Well. Didn't know that existed. Thanks!

I've kept the rubber plunger out of the tube when in storage. When kept inside the tube it compresses the rubber and retains the shape memory which causes it to fail. Haven't ever replaced mine and it is eight years old. Still works perfectly.

Really? I have mine since probably 6 or 7 years and it's still fine and I use it several times a week.

I’ve found you can extend the life of the plunger by placing the plunger rubber-side down on a table or counter top, tilting it slightly onto the edge of the rubber and then rotating it. This essentially presses the rubber and extends it outwards and seems to help achieve the seal you expect. I’ve been doing it for a while now and it’s worked well for me.

I’m sure it won’t last forever but it’s something worth trying to get a bit more life out of it.

I have one that's about eleven years old now. Still works perfectly.

They're working on a glass-and-metal premium version. But it'll cost a premium price, though.

The effect on extraction by the slight pressurization (and ability to change the pressure by how hard you press) and speed of use would be two advantages over pour over.

It doesn't require hand dexterity or, really, hand strength. Arguably a proper, well-made pour-over with a goose neck kettle takes more hand dexterity than an Aeropress. Basically you put the hot water in, wait, and then press the plunger. Body weight or mild strength is all it takes. I usually just put my hands on top and then lean with my body; that functionally makes it require no hand strength at all.

They're very affordable, so perhaps worth trying. Unless you are concerned about microplastics. The entire thing is plastic.

Edit: they have a newer, more expensive version made of Tritan crystal. I know nothing about the composition of Tritan crystal and whether there is anything that can leech or whatever from it, but I would assume it gets rid of the microplastic concern. Though I'm not sure what the "rubber" stopper is made from.

Aeropress is more forgiving and produces more body. Pour over, being a percolation brew, will have higher extraction at the cost of being a bit more sensitive to technique.

Haven’t done a lot of pour over coffee, so my ideas might be inaccurate in that regard. I still use a moka pot from time to time, and have experimented with that enough to compare these methods to some extent. However, the AeroPress is my main method of choice.

control

Based on what I’ve observed, I think the key feature of an AeroPress is control. You can use any grind size, any extraction time, and any temperature below boiling. None of these variables are tied to one another in any way. With other methods, they are tied, so you will find yourself using one variable to control another, which isn’t ideal.

grind size and extraction time

With a pour over, you have to make the grind size big enough, or your paper will clog up. Clogged up paper will result in a long extraction time, which might not be what you want, so in a pour over you are essentially using grind size to put some limits to the extraction time. You can use coarse grind and pour very slowly to have more control over the result, but you can’t use fine grind and expect to have the same amount of control. Besides, pouring extremely slowly isn’t for everyone. With the AP, fine grind isn’t a problem, because you’ll be using the piston to push the water through the paper. Even if the paper is totally clogged up, because you used super fine Turkish grind, you can just push the water through anyway.

yield

Pour over method is still worth considering, because it allows you to irrigate the grinds with fresh water all the time, which maintains a high rate of extraction. However, you can also push that too far, which will result in bitter coffee. With the AP, it’s harder to screw up like that, because the grinds are constantly in contact with the water. Once enough has been extracted to the water, extraction rate will naturally slow down. That makes AP a more forgiving method. However, if you really want to maximize yield, pour over might be better for you.

temperature

Pour over and AP allow you to use whatever temperature you prefer, but the moka pot doesn’t. When the water is hot enough to produce steam, the pressure will begin to push the water through the grinds. High temperatures like that are good for efficient extraction, but they are also dangerously close to producing bitter coffee. It’s very easy to screw it up with the moka pot, whereas pour over and AP are far more forgiving in this regard.

strong coffee

I have never tried to make extra strong coffee with the pour over method, so I don’t really know how well that would work out. The moka pot and AP are really good at making strong coffee, although they can also be used for making normal strength as well. In this regard, they are quite flexible.

number of drinkers

The AP and moka pot have volume limitations, whereas a pour over allows you to just pour more and continue extracting. The AP is also ideal for making one normal cup at a time, but it can also be used for making 3-4 cups of strong coffee. The same philosophy also applies to the moka pot. Ideally, you would load the basket full and fill the water reservoir to make several cups of strong coffee - that’s what it’s designed to do. However, you can use less grinds to make normal coffee for a smaller number of people. The AP also allows you to make tiny experimental batches. This is really good if you want to compare different types of coffee, but you don’t want to drink too many cups. With the inverted method, you can easily make 100 ml batches instead and compare those with each other.

Nice I need to try adding the extra water next time. I have a bad habit of brewing and walking away too long before I push the plunger.

I use an aeropress filter in my moka pot. Best cup of coffee without the sediment

I wonder how this would affect my Turkish coffee. I think a lot of it's texture and flavor is because a lot of the powder is kind of dissolved filtering it out might be a bad idea.

Scientists found a way to make cold brew in a few hours just recently. It even passed every blind taste test, too. I forget the machine name, but it's also commonly used to clean jewelry, as well as use in a lab, for like $60.

Edit: I went and found the old article, they used ultrasonic waves and it only took them 1-3 minutes depending on preference. Unfortunately after reading another article, it's a modification they made to existing espresso machines. Their initial machine was around £15,000, and was overkill. Not sure how someone would be able to replicate at home. 🥲

I used to do inversion, but was swayed by James Hoffman's taste experiments and concluding method.

Seems very much personal taste, that spans a wide range these days.

On suggestions from YouTube I tried 20+g coarse with low volume and temperature based on competition winning recipes and hated it. No body, thin and unsatisfying.

So I'm back to 12-15g medium, inverted, add some 90-95C water and stir out the fizz, then up to 180g water or so. Heavy repeated agitation early on, after maybe 60s uninvert for a gentle plunge. Usually dilute a little with some cold, drink black.

I checked the brew temp and full boil gives 96C in the press. I often do 200F 93C on the kettle for about 90 in the press. Sometimes I just boil and add a splash of cold.

My beans are medium roast - city+, no oiliness. I like pretty trad rich coffee and hate thin acidic tea like brews. Tea makes better tea than coffee does IMO. But I also hate acrid flat bitterness of dark roasts.

Main difference is the fact that the aeropress uses a paper filter which filters out sediment and oils giving the coffee a "cleaner" taste. From my research before I bought it, I remember it also being slightly healthier because, again, you filter out those oils.