Varietal: cabernet sauvignon | Price: $20.95 Cdn | Winery: J. Lohr Estates | | Wine Website: Seven Oaks Cabernet Sauvignon | Vintage: 2007 | Region: Estrella Hills, Paso Robles California | LCBO No: Vintages 656561 | Bar Code: 89121 28812 | Alcohol: 13.5%

Description

I am not particularly a fan of cabernet sauvignon wines. This one is an exception, and one of the better cabernet sauvignons I’ve tasted. It has a nice, subtle nose. I enjoyed its intense, yet creamy, spicy, vanilla texture and taste. Like most low priced cabernet sauvignons it initially had a wee bit too much alcohol flavour in the finish for my taste. But that disappeared over time (see ‘story’ section below). According to the label it:

… has aromas and bouquets of cherry, blackberry, violets and vanilla.

The LCBO Website describes the wine as follows:

Every time Vintages released this wine, it disappeared from store shelves at lightning speed! So we decided to make it an Essential to ensure that it’s always available and you’re never disappointed. Aged in oak for more than a year, this densely coloured red is packed with intense aromas of black cherry, blackcurrant, cedar, vanilla, and spices. Full-bodied and sweet-centred, this Cabernet will pair beautifully with roasted or grilled red meats.

Note: This wine is not to be confused with the pricier $39.95 2006 vintage of the same name. I have not yet tasted it. That wine was originally sold in Toronto for $19.95 (see this Toronto Life review). Perhaps it would be a good idea to purchase a case of the 2007 vintage if the price rise for the 2006 vintage is any indication.

Story

This wine was recommended to me by my nephew Michael Kalistchuk. Because it is an LCBO Essential, it is easy to find in any LCBO at the moment. It was smack dab at the front when I walked into my local LCBO last week.

Like other wines, it may need to decant a tad to lower the initial, mild alcohol after-taste. After the first glass I used the inert argon gas preservation technique described in my ‘How to Preserve Opened Bottles of Wine’ post to keep it overnight.

When I reopened the bottle the next evening, it tasted better than it did the first night. I compared it (taste-tested it side by side) against my [Yellow Tail] Shiraz touch-stone wine. Admittedly an unfair comparison but, since I drink more [Yellow Tail] than any other single wine, this gives me a good basis to compare wines. It was significantly better the second day in every measure – spicier, deeper, smoother.

I then poured the remaining half bottle into a smaller wine bottle (another preservation technique described in my ‘How to Preserve Opened Bottles of Wine’ post). I tried it once again on the third night and it was better still than the prior two nights. This wine is a winner.

In the coming days I intend to taste-test it against my go-to cabernet sauvignon – Wolfblass Yellow Label. I’ll update this post after I do.

Conclusion

This is quite a good cabernet sauvignon for the price. I could, of course, recommend it even more highly at a lower price – perhaps around the $16.50 to $18 mark. At $20.95, it is still worth investigating – particularly if you enjoy cabernet sauvignon and wines similar in taste to California zinfandels as I do. Perhaps we’ll see a price decrease given the recently rising Canadian dollar.

In a previous post I wrote about how to use marbles and the vacu vin pump to preserve open wine.  In a terrific Globe & Mail video (shown above but now removed) Beppi Crosariol demonstrates the following additional approaches:

• Using the Inert Argon Gas: I had used the inert argon gas method in the past with mixed results. Until I watched the video, I didn’t fully understand how to use it or why/how it worked. I didn’t understand, for example, that argon is heavier than air. It doesn’t fill the bottle. Rather it covers the wine like a blanket. Because it sinks down to the wine, you don’t need to worry about it leaking out of the top as you re-cork the bottle. Place the straw against the inside neck of the bottle. Spray for one second followed by a few short bursts. Reseal with any cork. This should keep the wine for up to three weeks. These argon bottles cost between $12-$15 ($8ish in the U.S.) and can be found at most liquor stores (click here to purchase argon gas on Amazon.com). Note: To keep the ‘blanket of argon’ over the wine (and away from the air in the bottle above the blanket), you’ll want to make sure you don’t shake/bump the wine too much while being stored – so keeping it in the fridge door probably is not a good idea.
• Small Wine Bottles: Pour the remains of a big bottle of wine into a smaller wine bottle. Then recork. If you fill the smaller bottle, there will be no (or very little) air left in the bottle to react with the wine. The wine will keep indefinitely.

• Plastic Water Bottles:  If you don’t have small wine bottles handy you can use a small plastic water bottle in a pinch. Inelegant, but functional. He implies that using plastic will limit the life of the wine to 5 days. I’ll need to test this out.
• Storing in Fridge: This is a tough sell for me with reds. Nothing destroys the taste of a good red wine more than drinking it cold. But, the cold impedes chemical reactions that destroy wine. Just remember to remove it from the fridge 3 to 4 hours before serving. Ideally you’d use one of the methods described above before storing the result in the fridge.
• Vacu Vin Pump Method: See my post here for a discussion of the vacu vin pump.

I have used the vacu vin pump method for years. But, as Beppi points out, removing the oxygen with the pump also removes flavor. Also, I can attest to the fact that this technique only really saves the wine for a couple days.

Few people realize that the owners of Peet’s once owned Starbucks and that the Starbucks we know today was created when Howard Shultz (Starbucks current Chairman, then a disgruntled executive) bought out the original Starbucks owners (who then purchased Peet’s) after a dispute as to whether or not to include espresso bars in their coffee bean stores.

I fell in love with Peet’s coffee when I lived in Silicon Valley from 1998 to 2002. To this day I have a couple pounds mail ordered to Canada every few weeks.  Over many cups of Peet’s coffee, I took the following notes as I read Howard Shultz’s book – Pour Your Heart Into it: How Starbucks Built a Company One Cup at a Time. It’s quite the interesting, intertwined history.

• Alfred Peet (pictured on the right) formed Peet’s in Berkley, California in 1966. (click here for more info on Alfred Peet)
• Originally Peet’s locations just sold beans – no drip coffee, latte’s etc.
• While attending college at Berkley, a Starbucks Founder (I forget his name, let’s call him "SF1") strolled by and bought some beans. SF1, a native of Seattle, fell in love with Peet’s beans.
• SF1 returned home after college and continued to purchase coffee from Peet’s by mail order (as I do today).
• SF1 enjoyed the beans so much that he decided to open a similar bean selling store, Starbucks, in Seattle with Starbucks Founder II ("SF2"). SF2 had ran a local Seattle Coffee shop prior to that point. [I note from this Wikipedia entry on Starbucks that there were three founders, Jerry Baldwin, Zev Siegel and Gordon Bowker. I’m not sure which of these three were SF1 and SF2]

• Starbucks beans were originally purchased, pre-roasted, from Peet’s.
• More Starbucks stores were opened over several years. At some point Starbucks began roasting their own beans. But the green beans were still sourced from Peet’s for the first decade.
• In early 80’s Howard Shultz (pictured to the right) was selling espresso machines from New York. He noticed that a ton of machines were being ordered from these Starbucks stores in Seattle.
• He decided to find out why and checked them out during his next vacation. He fell in love with the concept and, in 1982, convinced the Starbucks founders to hire him as Director of Marketing.
• Schultz set about expanding Starbucks (still beans only – no liquid coffee being sold)
• Subsequently he went to a trade show in Milan Italy. He noticed how Italians loved their espresso coffee bars, how social they are.
• Schultz tried to convince SF1 & SF2 to open espresso bars in their Starbucks stores. At first they said no, but after relentless nagging, they allowed Schultz to try it out in one store.
• About the same time Peet’s and Starbucks decided to merge their operations and buy out Alfred Peet.
• The espresso bar in the one Starbucks location was a hit. Nonetheless SF1 and SF2 still didn’t want to expand the concept.
• Starbucks bought out Alfred Peet and, for a time, Starbucks owns both Peet’s and Starbucks. All Peet’s locations were, for a time, folded into Starbucks.
• Upset that neither Peet nor the Starbucks founders wanted to add espresso bars into other locations, in 1985 Howard Schultz quit Starbucks and started his own espresso bar chain called Il Giornola.
• A year later SF1 and SF2 decided to sell off the Starbucks brand and retail locations, and retain sole ownership of the Peet’s brand.
• Schultz saw an opportunity, raised venture capital, bought the Starbucks brand and locations and merged them with the Il Giornola, each location of which was rebranded with the Starbucks name. 
• Shultz put espresso bars in every Starbucks store.
• The former Peet’s stores were spun out and renamed Peet’s.
• The two companies signed a 5 year non-compete whereby Schultz/Starbucks was precluded from opening coffee shops in the San Francisco Bay Area for five years. The Peet’s chain was to have exclusive rights in that market during that period. Interestingly, the Peet’s location on Chestnut Street in San Francisco’s Marina district was a Starbucks for its first two weeks. But, under the new arrangement it was spun out and became a Peet’s store – as it remains today.
• Five years later Peet’s hadn’t grown much while Starbucks had expanded into Chicago, New York, L.A. and other places. When the five year period was up Starbucks expanded into San Francisco too.
• Somewhere along the line, Peet’s owners (the Starbucks Founders) saw the light and started selling liquid coffee as well – Thank God for that!!!!
• Starbucks ultimately became the North American, then global, phenomena that we all know.
• To this day Peet’s remains a largely a regional player though it has expanded to a few other U.S. states. It still makes the best chain-store coffee I’ve ever had – far surpassing the coffee made available at Starbucks.
• While Peet’s trundles along, slowly expanding its retail stores, primarily in California, it continues to focus on its mail order business.
• Starbucks went public and conquered the world.
• Peet’s went public in October 2000 – and has conquered my taste buds.

I snapped these from the BattleStar Galactica Finale Special that aired on Space TV on March 20, 2009. It looks like they was taken towards the beginning of the ‘reimagined’ series given how young Katee Sackhoff is in them.

Click on the images for larger views.

As a single person, I frequently open a bottle of wine and drink just a glass or two. Over the years, I’ve experimented with different ways of saving the wine in open bottles. For the last couple years I’ve used the vacu vin stainless steel wine saver pump to remove air from the bottle to store it for another day. Unfortunately this method only keeps the wine for a day or two max. And, the emptier the bottle the less well it works.

I asked our Café Taste host, Jeremy Day (pictured below), if he had any other suggestions to preserve an open bottle of wine.  He came up with the remarkably sensible suggestion of  putting sterilized marbles into the bottle and then recorking. What a clever idea!

The marbles fill up the empty bottle, move the wine to the top and push all the air out before resealing. The idea sounds brilliant. But I haven’t tried it yet. I will report back once I have.

This technique will require some practical way of dish-washing the glass marbles between each such use. I found a way to safely wash wine glasses in the dishwasher. I’m sure I’ll figure out a good way to wash marbles if the idea works.

Another suggestion he had was to place opened, recorked bottles in the fridge. I have always used the vacu vin pump and placed the bottle back on the counter. Jeremy advises that a chilled wine oxidizes more slowly than a bottle of wine at room temperature. Good to know.

FYI, Café Taste is a terrific place to taste wines. Highly recommended.

Café Taste Reviews:  Now Magazine | Eye Weekly | Martin Boys | Digital Journal | TasteTO.com

Varietal: cabernet sauvignon – Price: $5.95 Cdn – website – Winery: Santa Carolina – Vintage: 2006 – Region: Chile – LCBO No: 389866
Other Reviews: Toronto Life 

As a bachelor I routinely test the small-sized (375 ml) bottles of wine near the LCBO cash registers in the hopes that one day I may find a decent wine suitable for one person. When I lived in California I routinely found acceptable wines in this form factor. So far in Ontario, I have found none.

I’m not a huge fan of cabernet sauvignon. Unfortunately, I cannot give this bottle a proper review since it has been months since I took these pictures and had the misfortune to taste it – twice.  I bought this particular wine about a year ago and didn’t like it at all.  Several months ago I bought it again and disliked it just as much. All I can remember of the experience is the word “bleche”. I’m writing this post as much to remind myself never to buy it again as to warn others off it. If I have the unfortunate experience of trying it again, I’ll update this post with more details.

Front Label (click image for larger view)	Back Label (click image for larger view)

Santa Carolina’s Tasting Notes (from website):

This Cabernet Sauvignon has a bright vivid ruby red colour. It features ripe cherry and black currant with chocolate and pepper aroma, enhanced by sweet spices and vanilla and cinnamon notes. On the palate, this dry and full-bodied Cabernet Sauvignon offers a perfect balance between fruit and oak, ripe and soft tannins and a lingering finish.

Varietal: shiraz / viognier blend – Price: $15.95 Cdn – website – Winery: Yalumba – Vintage: 2006- Region: South Australia – LCBO No: 624494 –
Other Reviews: wine scamp | The WineMad Blog 

The back label says this wine is spicy, savoury and silky. I found it to be dull and limp, tasting too much of dishwater and rubbing alcohol, particularly in the tarty finish. Though it was silky!

I decided to give this  shiraz / viognier blend a try when I was unable to find another bottle of the Jacob’s Creek Reserve Shiraz that I liked so much last week. An LCBO staffer recommended it as a comparable wine that had been a recent staff pick.

I only noticed that this wine had a screw-cap (a sure sign it will disappointing) when I got it home.  How could this be an LCBO staff pick?

This is what shiraz has typically been like for me for the last twenty years and why I have always disliked it – my recent Shiraz experiences (here and here) notwithstanding. You should certainly consider my general distaste for this varietal when assessing this review.

To the LCBO staffer’s credit, when I told her I was a bold and spicy California zinfandel fan, she did say this might not be to my taste. She was right. There’s bright line between being spicy and being tart. This one falls on the tart side – especially on my second tasting – see below.

I must confess that I have little knowledge of the viognier varietal. And, neither the bottle nor the wine’s – website –  indicated the percentage of the blend.

Second Tasting: After writing the review above, I tasted the wine again the next day. I had used my vacu vin wine saver to do its best to save the wine over night. Usually, even with the vacu vin, wine tastes considerably worse the next day. Not so with this wine. I actually liked it more after having been exposed to oxygen and sitting over night. Go figure! This raised my overall rating from a 1.5 to a 2. But for the distasteful finish, I might have even given it a 2.5.

Front Label (click image for larger view)	Back Label (click image for larger view)

Varietal: gewürztraminer/riesling blend– Price: $10.95 Cdn – Winery: Birchwood Estate – Vintage: 2007 – Region: Niagara Peninsula Ontario – LCBO No 572156
 
This wine is very good – especially for the price. It is one of ‘the’ better balanced gewürztraminer/riesling blends I’ve tasted. Each varietal complements the other. The reisling tempers the sweetness of the gewürztraminer while the gewürztraminer ‘almost’ tempers the tartness of the reisling. I say “almost” because there was just a hint of a tart, dry midpalate taste that is characteristic of less-than-stellar reislings. But its barely there. I very much enjoyed this bottle.

This wine is not sweet enough to be a classic desert wine. It should go well with pork, chicken and curry dishes, or, in front of a fire relaxing with someone special.

  (3.5/5) – another nice shiraz

Varietal: shiraz/syrah – Price: $17.45 Cdn – Winery: Jacob’s Creek - Vintage: 2006 – Region: South Australia – LCBO No. 665471 Other Reviews: Toronto Life 89 Reference: topwineries.com.au | adegga

Another earthy shiraz. Very similar to the [yellow tail] shiraz but, if memory serves, smoother. It is the boldest Jacob’s Creek wine on their wine scale. There is a less expensive ($12.45) Jacob’s Creek Shiraz (ie: non-‘Reserve’).

My good friend Don Hicks brought this bottle over for another movie night (Elizabeth (1998)). This wine is yet another shiraz that surprised me for being surprisingly good. I’m beginning to think I misjudged shiraz wines lo these last 20 years.

I haven’t yet done a taste comparison between this shiraz and the less expensive [yellow tail] shiraz. When I get a chance I’ll update this post.

Front Label (click image for larger view)	Back Label (click image for larger view)

(4.5/5)

From Revision3’s stable of podcasts comes Gary Vaynerchuk’s (Wikipedia) entertaining and informative Wine Library Reserve podcast (available in HD).  Gary begins most every podcast with: "This my friends is the Thundershow, a.k.a the Internet’s most passionate wine program". He isn’t exaggerating.

Note: He also has hosts the longer form companion "wine library tv" podcast that’s only available in SD.

In each 5 minute episode he first ’sniffy sniffs", then tastes, spits out and ultimately reviews three to four different wines with exuberance reminiscent of Roberto Benigni’s acceptance of his Best Actor Oscar. His descriptions are funny, provocative, entertaining and informative. Graphics are generated on the fly depicting each of the the smells and tastes he encounters along the way from the initial sniffs, to the entry, the midpalet, the finish and the length. His  descriptions range from the conventional (black current with a touch of spice) to the hilarious (this tastes like pooh mixed with tar). During the review pictured on the left he likened the wine’s taste to concrete dust. He somehow manages to get up to a dozen or so smells or tastes out of every bottle.

Sometimes he reviews cheeses. Once he reviewed beers. Occasionally he’ll do blind taste testing. Other times he does his shows from far flung wineries. But mostly its just him, three or four bottles of wine (ranging in price from $8 up to several hundred) and a camera.

I was originally taken aback to see this, to me, unknown, taking on Robert Parker’s reviews. But, what the heck, I enjoy his cajones!

Unfortunately for us Canadians (where the government regulates and controls the wine they permit us to purchase and makes it illegal for consumers to import wine), almost all of the wines he reviews are unavailable in Canada. So far, out of the 100 or so bottles I’ve watched him review, only 3 were available from our proletariat liquor store, a.k.a. the LCBO. I long for the days when I lived in California! The show is, nonetheless, very entertaining and educational for someone always looking to improve his pallet.

The show is also available for live viewing here on ustream.

Vaynerchuk has gained considerable notoriety (see Wikipedia for details) from his podcast – which has been running since 2006. He ends each show with the mantra:

"You, with a little bit of me, we’re changing the wine world, whether they like it or not.

In my 25 years of coffee drinking, nothing beats the Aerobie Aeropress for making an 8 oz or smaller Americano-style cup of coffee. But, I drink two 12 oz mugs of coffee each day. The Aeropress can be used to brew spectacularly good 12 oz mugs of coffee. I have used it to brew my coffee for some two years now. But, the method is tedious, clumsy and sometimes messy.

This lead me to seek out alternative one-at-a-time brewing methods (details here). After more than a full month of perfecting my Bodum Chambord brewing technique, including two weeks with a nylon fine sediment filterscreen from sweet maria’s (details here), I decided it was time to give my new found Bodum-brewing prowess the ultimate test – a head to head competition against the Aeropress.

[August 1, 2008 Update: I posted my results here on the coffee geek forum. The inventor of the Aeropress, Alan Adler, suggested I up my Aerobie Aeropress bean dosage from 2 scoops to 3.5, pass only about 4 to 5 ounces of water through the press, then top the mug up with hot water. The resulting mug was simply one of the best mugs of coffee I ever had. Details and pictures are in that thread starting here. The downside is that almost doubling the beans is a very expensive proposition. Something I can't afford to do every day. But it does result in one easy to brew, spectacular mug of coffee.]

The Playing Field

• Identically measured (20 g – two Aerobie scoops), freshly roasted, freshly ground Peets Arabian Mocha Sanani beans (my favourite).
• Identically filtered water, boiled to the same temperature at the same time in the same pot.
• Identical steep times.
• Identical Peets mugs for tasting.
• Identically measured creme (30 ml – 2 Tbsp).
• All utensils, mugs and equipment freshly run through the dishwasher.

Day 1 – Test 1

For the first test I used the identical grind level , 7 out of 8 (a fine grind), on my KitchenAid Pro Line grinder.

While the fuzzy picture (click for larger view) of the resulting black coffee doesn’t quite capture it, the Chambord coffee (on the left) was visibly cloudier than the Aeropress coffee (notice the thicker edge). You can also see that the Chambord coffee with creme is slightly darker.

Interestingly, the resulting Chambord coffee temperature was significantly hotter than the Aeropress coffee. The slightly below boiling-temperature water I used for both brews was poured from the same pot. I always pre-heat my mugs and, in the case of the Chambord, I preheat the glass carafe with hot tap water. It isn’t possible to pour hot water into the Aeropress to pre-heat it. Perhaps I could have put it in a bowl of hot water to pre-heat it. My sense is that the thinner Aeropress chamber results in more coffee being cooled by more contact with the outer surface as I perform my ritual pour-wait-pour-wait Aeropress brewing kludge (described here).

After my initial pre-and post-creme tasting, I heated the Aeropress coffee up a bit in the microwave (20 seconds) to equalize the temperatures.

Having drank only Chambord brewed coffee during the last month of testing, my taste buds had seemingly acclimatized themselves to the cloudier-by-definition Chambord coffee. Only when I sipped the black, then the creme-enhanced, coffees, side-by-side did I notice the night-and-day differences between the two.

The texture of the Chambord coffee at a 7 grind did not feel good in the mouth compared to the super smooth Aeropress coffee. But, by comparison, the Aeropress coffee was less robust than I remembered.

Yikes! I love the silky smooth, sediment free Aeropress coffee, but I prefer the robustness and ease of use of the Chambord coffee. What’s a man to do?

My answer – an unplanned second day of testing with a coarser Chambord grind and a finer Aeropress grind (my body can only withstand 2 mugs per day).

Day 2 – Test 2

On day two I used a coarser 6 grind for the Chambord and a finer 8 grind for Aeropress. The temperature differentials occurred once again.

As expected, the coarser Chambord grind lowered its robustness somewhat, while the finer Aeropress grind increased its robustness and plunging difficulty. But, between the two, the Chambord coffee still yielded the bolder, more robust, coffee (something I seek in a good mug of coffee).

The coarser Chambord grind noticeably reduced the sediment in the cup making the coffee smoother than the day before. But, as is always the case with a french press, there will always be some cloudiness vis-a-vis the Aeropress and there will always be some sediment in the bottom of the mug.

Conclusions

Both methods make exceptionally good cups of coffee. The Chambord is by far the easier method for brewing 12 oz mugs of robust coffee. The Aeropress indisputably makes the better, crisper, cleaner mug of coffee. But the divide between the two narrowed substantially as my Chambord brewing prowess increased.

If you are brewing 8 ounces of Americano coffee or less, the Aeropress is the undisputed winner.

If you are brewing more than 8 ounces, value your time, desire a robust mug of coffee and are willing to sacrifice a bit of clarity and crispness for day-to-day ease of use, the Chambord (equipped with a nylon fine sediment filterscreen) is the winner.

While the Chambord’s overall ease of use for 12 oz mugs of coffee beats the Aeropress, I do note that the Aeropress is easier to clean. You simply plunge the relatively dry puck into your compost and rinse the pieces. The resulting wet slurry in the Chambord takes longer to clean out and the individual filter portions of the plunger need to be unscrewed and individually rinsed/cleaned.

For my day-to-day coffee drinking needs the Chambord convenience trumps the slightly superior Aeropress coffee.

If Aerobie comes out with a 12 oz version of the Aeropress, assuming the quality is the same as with the current 8 oz version, the Aeropress will reign supreme in my home once again. Until then, the Chambord will be my mug-at-a-time brewing method of choice.

Grinder Caveat

The conclusions and recommendations above assume you grind your beans with a quality burr grinder capable of yielding consistent grinds. If you use a cheapo whirly-blade grinder that yields a “chunks and sawdust” grind, then you should choose the Aerobie Aeropress over the Bodum Chambord every time. The Aeropress is the great grinder equalizer. Meaning, unlike most other coffee brewing methods, the Aerobie is hands-down the best at producing quality coffee from a lousy grind. Put another way, I highly recommend you invest in a quality burr grinder before choosing the Chambord over the Aeropress.

Comparison Table

Coffee Geek: Bodum Chambord Reviews | How to Use a Press Pot
More than a month of testing has passed since I wrote my “Bodum Chambord – Not What I was Expecting” post. I have experimented with different grinds and techniques every day since that post.

The changes discussed below have resulted in much better coffee.I am now quite satisfied with the results I’m getting with the 16 oz (4 cup*) Bodum Chambord.

1. Slow Plunging:

When doing my original tests, I had meticulously followed Mark Prince’s “How to Use a Press Pot” instructions. His instructions emphasized plunging in an ‘even, controlled manner”. He didn’t mention anything about the plunging rate.

Having used the Aerobie Aeropress for years (which provides quite stiff resistance while plunging), during my initial Chambord tests I was applying considerable pressure resulting in fast plunges (5 seconds or less).

While searching the coffee geek forums for french press brewing tips, I came across several posts like this one emphasizing the need to plunge slowly to minimize coffee bean sediment leakage around the edges of the screen.

I use a significantly finer grind than most to bring out the boldness in my coffee. It made sense then that my finer grinds could be slipping around the edges of the screen by pushing too hard and too fast. It also made sense that Mark wouldn’t have emphasized this point given that he uses a substantially coarser grind than I.

By slowing my plunge (taking up to 30 seconds), I was able to brew noticeably smoother (less cloudy/grainy) cups of coffee with finer grinds – even without the fine sediment nylon filter discussed below. But the tinny taste was still there somewhat.

2. Using a Fine Sediment Nylon Filter

On the recommendation of my fellow coffee geek forum members (see for example here), I purchased the 3.5″ fine sediment nylon filterscreen** from sweet maria’s for use with the Bodum Chambord. I’ve been using it daily for two weeks.  

The nylon filter does not come with assembly instructions. After trial and error I determined that the filter is best installed above the lower bracket and below the mesh screen, in the order depicted below (click image for larger view).

Given that the filter is designed to filter out fine sediment, I’ve upped my Kitchen Aid Proline grinder’s (KAP) (available at Amazon here – reviewed on coffee geek here) grind setting from the 1, 2 and 3 coarseness settings I used during my initial tests to as high as 6 and 7 – with good results.

It only took one test of the nylon filter with the finer grinds to taste a big difference. The resulting coffee is simultaneously bolder and smoother than was possible without the filter. Most of the finer sediment was clearly being filtered out and the tinny taste was reduced.

Conclusion

When combined Mark Prince’s “How to Use a Press Pot” instructions, slow plunging and using the fine sediment nylon filter have made a big difference in the resulting coffee.

I can brew with a much finer grind resulting in a much bolder cup of coffee – the way I like it. The tinny and acidic after-tastes I was experiencing during my initial tests have almost disappeared.  There is much less sediment in the cup at any given grind level. The result is a terrific mug of coffee!

But, how does my best Chambord brew stack up against the gold-standard of the Aeropress in a head-to-head competition? Click here to find out. 

* Note 1: In the world of coffee merchandising a “cup” of coffee usually refers to 4 oz of coffee. Bodum follows that regrettable convention when describing their 16 oz Chambord as a 4 cup device.

** Note 2: The nylon filter designed to fit in a 3.5″ diameter Bodum Chambord is actually 3.25″ in diameter.

Coffee Geek: Bodum Chambord Reviews | How to Use a Press Pot

[July 28, 2008 Update: I have had much better results with the Chambord since writing this original post. See my "Perfecting My Bodum Chambord Brewing Technique" post for details.]

After a couple years of immense satisfaction with my Aerobie Aeropress, I decided to give press pots another chance. After all, my last use of press pots (with dismal results) preceded my discovery of Mark Prince’s coffee geek website and podcast by many years. Perhaps my new-found knowledge of proper grinds, beans and brewing techniques would yield better results.

The Problem with the Aeropress

I’ve been an Aerobie Aeropress evangelist since I first discovered it. But, I’ve become annoyed by the fact that the Aeropress is designed primarily for espresso shots and 80z Americano cups of coffee. I drink two 12 to 14 oz cups of coffee each day.

The Aeropress brews THE-best 12 – 14 oz cup of coffee I have ever had – period! But the process I use is a kludge. The Aeropress’ water chamber holds only 8 oz of hot water. After pouring the first 8 oz’s into the chamber I wait and stir and wait and stir as gravity pulls the first 4 to 6 ounces through the beans and the filter. As I wait and stir, I slowly pour, ounce by ounce, the final 4 to 6 ounces of my desired 12 to 14 oz cup into the chamber. Only then can I press the final 8 ounces through. This is tedious. And with newly roasted beans, I have to proceed even slower as the new bean bloom can result in overflow and clean-up issues.

Despite requests by Aeropress lovers, Aerobe has not yet created a larger version of its product.

Onward to the Bodum Chambord

So, with this post on the coffee geek forums I set out to explore the press pot as an alternative method to brew my one-at-at-time 12 oz cups of coffee. Since it seems that most quality French Presses are the same, I settled on the 16 oz (4 cup*) Bodum Chambord. (Thanks for the recommendation JVBorella)

While this Bodum Chambord is available to Americans for ($20ish) at Amazon.com, the best price I could find in Toronto for it was $39 at the Shaper Edge in Toronto’s Eaton’s Center. Everywhere else (Sears, the Bay, Second Cup) was charging $49.

The Results

With high hopes, I followed Mark Prince’s excellent How to Use a Press Pot tutorial. Not coincidentally he used an earlier version of the same 16 oz Bodum Chambord in his tutorial.

KAP Grind 1 Test: The manual for my Kitchen Aid Proline (KAP) grinder (available at Amazon here – reviewed on coffee geek here)) suggested setting the grinder setting to a course grind of 1, (the largest possible grind) for press pot coffee. By contrast, I use a 6.5 – 7  setting (a relatively fine grind) for my Aeropress coffee).

The resulting coffee**, compared to Aeropress coffee, was a thin, sharp tasting coffee with a slight tinny taste and a lingering acidic after-taste. There was zero sludge in the cup (a common problem with press pots). I didn’t like it enough to drink down to the last drop though.

KAP Grind 3 Test: Not to be deterred, I figured the thin taste could be ameliorated with a relatively finer grind. So I next tried setting the KAP to 3. The result: much nicer. Much thicker and robust. Less acidic and less tinny, but not what I enjoy. There was a thin cloudy residue left in the last sip or two. Not sludgy or dusty. More like sipping cotton candy textured coffee – if that makes any sense.

KAP Grind 4 Test: The next day I tested the Bodum with a KAP Grind 4 setting. This didn’t help at all. The result was even more of a cloudy texture to the coffee. Not enjoyable. And the tinny after taste was still there.

Initial Conclusion

The KAP Grind 3 test makes me a little hopeful that I can get a decent cup out of the Bodum. I wouldn’t, for example, be embarrassed to serve the coffee from my second test to a guest. But the results so far are far, far away from the quality I routinely get with my Aeropress.

I understand from Donald Blum’s review, that nylon and gold filters are available. I wonder if either would remove the tinny taste? I’d like to try one of these filters if I can find a place to purchase them at a decent price.

Barring better results from future testing with a nylon or gold filter, I’m doubting whether this Bodum will ultimately replace the Aeropress.

The Quest Continues

Short of a big surprise, after a bit more testing I expect to be back to the drawing board. My ultimate goal is to find a convenient, one at a time, method of brewing a 12 to 14 oz cup of coffee, with the quality of the Aeropress but with less work. Perhaps I’ll try a vac pot next.

My Aerobie Aeropress, is going to get more continued use than I had expected.

* Note: In the world of coffee merchandising a “cup” of coffee usually refers to 4 oz of coffee. Bodum follows that regrettable convention when describing their 16 oz Chambord as a 4 cup device.

** Note 2: As always, I used my freshly roasted Peets Arabian Mocha Sanani beans.

(3.5/5) – terrific every day value wine
Varietal: shiraz/syrah – Price: $12.25 Cdn – website – Winery: Casella Wines Pty Ltd. – Vintage: 2006 – Country: Australia – LCBO 624544

Spicy, rich, earthy and lovely for the price. Not too dry. A very approachable wine for most palettes. Terrific value. Best of the [yellow tail] line.

This is one of the few shiraz (also known as syrah) bottles of wine I’ve enjoyed – ever. It tastes more like a zinfandel than a shiraz. My sister Colleen introduced me to this wine and I was very surprised that I liked it. I’ve served it to several friends and family and everyone has enjoyed it.

I’ve consumed more than a half dozen bottles so far and it is consistently good. It has become one of my staples.

As you can see from the [yellow tail] home page, there is a very large selection of [yellow tail] branded wines available at affordable prices.  I’ve also tried their, merlot, cabernet sauvignon, pinot noir and the shiraz-grenache and this [Yellow Tail] shiraz is the best of the lot.  The shiraz-grenache was the worst.

Other Reviews: Art of Drink | gremolata

It’s surprisingly difficult to find ‘dishwasher safe’ wine glasses. Instead, I found a host of wine-glass-in-dishwasher solutions like this one and this one. These  products amount to little more than fancy ways to ensure that wine glasses are secured so that they do not bounce around (or into each other) during the wash cycle.

Knowing that the probability of my family actually granting such a Frasier-esque wishhh was low (shopping online still being a familial novelty for most), it occurred to me that securing wine glasses by the stem with an everyday elastic band might just do the trick.

I was right. In 10+ rounds of wineglass dishwashing since, I haven’t lost a wineglass to this method yet. Hitherto my elastic band solution, I’d loose a glass or two during most every wash cycle.

This works for two wine glasses or 8. The elastic must be tight enough to keep the glasses securely lashed to each other so they do not move around. When only one glass needs cleaning, I secure it to another dish in the same way or I wash it by hand.

Maybe someday I’ll purchase one of these. Ha! In the mean time, my elastic band work just fine.