Not sure, if we have a thread for this. I couldn’t find. This is one of my favourite brews. It’s faster, easier and always give a lovely cup - be it @"MWJB"#139’s or Hoffman’s method. Mostly, I use Mark’s as I find the cup is a little cleaner than Hoffman’s. Yesterday, I opened the [Ethiopian Haru Washed](https://www.thomsonscoffee.com/products/ethiopia-haru?_pos=2&_sid=4420db8ae&_ss=r&variant=39311835398231). Pulled a few shots and brewed on Clever. The cups were ok. I wasn’t impressed, given the cup score of 87.25. I bought this as a light roast. It’s a medium light for me. I am drinking a cup from V60 now after brewing this. The dosage details are: 3.9 Jx Pro rotations, 16.3g powder, 272g water and got 237g liquid. I used Mark’s method, 30g every 30s pouring in circles. The each pour lasted 8-11s. The last pour was at the centre. The total time was 5:01 mins. The cup was very clean, light, very smooth, full of citrus flavours and sweet citrus notes, which are Bergamot orange. As a result, there is a little bit of fruity bitterness, which also creeps in disturbing what is otherwise a good bag. I am therefore not a great fan of this bag. If one is brewing this exclusively or drinking it as a long black, it is good as long as one is aware of the tiny fruity bitter aftertaste. It won’t cut with milk! We buy beans, which can be a very good milk-based coffee and also pull a nice brew. I don’t think I will buy this bag again. It is not for us. It was good buy considering I paid about £23 for a KG vs the full price of £33 and has a cup score of 87.25. If you want to buy, please try a smaller bag and see if this is for you.

I do enjoy a V60 from time to time as well.

@"DavecUK"#p15221 How clean, easy and very good the cup has become, thanks to a lot of hard work and contributions by @"MWJB"#139 and Hoffman. I don’t even have to wonder what my grind size is. Just start with the same settings and a few clicks change are all required.

Blackcat El Salvador Los Luchadores with a cup score of 86.5 Mark’s method. 16.4g, 275g water, 4:44 mins, 242g liquid. Cranberry and chocolate after taste for me. Very nice black coffee.

@"MWJB"#139 Thanks to all your research work on various brew types and Hoffman’s on V60, the pour overs have become easier. It’s very difficult to get the brews wrong. Many thanks mate!

Thanks & you're most welcome :-) It warms my heart to see folk getting pleasing brews. When I first started making brewed coffee, pour over seemed seemed unfathomable, driven by luck/beneficial spirits and I, like many others, sought 'safety' in immersion brews, where you could at least dictate brew time & not be reliant on things outside of your control like flow rate. But, as I built a better understanding, I realised that pour over is certainly as predictable & repeatable as any brew method, reasonably quick too. Of course, I still enjoy immersions, but 95% (just a guess) of my brews are pour overs. Sure, I come a little unstuck every now & then, but usually due to trying a new regime/brew weight/grinder or setting.

Can imagine how hard the journey to where you are now would have been. May have taken you months, if not years, of dedicated research and hard work to achieve the expected outcome. Minions like us can now use your template and make a damn good coffee. The beauty is I haven’t seen the need to change my grind settings for different beans. 😊 It hardly requires any major adjustments except a click or two on either side. > @"MWJB"#p16943 Of course, I still enjoy immersions, but 95% (just a guess) of my brews are pour overs. Sure, I come a little unstuck every now & then, but usually due to trying a new regime/brew weight/grinder or setting. We hardly take out our Indian (immersion filter), unless some one gifts a bag of ground coffee. 😂 Many thanks and best of luck for keep pushing the boundaries. Please do post regularly so that we get to read and learn from your brewings. I also think you may want to consider sharing your journey so far on this forum. 😊 Cheers mate!

Blackcat’s Ethiopian medium 20.1g, 335g water, Mark’s method, 284g liquid and 6:02 mins in total. Another balanced, fruity and sweet cup; had a tiny lingering orange bitterness after taste, which I think is the impact of the orange peel. I am grinding coarser than I normally would. I brewed this coffee for the first time. Perhaps, I will grind a tad coarser next time. Clever would be interesting, although I doubt it would make a difference to the cup. https://i.imgur.com/aCaNR9W.jpg Edit : Please ignore the espresso shot.

**Django Santa Ana** Brewed 16g on 270g of boiling water using Marks method. Got 231.3g liquid. The blueberry, mild sweet blackberry and vanilla taste come out clearly. Considering I ground this at the lower end of the pour over range at 3.6 turns on my grinder, it did produce a slight raw fruit bitter after taste; the cup was very good though. There were no silts, although the mild bitterness call for a coarse grind; I wondered if the water was too hot >100C that resulted in bitterness. Perhaps, I will grind at the normal setting of 3.8-3.9 and see. https://imgur.com/a/c4uOhlz

@"MWJB"#139 Given the tasting notes (blueberry, blackberry, vanilla), I thought the bitterness seeps through the grind size. Considering the other person also got it but only at the first sip, could you explain how does it creep in? I can understand notes like Rhubarb, fruit peel, dark chocolate, etc., producing the (sweet) bitterness. I wonder if Anaerobic natural process is contributing to the tiny bitterness. It is tiny sweet bitter. I felt it in the espresso as well. IMO, it doesn’t alter the taste profile, although does brighten up the coffee a bit. Thx mate!

If it's around the first 2 sips and a generic bitterness, it's likely fine particles suspended at the surface of the brew. Sometimes this just comes with the territory and I don't worry too much if the rest of the cup tastes OK. If it isdtracting from your enjoyment & happening all the time, grind a tad coarser and/or tray and agitate less. To me sweet & bitter tend to be poles apart, I understand a mix, but I'm not sure I grasp sweet bitterness?

V60

LMSC

Made a filter this morning using the same bag tightening the grind further by another 4 micro clicks.

The 1000 is the max on mine. I used the 900.

400 um 7.5% up from 7.3%

400 and 900 19%

above 900 74.5%

I terms of taste, I prefer the 400 7.3% reference than 7.5%. The taste difference was definitely noticeable. This is probably due to the coffee’s expected notes itself as this was meant to give a sharp acidity. I recognise the 7.3% is far away from the standardised 9%. I had just started using it and get a fair idea after a period of use.

I am not sure my scale consistently increases by 0.1g. Will have to get the 0.01g scale to make this exercise relevant.

MWJB

LMSC Until you can ascertain whether your scales are 0.1g precision, you can’t make readings to a single % of ground weight.

9% at 400 Kruve is a recommendation of grind setting for specific pour regimes & brew weights, as any grind recommendation is. It is not “standardised”.

If 7.3% is working best for you, stick to it and see how it works out over a range of coffees, then adjust based on that. I don’t make a recommendation until I have run 10 different coffees through the same grind setting & brew parameters.

LMSC

MWJB I will get another scale 0.01g. I can see the current scale is no good for Kruve sifting.

I have hardly moved from the default grind size, which is my sweet spot for V60, during the last two years except on a few occasions.

Agree, I will continue sifting when I open new bags and see what the pattern is. It’s all going to be temporary until the Niche Duo is delivered and seasoned. 😊

LMSC

New scales are in and is fit for sifting purpose!

At default grind size, for the same Foundry Amaya, the Kruve under 400 is 6%. It is indeed too coarse.

Just brewed their Rwandan Mutovu - 24 minor clicks tighter from the default grind settings on JX pro.

It is a lovely cup. It is smooth, sweet like plums, and choc + sugar at finish / after taste. The score is 7 out of 9!

However, at the finish, I sense a very mild bitterness. There is a mention of chocolate. Not sure, if this is dark chocolate. I understand from Foundry’s earlier discussions here, they don’t expect the usual earthiness of Rwandan coffee in theirs’ except on a very milder side depending on the brew method. This was absent in espresso. I am therefore thinking either I need to loosen my grind a little or keep experimenting by tightening further to see what happens to the taste. In a nutshell, this is the first dial and I may dial a couple more and see.

The grind ref for Rwandan Mutovu V60 is 8.6% sifting under 400 um.

The usual brew parameter are : 15g, 229g water (a few more grams) and dry bed at 3:50 mins.

PortafilterProcrastinator

LMSC Which scales did you go for?

LMSC

PortafilterProcrastinator

As recommended by @MediumRoastSteam iirc!

Criacr Digital Pocket Scales, (500g/ 0.01g) High-precision Kitchen Food Scales, Jewelry Scales with Back-Lit LCD Display, Tare and PCS Features, Stainless Steel, Christmas Gift, Batteries Included https://amzn.eu/d/3A4iD60

LMSC

@MWJB

If it’s not too much trouble, is there a video of how you use the Kruve sifter please? You might say, if may say so, it is not a rocket science. I think there is a method to this madness! 😂

MWJB

LMSC

MWJB

Could you share your thoughts on the following two questions please?

Do you sift every brew ?
Do you mix the fines under 400 um and brew or do you add them on top of the coffee powder?

I have tried mix and brew, and brew after adding the fines (< 400) on top of the coffee powder (> 400) a few times. Each time, the coffee tasted a lot better in the case of latter than former.

Thx!

MWJB

LMSC I do at least 10 brews, each with a different coffee, when I am happy that the method is dialled in & gives consistent results, I then sift a sample of grinds. I can’t imagine anyone having the time, or inclination to sift every brew.

I may give your ‘sub 4/500 on top’ idea a go when I have more time.

LMSC

MWJB I do at least 10 brews, each with a different coffee, when I am happy that the method is dialled in & gives consistent results, I then sift a sample of grinds.

Why do you need 10 brews for each coffee? You will have a sweet spot, which will be the starting point and can’t see you requiring more than 3-4 dials for a new bag.

For the dialed in brew, on an average, what is the typical under 400/500 % do you get?

MWJB I may give your ‘sub 4/500 on top’ idea a go when I have more time.

That would be great. I have to caution you, I am yet to get to the minimum of 10 brews for reasons of consistently. If you find it interesting, we would be keen to understand the extraction yield.

Thx

MWJB

LMSC Why do you need 10 brews for each coffee? You will have a sweet spot, which will be the starting point and can’t see you requiring more than 3-4 dials for a new bag.

For the dialed in brew, on an average, what is the typical under 400/500 % do you get?

I don’t do 10 brews with each coffee when testing. I do a couple of brews to get my aim in, then I do 10 brews , same parameters with 10 different coffees (1 per coffee) and look at the averages. That 10 may grow to 20, 50, 150 over time, but I don’t make any recommendation until I am reasonably confident that I can pick up a bag of coffee & make a representative brew in one live take.

We talk a lot about retention, dose consistency, consistency in general, the ability to switch from one coffee to another…if you are changing grind setting all the time you are not getting consistency. You are, of course, free to fine tune a coffee for a method, but to know if a particular set of parameters work it’s best to stick to them until you are driven to make a change, then repeat the process again.

The sweet spot, for me, is the point where the largest number of coffees produce representative brews at the same parameters.

The % of grinds under 400 or 500 depends on how fast/slow & how many pulses you pour the water.

The finest side of brews I make with a pouring kettle is 12% under 400/17% under 500.

The coarsest is 8-9% under 400, 12% under 500.

I’m sure there are plenty of points in between that will work for interim pour speeds.

Why do you think the extraction yield would be different, based on which grinds were on top? You’re still going to have the same mass with the same distribution.

LMSC

MWJB Why do you think the extraction yield would be different, based on which grinds were on top?

Isn’t it normal to expect the fines to influence the extraction time and hence the yield? If at the bottom, it might take longer to extract (hence the yield will change) than on top? Of course, one can make the same argument that fines on top would saturate water :-)

MWJB I do a couple of brews to get my aim in, then I do 10 brews , same parameters with 10 different coffees (1 per coffee) and look at the averages.

Thx! It clarifies. But, it raises another question as I am confused! Do you then sift to get a grind reference for an average grind size derived from a total of 10 brews from 10 coffees or get a grind reference for each coffee. I think it is the former.

MWJB The finest side of brews I make with a pouring kettle is 12% under 400/17% under 500.

The coarsest is 8-9% under 400, 12% under 500

The coarsest is V60. Which one of the brews is the finest? Is it Kalita? You said you don’t sift for clever, do you ?

MWJB I’m sure there are plenty of points in between that will work for interim pour speeds.

Could you give some examples please?

Sorry, I ask too many questions! Perhaps, the answer to these are already on your spreadsheets. Please tell me, if they are!

I must look at your spreadsheet on my PC to understand these better. 😊

Thx for your time mate!

MWJB

LMSC Isn’t it normal to expect the fines to influence the extraction time and hence the yield?

We don’t know how much are fines, or what their size is. Has this method affected the extraction time? Has this had a linear affect on yield? (Extraction yield & time are loosely related).

We are usually more concerned with getting the best tasting grind setting (grind size, within a typical distribution).

The sub 400 might start off on the top of the bed, how do you ensure they stay there for the duration of the brew?

Is there a reason that you are not equally interested in ‘boulders’, or distribution?

LMSC Do you then sift to get a grind reference for an average grind size derived from a total of 10 brews from 10 coffees

This, but I’m not referencing the average size (50% ground weight) I’m referencing what drops through 400/500 Kruve.

LMSC Could you give some examples please?

I’m afraid I can’t. Like I said, I have found that going finer than 12% 400 tends to make sub optimal brews with my method & brew size. 8-9% Is the coarser end with different methods (more pulses) at the same brew size. I can see no logical reason why grinding in between these sizes and using interim pulse sizes/avg. pour speeds would not also result in representative cups, but there just isn’t enough time to individually test every interval in grind size & pour regime.

MWJB

LMSC The coarsest is V60. Which one of the brews is the finest? Is it Kalita? You said you don’t sift for clever, do you ?

Sorry, missed this. Both the grind sizes mentioned are for V60 & Clever percolation brews.

Fast, higher dosed, low EY Clever steeps with 9% 400 Kruve. Not sifted fine, long Clever steeps as the grinds are more in espresso/moka pot territory.

I am typically using the 12% 400 Kruve grind with Kalita Wave 185 & Drip Assist, but I don’t doubt the 9% 400 Kruve grind would also work with direct pours & more, small pulses.

I sift to determine a grind setting reference, it’s got nothing specifically to do with a particular brewer. You can brew with different brewers at the same grind setting & weights, but you may need to adjust the number of pulses to normalise extractions.

E.g. 13.8g at 12% 400 Kruve - V60 02 & Drip Assist - 5 pours of 40g every 40s, 2 inner, 3 outer, each pour taking about 15s.

13.8g at 9% 400 Kruve - V60 02 & Drip Assist - 7 pours of 30g every 30s, 3 inner, 4 outer, each pour taking about 15s.

LMSC

MWJB Has this method affected the extraction time? Has this had a linear affect on yield? (Extraction yield & time are loosely related).

Don’t think there was any noticeable difference in extraction time, while I won’t know the effect on yield as I don’t have a device to measure.

MWJB The sub 400 might start off on the top of the bed, how do you ensure they stay there for the duration of the brew?

Is there a reason that you are not equally interested in ‘boulders’, or distribution?

I can’t ensure it stays on top, although the chances are they all get mixed up. Nevertheless, I do use a strainer

-I guess one is supposed to use only the coffee between upper and lower sieves. I use all of them.

-I have no idea how the boulders affect the yield and taste. I am still trying to get my head around the sieves. :-)

MWJB Fast, higher dosed, low EY Clever steeps with 9% 400 Kruve.

This is 1:30 mins Clever drawdown, is it not?

MWJB E.g. 13.8g at 12% 400 Kruve - V60 02 & Drip Assist - 5 pours of 40g every 40s, 2 inner, 3 outer, each pour taking about 15s.

13.8g at 9% 400 Kruve - V60 02 & Drip Assist - 7 pours of 30g every 30s, 3 inner, 4 outer, each pour taking about 15s.

What’s the idea behind using different fines under 400 Kruve please ?

Can’t we just use either 9% or 12% for simplicity ?

I wonder if you had measured the yield the other way around?

One final question :

I am aware you do 33g every 30s for 18g coffee / 270g water. What’s your advice if I want a larger batch - 30g coffee and 450g water. I am thinking perhaps Hoffman method is easier.

Sorry, I am asking too many questions. :-)

Thx mate!

JHCCoffee

@MWJB
Thank-you kindly for all of the excellent and detailed advice on brewing pour over. I am in awe.

I have a Hario V60. I have not yet tried pour over using my Niche Zero. Might you or others have any suggestions on initial Niche Zero grind settings for decaf beans roasted to City vs City+. Fyi, for one of my go to blends, the coffee dials in at 10.5 on my Niche, for espresso.

MWJB

JHCCoffee To be honest, I don’t brew anything dark/medium for V60. I’d be more inclined to steep dark/medium roasts.

But, I’d be looking at a grind around 92-94 on the Zero for the method in this video (18:270g):

33g poured every 30s, No stir at bloom, pours take 15s each. Move to centre pour if standing liquid above bed.

MWJB

LMSC -I guess one is supposed to use only the coffee between upper and lower sieves. I use all of them.

Using the coffee trapped between the sieves for pour over, or any kind of percolation would be very bad idea. It would also make brewing a ridiculous chore. You can remove the smallest part for immersions, or grind coarser & remove the largest, but both topping & tailing is likely to waste a fair bit of coffee…maybe just for super-special occasions?

LMSC This is 1:30 mins Clever drawdown, is it not?

Sure, tune the brew time - longer for bland cups, shorter for sour, or bitter cups. 1:9-11 brew ratio. Sink anything floating 15s before draw down. I’ve had good cups at 1:30 to 2:00 to draw down.

LMSC What’s the idea behind using different fines under 400 Kruve please ?

Can’t we just use either 9% or 12% for simplicity ?

I still don’t know anything about “fines” (how many, how big, definition etc.) 😀. The 2 pour methods use the 2 different corresponding grind sizes, to achieve good extractions. I’m not suggesting you use both, just giving 2 examples that give good results. Use whichever you want, if 12% 400 is too silty (on average, after a bunch of brews), then try the 9% method (or just use this with the can strainer). The coarser grinds will tend to make cleaner brews, but as yet, I have no preference between them - I have a couple of grinders so I can leave one set for each and flit between them,

LMSC I wonder if you had measured the yield the other way around?

Sorry, I’m not sure what you mean here, if you mean doing the 5×40g/40s with the 9% grind & Drip Assist, that would tend towards lower extractions (I did start off like that, but quickly moved to more & smaller pulses - however, that is exactly what I was using with the can strainer).

LMSC What’s your advice if I want a larger batch - 30g coffee and 450g water. I am thinking perhaps Hoffman method is easier.

I have no advice regarding larger batches, I don’t make pour over brews that big, or at 60g/L. I would use 2 brewers and make 2× 225g brews.

LMSC

MWJB Many thanks for such an educative discussions. I would like to seek one clarification to re-affirm my understanding.

After at least 10 brews, you get a grind reference to get a % of coffee powder that falls through 400/500 Kruve, you wouldn’t sift again unless you observe the consistency / repeatability of the cup performance has dropped off.

I think an example will help us understand this better. Let’s take Nice Zero as an example.

Initial 2-3 dials give you 94 as grind setting giving you a cup that you like very much.
After 10 brews from a total of 10 coffee bags, you find 8 out of 10 brews are consistently repeatable at 94.
You do the 11th brew, sift and find 9% fines 400 Kruve

You keep brewing subsequent cups at 94, will not sift (for obvious reasons) and keep observing until the repeatability consistently drops off the zone. If this is the case, you may have to observe the average (majority of cups at the new grind setting) again, re-sift to get a new reference below Kruve 400 and go from there!

Thanks!

MWJB

LMSC I think an example will help us understand this better. Let’s take Nice Zero as an example.

Initial 2-3 dials give you 94 as grind setting giving you a cup that you like very much.
After 10 brews from a total of 10 coffee bags, you find 8 out of 10 brews are consistently repeatable at 94.
You do the 11th brew, sift and find 9% fines 400 Kruve

Another way to look at it is 92-94 is as coarse as I would go for 1 mug brews, so if I wanted to tweak the average EY, out draw out the brew time, I’m more likely adjust the number of pulses and keep the grind setting the same.

If you are brewing consistently, keeping to the same pour timings and weights, all the cups produced will be consistent, in a mechanical sense (7/10 would extract to a stdev of 0.9%, or less, 95/100 to 2% by my reckoning - but I wouldn’t get too hung up if you were little wider, after a point, I haven’t seen any correlation in my preference vs better consistency than this ). The variation will come from the individual coffees…if you got one that extracted really low for instance, you’d sense check it against another/known coffee and not change anything until you were sure it wasn’t a duff bean/roast.

Consistency isn’t likely to drop off unless your grinder burrs are moving apart/together over time, or you’ grinding so much coffee over time your burrs are wearing out (more likely in a commercial environment).

You’re shifting the average EY up/down, or shifting your average preference based on flavour perception/effects of silt in the cup, rather than altering consistency.

Consistency of flavour preference is more related to origin/roast level/bean choice (with a consistent method). It’s somewhat pre determined when the bag drops through your letterbox :-)

« Previous Page Next Page »