I agree in certain regards. Higher water ratios certainly make lighter roasts shine, however I also routinely do 12:1 ratios on Vivace vita (darker roast) mainly for the wife and I honestly can say that its also quite delicious. Of course she likes a concentrated cup and adding a tiuch of creamer so this may not translate well to others experiences.

coffeemmichael wrote:How do the post- Kalita Wave drippers stack up?

- December
- Origami (w/wave filters)
- Blue Bottle
- Stagg x
- Espro Bloom
- April

An arduous blind-tasting will cap this series.


Part one, a first look at the Espro Bloom:
video

With regards to the Espro Bloom, I've read a bit about flutes collapsing a trapping coffee in the folds of the filter.

1. Has it been an issue for you?

2. Do you think and/or have you tried brewing with just a paper disc at the bottom of the brewer?

coffeemmichael wrote:How do the post- Kalita Wave drippers stack up?

- December
- Origami (w/wave filters)
- Blue Bottle
- Stagg x
- Espro Bloom
- April

An arduous blind-tasting will cap this series.


Part one, a first look at the Espro Bloom:
video

I'm not a fan of the design of the Espro Bloom as it requires custom filters which to me is driven by customer retention strategies, not extraction. If the filter style is that amazing I'll wait for an off brand design that fits standard filter papers. I get it in the world of crowd funding projects there is a lot of hype at the start that tappers off and the challenge is to keep those customers but the last thing the coffee world needs is custom size paper filters that only works for one product.

Isn't the Espro just a Kalita with more holes? Maybe different diameter?
And didn't all filters start out as custom size? I have no clue who was first, but there was surely a point in time in which there was only one cone filter and only one cone filter type, same for v60 and Kalita.
I appreciate company's innovating and why stop at brewers or filter or wherever? Innovate!

Exactly - even "common" filters like V60, Kalita, Chemex and Aeropress are not generally available in regular grocery stores. My guess is Espro just wanted a different shape and were committed enough to make their own. Seems like the easier route would be to rely on someone else to supply filters. If they eventually stop producing filters at least you can use the Espro Bloom without paper filters or use make-shift flat discs (if your grinder is good enough, the risk of clogging will be pronounced..)

coffeeOnTheBrain wrote:Isn't the Espro just a Kalita with more holes? Maybe different diameter?
And didn't all filters start out as custom size? I have no clue who was first, but there was surely a point in time in which there was only one cone filter and only one cone filter type, same for v60 and Kalita.
I appreciate company's innovating and why stop at brewers or filter or wherever? Innovate!

Mellitta is credited with introducing the pour-over, with the first one looking more like a tin can back in c1900. But soon their clamshell design took root and became more of a standard. Flat bottom and cone-shaped filters far predate third wave and are well established. I've heard a lot of complaints with the espro filters that they collapse easy and where the core concept of the espro is interesting I don't know how this non-standard size really helps in the innovation. Are we now to expect a trend in custom shapes brewers so crowdfunding campaigns can stand out more? It just seems silly to me to make a non-standard paper filter and I suspect it's more about locking in repeat customers than innovating. Sorry for the rant but I've worked a lot in marketing and to me introducing a non-standard paper filter like this has other ulterior motives.

The Wave filters can be used in the Bloom and they even say so, which leads me to think they didn't simply change the shape to force the buyer into something proprietary. Aside from all the holes, the big difference with the Espro Bloom is that it's not tapered walls from top to bottom. I guess they wanted it narrower and straight (like an AeroPress, perhaps??) but then would need it to flair out at the top to accommodate all the water. I don't know whether that, in fact, increases extraction in shorter time but I didn't get the sense that anything ulterior was going on.

This is interesting! How are you grinding for the origami? And curious to learn why you use a different number of pulses for light vs dark roasts ?

jdrobison wrote:The Wave filters can be used in the Bloom and they even say so, which leads me to think they didn't simply change the shape to force the buyer into something proprietary. Aside from all the holes, the big difference with the Espro Bloom is that it's not tapered walls from top to bottom. I guess they wanted it narrower and straight (like an AeroPress, perhaps??) but then would need it to flair out at the top to accommodate all the water. I don't know whether that, in fact, increases extraction in shorter time but I didn't get the sense that anything ulterior was going on.

I think realistically the wave filters are not what the product is designed for and it's just a workaround. for most of the market that buys this will probably want the proprietary filter. I'm only remarking on my opinion/insights as to a viable reason for someone to introduce a brewer that uses non-standard paper filters in a very standardized market. I know it is common in emerging coffee culture, especially in competition, to be overly ambitious and try to answer problems people didn't really have and perhaps this is the predominant reason for a design like this.

I don't disagree - the Wave filters aren't ideal - but the fact that Espro says other filters can be used makes me think they weren't trying to push something unique simply to be proprietary. I do believe that what they were going for - a brewer that acts more like a portafilter - is what drove the unique design. After using it for a few weeks now (jury is still out on whether I prefer it), it's clear to me why the shape of it is so important.