Anvan wrote:I recently had a Clover Guatemala Antigua in a Dallas Starbucks. By far the most interesting facet of the experience was that the shop would actually push a product that consumes an entire employee for several minutes at 8:15 a.m. with a line out the door.

The coffee itself was truly flat and lifeless, missing any distinctive characteristics save those of a wholly unexplainable oat-bran baseline with an aftertaste I'd swear was chicory. In other words, a massive upgrade over the usual Starbucks product.

While this isn't as quick as having someone pumping out some coffee from an airpot or lifting a lever valve to dump out some pre-made coffee that's been sitting, waiting and staling, I'd have to say your completely wrong on both parts of your comment. The machine is automated other than the barista dumping the grinds, pushing a button, and later at the end sweeping the spent coffee off the top of the machine and a brief wipedown. Hardly something that takes several minutes of an entire employee's time. Shy of using an airpot, I don't know of any method of manual single drink prep that is faster, or less hands on than the Clover. Clover's site back before it was bought out by Starbucks stated an average of 40 seconds to brew a cup. I think even the Steam Punk is slower.

At the Ritual satellite brew bar location inside the Oxbow Farmer's Market, in Napa, the barista was just getting the bar setup while he was making my cup. He was able to arrange a few pastries and clean the counter while the machine was doing it's thing. So, it doesn't tie a barista down either.

But to your point about a line wrapping around the door at a Starbucks while someone is running a Clover seems odd. Most (90% or more) patrons of Starbucks want their caramel no-whip, half cafe cappuccinos, not coffee. So it would be hard to blame the machine. Instead, if the location you went to only had enough staff to run a clover and make espresso drinks, it sounds like they should have dedicated that person to the espresso drink production to keep the line moving.

And getting back to the more central point of this thread about body and clarity (and hoping that they aren't always thought to be mutually exclusive) it seems like someone willing to really buckle down end invest a lot of time, patience and practice with the humble Aeropress along with the shaking method using a canning jar mentioned in the brewing thread would likely achieve similar results, with certain coffees. But it wouldn't be as consistent or easy.

I agree with Tom, Manic Coffee in Toronto runs a Clover and aside from maybe a minute of prep and a little sifting, they're definitely not there for the full 4 minutes or so of brew time. That Starbucks experience sounds a lot like an employee that thinks they're pretty darn cool because they had to go operate the Clover and ignored the rest of their duty while they relished their moment working with the machine.

I really like the cups I get from the Clover, but I'm kind of in the middle on clarity and the Clover. I've definitely had cups with more clarity using a Clever/KONE 2 in an immersion brew setting (like a French Press). Tom's right though, consistency is easier to attain with a machine like the Clover. The Clover definitely makes a great cup, or maybe better said, Manic Coffee knows how to use their Clover. I was surprised to hear about Jim's experience...

What is the definition of clarity in coffee? Isn't it simply that you can taste origin/varietal, or the non-roast flavours? Or flavour separation similar to what people experience when they begin using titan conicals with espresso.

Clarity means that the flavors distinctive to that coffee are clear and in the foreground, not drowned out by generic malt, caramel and pyrolytic flavors, nor by grassiness, sourness or scorching.

For clarity defined in this way, I am a skeptic on the Aeropress, as I am on all fine grind/agitation methods. So far my experiences on Clovers, Aeropresses, Trifectas, Steampunks etc have been of overwhelmingly opaque brews, with generic roast flavors drowning out everything else. I do not remember a single instance where the distinctiveness of the coffee was so apparent that I thought I was getting a great coffee. I did get some very pleasant tasting brews, especially from the Aeropress; but that alone is a only a good thing for generic coffees, not for high end coffee. This is why I do not think the Clover was ever a good match for single serve premium coffees. I hope the Trifecta and Steampunk do better; but I am not hopeful.

I would say putting it that way, Jim, that I agree with you about the Clover. I wasn't necessarily thinking the 'flavours are in the foreground', that clears up the definition of clarity to me. I'd say the coffee from the Clover tastes great, but I wouldn't describe the cup as having the flavors distinctive to that coffee in the foreground.

another_jim wrote:Clarity means that the flavors distinctive to that coffee are clear and in the foreground, not drowned out by generic malt, caramel and pyrolytic flavors, nor by grassiness, sourness or scorching.
...

I fully agree. I also feel that full immersion brewing of any sort, including cupping, is no good for clarity. I believe that the "body" of a French Press is not "body" whatsoever, but a distraction.
Body is parallel with clarity, not opposed.

another_jim wrote:a coarse ground coffee steeped for 4 minutes, then decanted through paper for around 90 seconds longer

I remember having coffee at your place brewed this way for the food pairing and it was exceptional. Is this essentially a brew made with a Clever Coffee Dripper (assuming you could slow down the CCD to a 90 sec drop)?

Those were ultralight roasts, done on a PIDed airroaster, taken to the early first crack, stalled for ninety seconds at 400F, and dumped. They were designed to sparkle, but not to overwhelm the food. I think their distinctive wine or tea like taste had more to do with this roasting method than with the brewing method.

The draw time is not important for me now, since I filter out the grinds before I pour into the filter (i.e. I make brewing and clarification into completely separate steps). When I used the Clever, where the grinds remain, I went 3:15 minutes and had a similar draw down time (on Melitta paper, removing the grinds does not speed up the draw, since the fines are still in solution and clog the paper).

Jim, I'm curious to know your method now. One thing is for sure, I think I'll be busting out the Chemex again. This is the first I heard that the filters have larger holes, and are faster than others. Typically it's the opposite that's said- but people are usually wrong about everything I guess.

They may be more porous, but they're also a good deal thicker too.