In the 4:6 Tetsu method, the first 40% of total brew liquid poured is said to adjust the brightness-sweetness continuum, and the second 60% of total brew liquid poured is said to adjust the 'strength' of the cup.

What does 'strength' mean?

Caffeine content? Total dissolved solids? Viscosity? Bitterness? Length of the aftertaste?

I have no idea what 'strength' means - could anyone clarify it for me?

Thanks in advance...

Total dissolved solids. For example, two pours of 60 ml would be expected to extract/dissolve more coffee solids than one pour of 120ml (given the method's very coarse grind size, specific pouring technique, etc.).

Whether it actually works like that ... is an exercise for the reader .

Is grind size the only factor contributing to any difference in cup quality between the 4:6 method and the Hoffmann method? (the suggested grind size in the 4:6 is coarser than that advised in the Hoffmann method).

If you brewed the same coffee at the same grind size with the Hoffmann vs the 4:6 method - how would they differ? If at all?

I do 4:6 with a fine grind size and am perfectly happy with the results.

But in also using a Melitta, so maybe everything I'm doing is just heresy...

cactus_farmer wrote:Is grind size the only factor contributing to any difference in cup quality between the 4:6 method and the Hoffmann method? (the suggested grind size in the 4:6 is coarser than that advised in the Hoffmann method).

If you brewed the same coffee at the same grind size with the Hoffmann vs the 4:6 method - how would they differ? If at all?

Everything matters in manual pourover brewing. If you hold your pouring kettle a couple centimetres higher then the cup quality will change. However, that doesn't mean that you will taste that difference.

I think that the big thing with manual brewing methods is consistency - achieving near-identical results over multiple brewed cups. Unfortunately, the easiest way of measuring consistency is with a higher-quality refractometer, and those are expensive.

Lack of consistency is why Tetsu no longer recommends his 4:6 method - most people don't put in the hours that are pretty much needed to do that method consistently, nor do they have a grinder of EK43 quality at the coarse grind sizes needed to get the fast draw-down of the method, and so it is better for almost everyone to use a simpler method that gives more consistent results with what people actually own.

baldheadracing wrote:Lack of consistency is why Tetsu no longer recommends his 4:6 method - most people don't put in the hours that are pretty much needed to do that method consistently, nor do they have a grinder of EK43 quality at the coarse grind sizes needed to get the fast draw-down of the method, and so it is better for almost everyone to use a simpler method that gives more consistent results with what people actually own.

So, what should a pourover luddite such as myself use as a method instead instead?

I quite like the cups I brew and don't at all feel that I'm chasing something I've achieved one time and can't recreate...

If you like what you are drinking, then that is all that matters.

I'm one of those weird people who think that the grinder makes more of a difference as brew ratios and grind sizes increase, i.e., I think that the grinder is more important for brewed coffee than espresso.

I tell friends just to grind fine (like Aeropress fine), and pour all the water at once: 'New' Tetsu Kasuya V60 method (with [VIDEO]) The finer grind helps tighten up the grind distribution with lower-quality grinders, and everyone can just dump water in - it seems enough of an effort just to convince people to use a scale.

I'd consider fooling around with brew temperature over pouring methods, e.g., Kasuya's new "Hybrid" Hario Switch method, also works on Clever dripper While that method uses a Switch, the general idea of pouring the hottest water first and then cooler water does seem to favourably improve the taste of many coffees and roasts (but not all).

Cool.

I haven't found any recipes for the Mellita papers. Is that just because they suck?

I have like 50 more to go through before I think about switching to a V60

In my experience:
- the Melitta "Natural Brown" papers have huge paper taste and you need to rinse those with lots of water;
- the regular Melitta white papers have "Flavor Enhancing® perforations," a.k.a. holes in the paper. This seems to lead to uneven extraction, but this is hard to prove;
- I don't know about the bamboo paper or their other papers.

The main thing is about (real) Melitta cones. (I have tested #2, #4, and #6 cones.) The cones are designed so that the size of the hole at the bottom of the cone determines the maximum flow rate of the coffee. You can think of it like a pressurized basket, but for pourover - but it doesn't have as 'bad' an impact as a pressurized basket has on espresso. The hole yields consistent results with a variety of grind sizes and filter papers/metal baskets - rarely 'ideal,' but also never very far away from ideal.

Contrast this with a V60, where the flow rate is determined by one's pouring technique with a gooseneck kettle and grind size and the particular filter paper, with the cone itself offers no meaningful restriction. It is manual brewing, just like a manual (direct) lever machine. That's why there are threads on minutiae like the qualities of the (official) V60 filter papers that come from different factories.

I personally do not recommend people start out with a V60, for the same reasons that I wouldn't recommend a Pavoni as someone's first espresso machine. I'm not saying that it can't be done, but there are easier and faster paths to take. The Hario Switch (which I don't have) seems to be the current favourite, supplanting the Clever Dripper (which I do).

So if I brew two of the same coffees at the same grind size and use the 4:6 method for one and the Hoffmann for the other, which method is likely to result in a cleaner/crisper brew, and which would result in the more full-bodied brew?