Amazon.ca
AeroPress Coffee and Espresso Maker
- SCORE
- Reason
Score breakdown ×
- Upvote
-
0%
- Not a good price
-
0%
- Bad product/service
-
0%
- Poor merchant reputation
-
0%
- Unable to get the deal
-
0%
- Other (downvote)
-
0%
- craigdcan
- Deal Addict
- Feb 7, 2007
- 1353 posts
- 284 upvotes
- frozenmelon
- Deal Addict
- Sep 4, 2007
- 1693 posts
- 1946 upvotes
- vancouver
Any suggestions for $3 filler for free shipping?
- craigdcan
- Deal Addict
- Feb 7, 2007
- 1353 posts
- 284 upvotes
https://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/B01H3VF2BUfrozenmelon wrote: ↑ Any suggestions for $3 filler for free shipping?
Battle those devils donuts
- craigdcan
- Deal Addict
- Feb 7, 2007
- 1353 posts
- 284 upvotes
I normally search kitchen gadgets...peelers, brushes, etc. Or pens.frozenmelon wrote: ↑ Any suggestions for $3 filler for free shipping?
- hagbard
- Deal Expert
- Dec 19, 2001
- 31347 posts
- 2025 upvotes
- Fernando Poo
- Mtnviewer
- Member
- Apr 9, 2012
- 473 posts
- 399 upvotes
After a couple of years of daily use, I gave up on my Aeropress. It started to create some sort of rough scale on the interior near the filter that ran up 2-3 inches, but neither soaking for days in vinegar or CLR, using a scrub pad, & nothing besides scraping with a knife would take it off & so I gradually lost the seal, which created more problems. To replace the Aeropress body part was not worth the cost or hassle to me & to buy an entire new unit was also not worth the cost to me. The coffee was nice but not so nice to want to replace the unit every 2-3 years. Our water is on the hard side, but from water testing, it is not extreme.
Also, over that time & much experimenting, I settled on the reverse method BUT had a dozen or accidents of either knocking it over, or the plunger going in crooked at the start & knocking things over & so making a mess, not to mention spilling hot coffee on me. Sure it was likely my fault, but I'm not that clumsy & it just happened too often & soured my experience.
My other pet peeve with the system is that filter holder has side vents that allow for coffee squirt out if one presses slightly faster than a snail's pace & or the cup is not the perfect size. Again, I McGyver'd a sleeve to put over this, but just one more hassle & it took a while to find the right size of sleeve. Silly design anyway IMO as it doesn't need to have the side holes or for one to find the perfect size cup to prevent squirts & spills.
So I'm back to a nice inexpensive Japanese plastic cone filter holder (Amazon sale) with a wider bottom drip hole than say a Melitta & inexpensive round filters that I fold to fit & with some experimenting I've been able to make coffee very similar to the Aeropress IMO & at a fraction of the cost & so far, no counter spills, no spills of hot coffee on me, no knock overs of a really high reversed Aeropress tower, no scale build up, etc.. Just a much nicer experience too. Clean up is even easier than the Aeropress.
My .02 cents.
So Bye Bye Aeropress, you are just too expensive for 2 plastic tubes & a rubber stopper that wear out too quickly & has other weird design quirks too. But the coffee is nice enough.
Also, over that time & much experimenting, I settled on the reverse method BUT had a dozen or accidents of either knocking it over, or the plunger going in crooked at the start & knocking things over & so making a mess, not to mention spilling hot coffee on me. Sure it was likely my fault, but I'm not that clumsy & it just happened too often & soured my experience.
My other pet peeve with the system is that filter holder has side vents that allow for coffee squirt out if one presses slightly faster than a snail's pace & or the cup is not the perfect size. Again, I McGyver'd a sleeve to put over this, but just one more hassle & it took a while to find the right size of sleeve. Silly design anyway IMO as it doesn't need to have the side holes or for one to find the perfect size cup to prevent squirts & spills.
So I'm back to a nice inexpensive Japanese plastic cone filter holder (Amazon sale) with a wider bottom drip hole than say a Melitta & inexpensive round filters that I fold to fit & with some experimenting I've been able to make coffee very similar to the Aeropress IMO & at a fraction of the cost & so far, no counter spills, no spills of hot coffee on me, no knock overs of a really high reversed Aeropress tower, no scale build up, etc.. Just a much nicer experience too. Clean up is even easier than the Aeropress.
My .02 cents.
So Bye Bye Aeropress, you are just too expensive for 2 plastic tubes & a rubber stopper that wear out too quickly & has other weird design quirks too. But the coffee is nice enough.
- andjules
- Sr. Member
- Jun 17, 2003
- 803 posts
- 566 upvotes
- Toronto
Ummm... Pop the puck into the trash, quick rinse, let it drip dry. Aeropress cleans up soooo easy.
Cholesterol! I had no idea I was supposed to worry about that with coffee.
- EP32k2
- Deal Expert
- Jan 15, 2006
- 21392 posts
- 23735 upvotes
- Richmond Hill
Aeropress is so easy to use and clean. Takes literally under 30 seconds to clean it.
- porksoda
- Deal Fanatic
- May 17, 2006
- 7236 posts
- 3052 upvotes
- GTA
Coffee does not have cholestrol, it has has cafestol that can sometimes cause our bodies to produce more cholestrol.
Most studies that have been done on mice it increases it about 2% or so.
It would depend on person to person and their genes and all sorts of factor.
Most studies that have been done on mice it increases it about 2% or so.
It would depend on person to person and their genes and all sorts of factor.
- robespierre1794
- Jr. Member
- Dec 19, 2012
- 159 posts
- 398 upvotes
- CALGARY
How did a good deal on an aeropress become a discussion of serum cholesterol levels?
If you look at a 2012 meta analysis on the effects of coffee consumption on serum cholesterol, the average rise in total cholesterol is 0.2mmol/L (less in people with normal cholesterol and more in those with higher cholesterol). For giggles, if you calculate the cardiovascular risk over 10 years for an otherwise healthy 40yo male (it's about 2.1%), that translates into a 0.2% increase in the risk of heart attack and stroke over a 10 year period. Probably more risk associated with being drowsy behind the wheel and dying in the resulting car crash from not having your morning coffee than from drinking filtered or unfiltered beans.
If you look at a 2012 meta analysis on the effects of coffee consumption on serum cholesterol, the average rise in total cholesterol is 0.2mmol/L (less in people with normal cholesterol and more in those with higher cholesterol). For giggles, if you calculate the cardiovascular risk over 10 years for an otherwise healthy 40yo male (it's about 2.1%), that translates into a 0.2% increase in the risk of heart attack and stroke over a 10 year period. Probably more risk associated with being drowsy behind the wheel and dying in the resulting car crash from not having your morning coffee than from drinking filtered or unfiltered beans.
- Mtnviewer
- Member
- Apr 9, 2012
- 473 posts
- 399 upvotes
Yup cleaned after EVERY single use, rinsed & usually even used a sponge to remove oils. Still it developed some sort of weird scale inside the bottom tube, despite cleaning after every single GD use & after 2 years, it was use .... less. Has potential, but needs a redesign IMO & so is overpriced for just some plastic bits that don't last. Should sell for $10-15 Max, more like $10. Not worth the $30+ to me. I wanted to like it, but it just has too many flaws in practical use.
- EP32k2
- Deal Expert
- Jan 15, 2006
- 21392 posts
- 23735 upvotes
- Richmond Hill
No doubt it's grossly overpriced for an oversized plunger lol. I'll have to watch out for that scaling. I do like the size for taking it on trips though.Mtnviewer wrote: ↑ Yup cleaned after EVERY single use, rinsed & usually even used a sponge to remove oils. Still it developed some sort of weird scale inside the bottom tube, despite cleaning after every single GD use & after 2 years, it was use .... less. Has potential, but needs a redesign IMO & so is overpriced for just some plastic bits that don't last. Should sell for $10-15 Max, more like $10. Not worth the $30+ to me. I wanted to like it, but it just has too many flaws in practical use.
- jbpriede
- Member
- Jul 2, 2008
- 459 posts
- 215 upvotes
The annual risk of dying in a car accident in Canada is close to 0.005% per year. This is 10 times less significant than a 0.2% risk over a 10 year period.robespierre1794 wrote: ↑ translates into a 0.2% increase in the risk of heart attack and stroke over a 10 year period.
Probably more risk associated with being drowsy behind the wheel and dying in the resulting car crash from not having your morning coffee
- charliegee
- Sr. Member
- Oct 15, 2013
- 956 posts
- 1387 upvotes
Is that annual risk of car accident mortality done with a blind study of caffeinated vs non-caffeinated individuals (and paper vs metal filters)?
- max011
- Deal Fanatic
- Nov 25, 2003
- 5582 posts
- 7780 upvotes
- Vancouver
Silly me! I was thinking it should taste less similar and way better than French Press...PenguinRei wrote: ↑ I paired it up with a metal disc filter and it tastes more similar to french press.
No need to trow $40 +filters etc on complicated plastic gadget that "tastes similar to French press"
Thanks, wallet very safe! My Espresso maker rules! And French Press is like $10...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He who gives up a little freedom to gain a little security, deserves neither and will lose both. (Benjamin Franklin)
He who gives up a little freedom to gain a little security, deserves neither and will lose both. (Benjamin Franklin)
- hagbard
- Deal Expert
- Dec 19, 2001
- 31347 posts
- 2025 upvotes
- Fernando Poo
- PenguinRei
- Member
- Jul 22, 2017
- 257 posts
- 181 upvotes
- Pingu in the city
The major difference is the brewing time and clean up.
For french press it's at least 3:30, or if you use the James Hoffmann's method, it's close to 10 min to get the best french press coffee taste.
Aeropress can reduce the overtime to 1:30 and so, and with the metal filter it's between the taste of paper-filtered aeropress with the fuller oily part of french press.
But if you enjoyed your french press, I would say that's fine as well. Just stay on that.
Personally I love both Aeropress and frenchpress (My first coffee maker). If I want something that is more delicate taste and time is not concerned, then I would use Hario V60 over aeropress.
Just email Aerobie. I had problem with my seal as well and their customer service provided me a new seal free of charge.
I read that paper and the experiment result was based on drinking 5 cups of coffee per day, so I think it's better to avoid that amount instead.
Any other brewing method such as Moka pot or metal-filtered french press, or normal shots of espresso have the cholesterol you mentioned too. If you prefer to be on the safer side, pour-over or clever dripper with paper filter would be better.
No idea that some hated this maker that much. I found it quite handy when I'm using it in the morning. It creates really consistent coffee every time and the cleaning up is simple. Also tons of different brewing method for this device.
Here is a video of how one of the Japanese coffee shop brewed their Aeropress coffee if anyone interested.
Last edited by PenguinRei on Dec 11th, 2017 8:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
Noot Noot!
Great coffee, better mind!
Aeropress | Hario V60 | French press | Vietnamese coffee filter | Kalita narrow-mouthed pot | %
Great coffee, better mind!
Aeropress | Hario V60 | French press | Vietnamese coffee filter | Kalita narrow-mouthed pot | %
- Tumdace
- Sr. Member
- Sep 19, 2012
- 626 posts
- 353 upvotes
- Kitchener
I usually brew with a Chemex but picked this up last time it was on sale. Makes very good coffee.
Difference between this and a Chemex is that the Aeropress leaves the body (feels more flavorful, feels heavier), and creaminess of coffee. Hard to explain but it feels more like coffee than a Chemex does. With Chemex, because of the really thick paper filter, it feels more watered down, and cleaner.
Difference between this and a Chemex is that the Aeropress leaves the body (feels more flavorful, feels heavier), and creaminess of coffee. Hard to explain but it feels more like coffee than a Chemex does. With Chemex, because of the really thick paper filter, it feels more watered down, and cleaner.
- andjules
- Sr. Member
- Jun 17, 2003
- 803 posts
- 566 upvotes
- Toronto
That's too bad. But for anyone else reading this thread, Mtnviewer's experience is not the norm if you look at reviews. My water is pretty hard/calcium-heavy and I've been using my aeropress daily for about 8 years. The measure-markings are fading, but otherwise it's good as new.
And for those of you cleaning (instead of rinsing) every day, remember that we clean dishes (with soap) mostly to remove flavours and germs. In the case of an Aeropress, i) you're putting coffee in it every time (no need to remove flavours the way you would with your frying pan) and ii) you're pouring near-boiling water in it every time (essentially sterilizing it by using it).
- pkphilip
- Deal Addict
- Jan 23, 2004
- 3970 posts
- 3750 upvotes
- GVRD
I think it's come to personal preference as I am actually aiming at consistency at home. For example I only do reverse Aeropress and I recommend for anyone who wants a stronger cup of coffee with little effort. I am still using my single boiler Saeco Sirena for espresso, this guy is cheap to buy parts and service, just the amount of work cleaning every bits out takes 30 min each day that I use it. Maybe if I get a bigger kitchen, I might get a lever... but I could use that money on getting another single boiler for steam only.. I have lots of ideas.
The other equipment I recommend would be the Espro french press, it often comes down to under $70 at Winners/Home Sense.
For cleaning that thing, I use filtered water and is looking at an undersink reverse omosis kit. I just soak in vinegar, baking soda once a year to clean up the smell.. and the plunger cleans the inside pretty well.