The internet is full of information, though it is also full of keyboard heroes, and has something of an issue with its signal to noise ratio.  Identifying who is a useful purveyor of information is tricky and, while there is growing use of indicators in forums, often it is he who shouts loudest that wins.

I started blogging to chart my own learning, and to share what I found out with others.  Sometimes this information was very useful, and sometimes it really wasn’t.  With the videocasts the idea was to share techniques that people could use at home that would be repeatable and help them make better coffee.  It was argued (quite correctly) that my Chemex technique was flawed – that the top of the cone was likely underextracted compared to the coffee at the bottom of the cone.

I was wrong, and this was a good thing – it was useful because I learned and hopefully others reading too. ¹

It could be said (and it was) that I shouldn’t abuse my position and ‘release’ techniques that hadn’t been completely tested, because I could (in theory) quickly spread misinformation. ² While I saw the point I couldn’t help but feel that if I had to reach some sort of perfection then I would never ever get there on any technique.  I don’t think we’ll ever reach close to perfection.  If I am brewing coffee in ten, or even five, years time the same way I am today I have failed as a professional or we have failed as industry.

Good scientific method is about throwing an idea out there to find out what is wrong.  The internet is a great way to communicate ideas, to spread them.  Being wrong is a very important step in learning and needs to happen regularly.  I am sure each and every one of us is appalled by something we used to do differently even a couple of years ago.

If you say you have the perfect technique – I don’t believe you.  If you say you have the perfect espresso blend – you’re going to look stupid very soon.

Distrust those with all the answers.

Test other people’s ideas and techniques.

If you disagree then throw your opinion into the mix.  If you agree then do so too.

Don’t take what I say, or what any other (coffee) blogger says at face value because I/we/they are going to be wrong. Often. And that is ok.  You only look a fool when you are wrong but refuse to accept it.

1. Because it was aimed at home brewing I had been trying to come up with a technique that could be done without special equipment – I am sure there are more chemex’s in homes than pouring kettles.  I hadn’t meant to direct the method at the industry.  I really don’t want this to sound like an excuse, though it probably does already.
2. I should be clear in pointing out that selling information does change all this a little

Videocast #3 – Chemex/Pourover from James Hoffmann on Vimeo.

For more information there are some notes on the Square Mile blog.

Comments and discussion always welcome.

One big question was:  “Why break and then skim?  Why not just skim?”

This seemed like a pretty good question to me, so today I decided to do a few quick tests.

I took two identical presses, the same dose of coffee, the same brew water, temp and time and then after 4 minutes broke and cleaned one, and just cleaned the other.  I then tested out the TDS in each cup of coffee.

A TDS meter is useful, but limited.  It will tell you how much is dissolved in the water and nothing more.  Here I wanted to see if one cup was stronger than the other.  It turns out one was – and by quite a significant percentage.¹

The broken and stirred cup was stronger, usually by around 0.2%.  This doesn’t sound like much but when you do the maths backwards you find that it is a swing of about 3% of the ground coffee solubles extracted into the cup.

I want to do some more tests on this, and I want to do some blind cupping of it as well.  However it would seem that if your grinder produces a lot of fines, and when making press coffee it seems to easily overextract then I would just skim, opposed to breaking and skimming.  It could be that a different dose and steep time could yield better results.  I am waiting for Mark Prince’s article on his press technique because I know that while he skims but doesn’t break he does use different parameters.  It may be that one style might highlight a certain coffee better than another, who knows – I am just interesting in learning more about all this.

1. It should be noted that I haven’t done this experiment enough times for it to be seriously useful – if anyone out there with a TDS meter wants to contribute then please do!