Even amateurs will notice the difference between a "perfect" pour over from a $50 grinder and a $200 grinder. The GP clearly does not own a V60 :)

Above the $200 range really only matter for espresso. Manual brews don't need that fine grind precision, just consistency (no fines, no rocks) at medium grind levels.

Get two laboratory sifts for 10 bucks each and ignore the grinder quality altogether.

I’m sorry but what is an “amateur” coffee drinker? Is coffee drinking so complex that you can become an expert in it? Get over yourself, you’ve been drinking the koolaid, not the coffee.

People who own v60s tend tie the promotion of v60s to their personal character so i know this might fall flat but; every real study ive seen, thats blind, has shown no no added benefit to slightly more consistent grounds. Ive noticed the same when testing between the two myself. Feel free to share otherwise if you have data to support that ;)

Do you have a link to such a study? My google-fu is failing.

I don't doubt you but would like to read it and try to confirm my bias anyway!

My experience is mainly with completely crap grinders vs high-end burrs which is very distinguishable. Probably low/mid end burrs do okay as long as there aren't too many fines. Grind size variability may even be advantageous :)

It’s fascinating, isn't it? “Experts” are more than willing to dish out hundreds of dollars for finer microns and consistent particle sizes, and even measure those sizes using LASERS. They will go through the trouble to make fancy edited videos with all sorts of dubious claims about taste. But all of these people are totally unwilling to do blind taste tests and release their data, and as such we find a massive lack of real studies on the internet. People will make every excuse under the sun to not run blind taste tests on the effect of different coffee grinders. Look at this guys list of reasons… lol he states that he needs “people from around the world” in order to make such a study accurate.(https://towardsdatascience.com/double-blind-coffee-studies-a...).

The one i know of was done by Americas test kitchen. I had read and/or watched another a while back but couldn’t find it. Good luck with your cuppa - continue to enjoy the ritual.

The study was proprietary. As far as I know it was never released.

I don't know if there is a taste difference that's meaningful, but the consistency is probably the real difference between grinders.

With a spice mill, it's a total crap shoot if a grind will pull properly, blast through or block up completely. It is a challenge to always get a good grind.

A burr grinder? If it's the same beans, it is set and forget. Always the same grind, same pull, easy.

If there is any taste difference, I suspect it is down to consistency of the grind and not much else.

Tasting a difference in grind size does not equate to fine particles being “bitter” and larger particles being “flat”, nor does it result in a slightly uneven grind being “better” than a more consistent one…

The effect of fines being bitter and the coarse being sour is easy to test. Take a decent grinder and your favorite coffee. Grind one batch a couple notches finer than usual. Grind another batch coarser than usual. Brew both with the same amount and temperature of water for the same time as you normally would. Compare the flavor of both brews. This is a common step of "dialing in a brew" to get your preferred flavor. The finer grind tends to be more bitter, the coarser tends to be more sour.

Now take a bit of both grinds and mix those together and brew them. You will find it is both bitter and sour.

If you want to avoid placebo, simply perform a double blind test.

James Hoffman has plenty of videos demonstrating this, even on himself. He tests many methods, machines, and beans. The things the community says matter he can reliably detect in a double blind test. Other things typically show no effect.

Don't forget, this isn't just Reddit. People have been brewing coffee for centuries. There are many professionals and lifelong tradespeople. There are definitely things that matter for making a good brew and particle size is one of them.

>Grind one batch a couple notches finer than usual. Grind another batch coarser than usual.

You are giving me advice as though I havent been "dialing in" my coffee for over a decade. Of course if you brew two different coffees with 100% different particle sizes, you will get different results. This is an exaggeration fallacy. It is not the same test as having 95% of one particle size vs 5% of another, which measures the improvement you might get from upgrading a $50 grinder to a $200 grinder.

>Don't forget, this isn't just Reddit. People have been brewing coffee for centuries. There are many professionals and lifelong tradespeople. There are definitely things that matter for making a good brew and particle size is one of them.

Yeah, people have been brewing coffee for centuries. No, people have not been concerned about minuscule differences in particle sizes for centuries. The ethopian method still consists of roasting beans in what basically amounts to a cast iron pan. Dominicans still roast their beans in sugar over a fire. Both have been grinding their beans using mortar and pestle since the beginning of time, and continue to this day. Would you scoff at those, and tell them their coffee is not "dialed in"? I'm sorry, but the pretentious exaggerations over coffee particle sizes absolutely are a recent phenomenon, and that you are seriously suggesting history in support of your claims reveals an obvious level of naivety.

EDIT: Also, you should be extremely wary of "learning" from well-edited videos of taste testers such as James Hoffman whose entire livelihood depends on being a coffee personality in a world where coffee is touted as being more complex than it actually is...