Comments on: Bruperstitions: In defense of omni-grind

By: Ian Bersten

Ian Bersten — Thu, 24 Nov 2011 03:17:46 +0000

I have the opinion – i.e. it is not a proven fact that large grind coffee always leads to underextraction because the water never penetrates properly to the center of the particle. This certainly happens with large leaf tea where it can be shown that over 50% of the flvour is thrown into the trash.

I believe thata espresso grind with 30 seconds extraction gives a very good cup – better than the same quantity of a large grind brewed for four minutes

By: The Espro Press – Because I Can! « Damn Subdermal Irritant

The Espro Press – Because I Can! « Damn Subdermal Irritant — Tue, 18 Oct 2011 22:36:10 +0000

[...] (theotherblackstuff.ie) over in Maastricht and an interesting blog post from him a while back (http://theotherblackstuff.ie/thoughts/bruperstitions-in-defense-of-omni-grind/) I decided that it was about time to get around to this update. This decided my grind setting and I [...]

By: Joe Griffin

Joe Griffin — Sat, 12 Jun 2010 18:37:09 +0000

So I relies I’m a little late to the conversation. But this is the same question I’ve been asking my self after watching the Tamper Tantrum from the Uber factory. I would narrow the question slightly thou.
Is there a taste difference between a perfectly extracted grind (mojo tested the same) for 10 sec, and a perfectly extracted grind for 4 min? To me this question is asking specifically can we tell the difference in the diluted solids that we are tasting if they are the first part of the extraction or the something that has slowly been extracted.

By: My First Week with the MoJoToGo | ShotZombies

My First Week with the MoJoToGo | ShotZombies — Sat, 22 May 2010 20:49:01 +0000

[...] ratio? Temperature surely has significant impact as well, but is much harder for me to control. David Walsh’s essay on grind size persuades me not to mess too much with that, and Scott Rao provides excellent advice for agitation. [...]

By: James Hoffmann

James Hoffmann — Fri, 14 May 2010 00:18:13 +0000

Well if you are going to defend the omnigrind then I will have to go on the attack.

First off – its preground. Doesn’t matter how it was preground, it is still a stale, undesirable food product that isn’t fresh or delicious and never can be. I know that wasn’t the point of your post but I reserve the right to despise omnigrind for this alone.

The balance of grind size, contact time, flow rate, agitation and water extraction efficiency can most likely be balanced out if you choose to keep the grind constant. But this can’t be done easily, or in a convenient way. Problems will arise (Paul highlights some in his post), and allowing the grind size to take some of the burden is no bad thing.

My only other thought on this is pairing a grind size and a brew method with a view to the margin of error that is easily controlled via that brew method. A coarse grind, and a longer extraction time has the benefit of a wider window of time in which the coffee is correctly extracted (in a french press as an example). Not everyone at home (for reasons I will never understand) is brewing on scales or timing their brews but a press pot won’t suddenly become all kinds of evil if you miss the brew time by 20s or even 30s. As a goal is surely people drinking more delicious, sustainable, quality coffee at home then brew methods/grind sizes that don’t make them frustrated on the first few goes are probably a good thing.

By: Jacob Orr

Jacob Orr — Thu, 13 May 2010 01:36:56 +0000

I have been pondering these same questions and locally I find a growing number of people that think a pour over (Chemex namely) needs a four minute extraction time regardless of final volume… It is all folklore proving to me that the tongue is still not as important to people as it should be.

By: MARCO ÜBER PROJECT » ABOUT TIME

MARCO ÜBER PROJECT » ABOUT TIME — Tue, 11 May 2010 22:05:38 +0000

[...] by David Walsh’s recent post on grind size and the villified omigrind, a latent bugbear of mine has been stirred from the far [...]

By: ziad

ziad — Tue, 11 May 2010 20:47:38 +0000

Yes David,I understand,it may be the oldest brewing method ever,and it is cultural more than anything else.
Overextracted and silty coffee wouldn’t be my thing either,certainly if it’s brought to the boil several times like many do,that’s more likely what we would get,but I got your point.

By: David

David — Tue, 11 May 2010 18:13:00 +0000

James, I get what you are saying. However, the physics of bean breaking dictates that although you are narrowing the range between fines and the desired peak by grinding finer overall, you are also increasing the proportion of fines.

By: James Grierson

James Grierson — Tue, 11 May 2010 08:20:03 +0000

Interesting post David. Can you detect any difference in taste between a 2:30min and 4min brew on the French Press?

By grinding finer, this should narrow the range in size of the grounds produced. So basically what I’m asking is: does the shorter brew time/finer grind method produce greater clarity in the cup?