes his sample size was larger, where he does find significant results, it seems as though it's credible and robust to a claim about omitted preferences influencing the results.

But if you mean that this methodology can't evaluate the effect of coffee consumption (good or bad) on your future tastes for coffee, then I think that is true. Experiments like these are especially good for identifying short-run responses, but you'd need to do something else for evaluating something like dynamic tastes for coffee.
posted by scunning at 9:47 AM on October 11, 2013


Dear Coffee Science Guy: "Drip-extraction" is about the vaguest term possible to describe your alternative to the Aeropress. You might as well say, "I used a combination of gravity and hot water to make coffee." I have no idea at all what you're comparing your Aeropress to--a Mr. Coffee drip pot with an old paper towel as the filter? A Hario one-cup funnel with a cloth filter?
posted by mittens at 9:48 AM on October 11, 2013 [1 favorite]


he notes he wishes his sample size was larger

Maybe if he'd stop using the Aeropress more people would come over.
posted by mittens at 9:49 AM on October 11, 2013 [4 favorites]


This is quasi-experiment, not experiment. He randomized the independent variable, not the SUBJECTS. A true experiment (with human subjects) as to comprise random placement of subjects into treatment and control groups- though since there is no "control" here, that's impossible- this is like a drug study without a placebo. The stupid focus on statistical criteria doesn't make this "experimental."

In the Rubin-Fisher-Neyman tradition of causal inference, wouldn't this technically qualify as a valid experimental design capable of unbiased estimates of causal effects? See pages 2-3 of this Handbook chapter (here).

But, your point about the lack of a placebo is making me reread the post more closely, though, as I originally though the house guests being given "two cups of the exact same coffee and asked to choose their favorites" to establish a baseline for calibration was always the explicit control, but I don't think that it is after reading this. It sounds like what he's doing is estimating whether coffee technology in fact produces better (more preferred) coffee.

So it seems like he's estimating the causal effect of the inputs used in production (specifically the capital inputs), but I don't yet understand if the counterfactual should be interpreted as relative to the baseline controls who were given the identical cups of coffee, or if these are always just pairwise comparisons between two different technologies (e.g., blade vs. burr). But, if it is, then I don't see why that doesn't invalidate the design. It just changes the interpretation somewhat right? And does it change it a meaningful sense? The question was whether these two inputs produced the same or different-preferred cups of coffee, and that question is answered with this design (I think?).
posted by scunning at 9:59 AM on October 11, 2013


I use a gold mesh filter, that I have had for over 15 years.

Apart from whatever brewing method, beans and grind you prefer, the one thing that really seems to matter, is not pouring the water straight from the boiling kettle...you get much better flavor, if you allow the water to cool slightly, before applying it to your beans.

It's very easy to brew crappy coffee, from top-quality beans...just add (too) hot water...

edit: And upon reading the fucking article, I now see that water temperature isn't even mentioned...
posted by littlejohnnyjewel at 10:02 AM on October 11, 2013 [2 favorites]


The whole Grinder part of the test really leaves me flat. First is that atrocious bar chart that serves only to confuse. If you don't read the text closely it looks like he used three brands of blade grinders. I guess the key problem is that the each bar tells a different story - one is "Of those that preferred the burr grind, this is the distribution of the grinders' preferences", the other is "Of those that preferred the blade grinder, these were the burr grinders that lost in that comparison" (minor nit - he had several grinders not just three, and lumped all grinders from one brand together {edit - there's a conflation between brand and model - I can't tell within the several grinders of one brand if they were the same model or not}). Or did everybody see this chart and experience immediate enlightenment?

Second problem - I can't find whether during the Grinder test he used one or both brewing methods. Not even stated. Maybe burr is better with drip? Blade better with Aeropress? The world will never know. There's more analysis for the "It doesn't matter" variable (grind) than the "It may matter" variable (brew)

Conclusion: Drink coffee with Seth if you like it black, can bring your own burr grinder, and want to listen to extraneous use of probability theory.
posted by achrise at 10:05 AM on October 11, 2013


"Specifically, coffee ground with a burr grinder purportedly tastes better because it grinds the beans more uniformly and doesn’t over-heat the grounds like traditional blade grinders."

I'm not sure that's the only (or even principal) facet of the burr grinder argument.

My understanding is that certain types of coffee (espresso v. drip v. french press v. turkish, etc.) require different granularity of grind. I can attest, personally, that a poor grind will yield miserable espresso- not because the coffee tastes bad, but because the grind negatively impacts the machine's ability to create the proper "espresso environment" (I don't know the appropriate term for pressure/strength of flavor/what have you in this case). Takeaway being: with a poor grind, one gets weak, watery espresso; a proper grind will yield full-bodied, crema-having espresso.

The argument, then, is that consistency of grind is key. A blade grinder has no reliable mechanism of enforced granularity. One either grinds it for more or less time & gets a somewhat more or less chunky collection of grounds.

Perhaps, as purported, drip coffee ground to powder via a blade grinder whirring away for 3 minutes straight might taste burnt vs. a burr grinder's precision grind. The argument, however, for using a burr grinder is to (consistently) achieve the appropriate grind for the type of coffee one is making. Drip coffee is (in my humble opinion) the most forgiving brew technique. That is, a poorly ground mess of half-beans + powdered coffee flake with enough strength will taste "good enough" to me & would indeed render a burr grinder an extravagant inessential.

On the other hand, trying (and failing) to consistently create a grind that renders quality espresso with a blade grinder might lead one to decide that a burr grinder is worth the cost.

tl;dr: Sure, a blade grinder will suffice if one is brewing drip. If one aims to tackle other brews with any consistency of flavor & enjoyment, the grinder becomes a little more important.
posted by narwhal at 10:13 AM on October 11, 2013 [3 favorites]


i make my coffee in a stainless steel insulated french press, using pre ground (THE HORROR) medium to dark roast starbucks or peets or intelligentsia beans and water heated to 200F with an electric kettle, steeped for 4 minutes. It comes out pretty good and is easy and stays warm enough for me to go back for a second cup, though the third sometimes i'll heat back up in the microwave.

i'm sure this is a travesty to coffee nerds everywhere, but it's simple and easy.

when i'm at work i use the awful keurig machine because it's free and just toss as much half and half and sugar in it as i can stand.
posted by misskaz at 10:15 AM on October 11, 2013


Did I miss a mention of what his brewing method was for the grinder test, or is it just not there? Speaking for myself I am way happier with what I get out of my French press now that I have a burr grinder, but I know I don't care much either way about how the beans are ground when I am staying with family that use a Mr. Coffee.
posted by pemberkins at 10:21 AM on October 11, 2013


Practical reasons for blade grinders being a poor choice aside (I hope you like sediment in your coffee and/or clogged filters!), basic chemistry says that he's wrong. Coffee brewing is basically an extraction process - and anyone who's taken organic chemistry can tell you that consistency is key to getting a good and clean extraction. Blade grinders produce tons of little particles that will extract everything, even the bitter compounds, and giant coffee boulders (relatively speaking) that will never be properly extracted. I suspect the weird result came more from using bad brewing methods (Aeropress can be finicky and he compared it to a drip machine that probably couldn't reach 200 degrees F if you stuck it in an oven).
posted by Punkey at 10:24 AM on October 11, 2013 [1 favorite]


Temperature, water quality and contact time seem to be at least some of the largely uncontrolled or, at least, unexamined variables. In my experience, people can taste the difference between coffee brewed at a boil, coffee brewed at the "ideal temperature" and cold-brewed coffee, for instance.

What people prefer seems to be personal perference, with few objective "bests". As he says, that's biased by his pool of freinds. Results may have been very different if they contained Europeans or Turks or Canadians used to Timmies, for example.

Like tests of any human preference, I'm not certain this is an answerable question, except for small, relatively homogeneous groups.
posted by bonehead at 10:27 AM on October 11, 2013


By the by, we use a Virtuoso grinder with one of these drip makers. Aside from the inital expense, the major downside is that I'm constantly disappointed the quality by commercial coffee now.
posted by bonehead at 10:30 AM on October 11, 2013


I mainly use a burr grinder for my French-pressed coffee because it leads to coffee that's free of any chunks of beans. I like to sip my coffee, not chew it.
posted by Thoughtcrime at 10:39 AM on October 11, 2013


using pre ground (THE HORROR) medium

I think thats a reasonable alternative, provided you can use the coffee relatively quickly. It can start to taste really blah if you leave it for more than week though.
posted by bonehead at 10:44 AM on October 11, 2013


The battle to convince the coffee brewing populace that the grinder is the key ingredient to better coffee, has been an uphill battle.

Decent ones are expensive, but they do make a huge difference, even in lower rent coffee leagues.

Pro-tip for anyone willing to hunt; baratza was commissioned by Starbucks to rebrand their virtuoso grinder under their 'barista' series. Just go to Craigslist and search for 'Starbucks burr' and you can pick them up for around 30 bucks. Te burrs are usually in great shape, and that's a $100 retail grinder, that specialty roasters use in their labs all the time. Best bang for the buck if you can stand to look at the "Starbucks" logo everyday.
posted by furnace.heart at 10:45 AM on October 11, 2013


Freshness and kind of coffee bean had no influence on outcome..... I think that's about all I needed to know about the validity of this experiment.
posted by kaspen at 10:47 AM on October 11, 2013 [1 favorite]


The best cup of coffee is the cup that rtha makes for me and wakes me up with before she goes to work in the morning. That is objectively the best coffee ever.
posted by gingerbeer at 11:57 AM on October 11, 2013 [3 favorites]


I use pre-ground coffee (MOAR HORROR) and an Aeropress. And water. Hot water. This is about all the technology I can handle before I've had caffeine, and I manage to turn out coffee that is at minimum good and occasionally excellent.
posted by rtha at 11:57 AM on October 11, 2013 [1 favorite]


HA! JINX!
posted by rtha at 11:57 AM on October 11, 2013 [3 favorites]


Areopress coffee takes out most of the important flavors of coffee to being with and leaves you with insipid but strong coffee. Who cares what people thought was the better brewing method, it's shitty coffee either way.
posted by aspo at 11:58 AM on October 11, 2013 [1 favorite]


Sez you.
posted by rtha at 12:06 PM on October 11, 2013 [1 favorite]


To paraphrase an old photographer's aphorism, the best coffee is the one you are drinking.
posted by ardgedee at 12:13 PM on October 11, 2013 [4 favorites]


> I mainly use a burr grinder for my French-pressed coffee because it leads to coffee that's free of any chunks of beans. I like to sip my coffee, not chew it.

"You're doing it wrong." Why should any chunks of coffee make it into your cup? Indeed, if anything gets through the filter when you press, it should be the fine powder, not the large chunks.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 12:21 PM on October 11, 2013


I came for science and left with sadness.
posted by The Michael The at 12:51 PM on October 11, 2013 [2 favorites]


I was scanning the article and got down to the section where he starts with all the mathematical formulas. And I just...what the hell? Mathematical formulas?

Way to overthink a plate of coffee beans.
posted by MexicanYenta at 12:54 PM on October 11, 2013


I find the idea of arguing over grinding methods when the extraction method is a choice between a fancy French press and filtration completely hilarious.

That is no how you make coffee.
posted by arha at 1:35 PM on October 11, 2013


Oh, I am not claiming to be the baddass coffee person. I am very used to espresso coffee, but i am enough of a heathen that i heat my milk in the microwave. The article could at least have included a Bialetti Moka, which is going to give a very different cup of coffee, although not to everyone's taste.
posted by arha at 1:53 PM on October 11, 2013 [1 favorite]


With "comprehensive" in the post title, I would have expected a lot more brewing and/or preparation techniques to be examined. No French Press? No turkish/ethiopian boiled coffee? No bean / roast / temperature sensitivity studies? Grant denied.
posted by Popular Ethics at 2:03 PM on October 11, 2013 [2 favorites]


So this is a really bad moment to ask about how to make the best cup of coffee at home, then?
posted by RedOrGreen at 2:48 PM on October 11, 2013


Narwhal is right; if he's using lots of different burr grinders then his grind is not consistent vs. his use of the blade grinder probably is more so if the timing is the same.

(There is no best. I use a hand-powered Hario burr grinder, an aeropress with a steel filter. I also use a Pressi with a bottomless portafilter 'cause I'm trying to get better but I still frequently make embarrassing shots.)
posted by Mngo at 3:14 PM on October 11, 2013


Depends on what kind if coffee you prefer. Some, such as specialty espresso drinks with thick crema, or Japanese 12 hour cold drip, are really hard to do consistently on home equipment. Bean quality, bean roast, ground bean particle sizes, water qualities (minerals, pH, odor), water temperature, pressure of steam....

I'm actually a tea drinker, but sometimes if I need to stay awake, I drink very good decaf coffee. More than traces of caffeine (I can even suffer from green tea), and it's no fun for me.

Here's my anecdata; I like a very low acidity, moderate tannin, high oil, decaf coffee.
How I do it @ home:
I prefer Olympia Coffee Roaster's Asterisk Decaf Ethiopian blend. It's not available all the time; I just wait until it is, and then get several pounds of beans packed as 6 oz portions in nitrogen-filled bags, which I store in the chest (below 0F) freezer.
I grind the beans 6 oz at time in a Rancilio Rocky burr grinder, grind dependent on brewing method. I prefer a slightly-too-coarse grind to a fine one. I store the grind in an air-tight container in the freezer in the summer and the same on a shelf in the winter (the house is heated below 60F).

When my roommate, a caterer and barista, is around they pack 4 measures of grind into the professional Rancilio Silva v2 espresso machine receptacle, and make me two perfect shots of espresso. I drink the first one with a teaspoon of 1/2 & 1/2 and a pinch of Demerara sugar, the 2nd plain in the same espresso cup.

Left to my own devices, I use a Bialetti G28 Moka. Make sure it's kept very clean, especially the funnel, and that the filter o-ring is in good condition - otherwise the pressure is too low to properly extract. The venting steam is a little too exciting as well. I got mine out of a recycling bin, because the PO thought something was wrong with it; it just needed a new $1.50 filter gasket.
It takes about 10oz of Seattle or Portland tap water for 8oz/250ml of finished coffee. Back east or in CA, I use filtered water, or at least water that has stood overnight in an open glass or metal container to outgas the worst of the chlorine.
I use two lightly domed measures (20g) of grind, plus a big pinch (1g) of ground cardamon.
When the bubbling sound stops, I turn off the burner, wait 2 minutes, and pour my coffee over a teaspoon of Demerara or brown sugar, and then add a tablespoon of 1/2 & 1/2 once the sugar dissolves.

I've also had very good results similarly in a Aeropress with a metal double-mesh fabric filter, stirring for 30 seconds and pressing for 30 seconds.
The advantage of a paper Aeropress filter is it takes an espresso grind and will make a little crema.
The coarser grind metal filter doesn't make crema, unless one scoops it out of the cylinder before giving it the press.

Wow, I've turned into a PNW coffee snob!
posted by Dreidl at 3:42 PM on October 11, 2013 [3 favorites]


The perfect cup of coffee is anything my wife or kids make. Because then I'm all 'omg, I'm married and have kids and they're *sip....* not trying to poison me. Life is good.'
posted by obiwanwasabi at 6:38 PM on October 11, 2013


"Oh my God! You use a blade grinder? How on earth can you drink that swill?"

Haha that's probably true.

There 's no reason, by the way, why you can't extend the double blind experiment in time to test the hypothesis.

True, and that would be great, but it's so rarely done.
--

It depends on what you mean here.

I think I might mean a few things.

1. The very act of being put in a focused, critical mode, "Which is better -- this or this?" changes the mental state of the drinker, so that the preferences in that state might not accurately reflect preferences in a more relaxed, less critical state. For instance, critically examining coffee might call to mind certain stereotypes of what a coffee connoisseur ought to value in coffee, and that might change the valuation of the coffee.

2. In the same vein, certain qualities of the drink may only be apparent in a relaxed state. Sailors are said to see starlight best using peripheral vision; it may be that certain qualities of beverages can best be seen in an analogous way. The very act of effortful focusing may obscure certain "shy" attributes.

3. Certain preferences may reveal themselves only against the background of habit. That very tiny tightness in the shoe may be enjoyably snug when you try it on in the store, but 6 months later it may drive you nuts.

Similarly, an "exciting" coffee may be preferable when you drink it that one time at your friend's house, but if you drank it every day it may eventually cloy in a way that a more muted coffee, seemingly "boring" coffee wouldn't.
posted by shivohum at 8:13 PM on October 11, 2013 [1 favorite]


[Pre-ground coffee] can start to taste really blah if you leave it for more than week though.

Hey, no problem - just store it in your big-ass American fridge!
posted by Greg_Ace at 9:38 PM on October 11, 2013


OK late back. About the best way to make coffee at home.

IMHO you can get a better result from a Moka than drip or french press. Ideally you want a benchtop espresso machine, and even the cheap ones can give good results if you treat them right. I am lucky enough to have a mid range Breville that I picked up on sale. It does the job. Most of my family has the same machine and after years of critical coffee drinking I really think it comes down to a few things.

- Choose the right beans. Do not cheap out here. I am looking at you, Mum. And Dad.
- Grind them to suit the extraction method. I have both burr and blade and can see no difference to be honest, that is not negated by point one, above. The consistency of grind can really fuck a cup of coffee up however. Too fine a grind and the coffee stews and comes out burnt and bitter. Too coarse and you don't extract enough flavour and the coffee is bleh. Looking at you sister#1 and father-in-law.
- If using a pressure system, such as espresso or Moka, you need to tamp the coffee down just right. Again, too loose and the coffee extracts too quickly and you don't get the flavour right (sister #2), too tight and the hot water goes through too slowly and you over extract the coffee grounds and it is horrid and bitter (and you burn out the cheap pumps in Aldi espresso makers that would otherwise have been fine for holiday house use. Looking at you brother-in-law#2)
- If you have milk in your coffee, you can really fuck an otherwise decent cup of coffee by burning the milk. This is part of the reason why I heat the milk up in the microwave: it is easier to control. The other part is because I am lazy. Burnt milk will make even the best brewed coffee taste bitter and shit. Looking at you, brother (also the major reason why most corner store espresso tastes horrid).

Why yes, most normal things in my family are a blood sport. Why do you ask?
posted by arha at 7:43 AM on October 12, 2013


(in the interest of fairness, I am absolutely sure that at least a couple of the family members mentioned above have quietly bitched to each other about the quality of coffee offered in my household before.)
posted by arha at 7:55 AM on October 12, 2013


IMHO you can get a better result from a Moka than drip or french press.

That's if you want to make an espresso. For a coffee drinker like me, who actively dislikes espresso, they are two completely different drinks. It's like comparing port & brandy - both start with wine, but they aren't the same. I want a coffee that is the same coffee to water ratio as brewed coffee, and I like the rich, coffee-oil deliciousness of a press.

But also, I'm too incompetent to use a Moka - I've burned my coffee every time I've tried. Whereas I don't seem to be able to mess up a French press - I guesstimate on the amount of coffee, throw water in without checking that it's the right temperature, forget it on the counter for 20 minutes before I plunge it...and it still tastes fine. Not perfect, but good and tasty.
posted by jb at 5:25 PM on October 12, 2013 [1 favorite]


How can you forget about coffee first thing in the morning. How.
posted by rtha at 10:40 PM on October 12, 2013


There is no morning action here before the fire goes in the hole. Alarms are set to this effect.
posted by Wolof at 5:21 AM on October 13, 2013


How can you forget about coffee first thing in the morning. How.
posted by rtha


Because it's morning and I'm not awake yet :) Also, because currently I work at a coffee shop, so the only time I'm making coffee at home is on my day off, having slept in. Everything moves slower then.
posted by jb at 5:51 AM on October 13, 2013 [1 favorite]


i forget my french press for 20 minutes sometimes too, if i forget to set a timer. (and i too will still plunge and drink it rather than toss and start again.) what can i say, the internet can be distracting.

re: the pre-ground beans, it takes about a week to go through a bag so it's not like it's sitting around for months. tastes fine, i promise.
posted by misskaz at 8:41 AM on October 13, 2013


....but some coffee snobs will drink coffee made from beans pooped out by cats!
posted by rtha at 11:01 AM on October 13, 2013 [1 favorite]


« Older Wither Privacy   |   Looks like someone is auditioning to replace the... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments