Just made my third pot of coffee since buying a grinder. Finest grind
yielded too much bitterness, so I dialed it back to 2/3 finest and
went from 3/4 cup of beans to 1 full cup, and it's great! But that's
almost 33% more coffee per pot!!

Good thing I'm a working man again! :-)

Might try my coffee slicer again and see if the grinder is worth it to
me.

John Kuthe...

On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 19:15:59 -0700 (PDT), John Kuthe
> wrote:

>Just made my third pot of coffee since buying a grinder. Finest grind
>yielded too much bitterness, so I dialed it back to 2/3 finest and
>went from 3/4 cup of beans to 1 full cup, and it's great! But that's
>almost 33% more coffee per pot!!
>
>Good thing I'm a working man again! :-)
>
>Might try my coffee slicer again and see if the grinder is worth it to
>me.
>
>John Kuthe...

You're an RN but have a hard time making a cup of coffee? Too funny!

Lou

On 10/27/2011 8:15 PM, John Kuthe wrote:
> Just made my third pot of coffee since buying a grinder. Finest grind
> yielded too much bitterness, so I dialed it back to 2/3 finest and
> went from 3/4 cup of beans to 1 full cup, and it's great! But that's
> almost 33% more coffee per pot!!
>
> Good thing I'm a working man again! :-)
>
> Might try my coffee slicer again and see if the grinder is worth it to
> me.
>

I hate to say I told you so, but...

<actually, I love to say it>

On Oct 27, 10:15*pm, Pennyaline >
wrote:
> On 10/27/2011 8:15 PM, John Kuthe wrote:
>
> > Just made my third pot of coffee since buying a grinder. Finest grind
> > yielded too much bitterness, so I dialed it back to 2/3 finest and
> > went from 3/4 cup of beans to 1 full cup, and it's great! But that's
> > almost 33% more coffee per pot!!
>
> > Good thing I'm a working man again! :-)
>
> > Might try my coffee slicer again and see if the grinder is worth it to
> > me.
>
> I hate to say I told you so, but...
>
> <actually, I love to say it>

Yep, you were correct! Not right though. To me "right" implies some
ethical or moral goodness, like it's right to help people. 1+1=2 is
merely correct, no ethics or morality implied.


John Kuthe...

On 10/28/2011 8:25 AM, John Kuthe wrote:
> On Oct 27, 10:15 pm, >
> wrote:
>> On 10/27/2011 8:15 PM, John Kuthe wrote:
>>
>>> Just made my third pot of coffee since buying a grinder. Finest grind
>>> yielded too much bitterness, so I dialed it back to 2/3 finest and
>>> went from 3/4 cup of beans to 1 full cup, and it's great! But that's
>>> almost 33% more coffee per pot!!
>>
>>> Good thing I'm a working man again! :-)
>>
>>> Might try my coffee slicer again and see if the grinder is worth it to
>>> me.
>>
>> I hate to say I told you so, but...
>>
>> <actually, I love to say it>
>
> Yep, you were correct! Not right though. To me "right" implies some
> ethical or moral goodness, like it's right to help people. 1+1=2 is
> merely correct, no ethics or morality implied.

I didn't say I was "right." I said I hate to say I told you so, etc.

On Oct 28, 10:06*am, Pennyaline >
wrote:
> On 10/28/2011 8:25 AM, John Kuthe wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 27, 10:15 pm, >
> > wrote:
> >> On 10/27/2011 8:15 PM, John Kuthe wrote:
>
> >>> Just made my third pot of coffee since buying a grinder. Finest grind
> >>> yielded too much bitterness, so I dialed it back to 2/3 finest and
> >>> went from 3/4 cup of beans to 1 full cup, and it's great! But that's
> >>> almost 33% more coffee per pot!!
>
> >>> Good thing I'm a working man again! :-)
>
> >>> Might try my coffee slicer again and see if the grinder is worth it to
> >>> me.
>
> >> I hate to say I told you so, but...
>
> >> <actually, I love to say it>
>
> > Yep, you were correct! Not right though. To me "right" implies some
> > ethical or moral goodness, like it's right to help people. 1+1=2 is
> > merely correct, no ethics or morality implied.
>
> I didn't say I was "right." I said I hate to say I told you so, etc.

Ah, you are correct! :-)

Gawd I'm tired! Think I'm gonna get to bed early today. I have to work
again tonight!

John Kuthe...

John Kuthe wrote:
> On Oct 28, 10:06 am, Pennyaline >
> wrote:

>> I didn't say I was "right." I said I hate to say I told you so, etc.
>
> Ah, you are correct! :-)
>
> Gawd I'm tired! Think I'm gonna get to bed early today. I have to work
> again tonight!
>
> John Kuthe...

You could always start tomorrow off by having a Bud Lite with Andy

On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 09:06:13 -0600, Pennyaline
> wrote:

> On 10/28/2011 8:25 AM, John Kuthe wrote:
> > On Oct 27, 10:15 pm, >
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> I hate to say I told you so, but...
> >>
> >> <actually, I love to say it>
> >
> > Yep, you were correct! Not right though. To me "right" implies some
> > ethical or moral goodness, like it's right to help people. 1+1=2 is
> > merely correct, no ethics or morality implied.
>
> I didn't say I was "right." I said I hate to say I told you so, etc.

He was just explaining why he said you're "correct" instead of you're
"right". What's wrong with you lately? Everything's an argument.

--
All you need is love. But a little chocolate now and then doesn't hurt.

John Kuthe wrote:
> Just made my third pot of coffee since buying a grinder. Finest grind
> yielded too much bitterness, so I dialed it back to 2/3 finest and
> went from 3/4 cup of beans to 1 full cup, and it's great! But that's
> almost 33% more coffee per pot!!
>
> Good thing I'm a working man again! :-)
>
> Might try my coffee slicer again and see if the grinder is worth it to
> me.
>
> John Kuthe...

You might try _less_ coffee with the finest grind and see what you think
of that. It's possible that the bitterness is just too much bean
surface and you need less. Also consider not 2/3 the finest but more
like 80-90% of the way toward the finest grind and, again, try less
coffee.

-S-

On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 18:07:56 -0400, "Steve Freides" >
wrote:

>John Kuthe wrote:
>> Just made my third pot of coffee since buying a grinder. Finest grind
>> yielded too much bitterness, so I dialed it back to 2/3 finest and
>> went from 3/4 cup of beans to 1 full cup, and it's great! But that's
>> almost 33% more coffee per pot!!
>>
>> Good thing I'm a working man again! :-)
>>
>> Might try my coffee slicer again and see if the grinder is worth it to
>> me.
>>
>> John Kuthe...
>
>You might try _less_ coffee with the finest grind and see what you think
>of that. It's possible that the bitterness is just too much bean
>surface and you need less. Also consider not 2/3 the finest but more
>like 80-90% of the way toward the finest grind and, again, try less
>coffee.

Didja ever think that the bitterness is from shit coffee?

I stopped buying beans about a year ago, retired my burr grinder, and
now use strictly Walmart brand pre-ground in nitrogen pack cans...
best coffee I ever had.

On Oct 28, 5:25*pm, Brooklyn1 <Gravesend1> wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 18:07:56 -0400, "Steve Freides" >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >John Kuthe wrote:
> >> Just made my third pot of coffee since buying a grinder. Finest grind
> >> yielded too much bitterness, so I dialed it back to 2/3 finest and
> >> went from 3/4 cup of beans to 1 full cup, and it's great! But that's
> >> almost 33% more coffee per pot!!
>
> >> Good thing I'm a working man again! :-)
>
> >> Might try my coffee slicer again and see if the grinder is worth it to
> >> me.
>
> >> John Kuthe...
>
> >You might try _less_ coffee with the finest grind and see what you think
> >of that. *It's possible that the bitterness is just too much bean
> >surface and you need less. *Also consider not 2/3 the finest but more
> >like 80-90% of the way toward the finest grind and, again, try less
> >coffee.
>
> Didja ever think that the bitterness is from shit coffee?

No, freshly roasted Sumatran is not shit coffee.


> I stopped buying beans about a year ago, retired my burr grinder, and
> now use strictly Walmart brand pre-ground in nitrogen pack cans...
> best coffee I ever had.

Anything from MalWart is shit, by definition.

John Kuthe...

On 10/27/2011 4:15 PM, John Kuthe wrote:
> Just made my third pot of coffee since buying a grinder. Finest grind
> yielded too much bitterness, so I dialed it back to 2/3 finest and
> went from 3/4 cup of beans to 1 full cup, and it's great! But that's
> almost 33% more coffee per pot!!
>
> Good thing I'm a working man again! :-)
>
> Might try my coffee slicer again and see if the grinder is worth it to
> me.
>
> John Kuthe...
>

I don't understand the burr grinders myself. It seems like a messy way
to grind coffee and the grinding surfaces will collect old coffee
grounds. I probably wouldn't be able to taste the old grounds and oils
but the idea is icky. The worst would be those machines in supermarkets.
I like the high speed sound of the blade grinders myself.

On Saturday, October 29, 2011 3:46:15 AM UTC-4, dsi1 wrote:
> On 10/27/2011 4:15 PM, John Kuthe wrote:
> > Just made my third pot of coffee since buying a grinder. Finest grind
> > yielded too much bitterness, so I dialed it back to 2/3 finest and
> > went from 3/4 cup of beans to 1 full cup, and it's great! But that's
> > almost 33% more coffee per pot!!
> >
> > Good thing I'm a working man again! :-)
> >
> > Might try my coffee slicer again and see if the grinder is worth it to
> > me.
> >
> > John Kuthe...
> >
>
> I don't understand the burr grinders myself. It seems like a messy way
> to grind coffee and the grinding surfaces will collect old coffee
> grounds. I probably wouldn't be able to taste the old grounds and oils
> but the idea is icky. The worst would be those machines in supermarkets.
> I like the high speed sound of the blade grinders myself.

The coffee purists will tell you all about heat and suchlike, but the fact is that nobody but possibly a few experts can tell the difference using the drip process with paper filters and many people prefer the taste of blade-ground drip coffee to burr ground anyway.

If you're doing French Press you can _see_ a difference--the whirligigs don't give an even grind--you get a lot of fines that make it through the press and end up as sediment in your cup.

If you're doing Espresso then it's the difference between having coffee and not having coffee--the fines from the whirligig clog the portafilter and nothing comes out.

dsi1 wrote:
> On 10/27/2011 4:15 PM, John Kuthe wrote:
>> Just made my third pot of coffee since buying a grinder. Finest grind
>> yielded too much bitterness, so I dialed it back to 2/3 finest and
>> went from 3/4 cup of beans to 1 full cup, and it's great! But that's
>> almost 33% more coffee per pot!!
>>
>> Good thing I'm a working man again! :-)
>>
>> Might try my coffee slicer again and see if the grinder is worth it
>> to me.
>>
>> John Kuthe...
>>
>
> I don't understand the burr grinders myself. It seems like a messy way
> to grind coffee and the grinding surfaces will collect old coffee
> grounds. I probably wouldn't be able to taste the old grounds and oils
> but the idea is icky. The worst would be those machines in
> supermarkets. I like the high speed sound of the blade grinders
> myself.

The justification for burr grinders is the evenness of the results when
compared to what one gets from a blade grinder.

-S-

On 10/29/2011 2:01 AM, wrote:
> On Saturday, October 29, 2011 3:46:15 AM UTC-4, dsi1 wrote:
>> On 10/27/2011 4:15 PM, John Kuthe wrote:
>>> Just made my third pot of coffee since buying a grinder. Finest grind
>>> yielded too much bitterness, so I dialed it back to 2/3 finest and
>>> went from 3/4 cup of beans to 1 full cup, and it's great! But that's
>>> almost 33% more coffee per pot!!
>>>
>>> Good thing I'm a working man again! :-)
>>>
>>> Might try my coffee slicer again and see if the grinder is worth it to
>>> me.
>>>
>>> John Kuthe...
>>>
>>
>> I don't understand the burr grinders myself. It seems like a messy way
>> to grind coffee and the grinding surfaces will collect old coffee
>> grounds. I probably wouldn't be able to taste the old grounds and oils
>> but the idea is icky. The worst would be those machines in supermarkets.
>> I like the high speed sound of the blade grinders myself.
>
> The coffee purists will tell you all about heat and suchlike, but the fact is that nobody but possibly a few experts can tell the difference using the drip process with paper filters and many people prefer the taste of blade-ground drip coffee to burr ground anyway.
>
> If you're doing French Press you can _see_ a difference--the whirligigs don't give an even grind--you get a lot of fines that make it through the press and end up as sediment in your cup.
>
> If you're doing Espresso then it's the difference between having coffee and not having coffee--the fines from the whirligig clog the portafilter and nothing comes out.
>

Come to think of it, if one uses a French press, a burr grinder would
probably be preferable. I used paper filters so it didn't matter much
about coffee particle size. My grind came up consistently fine anyway.

On 10/29/2011 3:14 AM, Steve Freides wrote:
> dsi1 wrote:
>> On 10/27/2011 4:15 PM, John Kuthe wrote:
>>> Just made my third pot of coffee since buying a grinder. Finest grind
>>> yielded too much bitterness, so I dialed it back to 2/3 finest and
>>> went from 3/4 cup of beans to 1 full cup, and it's great! But that's
>>> almost 33% more coffee per pot!!
>>>
>>> Good thing I'm a working man again! :-)
>>>
>>> Might try my coffee slicer again and see if the grinder is worth it
>>> to me.
>>>
>>> John Kuthe...
>>>
>>
>> I don't understand the burr grinders myself. It seems like a messy way
>> to grind coffee and the grinding surfaces will collect old coffee
>> grounds. I probably wouldn't be able to taste the old grounds and oils
>> but the idea is icky. The worst would be those machines in
>> supermarkets. I like the high speed sound of the blade grinders
>> myself.
>
> The justification for burr grinders is the evenness of the results when
> compared to what one gets from a blade grinder.
>
> -S-

I used a paper filter and a fine grind but depending on the method of
coffee making, a burr grinder could have some advantages.

dsi1 wrote:
> On 10/29/2011 2:01 AM, wrote:
>> On Saturday, October 29, 2011 3:46:15 AM UTC-4, dsi1 wrote:
>>> On 10/27/2011 4:15 PM, John Kuthe wrote:
>>>> Just made my third pot of coffee since buying a grinder. Finest
>>>> grind yielded too much bitterness, so I dialed it back to 2/3
>>>> finest and went from 3/4 cup of beans to 1 full cup, and it's
>>>> great! But that's almost 33% more coffee per pot!!
>>>>
>>>> Good thing I'm a working man again! :-)
>>>>
>>>> Might try my coffee slicer again and see if the grinder is worth
>>>> it to me.
>>>>
>>>> John Kuthe...
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't understand the burr grinders myself. It seems like a messy
>>> way to grind coffee and the grinding surfaces will collect old
>>> coffee grounds. I probably wouldn't be able to taste the old
>>> grounds and oils but the idea is icky. The worst would be those
>>> machines in supermarkets. I like the high speed sound of the blade
>>> grinders myself.
>>
>> The coffee purists will tell you all about heat and suchlike, but
>> the fact is that nobody but possibly a few experts can tell the
>> difference using the drip process with paper filters and many people
>> prefer the taste of blade-ground drip coffee to burr ground anyway.
>> If you're doing French Press you can _see_ a difference--the
>> whirligigs don't give an even grind--you get a lot of fines that
>> make it through the press and end up as sediment in your cup. If
>> you're doing Espresso then it's the difference between having
>> coffee and not having coffee--the fines from the whirligig clog the
>> portafilter and nothing comes out.
>
> Come to think of it, if one uses a French press, a burr grinder would
> probably be preferable. I used paper filters so it didn't matter much
> about coffee particle size. My grind came up consistently fine anyway.

Why do people use paper filters in their drip machines? We've always
used a gold filter without a paper insert and always thought the coffee
tasted better that way.

-S-

On Oct 29, 12:55*pm, "Steve Freides" > wrote:
> dsi1 wrote:
> > On 10/29/2011 2:01 AM, wrote:
> >> On Saturday, October 29, 2011 3:46:15 AM UTC-4, dsi1 wrote:
> >>> On 10/27/2011 4:15 PM, John Kuthe wrote:
> >>>> Just made my third pot of coffee since buying a grinder. Finest
> >>>> grind yielded too much bitterness, so I dialed it back to 2/3
> >>>> finest and went from 3/4 cup of beans to 1 full cup, and it's
> >>>> great! But that's almost 33% more coffee per pot!!
>
> >>>> Good thing I'm a working man again! :-)
>
> >>>> Might try my coffee slicer again and see if the grinder is worth
> >>>> it to me.
>
> >>>> John Kuthe...
>
> >>> I don't understand the burr grinders myself. It seems like a messy
> >>> way to grind coffee and the grinding surfaces will collect old
> >>> coffee grounds. I probably wouldn't be able to taste the old
> >>> grounds and oils but the idea is icky. The worst would be those
> >>> machines in supermarkets. I like the high speed sound of the blade
> >>> grinders myself.
>
> >> The coffee purists will tell you all about heat and suchlike, but
> >> the fact is that nobody but possibly a few experts can tell the
> >> difference using the drip process with paper filters and many people
> >> prefer the taste of blade-ground drip coffee to burr ground anyway.
> >> If you're doing French Press you can _see_ a difference--the
> >> whirligigs don't give an even grind--you get a lot of fines that
> >> make it through the press and end up as sediment in your cup. *If
> >> you're doing Espresso then it's the difference between having
> >> coffee and not having coffee--the fines from the whirligig clog the
> >> portafilter and nothing comes out.
>
> > Come to think of it, if one uses a French press, a burr grinder would
> > probably be preferable. I used paper filters so it didn't matter much
> > about coffee particle size. My grind came up consistently fine anyway.
>
> Why do people use paper filters in their drip machines? *We've always
> used a gold filter without a paper insert and always thought the coffee
> tasted better that way.

Paper filters are cheap and disposable. (Like most people! ;-) )

John Kuthe...

On Oct 29, 7:55*am, "Steve Freides" > wrote:
> dsi1 wrote:
> > On 10/29/2011 2:01 AM, wrote:
> >> On Saturday, October 29, 2011 3:46:15 AM UTC-4, dsi1 wrote:
> >>> On 10/27/2011 4:15 PM, John Kuthe wrote:
> >>>> Just made my third pot of coffee since buying a grinder. Finest
> >>>> grind yielded too much bitterness, so I dialed it back to 2/3
> >>>> finest and went from 3/4 cup of beans to 1 full cup, and it's
> >>>> great! But that's almost 33% more coffee per pot!!
>
> >>>> Good thing I'm a working man again! :-)
>
> >>>> Might try my coffee slicer again and see if the grinder is worth
> >>>> it to me.
>
> >>>> John Kuthe...
>
> >>> I don't understand the burr grinders myself. It seems like a messy
> >>> way to grind coffee and the grinding surfaces will collect old
> >>> coffee grounds. I probably wouldn't be able to taste the old
> >>> grounds and oils but the idea is icky. The worst would be those
> >>> machines in supermarkets. I like the high speed sound of the blade
> >>> grinders myself.
>
> >> The coffee purists will tell you all about heat and suchlike, but
> >> the fact is that nobody but possibly a few experts can tell the
> >> difference using the drip process with paper filters and many people
> >> prefer the taste of blade-ground drip coffee to burr ground anyway.
> >> If you're doing French Press you can _see_ a difference--the
> >> whirligigs don't give an even grind--you get a lot of fines that
> >> make it through the press and end up as sediment in your cup. *If
> >> you're doing Espresso then it's the difference between having
> >> coffee and not having coffee--the fines from the whirligig clog the
> >> portafilter and nothing comes out.
>
> > Come to think of it, if one uses a French press, a burr grinder would
> > probably be preferable. I used paper filters so it didn't matter much
> > about coffee particle size. My grind came up consistently fine anyway.
>
> Why do people use paper filters in their drip machines? *We've always
> used a gold filter without a paper insert and always thought the coffee
> tasted better that way.
>
> -S-

As far as I know, paper filters are the only way to get a grind and
mud free cup of coffee. Gold filters are fine but cleaning those
things are a real drag.

On Oct 27, 10:15*pm, John Kuthe > wrote:
> Just made my third pot of coffee since buying a grinder. Finest grind
> yielded too much bitterness, so I dialed it back to 2/3 finest and
> went from 3/4 cup of beans to 1 full cup, and it's great! But that's
> almost 33% more coffee per pot!!
>
> Good thing I'm a working man again! :-)
>
> Might try my coffee slicer again and see if the grinder is worth it to
> me .
>
> John Kuthe...

Dialed it back? Hmph - I give mine a five second grind, shake the
ginder, and five more. I wonder if maybe your coffee is the culprit,
your grinder or timing.

It's still cheaper than stopping at 7-11, tho, right?

On Oct 29, 1:28*pm, Kalmia > wrote:
> On Oct 27, 10:15*pm, John Kuthe > wrote:
>
> > Just made my third pot of coffee since buying a grinder. Finest grind
> > yielded too much bitterness, so I dialed it back to 2/3 finest and
> > went from 3/4 cup of beans to 1 full cup, and it's great! But that's
> > almost 33% more coffee per pot!!
>
> > Good thing I'm a working man again! :-)
>
> > Might try my coffee slicer again and see if the grinder is worth it to
> > me .
>
> > John Kuthe...
>
> Dialed it back? *Hmph - I give mine a five second grind, shake the
> ginder, and five more. *I wonder if maybe your coffee is the culprit,
> your grinder or timing.
>
> It's still cheaper than stopping at 7-11, tho, right?

The grind adjustment varies the spacing between the grinding surfaces,
varying the size of the grind. And the beans are fed by gravity
through the grinding surfaces, so the thing that mostly affects the
time of the grind is the quantity of beans in the hopper.

And "shake the grinder"? Are you sure you're not talking about a high
speed bladed coffee slicer?

John Kuthe...

John Kuthe > wrote:

>Just made my third pot of coffee since buying a grinder. Finest grind
>yielded too much bitterness, so I dialed it back to 2/3 finest and
>went from 3/4 cup of beans to 1 full cup, and it's great! But that's
>almost 33% more coffee per pot!!
>
>Good thing I'm a working man again! :-)
>
>Might try my coffee slicer again and see if the grinder is worth it to
>me.

How much coffee (by weight) are you using, to make how much brewed
coffee? I find that the minimum amount of coffee that allows me to
make two decently-strong, six-ounce cups of coffee is about 1.1 ounces,
but around 1.4 ounces is better.

I'm not sure how much 3/4 cup of coffee beans weighs but it's probably
way more than that.

Assuming you're using a filter method, I suspect the
main source of your problem is you're making coffee in batches that are
too large. Generally it's difficult to brew more than about three
cups of coffee at a time and have it come out properly, without
it being pretty wasteful. 8- to 12-cup filter coffeemakers do function,
but are very inefficient.


Steve

On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 17:47:49 -0700 (PDT), John Kuthe
> wrote:

> And "shake the grinder"? Are you sure you're not talking about a high
> speed bladed coffee slicer?

Can't say for sure, but some coffee is pretty oily so if you've set
the grind to fine and grinding a lot at once, I can see where shaking
it might be called for.

--
All you need is love. But a little chocolate now and then doesn't hurt.

On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 11:08:20 -0700 (PDT), John Kuthe
> wrote:

>On Oct 29, 12:55*pm, "Steve Freides" > wrote:
>> dsi1 wrote:
>> > On 10/29/2011 2:01 AM, wrote:
>> >> On Saturday, October 29, 2011 3:46:15 AM UTC-4, dsi1 wrote:

>> >>> I don't understand the burr grinders myself. It seems like a messy
>> >>> way to grind coffee and the grinding surfaces will collect old
>> >>> coffee grounds. I probably wouldn't be able to taste the old
>> >>> grounds and oils but the idea is icky. The worst would be those
>> >>> machines in supermarkets. I like the high speed sound of the blade
>> >>> grinders myself.
>>
>> >> The coffee purists will tell you all about heat and suchlike, but
>> >> the fact is that nobody but possibly a few experts can tell the
>> >> difference using the drip process with paper filters and many people
>> >> prefer the taste of blade-ground drip coffee to burr ground anyway.
>> >> If you're doing French Press you can _see_ a difference--the
>> >> whirligigs don't give an even grind--you get a lot of fines that
>> >> make it through the press and end up as sediment in your cup. *If
>> >> you're doing Espresso then it's the difference between having
>> >> coffee and not having coffee--the fines from the whirligig clog the
>> >> portafilter and nothing comes out.
>>
>> > Come to think of it, if one uses a French press, a burr grinder would
>> > probably be preferable. I used paper filters so it didn't matter much
>> > about coffee particle size. My grind came up consistently fine anyway.
>>
>> Why do people use paper filters in their drip machines? *We've always
>> used a gold filter without a paper insert and always thought the coffee
>> tasted better that way.
>
>Paper filters are cheap and disposable. (Like most people! ;-) )
>
>John Kuthe...
Paper filters IMHO leave a paper taste with the coffee. "Gold"
filters do not. Do not even ask me about brown paper filters because
they taste like paper bags + the coffee flavor.

Gold filters are the best if you want unadulterated coffee flavor. We
sell flavor/aromatics so it is important to me.

aloha,
Cea

On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 18:07:55 -1000, pure kona
> wrote:

> Do not even ask me about brown paper filters because
> they taste like paper bags + the coffee flavor.

LOLOL

--
All you need is love. But a little chocolate now and then doesn't hurt.

On 10/29/2011 6:07 PM, pure kona wrote:
> Paper filters IMHO leave a paper taste with the coffee. "Gold"
> filters do not. Do not even ask me about brown paper filters because
> they taste like paper bags + the coffee flavor.
>
> Gold filters are the best if you want unadulterated coffee flavor. We
> sell flavor/aromatics so it is important to me.
>
> aloha,
> Cea

That's pretty easy to test. Just run some water through a paper filter
through a filter without coffee. I ran the water through 2 filter for
and extra dose of paper. The only taste I got was residual coffee oils.
These were dirt cheap white filters but your mileage may vary.

pure kona > wrote:
>
>Gold filters are the best if you want unadulterated coffee flavor.

Gold filters are a gimmick. They're an ordinary carbon steel mesh
with so thin a gold flash that it begins to wear off with the first
cleaning, and they must be cleaned after each brewing unless you're
the type who doesn't bathe... and there is no way to clean off the
coffee residuals without removing some of the gold and leaving a soap
film.... if you get ten cleanings from those filters before much of
the gold is gone it's a lot. Re-using any filter is stupid. Best
filters are paper one throws away after each brewing.

On Oct 30, 6:51*am, Brooklyn1 <Gravesend1> wrote:
> pure kona > wrote:
>
> >Gold filters are the best if you want unadulterated coffee flavor.
>
> Gold filters are a gimmick. *They're an ordinary carbon steel mesh
> with so thin a gold flash that it begins to wear off with the first
> cleaning, and they must be cleaned after each brewing unless you're
> the type who doesn't bathe... and there is no way to clean off the
> coffee residuals without removing some of the gold and leaving a soap
> film.... if you get ten cleanings from those filters before much of
> the gold is gone it's a lot. *Re-using any filter is stupid. *Best
> filters are paper one throws away after each brewing.

Paper filters are a gimmick. They're an ordinary sheet of common
porous paper
shaped like a coffee filter basket and they must be thrown away after
each brewing unless you're
the type who doesn't bathe... and there is no way to reuse them
without a hole forming and grounds getting everywhere. Not re-using
any filter is stupid. Best filters are metal mesh ones washed before
each brewing.

John Kuthe...

John Kuthe wrote:
> On Oct 30, 6:51 am, Brooklyn1 <Gravesend1> wrote:
>> pure kona > wrote:
>>
>>> Gold filters are the best if you want unadulterated coffee flavor.
>>
>> Gold filters are a gimmick. They're an ordinary carbon steel mesh
>> with so thin a gold flash that it begins to wear off with the first
>> cleaning, and they must be cleaned after each brewing unless you're
>> the type who doesn't bathe... and there is no way to clean off the
>> coffee residuals without removing some of the gold and leaving a soap
>> film.... if you get ten cleanings from those filters before much of
>> the gold is gone it's a lot. Re-using any filter is stupid. Best
>> filters are paper one throws away after each brewing.
>
> Paper filters are a gimmick. They're an ordinary sheet of common
> porous paper
> shaped like a coffee filter basket and they must be thrown away after
> each brewing unless you're
> the type who doesn't bathe... and there is no way to reuse them
> without a hole forming and grounds getting everywhere. Not re-using
> any filter is stupid. Best filters are metal mesh ones washed before
> each brewing.
>
> John Kuthe...

That's how we do it - we wash out the grinder, we wash the gold filter,
rinse out the carafe, etc. - how can anyone not clean the thing between
uses? We have one of those "spritzer" gadgets on our kitchen faucet,
don't know what they're actually called but they work like a hand-held
shower head - they work fine for cleaning the gold filter.

-S-

On 10/30/2011 3:21 PM, Steve Freides wrote:
> John Kuthe wrote:
>> On Oct 30, 6:51 am, Brooklyn1<Gravesend1> wrote:
>>> pure > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Gold filters are the best if you want unadulterated coffee flavor.
>>>
>>> Gold filters are a gimmick. They're an ordinary carbon steel mesh
>>> with so thin a gold flash that it begins to wear off with the first
>>> cleaning, and they must be cleaned after each brewing unless you're
>>> the type who doesn't bathe... and there is no way to clean off the
>>> coffee residuals without removing some of the gold and leaving a soap
>>> film.... if you get ten cleanings from those filters before much of
>>> the gold is gone it's a lot. Re-using any filter is stupid. Best
>>> filters are paper one throws away after each brewing.
>>
>> Paper filters are a gimmick. They're an ordinary sheet of common
>> porous paper
>> shaped like a coffee filter basket and they must be thrown away after
>> each brewing unless you're
>> the type who doesn't bathe... and there is no way to reuse them
>> without a hole forming and grounds getting everywhere. Not re-using
>> any filter is stupid. Best filters are metal mesh ones washed before
>> each brewing.
>>
>> John Kuthe...
>
> That's how we do it - we wash out the grinder, we wash the gold filter,
> rinse out the carafe, etc. - how can anyone not clean the thing between
> uses? We have one of those "spritzer" gadgets on our kitchen faucet,
> don't know what they're actually called but they work like a hand-held
> shower head - they work fine for cleaning the gold filter.
>
The paper filters are pretty cheap. Surely, you can't want to reuse them?


--


James Silverton, Potomac

I'm *not*

On Oct 31, 3:01*am, James Silverton >
wrote:
> On 10/30/2011 3:21 PM, Steve Freides wrote:
>
> > John Kuthe wrote:
> >> On Oct 30, 6:51 am, Brooklyn1<Gravesend1> *wrote:
> >>> pure > *wrote:
>
> >>>> Gold filters are the best if you want unadulterated coffee flavor.
>
> >>> Gold filters are a gimmick. They're an ordinary carbon steel mesh
> >>> with so thin a gold flash that it begins to wear off with the first
> >>> cleaning, and they must be cleaned after each brewing unless you're
> >>> the type who doesn't bathe... and there is no way to clean off the
> >>> coffee residuals without removing some of the gold and leaving a soap
> >>> film.... if you get ten cleanings from those filters before much of
> >>> the gold is gone it's a lot. Re-using any filter is stupid. Best
> >>> filters are paper one throws away after each brewing.
>
> >> Paper filters are a gimmick. *They're an ordinary sheet of common
> >> porous paper
> >> shaped like a coffee filter basket and they must be thrown away after
> >> each brewing unless you're
> >> the type who doesn't bathe... and there is no way to reuse them
> >> without a hole forming and grounds getting everywhere. Not re-using
> >> any filter is stupid. *Best filters are metal mesh ones washed before
> >> each brewing.
>
> >> John Kuthe...
>
> > That's how we do it - we wash out the grinder, we wash the gold filter,
> > rinse out the carafe, etc. - how can anyone not clean the thing between
> > uses? *We have one of those "spritzer" gadgets on our kitchen faucet,
> > don't know what they're actually called but they work like a hand-held
> > shower head - they work fine for cleaning the gold filter.
>
> The paper filters are pretty cheap. Surely, you can't want to reuse them?
>
> --
>
> James Silverton, Potomac
>
> I'm *not*

I was parroting Sheldon's blathering.

John Kuthe...

On Oct 30, 10:01*am, James Silverton >
wrote:
> On 10/30/2011 3:21 PM, Steve Freides wrote:
>
>
>
> > John Kuthe wrote:
> >> On Oct 30, 6:51 am, Brooklyn1<Gravesend1> *wrote:
> >>> pure > *wrote:
>
> >>>> Gold filters are the best if you want unadulterated coffee flavor.
>
> >>> Gold filters are a gimmick. They're an ordinary carbon steel mesh
> >>> with so thin a gold flash that it begins to wear off with the first
> >>> cleaning, and they must be cleaned after each brewing unless you're
> >>> the type who doesn't bathe... and there is no way to clean off the
> >>> coffee residuals without removing some of the gold and leaving a soap
> >>> film.... if you get ten cleanings from those filters before much of
> >>> the gold is gone it's a lot. Re-using any filter is stupid. Best
> >>> filters are paper one throws away after each brewing.
>
> >> Paper filters are a gimmick. *They're an ordinary sheet of common
> >> porous paper
> >> shaped like a coffee filter basket and they must be thrown away after
> >> each brewing unless you're
> >> the type who doesn't bathe... and there is no way to reuse them
> >> without a hole forming and grounds getting everywhere. Not re-using
> >> any filter is stupid. *Best filters are metal mesh ones washed before
> >> each brewing.
>
> >> John Kuthe...
>
> > That's how we do it - we wash out the grinder, we wash the gold filter,
> > rinse out the carafe, etc. - how can anyone not clean the thing between
> > uses? *We have one of those "spritzer" gadgets on our kitchen faucet,
> > don't know what they're actually called but they work like a hand-held
> > shower head - they work fine for cleaning the gold filter.
>
> The paper filters are pretty cheap. Surely, you can't want to reuse them?
>
> --
>
> James Silverton, Potomac
>
> I'm *not*

I got my paper filters from Costco and boy are they cheap. Too cheap!
I've used it to drain fried foods but there's probably a lot of uses
for really cheap paper circles. Doodling and scratch paper and cute
doll hats come to mind.

On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 16:01:49 -0400, James Silverton
> wrote:

>On 10/30/2011 3:21 PM, Steve Freides wrote:
>> John Kuthe wrote:
>>> On Oct 30, 6:51 am, Brooklyn1<Gravesend1> wrote:
>>>> pure > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Gold filters are the best if you want unadulterated coffee flavor.
>>>>
>>>> Gold filters are a gimmick. They're an ordinary carbon steel mesh
>>>> with so thin a gold flash that it begins to wear off with the first
>>>> cleaning, and they must be cleaned after each brewing unless you're
>>>> the type who doesn't bathe... and there is no way to clean off the
>>>> coffee residuals without removing some of the gold and leaving a soap
>>>> film.... if you get ten cleanings from those filters before much of
>>>> the gold is gone it's a lot. Re-using any filter is stupid. Best
>>>> filters are paper one throws away after each brewing.
>>>
>>> Paper filters are a gimmick. They're an ordinary sheet of common
>>> porous paper
>>> shaped like a coffee filter basket and they must be thrown away after
>>> each brewing unless you're
>>> the type who doesn't bathe... and there is no way to reuse them
>>> without a hole forming and grounds getting everywhere. Not re-using
>>> any filter is stupid. Best filters are metal mesh ones washed before
>>> each brewing.
>>>
>>> John Kuthe...
>>
>> That's how we do it - we wash out the grinder, we wash the gold filter,
>> rinse out the carafe, etc. - how can anyone not clean the thing between
>> uses? We have one of those "spritzer" gadgets on our kitchen faucet,
>> don't know what they're actually called but they work like a hand-held
>> shower head - they work fine for cleaning the gold filter.
>>
>The paper filters are pretty cheap. Surely, you can't want to reuse them?

And a spritz of plain water won't clean the metal filter, it's full of
coffee oils, it needs to be cleaned with soap/detergent and/or
vinegar, or sent through the dishwasher... it costs more to buy and
maintain those gold filters than to use paper filters and paper
filters filter far better. And the gold flash on gold filters wears
off rapidly, they are purely a gimmick to hook the morons who are into
shiney. There is good reason why laboratories choose paper filters
over metal mesh whenever possible. Years ago when coffee was made in
large urns cloth filter bags were used, they worked until paper came
along.

John Kuthe wrote:
>
> I was parroting Sheldon's blathering.

I wasn't aware there was a shortage of that.

On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 16:01:49 -0400, James Silverton
> wrote:

> The paper filters are pretty cheap. Surely, you can't want to reuse them?

I used to have a cloth filter that was reusable.

--
All you need is love. But a little chocolate now and then doesn't hurt.

sf wrote:
>James Silverton wrote:
>
>> The paper filters are pretty cheap. Surely, you can't want to reuse them?
>
>I used to have a cloth filter that was reusable.

Yeah, probably one of the schmatahs you laundered each night and used
as a sanitary napkin when you didn't need it for coffee. LOL

sf wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 16:01:49 -0400, James Silverton
> > wrote:
>
>> The paper filters are pretty cheap. Surely, you can't want to reuse
>> them?
>
> I used to have a cloth filter that was reusable.

I would think one could use a dish towel or similar, after a bit of
experimenting to find the right thickness, instead of paper.

-S-

On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 08:30:05 -0400, "Steve Freides" >
wrote:

> sf wrote:
> > On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 16:01:49 -0400, James Silverton
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> The paper filters are pretty cheap. Surely, you can't want to reuse
> >> them?
> >
> > I used to have a cloth filter that was reusable.
>
> I would think one could use a dish towel or similar, after a bit of
> experimenting to find the right thickness, instead of paper.
>
It's been a long time, but I know it was cotton and I think it was
muslin.

--
All you need is love. But a little chocolate now and then doesn't hurt.

On Oct 30, 1:18*pm, dsi1 > wrote:
> On Oct 30, 10:01*am, James Silverton >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 10/30/2011 3:21 PM, Steve Freides wrote:
>
> > > John Kuthe wrote:
> > >> On Oct 30, 6:51 am, Brooklyn1<Gravesend1> *wrote:
> > >>> pure > *wrote:
>
> > >>>> Gold filters are the best if you want unadulterated coffee flavor.
>
> > >>> Gold filters are a gimmick. They're an ordinary carbon steel mesh
> > >>> with so thin a gold flash that it begins to wear off with the first
> > >>> cleaning, and they must be cleaned after each brewing unless you're
> > >>> the type who doesn't bathe... and there is no way to clean off the
> > >>> coffee residuals without removing some of the gold and leaving a soap
> > >>> film.... if you get ten cleanings from those filters before much of
> > >>> the gold is gone it's a lot. Re-using any filter is stupid. Best
> > >>> filters are paper one throws away after each brewing.
>
> > >> Paper filters are a gimmick. *They're an ordinary sheet of common
> > >> porous paper
> > >> shaped like a coffee filter basket and they must be thrown away after
> > >> each brewing unless you're
> > >> the type who doesn't bathe... and there is no way to reuse them
> > >> without a hole forming and grounds getting everywhere. Not re-using
> > >> any filter is stupid. *Best filters are metal mesh ones washed before
> > >> each brewing.
>
> > >> John Kuthe...
>
> > > That's how we do it - we wash out the grinder, we wash the gold filter,
> > > rinse out the carafe, etc. - how can anyone not clean the thing between
> > > uses? *We have one of those "spritzer" gadgets on our kitchen faucet,
> > > don't know what they're actually called but they work like a hand-held
> > > shower head - they work fine for cleaning the gold filter.
>
> > The paper filters are pretty cheap. Surely, you can't want to reuse them?
>
> > --
>
> > James Silverton, Potomac
>
> > I'm *not*
>
> I got my paper filters from Costco and boy are they cheap. Too cheap!
> I've used it to drain fried foods but there's probably a lot of uses
> for really cheap paper circles. Doodling and scratch paper and cute
> doll hats come to mind.

I have the big Bunn filters (that sounds funny!) - they work great for
washing windows...

sf wrote:
>"Steve Freides"wrote:
>>sf wrote:
>> >James Silverton wrote:
>> >
>> >> The paper filters are pretty cheap. Surely, you can't want to reuse
>> >> them?
>> >
>> > I used to have a cloth filter that was reusable.
>>
>> I would think one could use a dish towel or similar, after a bit of
>> experimenting to find the right thickness, instead of paper.
>>
>It's been a long time, but I know it was cotton.

sf can use her old bras to brew iced demitasse. hehe
http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/cza0486l.jpg