[Gaussian]

I have found my AeroPress coffee to be lacking body. I returned to pour-overs and French presses.

Having read this, I feel I must again tinker with the Aeropress.

Likely case of "Doing it wrong."

[cag_ii]

I wasn't a big fan until I read about the inverted method [0]. You might give that a try if you haven't already.

[0] http://stumptowncoffee.com/brew-guides/aeropress/

[garfij]

Everyone talks a lot about the inverted method, but I feel like you get the same controlled steep time by easing the plunger in a little and then pulling back out a little to create negative pressure inside tube.

[e12e]

I tried both, and for the coffee I use regularly (which isn't as good as it could be, it's not high grade, and it's not fresh ground - it's also less than half the price of "proper" beans) -- I can't really tell the difference.

For really good coffee I haven't tested back-to-back, but I generally find that letting it steep "right way up" is fine. Also letting the coffee steep in a pre-heated cup/kettle/teapot is fine. Maybe this makes a difference if one makes "pretend-espresso" rather than a full cup of "Americano" (actually more like Lungo -- but still not, as the pressure is lower than the initial pressure for a lungo).

I like my aeropress, but it's no espresso machine. It's different from a French press and a pour-over -- but I'm not prepared to claim that it's the best coffee.

[cmn27]

This x 1000. To my mind, espousing the inverted method betrays a scant grasp of vacuums and basic physics.

Allowing a drop or two of coffee to escape early to the cup massively outweighs the risks of using very hot water to give something a very high centre of gravity.

[thenomad]

Practical point: I've had an Aeropress for years, using it at least once a week, often daily, always inverted.

I've never knocked it over. It's much more stable inverted than you might think.

[cmn27]

And ditto from my perspective. But it still bugs me when I have my kids running around that the exception that proves the rule will arise, and it's more robust to have the AP directed into the mug at brew time than inverted, so I just rely on the vacuum to work the magic.*

But for me, the key point is that there's no appreciable difference in the coffee either way.

*Although you might legitimately point out that the whole caboodle is taller as a result doing it the old fashioned way, which increases the chances of it being knocked over.

[sergers]

I have been using aeropress for 2 months 3 times a day.

After second cup I switched to inverted and haven't switched back.

Just so many different brews with the same coffee with inverted with steep time, amount of water, coarse, find grinds.

I have only had the plunger slip out once. Trick is u dont need to flip fast. I like to meet cup with press while flipping... Coffee barely drips and if it does into cup

I do not pre moisten filter. Usually there are a few drops from rinsing cap.

I do like the paddle unless you put too much water in.

The scoop can be awkward but I put the whole thing in the aeropress and turn to put the grinds in.

Finer grinds are better IMO. Otherwise increase steep time or add more coffee.

[whyaduck]

I take my coffee seriously and I'm willing to spend some time (and money) making it. Even for me, that looks a bit more involved than I'd like.

[tholmes]

The inverted method essentially involves waiting for 45-90 seconds and then pressing. It's not going to leak or anything when you flip it unless you go absolutely wild. It's no harder than making a non-inverted aeropress or a pourover.

Or if you accidentally put the plunger in the wrong side and don't notice before you fill it up. I did that once :)

[saidajigumi]

> It's not going to leak or anything when you flip it unless you go absolutely wild.

Motion seconded. I used to think inverted seemed complicated as well, but once you've done it, it's pretty darn straightforward.

[wampus]

The nicest thing about the inverted method is the consistency of results, because nothing's leaking out during steeping.

Still, I hesitate to recommend it to some people, not because it's difficult, but because I know they might use boiling hot water straight from the kettle and risk injury. Under the right conditions, it can separate when screwing on the filter cap, due to the steam pressure.

[joezydeco]

Knocking over the cylinder while steeping is also a hazard. I've done it once or twice while working too fast around the counter and it's....messy.

[zem]

the inverted method is basically all the benefits of a french press and none of the mess.

[zippergz]

Eh, I spent a few months carefully experimenting with Aeropress methods, and while I got good results, I never got anything that I liked as much as what I get from my French press, which I also find less fiddly (e.g. with the French press, I find that small variations in both time and temperature have less of a negative impact). I still use the Aeropress every once in a while when I'm feeling bored (I always use the inverted method), but I'm never thrilled with the results.

Edit: I forgot to mention, I totally get that some people like the fiddlyness, the experimental aspect, etc. I completely respect that, and am that way about a lot of things myself (some far sillier than coffee). Coffee just doesn't happen to be one of them, so that aspect of the Aeropress is not a plus for me.

[serve_yay]

I also returned to french press. I'm still not crazy about the sediment at the bottom of the cup, and the cleanup is slightly messier. But the AeroPress just doesn't produce enough coffee, and brewing with it is a bit fiddly (though the cleanup is a snap).

[deefour]

I bought my aeropress and a hario pour over at the same time having never previously used either. I much prefer the coffee that comes out of the pour over for the same reason; it definitely makes a more tasteful coffee.

[helyka]

Even if the AeroPress was to lack body, the coffee produced is still better than a drip.

[elwell]

pour-over usually doesn't mean drip (though it describes it)