I am living in a temporary apartment while my house is finished up. All my espresso gear is in storage except for my Cimbali Max and press pot. The one problem I have had with a press is that the coffee always has a bitter twang ala over extracted. I have changed grind, steep, temperature and it has been reduced but it is still there.

A few months ago there was a thread about skimming the grounds out of the press before you actually press the coffee. I have been doing that, and it made a marked improvement in the cup but there was still that slight bitter twang. I do not like bitter in my coffee. I refrained from drinking coffee just because I found it bitter. Then one day I visited Metropolis in Chicago on a business trip and my eyes were open to what coffee should be like.

Well back to my point. Skimming the grounds from the press prior to pressing did cut the bitter substantially but it is just tiresome to get a couple of spoons and skim the coffee out. So a few days ago I had the idea of reversing the press. Instead of putting the coffee in, then the water, then the press I reversed it. I put in the press, put the coffee on top of the press which is half way down the glass so I can move the lid off to the side. Then I pour my water onto the coffee and push the press down. That way the grounds are floating above the screen. Give it the summary stir, or rather swirl in my case, then raise the press. That collects all the coffee on top of the screen and I discard it into the sink. Then I rinse the press under some hot water, put it back in and press it to the bottom to catch any lingering grit.

The results have been wonderful. I get a very clean and bitter free cup of coffee but with the body of a press pot. Now I still get the press pot sludge in the bottom of the cup, but that has never bothered me. It may sound more complicated then simply skimming the ground off the top but it is not, and it is faster. You just load the top of the press with the coffee, fill with water and steep then pull the entire ting out, grinds and all. You could even skip putting the press back in but I still do. Give it try, you may like the coffee even better.

Sounds a lot like the function of the Trudeau Tirra Coffee Press. Glad to hear it works so well, may have to try this myself, thanks Dave.

Sounds interesting, Dave. Might have to dust-off my press in the morning and give it a try. My press has been collecting dust ever since I got a vacpot, so im very open to anything which will bring it back to life.

Damn, I wish I'd thought of that!

I've been slamming the pressing part of French Presses for a few yeas now, but never thought of doing this. You could even let the grounds just float, without stirring, like when cupping, and probably do even better.

Thanks Dave (if I may) for posting about this - if I may add some of my own mini-findings for any thoughts you may have with a similar method! I've been doing this method off and on for about three months now.

After being without my espresso machine for so long i also began to play with my FPs. There were two things that contributed to some necessary mods.

1) I was getting some 'stale' tastes (after cleaning grinder etc.)
2) I wanted an easier way of doing the Wendleboe/Hoffman technique like Dave.

So I slightly modified my two Bodum double walled FPs to be without the lids:



I follow Dave's method exactly but put the plunger all the way in at the start - this also allows easy pouring from the kettle (but putting the lid back on after adding water to keep heat in). I then take the lid off before pouring it out.

*I have found that the pour spout is an unecessary 'filter' and I believe results have improved without that plastic mesh getting in the way.*

Am I crazy or does this actually work?!!

Thanks again Dave! (saw it posted on twitter)

Hi guys,

Dave nice idea I will give it a try tomorrow and see how it works.

One thing though, isn't the bitterness caused by too much fines? I always thought so and that what made me switch to a Mahlokonig Guatemala. Now I get better brew and less bitterness which is a huge change compared to the FPs I used to get from my Macap.

One experiment I might recommend is sifting the grounds and then FPing it. It usually shows how fines spoil the brew.

Regards,
dsc.

It could be fines causing the over extracted bitter. I only get it when I press the pot so it could be squeezing the bad stuff from the fines. The lifting method does not squeeze the coffee, it just collects it as you raise the screen. I would equate the press to squeezing a tea bag, which pulls out the bad stuff. The pressure from the press is forcing out the compounds you dont want. I have even gone with boulder sized grind with a one min steep which should be sour and under extracted but I would simply get a sour/bitter cup. The skimming helped a lot but it could be better yet so I tried reversing the process. Think of it as a drip/press hybrid of sorts. Lifting the screen creates less pressure.

You could always prepare your pot as usual but only press the screen down enough to break the top of the crust and pour through the screen but I think you will still get a slightly bitter brew since the grinds are still steeping. Reversing the process removes 98% or so of the grinds and halts the steeping in addition to avoiding the squeeze out the bitters effect of the press.

cannonfodder wrote:. . . Cimbali Max and press pot. The one problem I have had with a press is that the coffee always has a bitter twang ala over extracted. I have changed grind, steep, temperature and it has been reduced but it is still there.

Dave,

Espresso requires a blend of fines and coarses, if you will, and a proper espresso grinder like the Cimbali Max produces that fine-coarse distribution rather well across a wide range of settings.

While both fines and coarses are required for espresso, for filter, press, vacuum, or virtually any brewing method except espresso, fines are undesirable and contribute to the overextraction and bitterness you are describing. For those "other" brewing methods, we need uniformity of particle size. For that reason, top-drawer grinders designed specifically for filter, press, etc., brewing methods excel at that uniformity but cannot produce suitable grinds for espresso, e.g., the Ditting 804 series.

That's a marvelously creative use of a french press!

Another option might be a relatively inexpensive grinder like the Baratza Virtuoso (ca $200), which in my experience does quite well for brewed coffee (and poorly for espresso).

Precisely why my Super Jolly (which I adore for espresso) sucks at press.

Quite timely. I had been thinking of a way to do this and, when I cracked my french press, I used the plunger to do just this last week (using a plastic 32oz cup ). I'm surprised this hadn't been done before.

I too am without espresso at home due to a kitchen remodel, taking longer than "expected". I have been using the Clever Coffee Dripper bought from Sweet Maria's. I makes a great cup, and as I have no garbage disposal, cleanup is easier than with a press.

I too am without my espresso setup due to a recent move. I was struggling with bitterness using a French Press and newly-acquired Baratza Virtuoso. The Virtuoso creates quite a lot of fines (even after being swapped out by Baratza).

I have found the only acceptable solution to be sifting, which is extremely effective. You can get a Ditting-like FP grind from a Baratza this way. The downside is that I lose about a third of the coffee! But I would rather have those fines in the garbage than in my cup.

In my opinion, fines are detrimental whether or not there is any stirring, pressing, or agitation of any kind. Fines are also detrimental even if they are adequately removed after steeping (i.e. pulled, skimmed, etc). After steeping is just too late to try to remedy fines, in my opinion.

I am now brewing using the Abid Clever Dripper. So I get a "clean" cup (i.e. no sludge/suspended solids) whether or not I sift the grounds. However if I don't sift the grounds, I get a lot more bitterness. Sifted grounds give me more clarity and sweetness.

I have no doubt that Dave's method has improved his results by a large margin. However, I would recommend taking things even further with the sifting method. Obviously your mileage may vary depending on your grinder and taste preferences.

In my experience, fines are getting slandered. At least I've never been able to detect a difference triangle cupping the sifted and unsifted grinds of any reasonable grinder.

This is unsurprising, since the weight of fines is less than 1% of the total ground coffee weight, it's the same coffee, and the limits on extraction without hydrolysis is about 25% rather than 20%. In other words, the addition of fines adds about 5 parts in 10,000 of slightly overextracted coffee to the dissolved solids in the cup. If you've played with the taste of over and underextracted coffee, you'll realize there is no way anyone will ever taste this difference.

Now, the water being absorbed into the cell walls of the larger particles does pick up that great instant coffee skank (instant coffee is about a 50% extraction, and includes the hydrolyzed cell walls).

So my guess is that the off flavors people notice come from agitating the large particles, not from getting fines in the cup. Grinders may make a difference if the shape of the large particles varies, and some grinders create particles that hold any water absorbed into the cell walls better than others.

another_jim wrote:So my guess is that the off flavors people notice come from agitating the large particles, not from getting fines in the cup.

This does not bode well for vac pot brewing. Any tips?

Hi guys,

of any reasonable grinder

for example?

So my guess is that the off flavours people notice come from agitating the large particles, not from getting fines in the cup.

You've got a few people definitely noticing difference between fines/no-fines in this thread, including myself. I can definitely tell the difference between coffee brewed from my Guatemala and my Macap.

Regards,
dsc.

another_jim wrote:In my experience, fines are getting slandered. At least I've never been able to detect a difference triangle cupping the sifted and unsifted grinds of any reasonable grinder.

This is unsurprising, since the weight of fines is less than 1% of the total ground coffee weight, it's the same coffee, and the limits on extraction without hydrolysis is about 25% rather than 20%. In other words, the addition of fines adds about 5 parts in 10,000 of slightly overextracted coffee to the dissolved solids in the cup. If you've played with the taste of over and underextracted coffee, you'll realize there is no way anyone will ever taste this difference.

These numbers may be correct, but I think you're ignoring the impact of fines actually appearing in the cup itself. In presspot coffee, you don't only overextract fines, you drink them. That may have a significant impact on taste as well as body and mouthfeel.

My fines point is simple: using the same grinder, removing the fines on some samples, and not others, then filtering the resulting brews, will yield indistinguishable cups, even with high fines producing espresso grinders. This is easy to confirm over and over in blind taste tests.

Obviously, some people dislike the mouth feel of fines in the cup. But they will probably prefer a paper filtered FP brew to a fines screened, unfiltered FP brew.

The issue of brew grinder testing apart from fines is not so simple.

Different grinders taste different brewed, and are always distinguishable in triangle tests. In the past, this has fooled me into announcing one grinder as better than another for brewing. However, the further tests are never consistent, and have more to do with subtly unequal grind settings and extraction levels, which will favor one grinder with some coffees, and the other grinder with different coffees.

This observation is borne out by espresso grinder tests too. The best tasting espresso grinders are the ones that produce the most forgiving and best flows, regardless of other particle distribution characteristics. But this is precisely the grinder characteristic that is not at issue in other forms of brewing.

Here's a mental experiment. We have one ubergrinder that produces a uniform, goosestepping grind size. And we have one slacker grinder that produces a wide, dithering particle distribution. Which will brew better coffee? Ubergrinder would march to victory every time if one could brew the coffee to a precisely set, optimal extraction level in real time. There the grinder with the tighter tolerance would do better in each round. But if the precise extraction level is unknown or uncontrolled, slacker grinder with the wide distribution has a 50/50 chance of winning any taste test. All real world brewing has this unfortunate uncertainty in actual and desired extraction levels. And this is the reason my ubergrinders have never convincingly beaten my regular grinders in brewing tests.

Finally, there's a reason so few people do and publish blind tests. Nobody really wants to put their latest piece of very expensive gear, and their justification for buying it, on the line.

Of course, this reasoning won't stop people from buying expensive brewing grinders. It will just motivate them to design even more expensive real time extraction controllers

portamento wrote:In my opinion, fines are detrimental whether or not there is any stirring, pressing, or agitation of any kind. Fines are also detrimental even if they are adequately removed after steeping (i.e. pulled, skimmed, etc). After steeping is just too late to try to remedy fines, in my opinion.

I really want to agree with you, but I am having trouble with my experience, mostly with the Baratza Vario. I have never been able to get very excellent French Press... almost always a muddy cup with more bitter than I want there. Doing the break and clean method helped significantly, but never really eliminated it completely.

Using the same grinder for siphon brewing (different grind, however) definitely yields a cleaner cup. I'm really thinking there might be something to Jim's idea that squeezing the overextracted water from the large particles by compressing the grinds may be a pretty significant factor to the bitterness in French pressing. I'm sure that nothing's pure here--the end result is a combination of many factors. But Jim's post reminded me of the first batch of "kit beer" that I home-brewed in college. We steeped the mash (I think that's what it's called) in a muslin sock during the boiling phase of the brewing, and when we finished, we squeezed the sock to get the water out of it thoroughly. Moments later, we read this was a pretty stupid idea, because it effectively sponges out a really tannic flavor that can have a negative impact on your brew. Sure enough, 6 months later that beer had a weird woody funk and and unpleasant bite.

another_jim wrote:My fines point is simple: using the same grinder, removing the fines on some samples, and not others, then filtering the resulting brews, will yield indistinguishable cups, even with high fines producing espresso grinders. This is easy to confirm over and over in blind taste tests.

Obviously, some people dislike the mouth feel of fines in the cup. But they will probably prefer a paper filtered FP brew to a fines screened, unfiltered FP brew.

Aha, now I understand your methodology. Given the extra step of filtering, the results of your taste tests are easy to believe. Integrating peaks in laser particle sizing shows that the percentage (by weight or mass) of fines is surprisingly low, even for classic espresso grinders. But the presence of fines gives (unfiltered) FP brew a characteristic "muddy" personality. Kudos to Dave for suggesting a simple remedy.

I'll have to give Dave's method a try, as soon as I get a replacement carafe for my FP. Glass has a half-life measured in weeks at my house.