I prefer Clever over pourover. I like the body that you get from an immersion brew. But I also like French press coffee and use an inverted aeropress with a metal screen and 17:1 brew ratio to emulate French Press coffee for my travel kit.

Not to high-jack this thread off original point, but on that point - clever vs. traditional pourover - can anyone articulate why they prefer one vs. the other? I get the impression that Hario 60s are way more popular in postings than the Clever, but I think the clever is a truly great thing. Next to my vac pot, it makes the best coffee I've ever had that wasn't espresso.

The Clever is a bit of a hybrid but usually (though not always) used more as an immersion brewer rather than a pourover, the bulk of the extraction taking place in the brewer with water & grinds held together, rather than as water flows through the bed. It looks like a pourover, but is less sensitive to balancing grind against flow rate (less need for pouring kettles & regimented pour regimes). Grind, temperature & time being the bigger drivers, like other declining temp immersion brewers such as French press, Aeropress, Sowden, Eva Solo, etc. (with the benefit if paper filtration & additional filtration provided by the grounds bed in some cases).

kaldi61 wrote:Next to my vac pot, [the Clever] makes the best coffee I've ever had that wasn't espresso.

If you are partial to siphon brewing, it makes sense that you might prefer the Clever over traditional manual drip brewers. After all, both the vac pot and the Clever dripper have an immersion stage that is absent in strict manual drip brewing methods. The SCAA actually considers vacuum brewers to be a distinct brewing method category. Arguably, the Clever fits best in what the SCAA calls the "hybrid" brewing method category, since it (generally) combines elements of immersion and drip brewing. I suppose the added immersion stage could make for a more complete extraction and improved flavor development. But assuming proper technique, Clever vs. traditional manual drip is probably more a matter of personal preference than anything else. Like paper vs. cloth vs. metal filters.

Hybrid technique it is, and it does make sense that my preferences gravitate me towards immersion techniques. I also try when possible to decrease variables in the process and all of the kettle 'art' you must perfect to master pour-over dissuades me as well (but maybe some day I'll make the most perfect fern design on the foam atop the grounds!). Playing devil's advocate, I suppose the more complete flavor development I get with the immersion stage has the potential to bring out things that may not be positives for the flavor, that you may avoid with a pour-over.

The great thing here is that with so many methods, and new ones still to be discovered, there's enough to keep us busy and maybe I'll get one of those gooseneck kettles and play around - one never really does tire of getting new coffee gear. For now I'll just enjoy a cup of Heart's Ethiopian Schilcho, ground in my Lido 2 and made in my Clever. tasty.

kaldi61 wrote:Not to high-jack this thread off original point, but on that point - clever vs. traditional pourover - can anyone articulate why they prefer one vs. the other?

in a higher volume situation, the clever would have the edge in consistency and speed.

I've been going back and forth between getting the clever and the V60. The V60 is a steal at only $8, but then I have to buy one of those $40 kettles.

ben8jam wrote:Coffee culture came quite quickly here (if one could say it's arrived) and it's pretty much impossible to get a decent espresso shot anywhere...

I don't know Glendale that well, but a good shot in the SGV or downtown doesn't represent much of a challenge. You're welcome to visit Monrovia if you want to try home-made espresso, balance-beam siphon, Chemex + Kone, press or ice drip.

... so I made the close-minded assumption that the pour-overs and the breaking-bad type coffee setups were just so hipsters could feel different about their coffee...

Rich

boar_d_laze wrote:I don't know Glendale that well, but a good shot in the SGV or downtown doesn't represent much of a challenge.

It is much easier now, but it didn't used to be. Lots of new spots have opened up which is nice. Though, $3.25 for a single shot is hard to swallow.

Hey man. Couldn't read all the comments above, but have you tried scooping off the scum at the surface? You can check out my short tutorial about it here..

https://www.facebook.com/kapekomunidad/ ... 3080627942