I'm researching for a new way to "cup" coffees side by side. Clever drip seems to be a great method for this. What are the lower limits of coffee that can be used in the Clever? It doesn't have to be a published number. Simple opinions for the lowest amount that could be used to achieve good results is all I'm looking for. Also, is there a difference in the lower limit between a small and large Clever?

I haven't tried the Clever Coffee Dripper for this but I have been pouring my 'cupping bowls' through a Hario V60 to easily measure the TDS with a refractometer. I like to taste the filtered coffee because it seems to have more 'clarity' and because I detest sediment in coffee. It doesn't interfere with evaluating the body and since I only consume filtered coffee it is a much better 'production cupping' for evaluating my roasts.

The clever dripper would be an easier option since it wouldn't be as messy. However, once you start comparing four or seven coffees the costs go up. Even at wholesale prices they are $8-11 per dripper. The filters are cheaper so it might make sense in the long run if you evaluate a lot of coffee, but the plastic v60s are like $5 retail.

You can use a very small amount of coffee in a clever dripper. I would suggest 10 grams of coffee for 150-160 grams of water. You can scale this ratio to use even less coffee if you want, but I would avoid going too low because then your water temperature will be less stable and you might not extract enough coffee.

That is a good option and one that has been recommended to me before. I am looking for the most consistency between cups by reducing Batista influence. Your method achieves this but is considerably more messing and involved. That is one reason I avoid cupping as often as I would like. I'm not too concerned with cost. I look at it as a good investment, really. Being able to brew as low as 10g would be great. But it does seem you suggest that brewing that little in the larger model would not be as ideal.

I used to brew quite a bit in the original (large) Clever Coffee Dripper and I'd use 28 grams / 450 grams coffee to water for a full batch, two cups and the water would come up to near the top of the filter. If I was brewing just one cup I'd brew 14 grams / 225 grams coffee to water and I'd have to use a scale to weigh the water added because it's hard to see where 225 grams would come up to in a cone.

I don't see why you couldn't brew as low as 10 grams of coffee in one.

The Clever Coffee Dripper is 'plastic' so it won't absorb a lot of heat from your water but you probably won't need the extra capacity of the large one for 'cupping'. I'm just sayin don't try and brew 1 gram of coffee with 15 grams of water since it'll cool real quick.

With the V60 I give the slurry a good stir and 'dump' all the grounds into the filter cone.
If you don't stir and try to hold back the grounds there can be a gradient in the concentration of dissolved and suspended solids which can result in inconsistent 'strength' and drawdown time. I have found that the stirring and filtration technique does not significantly affect the extraction of the coffee since it happens late in the brew process and the slurry is much cooler and I try to stir the same way. It is a bit more futzy though-those Clevers sure seem clever.

I've started to move away from SCAA cupping standards in the form that they are usually practiced . Most don't weigh their water when the difference of a few grams is detectable in a side-by-side taste test. A lot of people will use a kettle just big enough for the job so that by the time they are filling the last cup the water temperature is non-trivially lower than the first. Using a refractometer I've improved the development of my roasts. I used to have to repeat the cupping and grind finer to get similar extraction yields as other people's roasts. I don't always try to control for extraction yield but it has been helpful in some situations.

pShoe wrote:I'm researching for a new way to "cup" coffees side by side.

How about plain old cupping instead of "cupping." All you need as several identical cups and a scale.

Remember, if you know which coffee is which, you are not cupping, nor "cupping," you are just deluding yourself. This is true regardless of experience; even Lindsey Bolger and Geoff Watts, who own a large piece of Green Mountain and Intelligentsia respectively, and who are the best coffee tasters on the planet, cup blind using the simple, standard method.

The Clever has a big empty space under the filter paper on the larger, newer model, that acts like a pourover situation when you add the first <100g or so of water, so if your only brewing with 150g of water in the bigger model, you'll get a slug of extracted concentrate nestling in there. If you add the water first, then the coffee, you'll have stronger brew above the paper & weaker under it....so it's not really feasible to taste as the coffee develops (e.g. drawing down a bit at a time, you'll get varying levels of stratification), if you draw down the whole lot, your coffee is now extracted & no longer in contact with any grinds & will just drop in temperature.

If you want to taste it as it develops you're best to taste it off the top, like in a regular cupping. In fact, this is how I brew in the Clever & Bonavita immersion cones, tasting intermittently then draw down at preference.

Nothing to stop you comparing Clever brews, but it sounds a little removed from cupping, as a protocol? Plus all the coffee in the Clever must pass through the bed to get out & this must have an effect on the final result. A permanent filter, with paper, allows more to drain around the bed...but now we're really jacking up the cost of the exercise?

I'd also be wary of using paper filters, I have secondary filtered immersion brews and the different papers all have an effect on the final cup, they may skew your perception of different coffees. Or try a few back to back, against the same brew, unfiltered, and go with the one you feel is most transparent?

If you really want to reduce silt, my thoughts would be to use small French presses (cheap, but still large for the purpose), secure some filter paper around/under the plunger (Sang Ho Park wrote on his blog about augmenting the Espro filter with a siphon paper...finer mesh on the Espro will probably make it impossible to pour through without plunging though), don't plunge, just pour off the top through the plunger & paper (if it will pour easily, may not)? Then you may get a cleaner coffee, can taste it as it develops & you're not killing the extraction dead at a given point. Sounds like a faff though, you may not even need the paper aspect?

The side-by-side analysis will be to evaluate roast profiles more than assessing the coffees. Any coffee I roast has already been evaluated for defects and quality. Avoiding paper taste would be nice, but with a good rinsing if should not be too bad. If I can draw some conclusions as to which roast profile tastes better it would be OK for my purposes. I always establish blind tasting protocols when evaluating coffees side-by-side.

I have done traditional cupping. I see the merit and appreciate why it is used across the industry, but I would rather a clearer and easier method. There are some other reasons I'd prefer not to use cupping too. I've been using a half-assed method with French Presses. I picked up the last 12oz French Press and 12oz French Press Glass Replacement at JCPenny during the Bodum sale. I figured I could purchase a 12oz plunger assembly somewhere, but so far no luck. I just use one plunger in both, with a quick rinse in hot water in between. Obviously, not an ideal set up, but it's worked better for me than cupping. I picked up the small version, less then $40 and Amazon threw in 1-day shipping for free. Not to bad.

I find cupping to serve the exact same purpose in finding roast defects such as baking, scorching, or underdevelopment as in finding defects in greens. Beyond that, I don't know what my roll as a roaster is other than making flavors soluble without ruining them... perhaps adding just enough caramel for depth, but that's iffy, IMO. I typically prefer paper filter brews, but the minimal variability of cupping is unmatched as far as I can tell.

endlesscycles wrote:I find cupping to serve the exact same purpose in finding roast defects such as baking, scorching, or underdevelopment as in finding defects in greens. Beyond that, I don't know what my roll as a roaster is other than making flavors soluble without ruining them... perhaps adding just enough caramel for depth, but that's iffy, IMO. I typically prefer paper filter brews, but the minimal variability of cupping is unmatched as far as I can tell.

I agree. Key point bolded that might be overlooked. We as roasters are making flavors, not unearthing them, or uncovering/revealing them, etc. We have as much influence on the bean as the soil, altitude, processing etc. I don't care how light you roast or how Nordic you are. And that's not directed at all at Marshall. That's just a statement of general roasting fundamentals.