• Grinders

  • Niche Zero - One Year in Review

Doram

The markings on the Niche are in the wrong place for brewed/drip, so the normal drip range is outside the markings.

It’s not a grind/grinder issue, it’s a paint issue.

Patrik Rolf says he intends to grind at 730-750um average (though I’m not sure that’s what he’s getting, but let’s go with that), OK fair enough, but US drip grind has been between 800 & 850um for over 70years, this is about 92-94 on the Niche and about 32-34 on a Wilfa Flat (well within it’s marked range, as it is on any of my grinders I brew drip with).

SCAA/Agtron cupping grind is around 700um (you can still use this for drip), again still way outside the Niche markings.

If a grinder is normal and it can go fine enough for espresso, it will still be normal in the drip range. Its optimal setting for a brew method, will still be optimal at the different settings, that suit that method.

I do wonder whether the markings have driven some to brew at finer settings than they normally would, hence allegations (unfounded) of “lot’s of fines”.

      MWJB That’s very interesting mate! I do know you have been grinding outside the Niche range; if my memory serves right, you grind in the 90s, unless I read somewhere in your thread as 60s.

      I haven’t seen anyone mentioning this with such a conviction about the brew range. After yours’, the guy on the video mentions gringing outside the range. Not sure, JH mentioned it anywhere. So, most of the Niche critics do not know the actual grind size for brews/pour overs is outside the range. Perhaps, they didn’t try. That’s hard to believe, or is it?

      I also do not think the Niche would not be aware of this. I’m sure they do. The only thing is why they haven’t tried to correct it. They could have corrected in the last 5 years. I do not want to speculate. Perhaps, there is a reason. If it is a case of making changes to the marking, they could / should have fixed it IMO. Because, it helps iron out the ambiguities and helps the community.

      In a nutshell, I’m not surprised you don’t find any issue with Niche as far as brewing / pot over is concerned. Thx

      • MWJB replied to this.

          LMSC

          Yeah, I’m mostly at 94 for pour over, though I have been as low as the high 50’s for faster pour regimes.

          • LMSC replied to this.

              I’ve only gone slightly past the 50 on the Niche before but tempted to now try further, especially with this nifty technique I’d never have sussed myself but saw on youtube - calibrate, take it round to 50 then put a sticker or dot on the calibration ring back at zero, you can then use this dot to add whatever you want over the 50 without guesswork (i.e. taking the mark at zero round to the official 20 on the dial gives 70).

              Seems so obvious I feel a bit thick for thinking I’d do it via guesswork.

              MWJB Considering you mainly drink light roast, the general opinion being conical isn’t suited for light roast (clarity), you grind mostly at 94, do you get clarity of notes or do you also think it’s kind of mixed please?

              Perhaps, you should consider providing an indicative marking beyond 50 for the benefit of Niche owners who use it for brewing.

                  LMSC I use the method Doram mentions above, an extra dot at “0” when set at 50, so you add your new number to 50 (44+50=94).

                  “Clarity” is too vague a term and has too many other potential confounding factors. I don’t believe conicals are not good for brewing light roasts as a blanket statement, if it is so, why do you see so many hand grinders at World Brewers Cup?

                  Coffee ground on the Niche is generally as nice as coffee I grind on the Wilfa flat, at equivalent settings the Wilfa can be a little more silty, the Niche a little brighter/sour (does that make the coffee clearer, or not?)

                  A few years back the SCAA did grinder study,160 coffee professionals served filter coffee in a double blind test test couldn’t say whether a flat or conical grinder was used. Only after knowing in further tests did they attribute drier flavours to flat and brighter flavours to conical.

                  Do I believe it’s possible that some grinders with certain characteristics might be able to provide unusual clarity (once the attribute is defined, at present it isn’t, much like “astringency”)? Maybe, but I’m not hunting the Loch Ness monster, or Bigfoot, I expect typical grinders to deliver acceptable results & work flow is important to me.

                  I tend to think that if as much naval gazing was applied to roasting as it is to grinders & water make up, we’d all be enjoying great tasting filter coffee more frequently. The last 3 bags of light filter roast I have bought were darker than some Nespresso coffee.

                      MWJB why do you see so many hand grinders at World Brewers Cup?

                      Isn’t the speed at which you grind/torque different with a conical hand grinder vs. a Niche for example, which may lead to a different type of grind?

                      • MWJB replied to this.

                          Is that setting 94 for v60 or french press ?

                          • MWJB replied to this.

                            Comparing the Pharos to the Niche, the Pharos was less consistent (sifted using kruve). It was less consistent in terms of repeatability and distribution, probably due to stalling and varying spin speed. I didn’t bother testing the Lido in the same way but no reason to think it would be abnormal. The pharos has burrs closer in size to the Niche, unless I’m mistaken, and so provides a better comparison than smaller grinders with swiss burr types.

                            HVL87 I don’t know, I have lots of hand grinders, some make a measurably tighter distribution than the Niche, others wider, so it’s not clear to me what effect burr speed has. (Tightness/wideness of distribution for most grinders does not have a clear cut effect on brew quality)

                            Inspector Is that setting 94 for v60 or french press ?

                            I brew French press finer than drip (whether V60, Chemex, Kalita etc.). For an hour steep in an insulated press I guess I’d be around 60 on Niche, for a small glass press & 20min steep, maybe 35-40? I can’t be more specific because I make French press very rarely, I can’t even recall if I used Niche for it, other than the prototype when I got to test that.

                                MWJB Thank you!

                                Wouldn’t clarity be associated with telling the notes apart — say a bag specifies blueberry and blackberry as notes? This is assuming the roaster descriptions of the roast and notes are correct, which aren’t the case with a lot of roasters.

                                So a lack of clarify would mean the cup is muddled, which some ascribe to Conical. We have got to make too assumptions before taking the lack of clarity seriously. Some examples assumptions are no roasting, puck prep, dialling malfunctions.

                                When a barista on the YT says pay attention to clarity and not the body, they seldom explain what a clarity is and why it is important over the body / texture.

                                I am not sure brightness is clarity. You say Niche gives a brighter cup. The JX pro cup is equally brighter, even when I pull a shot off a medium dark bag. I can’t say it gives clarity in the cup vs pulling a shot of the same bag from a flat grinder. I haven’t tried and therefore I do not know.

                                This is far too a complex and a disputed area. I don’t think there will ever be an agreement on this subject.

                                I am not surprised you find the recent light roasts bag are on the darker side. I can understand in the case of decaf.

                                It does disappoint me when I find the bags are a lot darker or inconsistently roasted.

                                When I find the roasts and notes are way off the description, I begin to suspect that those descriptions are pure marketing key words.

                                It will a good read if you could link the SCAA study.

                                Edit :

                                Members here or on other forums can learn a lot from members like you. So, we are better informed than the majority. Unfortunately, the general public or lots of home baristas have to rely on opinions expressed by the You Tubers.

                                • MWJB replied to this.

                                    LMSC I think the lack of clarity claims made for conicals are more espresso related, than brewed.

                                    I usually get the flavour notes, but I like a certain amount of mouthfeel and I like my coffee around 1.40-1.65%. Making it weaker, with lower alkalinity water would give more clarity, but I wouldn’t enjoy it as much.

                                    Here is the SCAA grinder study, one of the criticisms at the time was that they didn’t brew espresso, so we don’t need to bang that drum again :-)

                                    NBC/SCAE grinder research

                                        MWJB lack of clarity claims made for conicals are more espresso related,

                                        This is probably a stupid question. The cup is already concentrated. If I am drinking as an espresso, is it possible to delineate clarity? I thought one can’t!

                                        I am defining clarity as an ability to separate (detect) the different flavours

                                        We have experienced folks here, who have / have had both conical and flat. They may also chip in and explain what clarity is for them, and how they could detect it in such a thick liquid. This will be an educational for a lot of us here.

                                        Thx

                                            LMSC You need somehow to come to a consensus of what separation (as opposed to identification) of flavour is/it’s threshold (a glance at any thread on a bag’s tasting notes is informative here). Difficult when everyone is in their own little bubble & not sharing the experience of the same coffee. Scott Rao made an interesting post on Instagram the other day saying that when discussing ‘clarity’ not enough mention was made of accompanying astringency…everyone’s preferences and choices are their own prerogative but an upgrade that simply swaps one malfunction for another is not on my agenda.

                                            I do make espresso, but it’s not a subject I talk about, just because it’s so hard to establish datums (grind size difficult, grind distribution impossible for most, extraction expensive in terms of filters) and because most people are making a drink of little interest to me personally. So I hope people chip in, without bringing any baggage and can provide some objective thoughts. Personally, if I don’t like a shot so much, I usually make a small adjustment for the next. Worst case scenario, it only takes a couple of minutes to make another. It’s a fast, easy way to make a small amount of coffee, analysing it has no interest for me and “nice” trumps “clarity”.

                                                MWJB consensus of what separation (as opposed to identification) of flavour is/it’s threshold

                                                I am not sure I understood the difference between the separation vs the identification of flavours.

                                                There are no fixed set of rules to identify or separate the flavours, IMO.

                                                I look at it as follows:

                                                Fruity notes - example berries, citrus - are what we get as brightness, acidity, astringency, body, mouthfeel, taste when we drink.

                                                Certain flavours like blueberry and vanilla are what we some time get as an aroma or feel when we drink. They can be subtly present as a taste. These are likely to be overpowered by other flavours like berries.

                                                Flavours like Chocolate, floral, sugar are mainly after-taste.

                                                I don’t have an instagram account to read Scott Rao’s article

                                                We don’t find serious / educational discussions focussing objectively on flavours, notes and so on.

                                                I think we have deviated from the main thread of this post. I hope people don’t mind. May be, @DavecUK can cull out all posts related to notes, clarity and body into a separate thread. 😊

                                                Thx

                                                    LMSC

                                                    Personally, I can detect flavours in espresso if they are there to detect. When I buy from roasters I buy from those who have a track record of delivering the tasting notes on the bag - this is going to be a matter of subjectivity, a roaster will either taste the same things as you or they won’t. Tasting notes can come from either the roasted coffee brewed as a filter and espresso, or from the green coffee roasted and cupped, or possibly just from the importer’s tasting notes. If it’s the latter two, you may not find the coffee tastes the same as roasted by your roaster whatever brew method and equipment you use.

                                                    I don’t experience a lack of clarity using conicals vs flats. If you want greater clarity then dial in for a greater yield. That said I usually have a 1:2.5, but really will adjust for the best flavour balance. I have no interest in ‘accentuating acidity’ by pulling shorter and shorter shots - a trend I imagine was started by some barista going for the world championship that everybody wanted to copy - and I’m not against going as high as 1:5 if that’s what tastes the best.

                                                    I remember taking part in an LSOL on the old forum, and a bunch of the people using EKs, Mythos’, Royals and Flat monoliths were going on about flavour notes that turned out to not even exist on the bag, while I was nailing 3 or 4 out of 5 with a Pharos (or maybe it was a Lido E at the time) pulling to a 1:3, and at a 1:3 it’s still plenty concentrated to enjoy for the body you get in espresso. If I were determined to pull everything as a 1:2 for some reason, I might have a different opinion, but it would be a stretch to complain about the grinder if I’m not willing to adjust parameters to get the best shots.

                                                        LMSC Fruity notes - example berries, citrus - are what we get as brightness, acidity, astringency, body.

                                                        Certain flavours like blueberry and vanilla are what we some time get as aroma or feel when we drink.

                                                        Flavours like Chocolate, floral, sugar are after-taste.

                                                        Fruit notes can describe an acidity e.g citric, but they can also describe actual flavour (as in a combination of aroma, sweet, savoury, bitter and sour). I had a Rocko mountain reserve that tasted very clearly of Strawberries, I’ve had very obvious blueberry and apple notes too, as well as lime. I remember the Rock mountain specifically because I almost broke my wrist grinding it in the Pharos. These flavours would be described as acidic and sweet - as fruit tends to be - in a way that was so similar to the fruit described that your memory tells you that’s what you’re tasting. In the same way, I taste Banana in Jack Daniels because of Isoamyl acetate.

                                                        Floral notes can be aromas and up-front, rather than present in the aftertaste. Something like “tea” notes could be astringency and aroma. Chocolate can be used to refer to body as well as bitterness or sweetness. You can get chocolate from the roast too.

                                                          Rob1 track record of delivering the tasting notes

                                                          This says it all. A lack of it sends every one chasing a wild goose! I agree, notes are very subjective. I do think finding notes / flavour which are not mentioned in the bag is likely to be a brew / espresso malfunction, unless we think the roaster could have also failed to notice them.

                                                          Yes, fruity notes / flavour are also flavour that we taste. Dark chocolate is a good example of a mild bitterness that we can get as after taste. In medium or medium dark bags, for instance, chocolates and fudge can enhance the cup as rich, creamy and full-bodied cup. One can also get these flavours mixed with milk and have often found them lingering after-taste. Similarly, floral.

                                                          Thanks for your detailed thoughts on this interesting area of coffee

                                                          • Rob1 replied to this.

                                                              LMSC Identifying specific flavours will always be a bit vague, e.g, sweetened rhubarb/cranberry/redcurrant/hibiscus might all overlap to a point as “tart red fruit” where they might all score a hit on the identification.

                                                              Separation would be an agreement on a more specific narrowing down of which one (in that particular brew method).

                                                              To make sense of any perceptions you have to have a framework in order to categorise of what is being reported.

                                                              Body/mouthfeel & flavour are separate.

                                                              Blueberry is really pretty rare, often in Ethiopian naturals.

                                                              Citrus is pretty rare too, but most easily confused with under-extraction if vague. A mandarin is very different to a grapefruit, or bergamot. Anyone who has eaten any of these fruits will not confuse them.

                                                              Chocolate I rarely find in coffee, but say I do find dark choc in maybe a Bolivian it’s there on the palate (not just aroma or after taste), there’s maybe fruit, like green apple (malic acidity) there too.

                                                              Maybe ‘aroma’, ‘on the palate’ & ‘aftertaste’ need separating?

                                                              Floral, is very rare.

                                                              Maybe suggest a coffee you are familiar with & drinking now & I’ll try it?

                                                              “Lack of clarity” is one of the features popularly attributed to the Niche, I see no reason to shy away from it.

                                                              • LMSC replied to this.

                                                                  MWJB

                                                                  MWJB Maybe suggest a coffee you are familiar with & drinking now & I’ll try it?

                                                                  “Lack of clarity” is one of the features popularly attributed to the Niche, I see no reason to shy away from it.

                                                                  Interesting Mark! I would like you to use Niche to make some espresso and V60/Clever, and see if you can address the “lack of clarity” and separation of notes. Sure, these exercise would require sustained experimentations with a lot of bags. You any way drink light roasts. I think you may address this lack of clarity criticism and record them on your logs. Members will learn a lot from these for sure!

                                                                  • MWJB replied to this.