Aeropress is awesome, I'm still using mine for 7 years with Able brewing's fine filter. You can make coffee for two by use more coffee ground and dilute with hot water.
Ground principle with coffee is to increase amount of coffee and water. Do not increase immersion time, as that will only make it bitter. If the press is too small to add enough water, then just dilute as needed after brewing.
But "never" increase the immersion to make stronger coffee.
I love my AeroPress. It makes some of the best coffee ever. But I had to stop. Putting hot water in a plastic cup everyday for coffee? I wish there was a metal version. I’ll still use it once every so many months. But the plastic nature of the contraption has turned me away.
You can boil an aeropress at pH 5 for an hour without detecting any leaching. The interesting bit is how it ages—how cracks form, where bacteria might find a home, that sort of thing.
I'm sure the plastic is fine, I'd just prefer a metal or glass version.
On every discussion of the Aeropress, I've seen the ask for a non-plastic version pop up. Every time I've then seen essentially your reply above. I'd just prefer a metal or glass version.
Based on that link I have the version 4 (sep 2010 - dec 2013). The tube has lots of cracks that you can see as well as feel when you run the fingers on the inside, and it doesn't hold pressure that well anymore (whether it's due to air leaking past the cracked surface, or the rubber endcap, I don't know).
I don't worry about crap leaching out of the plastic as much as bacterial creepy critters lodging in the cracks. Also rancid coffee in the cracks isn't nice. Perhaps I should buy a new one, hopefully the polypropylene is more durable.
I have the second version, use it nearly every day, and mine is as good as new. You can pry my BPA version out of my coffee-mug warmed, dead, hands. Seriously though: I am slightly concerned about the BPA, but based on a sample size of two (modulo differences between how we use ours), it makes for a more durable plastic.
BTW, I use 200° water. Brewing time is less than 30s total for me.
Metal is a heat thief and will significantly affect the brew. You can go through a rigmarole of pre-heating but it will still drop in temperature much faster than plastic.
Handling metal at boiling temperatures is miserable. Burning yourself in your pre-coffee haze makes the ritual less enjoyable. Plastic is pretty damn good brewing material thanks to it's insulation. Metal and ceramics look great but you end up needing to add cladding and they are still inferior.
Fortunately aeropress is forgiving compared to espresso so you might get away with the temperature changes but I would not be suprised by mixed results.
The espro is still a French press and the coffee or produces still comes out more bitter than what is produced in an aeropress. I'll be damned if I know why. I switched from an espro to an aeropress a few years ago because even though I tell myself that an aeropress should produce about the same flavor as a French press with the same grind (the espro has a very fine filter, similar to some of the reusable screens for an aeropress) and water temp, it seems different.
> The team concentrated on BPA-free baby bottles and water bottles, Bittner says, "and all of them released chemicals having estrogenic activity." Sometimes the BPA-free products had even more activity than products known to contain BPA.
That was just the top search engine result for "plastic leaching".
Not quite the "see, nothing to worry about" hill I would die on when one can just buy glass or metal vessels.
Oh, so it's the soy scare, plastics edition. I guess that explains the desire for a dangerous to handle impractical steel version, you get to prove how non-estrogenous you are every morning by burning yourself.
Don't worry, you'll be fine. If that worked, I'd be sucking on plastic spoons all day.
Also get a good grinder (kinu m47, commandante or similar) if you do not have it already. It gives you controlled repeatable grind - you can make same coffee taste very different depending on the grind.
Not op, but I've gone through the same-ish progression, and I prefer the pourover because it ends up being tidier. I always manage to spill grounds getting them into the Aeropress, and cleaning it out is messier, too. Plus there's the risk of your cup flying away with the amount of pressure you're putting on the top of the press. With the pourover, I dump the grounds into the filter, make the coffee, dump the filter with grounds into the compost, and rinse the v60, done. Rarely a spill or a mess.
I think I need a video of you making aeropress! It's super clean for me. Some suggestions:
> I always manage to spill grounds getting them into the Aeropress,
Use the scoop but don't pour or tap them in - instead put the scoop into the cylinder and then spin the handle to dump out the grounds. Makes it impossible to spill.
> Plus there's the risk of your cup flying away with the amount of pressure you're putting on the top of the press
That sounds like way too much pressure - some new aeropresses can be tight (which can be remedied) but maybe you have too fine a grind. It should definitely not be espresso level which requires that type of muscle. It's not brewing by the pressure you are applying but time + agitation. The press is just removing the grounds.
I have however frequently knocked over a pourover while pouring... my own fault... tend to use a heavy ass kettle which turns it into some weird strength endurance exercise.
> It's not brewing by the pressure you are applying but time + agitation. The press is just removing the grounds.
Is that right? I’ve never understood the purpose of the high pressure air pocket inside the Aeropress. If the pressure has no effect, why does the Aeropress brew more quickly than a French press?
Some effect no doubt but not as much as might be imagined by it's pressure pump like appearance.
I think the main variable affected by pressure is what is forced through the filter. A faster push and more force means more oils which can have positive or negative taste changes depending on the coffee.
You see competitive aeropressers (yeah, I know...) do 60s long presses to reduce pressure.
> If the pressure has no effect, why does the Aeropress brew more quickly than a French press?
Typically a french press has a coarser grind and less agitation.
Not OP, but I've gone through instant, automatic drip, Aeropress and moka pot to pourover.
I use a generic $4 filter holder from the local kitchen supply store, generic size 104 Melitta-style filters, and a basic kettle. I buy good quality coffee in small batches, which I grind at the store and go through in about a week. The fancy Hario etc. stuff is for hipsters IMO.
I do bust out the moka pot when I feel like changing it up a little, and it does make a very robust and flavorful, dark chocolate-like brew.
I also enjoy the coffee from the Aeropress, but I find it rather fiddly, which is not good for me in the morning.
If you enjoy the process of the Aeropress, you might try one of those manual lever espresso machines. I have a La Pavoni Europiccola, which can be had relatively cheaply used.
Ultimately I went with the manual lever because I got tired of trying to figure out the espresso machine market, and I knew that the limiting factor in my espresso would be me, not the fact that I didn’t buy a copper boiler, PID-enabled $6k monstrosity.
If the frothy milk thing isn’t something you care about, then these things look pretty amazing and get good reviews on Amazon: https://www.flairespresso.com/ I didn’t go this route because I wanted something that could make my morning latte in addition to espresso, but this looks amazing.
You’ll definitely want to get a decent quality (read consistent) burr grinder to get good espresso. I had a ~$80 Capresso grinder that was great for Aeropress, but didn’t deliver enough grind consistency or enough control over grind size. I broke down and bought a Breville grinder on a friend’s recommendation (listed for $400, got for $180 on sale).
I love the precise grind times, because I’m lazy. But, in the spirit of cheap and manual, I’ve heard good things about the handheld Kyocerra grinder. That plus a cheap digital scale should get you some amazing results.
To recap, you could get the Flair espresso maker for as little as ~$150, and a handheld grinder for <$50 and probably be making as good an espresso as an expensive machine.
I skipped straight to espresso using one of the little espresso gadgets, the Staresso. I still wish it wasn't a pressurized portafilter, but I've been pulling decent shots out of it for nearly a year now, and it's one of my favorite toys. It's just a fiddly mess to clean up after, so I have to set aside ten-fifteen minutes to pull my shots.
It's a cheap option, but scarcely the most usable one--among other things, you also have to go way beyond their recommendations when it comes to filling and tamping the shot, and pre-heat of the assembly with hot water is kinda essential. But for roughly $100 all in including a hand grinder, it was a cheap stab at seeing if I wanted to tinker with espresso. Turns out I do, so sometime in the next couple of years I'll buy into a mid-grade machine for the countertop.
My coffee contraption progression has been instant coffee -> caffettiera -> french press -> aeropress (x4) -> rok espresso -> minipresso -> BES920.
I'd recommend going a mini/nanopresso if you enjoy the smallness of a aeropress but want the bite of an espresso-style shot. Really great little machines - not as simple as an aeropress but makes nice short blacks. Much cheaper than getting a home espresso machine as well.
There's no chance this plastic contraption makes a nicer coffee than my espresso machine.
My coffee of choice is a flat white, so I need silky smooth microfoam (not froth), which the espresso machine does at the same time.
Also in terms of an "exact science" in consistently good taste, and getting the best from the beans, the extraction process of an espresso brew is superior and more reliable. Provided you take the time to learn how to do it.
Next best after an espresso machine is a stove-top coffee pot. Best for coffees where it's mostly water and only some milk.
> "Proponents of the device claim that drinks made with the AeroPress are more delicious than those made with thousand-dollar machines."
You can't make a good filter coffee drink with an espresso machine, an americano is just a pale imitation. An aeropress on the other hand is not a substitute for an espresso machine.
When talking about good coffee it's important to distinguish if you mean coffee you like to drink or if we're talking about flavours, mouth feel etc.
The coffee used and recommended for good complex espresso shots does not necessarily translate to good and complex cups of filter coffee. Comparing an espresso machine with an aeropress is like apples and oranges.
I could tell you several ways in which the aeropress is superior. But it doesn't matter, they are quite different devices for different purposes.
That’s a fair criticism of the parent comment. Espresso != brewed coffee. But the author does quote the article stating that the Aeropress makes a better tasting (to some) drink than the expensive (presumably espresso) machines. When I bought my first Aeropress, I think the marketing and commentary by friends and acquaintances suggested that I’d be drinking something more similar to espresso at home on the cheap. Of course I did not, even though the coffee was good.
Lastly, for someone who wants espresso on the cheap, but doesn’t care about frothy milk, the Flair espresso maker looks like a winner, as I mentioned elsewhere: https://www.flairespresso.com/
To recap, yes they’re different beasts, both good. There are often disingenuous comparisons to espresso made on both “sides.”
> Comparing an espresso machine with an aeropress is like apples and oranges.
Article says aeropress makes "best coffee in world" and "better than $1000 machines." Apples and oranges juiced well before I arrived. Coffee is the beverage you end up with, it's only fair to compare.
Your espresso machine is making espresso, not coffee, right?
Also, how much did your espresso machine cost? My Aeropress cost $30. I use it daily at the office and make a cup that's 100x better than what the machine (or the starbucks downstairs) makes.
If you like burnt and bitter coffee. The Moka pot company, Bialetti, is in fact struggling, partly because there are just so many better ways of producing coffee. The Moka pot had its time, but nowadays people know that pushing (> 100 degree) boiling water through coffee grounds just doesn’t produce a great cup of coffee. It’s a pretty device though.
I really needed to read this, as I've been very discouraged by my lack of success recently. I've only got 4 patents in various stages, and nothing with traction, but this is exactly the kind of life I'm aiming for...
Use mine daily here in Saigon with amazing Vietnamese coffee.
I bought the metal screen filters off of amazon for cheap. Far better than the paper filters. I can't really tell the difference between the different metal filters, but I've settled on using the wire mess screen for some reason.
Interestingly enough, you can get solid knock offs in Vietnam [1] for
pretty cheap (450k vnd / $19.50).
If you haven't tried inverted method, do it! Lots of instruction videos on youtube.
There is also other research that says that LDL isn't bad [1]. The pollution from living in Saigon will probably kill me long before drinking coffee does. I also only drink 1-2 cups of coffee and tea/water for the rest of the day. At this rate, I'll go for flavor over potential minor health effects.
The Alan Adler posts in the Coffee Geeks forum are really enlightening about how to make a great invention and how to enjoy your coffee: http://coffeegeek.com/members/AlanAdler
53 comments
[ 3.7 ms ] story [ 123 ms ] threadBut "never" increase the immersion to make stronger coffee.
As you can see at https://aeropressinc.com/use-it-now/evolution-of-aeropress/ , they’ve continued to re-evaluate materials, including testing for contamination while brewing coffee.
You can boil an aeropress at pH 5 for an hour without detecting any leaching. The interesting bit is how it ages—how cracks form, where bacteria might find a home, that sort of thing.
On every discussion of the Aeropress, I've seen the ask for a non-plastic version pop up. Every time I've then seen essentially your reply above. I'd just prefer a metal or glass version.
I don't worry about crap leaching out of the plastic as much as bacterial creepy critters lodging in the cracks. Also rancid coffee in the cracks isn't nice. Perhaps I should buy a new one, hopefully the polypropylene is more durable.
BTW, I use 200° water. Brewing time is less than 30s total for me.
https://www.artisansmith.com.au/collections/press
Steel press is $149AUD, which is about $110USD.
Handling metal at boiling temperatures is miserable. Burning yourself in your pre-coffee haze makes the ritual less enjoyable. Plastic is pretty damn good brewing material thanks to it's insulation. Metal and ceramics look great but you end up needing to add cladding and they are still inferior.
Fortunately aeropress is forgiving compared to espresso so you might get away with the temperature changes but I would not be suprised by mixed results.
Why? If you fear BPA or other materials leaching... they've been testing since 2009 and never found anything. And anything recent has been BPA-free.
> The team concentrated on BPA-free baby bottles and water bottles, Bittner says, "and all of them released chemicals having estrogenic activity." Sometimes the BPA-free products had even more activity than products known to contain BPA.
That was just the top search engine result for "plastic leaching".
Not quite the "see, nothing to worry about" hill I would die on when one can just buy glass or metal vessels.
Don't worry, you'll be fine. If that worked, I'd be sucking on plastic spoons all day.
Automatic drip
French Press
Aeropress
Pour-over (using a Hario v60, Chemex filters, and a cheap, non-Hario Gooseneck kettle)
Next will be a home espresso setup if I can ever get rich enough to justify having one.
Also get a good grinder (kinu m47, commandante or similar) if you do not have it already. It gives you controlled repeatable grind - you can make same coffee taste very different depending on the grind.
> I always manage to spill grounds getting them into the Aeropress,
Use the scoop but don't pour or tap them in - instead put the scoop into the cylinder and then spin the handle to dump out the grounds. Makes it impossible to spill.
> Plus there's the risk of your cup flying away with the amount of pressure you're putting on the top of the press
That sounds like way too much pressure - some new aeropresses can be tight (which can be remedied) but maybe you have too fine a grind. It should definitely not be espresso level which requires that type of muscle. It's not brewing by the pressure you are applying but time + agitation. The press is just removing the grounds.
I have however frequently knocked over a pourover while pouring... my own fault... tend to use a heavy ass kettle which turns it into some weird strength endurance exercise.
Is that right? I’ve never understood the purpose of the high pressure air pocket inside the Aeropress. If the pressure has no effect, why does the Aeropress brew more quickly than a French press?
I think the main variable affected by pressure is what is forced through the filter. A faster push and more force means more oils which can have positive or negative taste changes depending on the coffee.
You see competitive aeropressers (yeah, I know...) do 60s long presses to reduce pressure.
> If the pressure has no effect, why does the Aeropress brew more quickly than a French press?
Typically a french press has a coarser grind and less agitation.
I use a generic $4 filter holder from the local kitchen supply store, generic size 104 Melitta-style filters, and a basic kettle. I buy good quality coffee in small batches, which I grind at the store and go through in about a week. The fancy Hario etc. stuff is for hipsters IMO.
I do bust out the moka pot when I feel like changing it up a little, and it does make a very robust and flavorful, dark chocolate-like brew.
I also enjoy the coffee from the Aeropress, but I find it rather fiddly, which is not good for me in the morning.
Ultimately I went with the manual lever because I got tired of trying to figure out the espresso machine market, and I knew that the limiting factor in my espresso would be me, not the fact that I didn’t buy a copper boiler, PID-enabled $6k monstrosity.
If the frothy milk thing isn’t something you care about, then these things look pretty amazing and get good reviews on Amazon: https://www.flairespresso.com/ I didn’t go this route because I wanted something that could make my morning latte in addition to espresso, but this looks amazing.
You’ll definitely want to get a decent quality (read consistent) burr grinder to get good espresso. I had a ~$80 Capresso grinder that was great for Aeropress, but didn’t deliver enough grind consistency or enough control over grind size. I broke down and bought a Breville grinder on a friend’s recommendation (listed for $400, got for $180 on sale).
I love the precise grind times, because I’m lazy. But, in the spirit of cheap and manual, I’ve heard good things about the handheld Kyocerra grinder. That plus a cheap digital scale should get you some amazing results.
To recap, you could get the Flair espresso maker for as little as ~$150, and a handheld grinder for <$50 and probably be making as good an espresso as an expensive machine.
It's a cheap option, but scarcely the most usable one--among other things, you also have to go way beyond their recommendations when it comes to filling and tamping the shot, and pre-heat of the assembly with hot water is kinda essential. But for roughly $100 all in including a hand grinder, it was a cheap stab at seeing if I wanted to tinker with espresso. Turns out I do, so sometime in the next couple of years I'll buy into a mid-grade machine for the countertop.
I'd recommend going a mini/nanopresso if you enjoy the smallness of a aeropress but want the bite of an espresso-style shot. Really great little machines - not as simple as an aeropress but makes nice short blacks. Much cheaper than getting a home espresso machine as well.
My coffee of choice is a flat white, so I need silky smooth microfoam (not froth), which the espresso machine does at the same time.
Also in terms of an "exact science" in consistently good taste, and getting the best from the beans, the extraction process of an espresso brew is superior and more reliable. Provided you take the time to learn how to do it.
Next best after an espresso machine is a stove-top coffee pot. Best for coffees where it's mostly water and only some milk.
> "Proponents of the device claim that drinks made with the AeroPress are more delicious than those made with thousand-dollar machines."
Yeh that's funny, is this article a paid promo?
Brewed coffee and espresso are two completely different things.
When talking about good coffee it's important to distinguish if you mean coffee you like to drink or if we're talking about flavours, mouth feel etc.
The coffee used and recommended for good complex espresso shots does not necessarily translate to good and complex cups of filter coffee. Comparing an espresso machine with an aeropress is like apples and oranges.
I could tell you several ways in which the aeropress is superior. But it doesn't matter, they are quite different devices for different purposes.
Lastly, for someone who wants espresso on the cheap, but doesn’t care about frothy milk, the Flair espresso maker looks like a winner, as I mentioned elsewhere: https://www.flairespresso.com/
To recap, yes they’re different beasts, both good. There are often disingenuous comparisons to espresso made on both “sides.”
Article says aeropress makes "best coffee in world" and "better than $1000 machines." Apples and oranges juiced well before I arrived. Coffee is the beverage you end up with, it's only fair to compare.
Also, how much did your espresso machine cost? My Aeropress cost $30. I use it daily at the office and make a cup that's 100x better than what the machine (or the starbucks downstairs) makes.
Your plastic thing doesn't make better coffee, I'm quite sure of that.
If you like burnt and bitter coffee. The Moka pot company, Bialetti, is in fact struggling, partly because there are just so many better ways of producing coffee. The Moka pot had its time, but nowadays people know that pushing (> 100 degree) boiling water through coffee grounds just doesn’t produce a great cup of coffee. It’s a pretty device though.
With good quality beans, my Bialetti produces coffee that is very similar in profile to high quality dark chocolate.
I bought the metal screen filters off of amazon for cheap. Far better than the paper filters. I can't really tell the difference between the different metal filters, but I've settled on using the wire mess screen for some reason.
Interestingly enough, you can get solid knock offs in Vietnam [1] for pretty cheap (450k vnd / $19.50).
If you haven't tried inverted method, do it! Lots of instruction videos on youtube.
[1] http://barista1.viennam.vn/San-pham/dung-cu-pha-cafe-aeropre...
That's why he won't make a metal filter himself.
[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=LDL+isn%27t+bad
A metal filter might even make the coffee more enjoyable, but I think when reviewing coffee, the oils cover up some of the more subtle flavours.
It is great to learn how a great inventor thinks.