While I don't mind the Aeropress I have a much better experience with a good old French press - much less chance of mess (stands well, no need to stir with the paddle/a spoon, no risk of putting too much pressure and something falls over).
Tastewise I've tried it with both metal and paper filters and regular and reverse method, as well as different types and grains of coffee - there's no tangible difference to a decent French press. And of course both are far far far away from a proper espresso as you'd expect in a proper Italian or Portuguese café.
The only upside I see is that it's light, so if you do carry something else to boil water it might be a good choice for campaign - but a small french press also is not heavy either. And of course if you go camping with a group a good mocha express to put on the fire makes you the hero of any journey (at the cost of an extra kg).
This makes no sense to me. The aeropress is the least messy coffee device I’ve ever used (after use just eject the puck of compressed grounds straight into the compost bin, and if desired give the parts a quick rinse), except maybe for those k-cup machines.
> Tastewise I've tried it with both metal and paper filters and regular and reverse method, as well as different types and grains of coffee - there's no tangible difference to a decent French press.
Taste depends on grind size, water temperature, water-to-coffee ratio, and steep time (and the paper filter).
If you use a very coarse grind and a metal filter, you’ll get approximately the same results with a French press vs. an aeropress.
If you use a very fine grind (or even a medium grind) then the French press does not work because the filter is too coarse (unless you want your coffee to be full of grounds). That takes out a huge part of the available parameter space.
Personally I like steeping very finely ground coffee at moderate water temperature (80–85 °C), for not too much time. I use the paper filters. It is not possible as far as I can tell to obtain similar results with a French press.
After gently pushing down the plunger give the coffee another minute to let the fines sink down which the push stirred up from the bottom.
The plunger thus rather keeps the sunk grinds and fines down when slowly pouring, it does not filter the coffee.
An excellent cup from the French press takes 5-7 minutes.
It's like French food: best enjoyed slowly.
The thing distinguishing the aeropress from pour over or French press is that by using the plunger you can still get water through the filter even with finely ground coffee beans. By using a finer grind, you can extract more flavor from the coffee with less water, lower water temperature, and/or shorter time, and thereby get stronger coffee while avoiding some of the more bitter larger molecules.
And pressing the little puck into the rubbish can is gratifying and fun.
Camping friendly is a serious plus. I have one in my camp trailer. Anytime someone goes with us, I end up making another Aeropress convert.
It is stupid simple, robust, easy, fun.
2. You should actually be stirring coffee with a french press as well. If you don't stir with a french press you may as well not stir with an aeropress, they both brew in similar containers.
3. No fine metal parts or glass so it's ideal for hiking, don't have to worry about something shattering in the pack.
4. I prefer the volume and taste of aeropress coffee over espresso or moka pots.
Anyways I'm not saying there's a perfect solution or a right way to prepare coffee. These are just the reasons I like aeropress, even if I do make a lot of french press as well.
> much less chance of mess
French presses are much more annoying to clean afterwards though. It's nigh impossible to get all of them out of the press without eventually getting some in the sink. I really like that you can just pop the puck of grounds out of the aeropress straight into the compost bin, and what's left on the plunger is almost a paste that can be rinsed off.
Pull out the French press plunger, add water and drain the resulting mud through the sieve.
A normal small 2" coffee sieve is too small in diameter, it will clog.
The 3" (4" is better, especially for the larger 1L press) allows the water to pass in a fast pour. And make sure it's a fine sieve, so the grinds stay in.
The grinds mud then goes from the sieve straight to trash.
In store the sieve at the sink with the other cleaning utensils. In direct access storage, so to speak, a local cache even.
Personally I like both but mainly drink espresso.
I’ve also got an AeroPress I used for years before I got the espresso maker. I still like it but it’s coffee is nothing like espresso.
I myself just wash out my French press with water and let all of that go down the drain, makes it the easiest to clean. Not to mention there is no need for onetime filters like with many other methods (same for Bialettis/espresso maker)
Maybe I'm just bad at cleaning a french press but I always felt it took way more effort.
I also only drink one cup of coffee in the morning so an Aeropress is great. I keep a larger French Press around in case more people want coffee though.
For camping though, I've used a couple of different moka pots and recently got an Aeropress, and I think the Aeropress is better.
With the moka pot you're sort of crossing your fingers hoping that the tamp and heat are right and the water is getting shoved through the grounds just fast enough to make them expand and make the brew happen, rather than whizzing through or coming out painfully slowly or even blocking up everything so the rest of the water goes out the steam valve.
With the Aeropress (or another similar item I've seen with two arms sticking out), you just shove it through. And for cleanup, you don't have to wait to unscrew two blazing hot metal pieces.
* Put hot water into the basin prior - don't heat up from cold water, the coffee will cook and be bitter if you do.
* Once it starts to pass air through (gurgling) take it off the heat and quench the bottom so the brew stops.
* Don't grind like an espresso - it'll be too fine and overextract.
* I also use an aeropress filter in my 6 cup bialetti and it really reduces the bitterness.
Or just stick with your aeropress, that's what I would do :)
I daresay that espresso is a very different style of coffee for people who are used to immersion brews. Espresso drinkers would prefer what they're used to. To each their own.
Most espresso shots end up being sour and unpleasant for me, but I've had a few (most recently, at Pablo & Rusty's in Sydney) that absolutely blew my mind.
Most are, even in cafes. I didn't realize this at first, and I bought an espresso machine to be more convenient than starbucks. But, it took me at least 2 months of owning an espresso machine before I was able to get the grind, tamp, extraction temperature and extraction time right to pull a good shot consistently. Honestly, it was two months of pain. But, it's been heaven ever since.
I don't mean to be a snob about it, but I used to enjoy starbucks espresso drinks -- not as much anymore. They're slightly bitter or sour most of the time, and once in awhile they're completely undrinkable. I live between two starbucks and I travel a lot, so it's not like it's just one bad location. I still go to starbucks once in awhile, but only if it's for a social reason... not for the coffee. My wife was not convinced at first, but now she agrees that my lattes are better and more consistent than Starbucks.
I think anyone who likes coffee will have the same reaction as you... their mind will be blown when they have a proper shot of espresso and they will probably hate it until that time. So, if you enjoyed it more than coffee, you could take the plunge too. It's like a lot of things though, if you want to do it right you often have to do it yourself.
I started delving into espresso and it is both immensely frustrating and immensely rewarding. It's really hard to pull a good shot. But once you do you can't go back.
Some beans are very forgiving and give a decent espresso with a wide range of parameters. Some beans are very picky on getting the settings right.
I've had a range of machines - and my current machine is the only one that I can get a decent cup from (BES920).
To your question, you need to adjust depending on the output from your machine.
Sure you can get a more precise outcome with more fiddling, but it’s a tradeoff of effort vs. diminishing rewards.
Also the fact that you can "pop" your grounds with a paper filter straight into the compost.
[1] https://www.amazon.ca/Hario-Ceramic-Coffee-Mill-Mini-Slim/dp...
Disclaimer: total AeroPress nerd and fanboy
The basic tradeoff for Aeropress is more complex flavor but weaker mouth feel, and I decided I wanted a richer texture. Usually drink darker roasts, so squeezing every note out of the beans is less important to me.
I've tried it, it makes a difference but there's still a distinct Americano sort of 'hit'. Aeropress is the closest thing to espresso short of a maker, and for an affogado it's peerless, but that's the only way I tend to take a shot of coffee at home.
Also using a Porlex these days and the pourover is much more forgiving of a rougher grind. Pulling a decent Areo shot means I have the nut tight enough that the grind takes half again as long.
Beeing unefficient and requiring attention can be a feature and not a bug if you embrace it.
No right or wrong answer.
It's a minimum of a full minute even if you are Commander Data. Be real.
Trying both I came to the same conclusion. I reuse a filter ~5 times. Bonus: you don’t need to “burn” the filter every time to remove paper taste, and after a rinse you can just leave it in the filter holder to dry so it’s ready to go immediately.
* It's fast
* It's foolproof
* It makes good quality coffee
* It's camping friendly
All of the tedium and unforced errors of pour over coffee disappears: "blooming", meticulous pouring technique, realtime measuring of water/coffee ratio. The hardest part is I use a hand grinder but even that isn't so bad.