Andy Schechter Apologizes to Alan Adler on CG

#1: Post by **drgary** » August 16th, 2012, 11:53 pm

There was a moment of civility on CG today, where Andy Schechter apologized to Alan Adler and Alan accepted. According to Andy's post the dispute was over measurement of extraction yields in the AeroPress.

Here's the link:

https://www.coffeegeek.com/forums/coffe ... 551#590551

#2: Post by **TomC** » August 17th, 2012, 12:02 am

I didn't know he was from Palo Alto. Small world! I'd love to read the original dialogue but without a link, it would take much longer than it's likely worth.

August 17th, 2012, 12:11 am

Hi Tom:

The apology was on CoffeeGeek. Maybe someone can provide the link to the original discussion, although I expect it was heated so that a summary of the disputed method may be more interesting. Andy offers a link to a lecture by Vince Fidele (CEO of VST) in the apology and it was that lecture that changed his mind.

#4: Post by **yakster** » August 17th, 2012, 12:12 am

It's good to see this civility, I was following along the dialog and playing with refractometers back in 2009 and the dialog got rather impassioned. Both gentlemen have taught me a lot about coffee over the years.

#5: Post by **Bob_McBob** » August 17th, 2012, 12:41 am

drgary wrote:Hi Tom:

The apology was on CoffeeGeek. Maybe someone can provide the link to the original discussion, although I expect it was heated so that a summary of the disputed method may be more interesting.

Here is the start of the relevant section of the discussion. It centres around the question of whether you should consider the liquid retained by coffee grounds to be lost water, or lost full strength coffee when calculating the extraction yield. Alan's contention was that the wet grounds left in the Aeropress retain full strength coffee, which means the extraction is higher than what would be indicated by standard SCAA brew charts.

Vince's presentation is specifically about this subject. The standard method for determining extraction assumes that the liquid retained by grinds is of such low concentration that it can be considered plain water for the purposes of the calculation. This apparently generally holds true for drip methods and espresso, where the coffee solids are gradually washed from the grounds as the brew proceeds. For full immersion methods like French press and Aeropress, the liquid retained by the grounds is essentially full strength coffee, so the normal extraction calculation will be inaccurate. This means what Alan was saying back in 2009 based on his own measurements was correct, which is why Andy issued the apology.

August 17th, 2012, 12:49 am

Thanks, Chris, for pointing to the relevant content and summarizing.

#7: Post by **Anvan** » August 17th, 2012, 1:04 am

I don't myself have an Aeropress, so I have no standing there. But every time I've taken Andy's advice, my coffee improved. So it's always good to see influential thinkers back in synch.

#8: Post by **the_trystero** » August 17th, 2012, 1:09 am

Bob_McBob wrote:Here is the start of the relevant section of the discussion. It centres around the question of whether you should consider the liquid retained by coffee grounds to be lost water, or lost full strength coffee when calculating the extraction yield. Alan's contention was that the wet grounds left in the Aeropress retain full strength coffee, which means the extraction is higher than what would be indicated by standard SCAA brew charts.

Thanks for the summary. I haven't read about these issues in the past but I always just assumed that the liquid in the grounds of full immersion brewers was close to full strength coffee.

#9: Post by **SlowRain** » August 17th, 2012, 3:22 am

That was a long time coming and extremely nice to see. Hopefully, it'll serve as a lesson to all coffee professionals and pseudo-professionals to keep the dialog civil no matter how much you disagree with the other person's opinion. Alan showed remarkable restraint in the original discussion, as a decent person should. Andy showed commendable humility in his apology. I think one more person still owes Alan an apology.

#10: Post by **Bob_McBob** » August 17th, 2012, 5:01 am

To be fair, it's a specific finding that hardly vindicates everything Alan has said about the Aeropress on CG. It's worth keeping in mind that the discussion I linked was preceded by several years of stubborn claims about about Aeropress coffee being "espresso" (it's still described as an espresso maker on Aerobie's web site).