Anyone tried an Aeropress?

After reading a ton about this little device, and all the love it received, on www.CoffeeGeek.com, I ordered one and played with it for days.

I gotta tell you, I was quite dissappointed. While it operated fantastically, I found the cup to be very bland and lacking any depth. I think the fine paper filter that the stepped liquid is pressed through stripped it of a LOT more than just the grounds.

Anyone disagree? Should I keep trying and tasting, or give up on it? I find when drinking an Aeropress cup, I find myself wishing I had used something else.

Not a lot of coin wasted, if you didn't like it. I love mine. I mainly use it on weekend when I have time to grind beans.

There are several threads on this little contraption. Try this one and search for more.

http://badgerandblade.com/vb/showthread.php?t=63650&highlight=aeropress

I've bought several and keep one in the office now for my worktime fix.
I did find the paper trapped the oils and the coffee had less body than a French press. Where it wins over the press in my opinion is it's the quickest and easiest way to make coffee and the clean up after is much easier than a press.
I also had a bad habit of breaking the glass presses and the metal ones cool too quick. The aeropress is pretty rugged so great for office or travel.

The inventor used paper filters on purpose for health issues. He has concerns (I do not agree with) about coffee fines and oils. I have seen people use gold metal filter designed for percolators but cut down to a disc the same size as the paper filter.

I also like how the aeropress takes finer coffee than the French press as it's less of an adjustment on my stepless grinder.

For the times I'm away from the espresso machine the aeropress is a useful tool.

...at the office. It quick, clean, and easy to use. Less fines makes a cleaner cup of coffee.

danek said:

After reading a ton about this little device, and all the love it received, on www.CoffeeGeek.com, I ordered one and played with it for days.

I gotta tell you, I was quite dissappointed. While it operated fantastically, I found the cup to be very bland and lacking any depth. I think the fine paper filter that the stepped liquid is pressed through stripped it of a LOT more than just the grounds.

Anyone disagree? Should I keep trying and tasting, or give up on it? I find when drinking an Aeropress cup, I find myself wishing I had used something else.

Click to expand...

It ain't perfect, but as others have suggested, it's great for use at the office.

How hot was your water? I can't remember the exact temperature off hand, but the instructions suggest something significantly less than boiling. I think it was around 170 or so. I figured out how long I needed to microwave my water to get to that temperature and it works great for me. Maybe you followed 'normal' brewing practices and used water that was hotter than recommended.

My 2 cents,

~Jeff
who really likes his Aeropress and Hario grinder at the office - coffee at work has greatly improved from the help of B&B advice

Another that uses the Aeropress at work.

I use the finest grind on the grocery grinder, Turkish. I also use a bold, robust coffee bean.

Experiment a bit. The Aeropress makes a good cup a Joe. Very much like an Americano.

Using normal instructions, I shared what your current pain sounds(reads) like to me.

So, I scrapped the instructions and used my common coffee logic.

Lower temp? Why? It doesn't make sense. Why would I intentionally NOT extract all of the wonderful aromatics by using a low brewing temp?

Concentrated ratio? Why? Won't I get a more flavorful cup if I use MORE water to extract MORE of the good stuff from the coffee?

And so it began.

Enough coffee for the cup I'm brewing into (by dose, 7g per 6oz cup), use water at the proper brewing range (195-205F, depending on the coffee), and use as much as I can fit in the aeropress.

I also didn't like the fact that the immersion is compromised right away, so I inverted it, leaving as much room for water as possible.

I'm a believer in the "finer grind, shorter time" method of brewing, as you get more complexity out of it, generally speaking, and what I believe to be a more honest expression of the coffee.

So, I grind at my espresso setting.

Dose the coffee into the inverted aeropress with the filter off. Fill half-way with hot water. Use the paddle to saturate (but not agitate) the grounds. Top the rest of the way up with water. Install the filter.

Revert onto a mug, and immediately plunge. Plenty of resistance to the plunge, but a MUCH improved cup, and still unique when compared to any other brew method.

See if it helps. If it doesn't, we'll take it from what was wrong with it, and go from there.

I have been using my Aeropress pretty much daily for a couple of years now, I really like it!

When I brew with it (A full four shots every time) I use water just off boil pouring it over grinds that are a couple of steps courser than an expresso grind. I get foam every time with it and then add hot water to turn the results into two cups of Americano. And that's the two cups that I typically start my day with.

My main gripe with the Aeropress is that to produce a decent cup I find
you use more coffee than I would with alternative methods.

I haven't had that. Finely ground gives me great extraction.

Jasonian said:

Using normal instructions, I shared what your current pain sounds(reads) like to me.

So, I scrapped the instructions and used my common coffee logic.

Lower temp? Why? It doesn't make sense. Why would I intentionally NOT extract all of the wonderful aromatics by using a low brewing temp?

Concentrated ratio? Why? Won't I get a more flavorful cup if I use MORE water to extract MORE of the good stuff from the coffee?

And so it began.

Enough coffee for the cup I'm brewing into (by dose, 7g per 6oz cup), use water at the proper brewing range (195-205F, depending on the coffee), and use as much as I can fit in the aeropress.

I also didn't like the fact that the immersion is compromised right away, so I inverted it, leaving as much room for water as possible.

I'm a believer in the "finer grind, shorter time" method of brewing, as you get more complexity out of it, generally speaking, and what I believe to be a more honest expression of the coffee.

So, I grind at my espresso setting.

Dose the coffee into the inverted aeropress with the filter off. Fill half-way with hot water. Use the paddle to saturate (but not agitate) the grounds. Top the rest of the way up with water. Install the filter.

Revert onto a mug, and immediately plunge. Plenty of resistance to the plunge, but a MUCH improved cup, and still unique when compared to any other brew method.

See if it helps. If it doesn't, we'll take it from what was wrong with it, and go from there.

Click to expand...

After this nudge by Jasonian, I started to experiment a little with my Aeropress and things have gotten even better! I ground my beans much finer, used hotter water, and used more water. At first, my grind was too fine and the result was a bit bitter. But I backed it off just a little and now it's really nice. I also think that hotter and more water helps.

Thanks Jasonian!

~Jeff

How does the Aeropress cup of coffee (hot water added later) compared to the drip coffee? Is it less bitter, thinner, milder?

The idea is to make a concentrated coffee to add hot water later to make a regular cup of coffee, right? It isn't really an expresso coffee maker, is it?

French Press coffee makes chunky thick coffee compared to the drip coffee. I wonder how Aeropress coffee tastes like but I now have to be careful not to spend $35 or so on something I am not sure if I am going to like.

I can't hardly drink drip coffee any more. If you've ever experienced loose leaf tea vs. bagged tea, or fresh farm chicken eggs vs store-bought, or pre-ground burger vs home ground beef chuck, then it's similar in my book. Yes, drip coffee is coffee-tasting, but there are so much better options - and, a big, bulky, dedicated electronic kitchen appliance is not needed.

The problem with French press is that when you up the amount of grounds to produce a richer cup, you also get alot of "sludge". Espresso, Moka, and Aeropress use a high ratio of grounds to water to extract a very intense, but not over-extracted cup. Then, water is added to the drinker's personal taste to thin it out. What you end up with is coffee that was extracted in less time and with less water, so it is not over-extracted - doesn't contain a lot of the bitter and less desireable flavors.

Drip uses lots of water and by nature, a very uneven extraction time to produc a thin, bitter cup. Upping the amount of grounds to provide more richness, just provides more bitterness.

French press is a definite improvement, when properly brewed (brew time is VERY important). Aeropress produces a good cup, but a lot of complexities are left out in my opinion. My favorite brew method at home is the Moka pot (I started a thread a few weeks ago saying how much I love Moka).

Moka is not very popular in the states, most popular in Italy, and I hear Spain. A Moka pot (Brikka or Bialetti) can be had for about the same price as an Aeropress. A bonus - nothing extra is required, no filters, nothing. Just the pot, some coffee, water, and heat.

danek said:

I can't hardly drink drip coffee any more. If you've ever experienced loose leaf tea vs. bagged tea, or fresh farm chicken eggs vs store-bought, or pre-ground burger vs home ground beef chuck, then it's similar in my book. Yes, drip coffee is coffee-tasting, but there are so much better options - and, a big, bulky, dedicated electronic kitchen appliance is not needed.

The problem with French press is that when you up the amount of grounds to produce a richer cup, you also get alot of "sludge". Espresso, Moka, and Aeropress use a high ratio of grounds to water to extract a very intense, but not over-extracted cup. Then, water is added to the drinker's personal taste to thin it out. What you end up with is coffee that was extracted in less time and with less water, so it is not over-extracted - doesn't contain a lot of the bitter and less desireable flavors.

Drip uses lots of water and by nature, a very uneven extraction time to produc a thin, bitter cup. Upping the amount of grounds to provide more richness, just provides more bitterness.

French press is a definite improvement, when properly brewed (brew time is VERY important). Aeropress produces a good cup, but a lot of complexities are left out in my opinion. My favorite brew method at home is the Moka pot (I started a thread a few weeks ago saying how much I love Moka).

Moka is not very popular in the states, most popular in Italy, and I hear Spain. A Moka pot (Brikka or Bialetti) can be had for about the same price as an Aeropress. A bonus - nothing extra is required, no filters, nothing. Just the pot, some coffee, water, and heat.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the detailed reply. Really helpful.

I have begun French Press coffee drinking since the Sunday and I am really enjoying the coffee. I never liked coffee because they were awefully bitter and milk and sugar make aftertaste a bit bothersome.

I think I experiment with the French Press a bit more.

joyfulwoogie said:

How does the Aeropress cup of coffee (hot water added later) compared to the drip coffee? Is it less bitter, thinner, milder?

The idea is to make a concentrated coffee to add hot water later to make a regular cup of coffee, right? It isn't really an expresso coffee maker, is it?

French Press coffee makes chunky thick coffee compared to the drip coffee. I wonder how Aeropress coffee tastes like but I now have to be careful not to spend $35 or so on something I am not sure if I am going to like.

Click to expand...

Danek gave a great reply. I'll just add some reasons why I like the Aeropress. I use it mostly at work. The coffee it makes isn't bitter like my old drip machine and it's extremely easy to use and clean. All it takes is a small napkin to wipe off the end of the plunger after each pressing.

To answer another question, no, it doesn't make espresso.

I can make a little better cup of coffee at home with my french press, but I'd have a tough time dealing with the mess at the office.

The moka pot sounds interesting.

~Jeff

danek said:

I can't hardly drink drip coffee any more. If you've ever experienced loose leaf tea vs. bagged tea, or fresh farm chicken eggs vs store-bought, or pre-ground burger vs home ground beef chuck, then it's similar in my book. Yes, drip coffee is coffee-tasting, but there are so much better options - and, a big, bulky, dedicated electronic kitchen appliance is not needed.

The problem with French press is that when you up the amount of grounds to produce a richer cup, you also get alot of "sludge". Espresso, Moka, and Aeropress use a high ratio of grounds to water to extract a very intense, but not over-extracted cup. Then, water is added to the drinker's personal taste to thin it out. What you end up with is coffee that was extracted in less time and with less water, so it is not over-extracted - doesn't contain a lot of the bitter and less desireable flavors.

Drip uses lots of water and by nature, a very uneven extraction time to produc a thin, bitter cup. Upping the amount of grounds to provide more richness, just provides more bitterness.

French press is a definite improvement, when properly brewed (brew time is VERY important). Aeropress produces a good cup, but a lot of complexities are left out in my opinion. My favorite brew method at home is the Moka pot (I started a thread a few weeks ago saying how much I love Moka).

Moka is not very popular in the states, most popular in Italy, and I hear Spain. A Moka pot (Brikka or Bialetti) can be had for about the same price as an Aeropress. A bonus - nothing extra is required, no filters, nothing. Just the pot, some coffee, water, and heat.

Click to expand...

It seems now would be the appropriate opportunity to write a defense of drip coffee. So much misinformation here, and mostly probably due to the average joe's use of the equipment. (or the equipment itself)


"Drip" is a broad category. It encompasses the Donut Dripper, Melitta pourover, the Bodum Kona, Chemex, the Abid dripper, and on and on and on.

To say that "drip" gives an inherently inferior cup is absolute nonsense. It may not be one that you prefer, but to set aside an entire brew category as being unworthy of your attention is pretty silly, if you ask me.

From reading your post with a reference to "a big, bulky, dedicated electronic kitchen appliance" along with "a very uneven extraction time to produce a thin, bitter cup. Upping the amount of grounds to provide more richness, just provides more bitterness." implies user error and a lack of understanding, from where I'm sitting.

My first thought is that you are one (there are many) who have a hard time distinguishing between "sour" and "bitter" flavors in coffee. There is a mind-bogglingly small number of brewers that actually get the brew water HOT enough, which means that the odds of you getting an overextracted "bitter" coffee out of an unnamed "big, bulky, dedicated electronic kitchen appliance" would be slim to none. The odds are much better that the result is actually under-extracted, and that what you are tasting is sour, and not bitter.

This is not the fault of the brew method, but rather, the fault of the brewer.. you know.. that "big, bulky, dedicated electronic kitchen appliance".

Why is it inherently uneven? Many pros say that they're favorite brew method is a flat-bottomed drip brew (as opposed to cone filters). Why? Because it filters out sediment, and provides a very even extraction.

French Press has its merits. So does the Aeropress. So does the Moka. But apples to apples, I would prefer coffee from a drip method than from a moka pot. One is harder to screw up than the other. I'll let you guess which is which based on my preference.

"Thin" is a function of the coffee as much as the brew method. And this assumes that you are using the standard 7g per 6fl oz. brew ratio. You perceive French Press as being less "thin" because oils and sediment end up in your cup. Oils are one thing, but sediment is something I would consider to be best left out of the cup. It does nothing for the coffee except to make sure that it goes bitter faster. (obviously, if there are solid coffee particles in contact with water, extraction will continue, and the bittering of the entire cup is inevitable)

You should also consider the dwell time. That is, the time that the water is in contact with the ground coffee for brewing. The grind setting should correspond with this dwell time. This is very easy to control in a French Press, is not impossible to control in a manual drip brewer, and can be controlled only by grind setting in an auto-drip machine. It is important to note this simple fact. Nothing is fool-proof.

When something doesn't taste right, the first step is to check the handle side of the equipment. That is, check to make sure you know what you are doing, and that you are executing the method properly. (this is especially true for espresso, but is just as valid for other brew methods)

I use my Aeropress. I also use my French Press, my Donut Dripper, my Melitta pourovers, and my vacuum brewers. I don't have a chemex, but if I did, I believe it would probably get the most love. Chemex falls under the family of "drip" brew methods.

Of course, everyone has their preference, but to give advice to others to avoid an entire family of brewing just seems to be more harmful than helpful.

I also find it extraordinarily hard to believe that you have never had an over-extracted espresso. You either live in Northern Italy, or in heaven. It is ubiquitous in specialty coffee retail.

Over or under extraction lies in the hands of the barista, not the brew method (mostly.. unless we're talking perkolators or moka pots).

Jasonian said:

My first thought is that you are one (there are many) who have a hard time distinguishing between "sour" and "bitter" flavors in coffee. There is a mind-bogglingly small number of brewers that actually get the brew water HOT enough, which means that the odds of you getting an overextracted "bitter" coffee out of an unnamed "big, bulky, dedicated electronic kitchen appliance" would be slim to none. The odds are much better that the result is actually under-extracted, and that what you are tasting is sour, and not bitter.

Click to expand...

Ah~ thanks for the sharp but useful advice. Now that I think about it, I did not distiguish the difference between sour and bitter. I think the coffee stores' cups were too bitter. Home brewed coffees were too sour. There were occasional good cups now and then.

So I am learning that to make a good cup of coffee high temperature at shorter time is the key.

I am playing with French Press and now getting the hang of what you are talking about.

I still have to somewhat agree with Denek that drip coffee is much harder to get a good cup of coffee unless one knows the basic principle of coffee and has some familiarity with the drip machine. What is certain for me is that the drip coffee, given my past experiences, would not have gotten me to try getting to know coffee more. I really like French Press coffee, much more than any drip coffee I tasted. I have a feeling that I am not alone in this experience.

Jasonian said:

Using normal instructions, I shared what your current pain sounds(reads) like to me.

So, I scrapped the instructions and used my common coffee logic.

Lower temp? Why? It doesn't make sense. Why would I intentionally NOT extract all of the wonderful aromatics by using a low brewing temp?

Concentrated ratio? Why? Won't I get a more flavorful cup if I use MORE water to extract MORE of the good stuff from the coffee?

And so it began.

Enough coffee for the cup I'm brewing into (by dose, 7g per 6oz cup), use water at the proper brewing range (195-205F, depending on the coffee), and use as much as I can fit in the aeropress.

I also didn't like the fact that the immersion is compromised right away, so I inverted it, leaving as much room for water as possible.

I'm a believer in the "finer grind, shorter time" method of brewing, as you get more complexity out of it, generally speaking, and what I believe to be a more honest expression of the coffee.

So, I grind at my espresso setting.

Dose the coffee into the inverted aeropress with the filter off. Fill half-way with hot water. Use the paddle to saturate (but not agitate) the grounds. Top the rest of the way up with water. Install the filter.

Revert onto a mug, and immediately plunge. Plenty of resistance to the plunge, but a MUCH improved cup, and still unique when compared to any other brew method.

See if it helps. If it doesn't, we'll take it from what was wrong with it, and go from there.

Click to expand...

I like the idea of inverting it.

Jasonian said:

"Drip" is a broad category. It encompasses the Donut Dripper, Melitta pourover, the Bodum Kona, Chemex, the Abid dripper, and on and on and on.

To say that "drip" gives an inherently inferior cup is absolute nonsense. It may not be one that you prefer, but to set aside an entire brew category as being unworthy of your attention is pretty silly, if you ask me.

Click to expand...

You are absolutely correct, I was referring to "drip" as being the 'coffee mate' type devices that are most commonly sitting on counter tops today.

Why is it inherently uneven?

Click to expand...

I say this because some ground are subject to almost no extraction time, while others take up to 5 minuntes or more for the water to filter through.

e, everyone has their preference, but to give advice to others to avoid an entire family of brewing just seems to be more harmful than helpful.

Click to expand...

At the obvious risk of using an over-used acronym, YMMV

over or under extraction lies in the hands of the barista, not the brew method (mostly.. unless we're talking perkolators or moka pots).

Click to expand...

This is obvious, but my point was merely that using a 'Coffee Mate' type drip machine that the brewer is too dependant upon the temperature (set by the machine) and by the uneveness of the extraction time (noted earlier) and that more consistent and favorable methods are easily available.

I love the ease of use and cleanup with the Aeropress, and the smoothness of the resulting brew. It takes less intense concentration on procedure than a French press (although I love the results of the F.P.).

I also very much admire the ingenious thought that went into the Aeropress...right down to the packaging... and that it's made in the U.S.A. and not in China!