Ok, so I was messing about with my french press. Check out the video below. I will say, numbers aside, for me the result is closer to the cleanliness of a vacpot with say a glass filter, that is to say not as clean as cloth or paper, but not unpleasantly dirty….

Worth a try perhaps…

I used 30g (coffee) / 500g (water)

and where I say – “middle part” – should say “top part”…

Some lighter blog fair this time. As the annual gift giving orgy is a mere [insert number] days away, there’s an increased level of discourse about what to buy. I’ve seen a lot of “what espresso machine should I buy for under €100?”, “anywhere sell that civet coffee?” etc. An awful lot of money will be poorly spent on shit (sometimes literally) coffee gifts this Christmas. So I thought I’d put together ten items, covering a variety of price points, of things that I would be happy to give or receive.

1. Coffee Subscription: It’s the gift that keeps on giving. Many roasters do this now, they send out, typically, a bag of beans every month, for 6 months or a year. Between my Square Mile, and Hasbean subscriptions, I’m never really without coffee. In around these, I’ll pick up whatever takes my fancy, depending on my whims, but these are my bread and butter, so to speak. Hasbean also offers a weekly In My Mug videoblog subscription (1 bag a week, with an online video which goes into some depth about the particular coffee), which, of the Hasbean subscriptions tends to be the more geeky, more palate-expanding. Square Mile, Hasbean, and (I think) James Gourmet Coffee will all service an Irish audience on that front. Hopefully 2010 will see some of the Scandanavian roasters present that kind of offering (with reasonable shipping across Europe).

2. Cups/Mugs: J-Ho touched on this during his infamous videoblogging splurge. Cups/mugs do make a difference to the overall drinking experience. While it might not really affect how the drink tastes, some cups are more inherently pleasing to hold and slurp from. Ever since April, since I sat in Octane in Atlanta, sipping a French Press of Idido Misty Valley from one of their unbranded diner mugs, I’ve really liked the satisfying unexpected weight of the mug, and the pleasing crook of the handle. While, Octane don’t sell the mugs, I do also quite like the Intelligentsia branded ones, which you can buy here. Less, beefy, more elegant and modern, are the Lux Delux mugs. I’m actually hoping Santa has a couple of these for me this year. A lot of design elements went into them, that have been discussed previously, I just think they look cool.

3. Far-flung beans. This can either be palate expanding or geek-satisfying. It’s Christmas, right? Feck it! Ignore those crazy, scary shipping costs, there are many fine international roasters, from whom, we isolated on Europe’s western periphery rarely have the pleasure to buy from. Intelligentsia, Terroir, 49th Parallel, Ecco, Barismo, Tim Wendelboe, Supreme Roastworks, all offer international shipping – it’s not an exhaustive list, but you get the point, order something special from somewhere special.

4. Hand Grinder. These are perfect gifts – gift sized, gift priced. Though, unless you are looking for them to double as a gym workout, they are best suited to only grinding enough for one cup at a time. I’m really quite enamoured with Hario’s Skerton hand grinder, despite an obvious flaw (no lower burr carrier). The materials of the body (plastic and glass) are appropriate, and easy to clean, the burrs, ceramic, are also washable (mine survived someone carelessly putting it through a dishwasher cycle). The grind uniformity, I have to be honest, can be less than ideal, but nonetheless, for a hand grinder, for €45 (from Coffee Angel), it’s excellent, comparable to some €100-€200 electric grinders, and I won’t insult it by comparing it to a whirly blade “grinder”. Porlex/Kyocera also offer hand grinders, which I believe have been similarly well received (I prefer the look of the Hario burrs though).

5. A quare brewer. Quare*, as in queer, as in strange (not flamboyantly homosexual). Something new and interesting is what’s called for here, something that will deliver almost as much fun in the brewing as satisfaction in the final cup. You see, a french press is not quare, they are ubiquitous, dare I say mundane (mundanely excellent at brewing). A chemex is quare, one with a handle is extra quare. A V60 dripper is quare. A siphon/vacpot is quare (if infuriating). An Eva Solo is quare. An Abid is quare. Just be sure to get plenty of filters (if required) to go along with whichever one you opt for.

6. Geek technology. Having spent many of my blog posts in the last 6 months discussing extraction, it would be remiss of me not to mention gadgets to measure it. A cheap TDS meter from eBay will get you started, if you have money to burn, an Extract Mojo is the deluxe option. This is hardcore geekery, so know your audience, they might not be too impressed in being presented with a small electronic device that looks like a home pregnancy test.

7. A tamper. Ok, I’ve purposely left espresso orientated things off this list (until now). I’m mostly bored by espresso these days, maybe one day a month I get enthused. Nonetheless, the custom, panda engraved, Reg Barber tamper I got a present of last christmas was an excellent gift. Plus you can just go around menacingly holding it on Christmas day, whether you are in the vicinity of an espresso machine or not. It’s hard to go beyond Reg Barber for me. Avoid clicky, gimmicky ones.

8. Books. This really depends on the level of geek. If you are J-Ho, you’d probably like to receive Coffee Technology, by Sivetz and Desrossier. A budding home barista might like, The Professional Barista’s Handbook, by Scott Rao. I really enjoyed Michaele Weissman’s God In a Cup, a light, and at the time current read (not sure how well it’s aged), probably the coffee equivalent of a Dan Brown book. Espresso Coffee: The Science of Quality remains, in my opinion, a nice geeky, reasonably in-depth mini-tome, which can be dipped in and out of during your daily constitutionals (who wants to borrow my copy??). I didn’t really enjoy The Devil’s Cup, but some think it has merit.

9. A teflon portafilter. I’m breaking my espresso rule again, but this one is really worth it. Until recently, outrageously expensive. Now a mere £48 might be all that is separating you from the joy of electric green teflon. For now, only available in E61 and La Marzocco sizes (maybe with some DIY modification will fit the likes of a Silvia also).

10. A digital scales. This is one of those presents that could be borderline insulting, like buying your wife/mother an iron. It doesn’t matter how good the iron is, or how much time it might save her, it’s just not a good present. Scales are boring. You’re unlikely to rip it out of the box, get caught up in the excitement and start to frantically weigh things all around you. Nonetheless it is pretty much an essential and often overlooked piece of coffee equipment, and you can get some nice looking ones too if that is your thing. You want to get one that at the minimum is capable of 1g increments, 0.1g is even better. It should also be capable of weighing at least 2-3kg.

*Quare : adj. adv. (intensive) great; in the phr. ‘queer and . . . ‘queer = very (e.g. ‘He’s queer and mean’ = ‘He’s very mean’ < E dial. queer adj. origin obscure. ‘He’s a queer yoke (q.v.) that fella I can’t figure him out at all’; Roche, Poor Beast in the Rain, I.1, 76: “Joe. . . .’We were queer and lucky not to be sent up the river that time boy’”, Stoker, The Snake’s Pass, 199: “‘That’s a queer thing for him to say!’ said Norah to her father. ‘Murdoch turned on her at once. ‘Quare thing — no more quare than the things they’ll be sayin’ about you before long’”, Kavanagh, ‘If You Ever Go To Dublin Town’, 143: “O he was a queer one”, Roche, A Handful of Stars, I.l, 14: “Tony. ‘I’ll tell yeh one thing Conway he’s trainin’ queer hard for it’”. Since about 1700 the common HE pronunciation of ‘ee/ea’ as ‘ai’ (e.g., queer, quare) has become a salient characteristic of the dialect, as witnessed in this anecdote given by Dr. Johnson (entry in Boswell for 27 March, 1772, cited in Bliss, Spoken English in Ireland, 209): ‘When I published the Plan for my Dictionary, Lord Chesterfield told me that the word great should be pronounced so as to rhyme to state; and Sir William Yonge sent me word that it should be pronounced so as to rhyme to seat, and that none but an Irishman would pronounce it grait’. Now here were two men of the highest rank, the one, the best speaker in the House of Lords, the other, the best speaker in the House of Commons, differing entirely’.

There persists a deluded, quasi-philosophical resistance to the use of electronic devices, and scientific methodology for improving the production of brewed coffee. While coffee preparation certainly falls into the culinary arts, like it or not, water is a solvent, coffee a solute, and there is much benefit to be gained in the adoption of scientific apparatus and some light math. I implore those holding out, to at least once, measure brew strength and extraction percentage. This should include roasters, retailers, consumers and all in between. It is the only practical way that the occupants of this consumption chain have of communicating reference points and explaining what is in their cup. I’d be very happy to see an end to the widespread use of wishy-washy, meaningless terms like “filter grind” and near universal prescription of 4mins as brew time. This offers that possibility. That spectrum of end-users though, probably reflects very different perceptions about what would be an acceptable amount to spend on a device for the purpose. It is important though, that an option is available for all price points.

The tool of choice for many a year for this purpose was a TDS meter. Hydrometers and dehydration were considered more accurate, but for in the field assessment the TDS meter was used. Ted Lingle, author of The Coffee Cuppers Handbook, The Coffee Brewing Handbook, and former SCAA Executive Director, updated their use with coffee in the early 90s, with Carl Staub and Agtron Inc (they of the bean brownness scale) assisting on the research end. Of course, the correlation between actual coffee concentration and conductivity had been established some time earlier. For example, in the 1979 tome, Coffee Technology (Sivetz & Desrosier), the authors state that “Specific electrical conductance is directly related to solubles concentration up to about 10 percent solubles; at this point the proportionality deviates”. The two examples, shown in the figure, confirm the linearity of the correlation, suggesting at least that conductivity is an appropriate technology for the purpose. TDS meters since became an integral part of the Gold Cup programmes, in both the US and in Europe.

Linear relationship between coffee strength and electrical conductivity. (A) Nicoli et al., ASIC, 14e Colloque, San Francisco, 1991. (B) Cammenga et al., ASIC, 17e colloque, Nairobi, 1997.

My first hand experience with TDS meters has been broadly positive. After the SCAE Brewmaster course I picked up a cheap ($16) one on Ebay, and based on its readings I found that my choice of grind size and brew time was resulting in a very weakly extracted cup. Some adjustments to my grind, and some more tests I was brewing a markedly more satisfying cup. $16 well spent.

Anecdotal evidence, however, points to a widespread level of frustration of users of the devices, their accuracy frequently questioned. While I have no way of confirming their accuracy beyond agreement with my palate, I observed that the TDS reading would take several minutes to stabilize, and even then it was only relatively stable. There was a big requirement on the user for patience and faith. At times the results would seem counter-intuitive, and some who would use them extensively would rely on the average of several readings to even out variability. Certainly at least part of the blame for the perceived failings of the US Gold Cup programme have been layed at the door of the humble TDS meter.

At the SCAA in April, in the midst of the barista and cup tasting competitions, some notable events took place. The SCAA adopted the Extract Mojo refractometer as the preferred tool for in field assessments of brew strength. They also changed the brew chart, adding a zero to the TDS scale, corresponding to the strength percentage (more on this below). The Mojo (r2 mini refractometer), a $339 tool, with the accompanying software suite (extra cost) represents the first concerted effort in over a decade to improve the accuracy and usability of a coffee strength measuring system. As with many exciting new products that hit the coffee industry, the hype built perceptions of a device that could be used almost casually, and would deliver never before seen accuracy and precision. I would liken the device closer to something to be used in a laboratory, with a requisite for care and consideration not adequately highlighted in much of the online discussion. Calibration, filtration and temperature seem keenly important, with the requirement that both the device and the coffee sample be in thermal equilibrium.

Even then, I have observed, in my short time hands-on with some of the r2minis, that readings can fluctuate somewhat. A typical experience would be an initially consistent reading (maybe varying by a couple of one-hundredth percentage places), then leaving the sample on the lens, and coming back 5 or 10 minutes later to find a very different reading. Nonetheless, in a recent side-by-side use of the mojo and a TDS meter, while at times they agreed, overall the results from the mojo more consistently matched our palate and expectations based on the adjustments we made to the brew. That alone, is progress. Money being no object, I would prefer to have a mojo as part of my tool kit than a TDS meter.

From The Coffee Brewing Handbook, Ted Lingle, 1996.

I remain a little confused as to the reasons for the change to the brew chart. In email correspondence, Ric Rheinhart, current SCAA executive director, said it was the restoration of the correct decimal placement for the TDS values, after the loss of much institutional memory in recent years. A TDS meter gives a reading in PPM. However, it directly measures conductivity, not TDS, and infers TDS based on an assumed ratio of conductive to non-conductive dissolved solids. For measuring water purity a TDS meter is roughly accurate, where the dissolved solids are mostly charged. In coffee though, there are many organic solids that do not conduct electricity. So the ratio must be changed. Though it seems implausible, the multiplying factor is 10. This is given short shrift in The Coffee Brewing Handbook, where an expanded explanation would have been most useful and appropriate (see the figure for the full account). The best articulation of this issue I could find was from Barry Jarrett in response to Jim Schulman on on alt.coffee, “so, there are 12,500 ppm of solubles, but only 1/10th of them conduct electricity“. Therefore a TDS meter reading of 1500ppm for coffee does equate to 1.5% coffee strength, despite the fact that strictly speaking 1500ppm means 0.15%.

That the multiplying factor appears to be exactly ten has contributed to the confusion (one of the better examples of the confusion can be seen on the CoffeeGeek forums here). The prescribed method for measuring the strength is to measure a sample of the brew water and the coffee, and to subtract the brew water TDS from the coffee TDS. This has led to questions over whether, the water TDS (a true PPM) should be subtracted from the coffee TDS or the coffee TDS times ten. Questions have even been raised about whether TDS meters have an inherent 10x scaling ability that has remained unadvertised. Lack of faith in the meters, combined with the lack of clarity on this point, have created this clusterfuck of confusion.

If we think about the reading from the TDS meter, not as TDS or PPM, but rather an indication of conductivity, things become simpler. The brew water does contribute to the conductivity of the final coffee beverage. This contribution to the conductivity should be subtracted to leave us just with that contributed by the coffee solids. In those terms it makes no sense to first multiply the coffee reading, because you are also multiplying the water contribution, then in essence only subtracting one tenth of its contribution to the reading.

The 2009 SCAA Chart Change.

So the new chart is both correct and incorrect. It is correct in the technical sense that 1.30% does mean 13000ppm, however, in terms of TDS measured by a conductivity meter it is incorrect, 1.30% would be 1300ppm. Some clarity on the intention of the change would be most welcome.

I think the last hurrah of the TDS meter could be bridging the price gap for the consumer, and the skeptics, until a time when the better tools become more affordable. For everyone else, (and perhaps some hardcore consumers), the Extract Mojo should be the (portable) tool of choice. If, like me, the TDS meter can get people into the ball-park of desirable extraction, then it is mission accomplished. If the Extract Mojo eventually sends the conductivity TDS meter the way of the dodo, then we should send it off with our thanks, for filling the void, getting us on the road to making this practice widespread, and for duty served in the name of good coffee.