4 ms·
In last 10 or so years I've gone a full circle with coffee makers (manufacturers rejoice!) in a quest for better coffee. From Moccamaster, to Keurig, Nespresso,
by rixrax 4y ago
In last 10 or so years I've gone a full circle with coffee makers (manufacturers rejoice!) in a quest for better coffee. From Moccamaster, to Keurig, Nespresso, french press, fancy capucino machine or two, and now back to filtered coffee /w Wilfa Classic.
At the end of the day, it turns out I am drinking it for the effect, and quantity (as in volume of liquid, more is better). Although lately I've found some decafs that produce a rather pleasant brew. Filtered coffee from the 'right' (for me) ground coffees seem to hit right balance between ease of use, speed, and taste.
And then there are some studies indicating that filtered coffee might be a bit healthier[0] than other forms.
[0] https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/whats-the-healthiest-way-to-brew-coffee https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/whats-the-hea...
- wgjordan 4y agoI'd actually consider something like the Wilfa Classic (£189.00) to be on the opposite end of the product-design spectrum compared to the $12 no-name coffee maker mentioned in the article. You see a similar 'do one thing really well' focus in high-end and low-end appliances, the difference being less-significant details that most consumers don't care about and wouldn't spend a premium to enjoy (in this case, probably more precise brewing temperatures and extraction times). In-between is where all the bloated trash gets dumped.