My take away from the article was that with a blade grinder you have to check the grind numerous times to make sure you get it to the correct consistency. That means grinding takes more time and attention. Whereas with my Virtuoso I can just turn on the timer dial and it will grind what I have in the hopper when single dosing. No checking. No fuss. And I can be doing something else while the beans are grinding. And while they say they had coffee "experts" come in, who are all these people they brought in to do the tasting? I have that Krups blade coffee grinder that I'm sure everyone else has had at one time or another and since I bought my Virtuoso, it's sat in the cupboard unused. I'd never go back. Even for something like french press, I appreciate the efficiency of a burr grinder and the consistent grind that I know can be tasted in the cup.

another_jim wrote:Cooks Illustrated is a good example of "the scientist as an arrogant a-hole." Coffee labs, shops, and hobbyists all use high end grinders. Why? Cooks Illustrated doesn't bother to ask, because they think they already know. And lo and behold! Their experiment proves that all these experts are wrong. The idea that they themselves don't know the reasons why pros use expensive grinders never occurred to them.

It seems likely the test could've been improved upon, but I think the article shows Cooks' scientists being the opposite of "arrogant a-holes." They gave the industry belief in burr grinders the benefit of the doubt so much that they had trouble believing their taste test results the first time so they ran the test three times and brought in coffee experts. Calling them "arrogant a-holes" because one doesn't like their results seems to be a case of "shooting the messenger." Testing something three times because you want to believe the industry mythology regarding burr grinders seems the opposite of arrogance. They are in other words attempting a scientific blind test to the point where they want to get it right--not arrogance at all. Yet I think the commenters so far have pointing out some flaws in their tests: 1. They refrigerated the ground samples--biggest flaw it sounds like--as they should've brewed immediately after grinding. 2. They didn't brew espresso. Moreover, despite the taste results the authors of the article still endorsed more expensive burr grinders. How is this arrogance? I think perhaps someone else or Cooks should run the same blind tests correcting these flaws.

I think a lot of people take it as a given that more uniform grind means better tasting coffee when brewed (NOT espresso), but this doesn't seem to be backed by, well anything really? Especially when grinder companies themselves make grinders and burrs specifically aimed at brewed, and these are actually *less* uniform. So going back to basics, why should a blade grinder make worse coffee than a burr grinder? Given that you can avoid too much silt (which tends to be bitter), you should be able to make good brews with both.

But if bitter is what you get with too much silt and you end up with more silt from a blade grinder, wouldn't that result in a lower quality in the cup?

Going back almost 15 years, my blog Chapter, 79 The Cost of Grinder Frugality shows and describes the same design, low-end flat burrs complete with 'protruding screw heads' from my Cuisinart CCM-16PC which look like those in the article.

LewBK wrote:They gave the industry belief in burr grinders the benefit of the doubt so much that they had trouble believing their taste test results the first time so they ran the test three times and brought in coffee experts.

It's too bad they didn't ask these coffee experts to review their test protocol.

This article goes to show the level of ignorance about coffee preparation. To use an analogy, imagine if Cook's Illustrated compared a fine artisan bread against a solid national brand -- after letting the breads stale for a day. If they then published an article entitled "Are You Overpaying for Fancy Artisan Bread?" based on this protocol, they'd be rightly ridiculed because any reader knows that comparing stale breads is pointless. And yet that's how they compared these coffees.

It's not entirely their fault. Judging from the coffees that are routinely served at offices, conferences, and hotels, the general public is so accustom to bad coffee, it's accepted as normal. This past week, a friend and I served Americanos/cappuccinos/lattes to my colleagues at work as part of a holiday get-together (~85 cups in three hours). Many raved how excellent the drinks were. While I'd love to think that we were serving something extraordinary, I know they're just average compared to what's prepared daily by experienced home baristas on this site.

I argue that burr grinder quality is irrelevant once you start sifting your coffee, and to prove it, I've used a blade grinder and a vitamix and was able to make great espresso (assuming a staccato shot).

Now, a burr grinder has a better and easier distribution than a blade. So really, to compare burr grinders, it isn't just the shot that matters because of the subjectivity. The better test is measuring the particle size distribution and comparing the three grinders that way.

Edit: I just saw the bit on the sifter. They still only look at three data points which is not enough. I'm bummed they went through all this effort but didn't go just a bit further to break down the grind distribution.

Second edit for those who think I'm a coffee grifter: using a coffee sifter, you could sift out the same particle distribution that better grinders have, remix the grounds, and pull a regular shot which is better than the lower quality grinder would have provided. But they did not do this. I'm more disappointed by their lack of data points.

HB wrote:This article goes to show the level of ignorance about coffee preparation. To use an analogy, imagine if Cook's Illustrated compared a fine artisan bread against a solid national brand -- after letting the breads stale for a day. If they then published an article entitled "Are You Overpaying for Fancy Artisan Bread?" based on this protocol, they'd be rightly ridiculed because any reader knows that comparing stale breads is pointless. And yet that's how they compared these coffees.

There is a straightforward, albeit time consuming answer to this debate: Why doesn't Home Barista run a similar blind test but correct the flaws, using fresh coffee? It would be important I think to have people who aren't coffee experts taste the results and another set of experts tasting them. It would also be important to try to approach the taste test part as blindly and objectively as possible because sure scientists at Cook's can be biased and have pre-conceived notions but so can baristas proud of their expensive home equipment. It would also be interesting testing more than one kind of preparation with chosen grinders--drip brew, espresso, etc. I'm sure if the test was done as objectively and thoroughly as possible and the results were published in their entirety here there would be great interest from members and it would perhaps generate additional foot traffic to the site. The great thing about scientific experiments is they can be repeated and errors corrected. Why not do it here? And if low end grinders prove effective for certain preparations such as drip, wouldn't that actually be good news not bad for home baristas who want an excellent cup without breaking their bank?

namelessone wrote:I think a lot of people take it as a given that more uniform grind means better tasting coffee when brewed (NOT espresso), but this doesn't seem to be backed by, well anything really? Especially when grinder companies themselves make grinders and burrs specifically aimed at brewed, and these are actually *less* uniform. So going back to basics, why should a blade grinder make worse coffee than a burr grinder? Given that you can avoid too much silt (which tends to be bitter), you should be able to make good brews with both.

I done quite allot of testing on this matter, I have brewed allot of brewed coffee and yes my experience tell me it is better. If it where not I would have sold my EK long ago, but at some point better distribution doesn't necessary translate into better, why you can get decent drinkable coffee from less unimodal grinders. EK doesn't make the most unimodal grind, there is a certain Ditting who dos it better, but the cup I didn't fancy.

About sifting it's about as bad as it can possibly get, I cupped different kind of sifting compared it multiple times with none sifting grind and the latter where always better, even when used with a below par grinder, and where dead boring compared to the EK none sifted grind.

In my experience you don't make a great cup with a blade grinder, just like I don't think you make a great cup with a typical espresso grinder (brewed). Besides blade grinders produce allot of boulders and allot of free fines, none of those things contribute to much positive in brewed coffee, why you don't really make a fantastic cup with a espresso grinder.