Posted Tue Jun 26, 2012, 10:05am Subject: Compare and Contrast: Strength and Brew Method
So, I thought this was interesting. I've been working around ~8% brew ratio ( 12.5 g water : gram coffee). Different brew parameters, grind, etc.
Last night I set up two brews, both 20g coffee to the hundredth of a gram, and both 250g water +/- a half gram or so. Coffee ground to very fine, D-2 on my Bodum Bistro grinder.
I'd estimate this in the ~3 setting for a Ditting, based on a set of grind samples I have at every whole number grind setting for a Ditting 804.
I expect this would extract pretty quickly when brewed, indications are the brew reaches equilibrium in under 3:00 at this fine of a grind from past brews like this.
Brew 1 is set up, strike temperature just off boil (~206°F), immediate agitation, and full brew water added to 250g by approximately 30 seconds. Contact time 3:00 at press. Sampled and checked for strength, then sealed in cup and stored overnight in fridge.
Brew 2 is set up, strike temperature just off boil (~206°F), immediate agitation, full brew water added to 250g by approximately 25 seconds. Contact time 3:00, agitated, then sealed and overnight in fridge for the rest of the contact time (approx 10 hours).
In the morning, Brew 2 is put in the AeroPress and pressed.
Now I have two cups of coffee, both same temperature (~45°F), brewed same way, same brew ratio, same coffee, same grind, both stored in fridge overnight - only difference was one remained in contact with the coffee overnight (10 hours), the other is just a cooled cup of coffee.
The first thing that struck me was the appearance difference. Brew 1 had noticeably more oil on top, Brew 2 had remarkable clarity. Cold
Aroma was similar but a small tinge of roasty smell on Brew 1. These differences in aroma were similar, just amplified once warmed.
I stirred both, then sampled both (still cold).
Then, in the microwave to bring them both to ~140°F, and stirred.
Interesting Observation #1: Brew 1 hot vs. Brew 1 cold next morning, strength was about the same.
Interesting observation #2:
Brew 1 cold vs. Brew 2 cold, weird thing - Brew 1 was about 0.01% on average stronger than the brew that stayed in contact with the grounds overnight. I know it's close enough to call them the same, but Brew 1 started out about 0.03-0.04% stronger until both samples seemed to reach stable readings (all at same temperature on the Peltier Plate of the refractometer).
Interesting observation #3:
Brew 1 has slightly more overall "body" than Brew 2. Similar mouthfeel but Brew 1 was a bit more viscous, and both very clean at end (very little to no fines). I attribute the lack of fines, even at this grind level, to gentle/constant press, allowing the grounds to settle and help the filtering process.
Interesting observation #4:
Brew 1 had more roasty/edge of bitter notes than Brew 2. Brew 2 was more mellow, with some fruity or tea-like notes. More overall flavor clarity, not necessarily "brighter". Finish was cleaner. MAYBE it was just an edge sweeter. The overall impression was very similar, just adjustments in what was emphasized, and the lack of bitterness in Brew 2 (despite being in contact with the grounds overnight)
I would classify the overall taste as pushing the edge toward overextraction, but not "definitely" overextracted.
Interesting observation #5:
Brew 1 Grounds mass was noticeably lower than Brew 2. In "Absorption" terms, Brew 1 was around 1.25, Brew 2 was around 1.67.
Brew 1 ~1.76% strength. Brew 2 ~1.75%. Effective brew ratio were similar, 12.45 water:coffee for brew 2, 12.55 for Brew 1.
I think that the pressing while hot allows more oils to get through the coffee. Based on past observation, these oils can be quite bitter when isolated (like in centrifuging) and tasted alone. I call them oils, but they are probably somewhere between waxy lipids and lipids that are sort of fluid at 45°F.
I suspect that pressing the brew when cold keeps much of these oils in the grounds (well, maybe a LOT of them, based on the increased mass of the spent grounds). I also find that these "oils" when mixed hot do have a tendency to push the pH down in a solution (I've got only an indication, my cheap pH meter is pretty flakey) if you mix them into hot distilled water.
If this is the case, then I should be able to do two overnight contact brews, but press one cold, but heat the other up hot before pressing, and compare. The strengths should end up similar, but the hot filtered should have some more of these oils.
Perhaps this might point the way to how "cold brewed" coffee (which is percolated/filtered cold) is different than flash brewed coffee (perc/filtered hot), or cooled hot brewed coffee (also perc/filtered hot). If some of these lipids and oils contain CGA or decomposition constituents, then this may have other implications for bitterness. Maybe lack of lipids, CGA, and other fatty acids in cold brewed coffee (because it is cold FILTERED, not just brewed cold) is one of the key reasons that it seems to be able to store better than hot brewed (hot filtered) coffee.
Just more observations for thought. Of course, YMMV - I always encourage anyone to try it themselves.
------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------- Le café doit être noir comme le diable, chaud comme l'enfer, pur comme un ange, et doux comme l'amour.
"There is no right answer with coffee. There is only the elixir in your cup at the moment you partake."
"...I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind;..." - Lord Kelvin RECIPES thread => http://www.coffeegeek.com/forums/coffee/machines/585708
jpender Senior Member Joined: 11 Jul 2011 Posts: 394 Location: California Expertise: I like coffee
Grinder: Kyocera CM-50 Vac Pot: S/S Moka Pot Drip: Aeropress
Posted Tue Jun 26, 2012, 7:08pm Subject: Re: Compare and Contrast: Strength and Brew Method
Netphilosopher Said:
I think that the pressing while hot allows more oils to get through the coffee. Based on past observation, these oils can be quite bitter when isolated (like in centrifuging) and tasted alone. I call them oils, but they are probably somewhere between waxy lipids and lipids that are sort of fluid at 45°F.
I suspect that pressing the brew when cold keeps much of these oils in the grounds (well, maybe a LOT of them, based on the increased mass of the spent grounds). I also find that these "oils" when mixed hot do have a tendency to push the pH down in a solution (I've got only an indication, my cheap pH meter is pretty flakey) if you mix them into hot distilled water.
A typical refrigerator is at a temperature pretty close to the melting point of coffee oil. But there isn't enough oil in coffee to account for even half the difference in the masses of the wet grounds. So most of that difference must be due to absorbed water.
I have a question: How does the presence of oil affect refractometer readings?
Posted Wed Jun 27, 2012, 7:43am Subject: Re: Compare and Contrast: Strength and Brew Method
jpender Said:
A typical refrigerator is at a temperature pretty close to the melting point of coffee oil. But there isn't enough oil in coffee to account for even half the difference in the masses of the wet grounds. So most of that difference must be due to absorbed water.
I have a question: How does the presence of oil affect refractometer readings?
Not sure - I thought that many triglycerides are around 60-80°F crystallization temp or so? I agree, though, if there is semi-solid triglycerides or other oils I think this will act as a physical impediment to the coffee cake, but not a significant contributor to total mass. The press force and rate is definitely slower - see my following post.
As far as I can tell, oil, at least the amount in coffee, does not seem to affect the actual refractometer readings. I base this on 20minute centrifuged samples of coffee at maximum rate (I think somewhere around 2500 g's or so, 4000RPM medical 15ml centrifuge), where there is a clear lipid layer at the top of the sample, and I check the strength (cooled) and find it the same as just-pressed hot coffee. In the stuff I've collected with ~180 ml of centrifuged coffee, I think it was well less than a gram in total (that took quite a while, as I only have 6 X 15ml tube centrifuge, so two rounds of spinning, separating, collecting, re-spinning with hot distilled water, etc.).
------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------- Le café doit être noir comme le diable, chaud comme l'enfer, pur comme un ange, et doux comme l'amour.
"There is no right answer with coffee. There is only the elixir in your cup at the moment you partake."
"...I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind;..." - Lord Kelvin RECIPES thread => http://www.coffeegeek.com/forums/coffee/machines/585708
Posted Wed Jun 27, 2012, 8:05am Subject: Re: Compare and Contrast: Strength and Brew Method
Well, this is unexpected.
Two brews, same parameters (fine grind, 20g coffee, 250g brew water, ~5 minute contact time, sealed, then put in fridge for 10hours).
Next morning, Press Brew 1 cold, stir and sample for strength (cold). Heat the results in microwave to ~150°F.
Put Brew 2 into microwave (as a slurry), bring to ~170°F, then press (hot), stir and sample for strength.
I knew right from the aroma that Brew 2 was stronger and more "roasty", and tasting was shockingly different.
Brew 1 tasted exactly like it did the day before, somewhat mellow and tea-like.
Brew 2 had a distinct acrid flavor, very bitter finish. Every hallmark of being over extracted - that's before I measured the strength, as I tasted while I waited for the sample to come to ambient temperature for VSTing.
Interesting observation #1:
Strength of Brew 1 = 1.77% Strength of Brew 2 = 1.88%
Only difference between the two was heating and immediately pressing Brew 2. That's it. Who'da thunk that the TEMPERATURE at which you press the coffee, everything else being the same, would make a difference?
The other interesting thing was the press force and overall press rate - the heated slurry was MUCH easier to press, even though the procedure to press was pretty much identical (stir, flip, wait ~20 seconds for the grounds to settle to the filter, press).
Interesting observation #2:
Absorption of Brew 1 = 1.59 (on par with other cold-pressed brews) Absorption of Brew 2 = 1.25 (on par with other hot-pressed brews)
Hmmmm.
Overall mouthfeel was very similar, which to me was unexpected. I thought that Brew 2 would be more oily or viscous, but was not the case. Clearly, pressing cold coffee (even if previously hot brewed) filters out significant portions of the end coffee, regardless of what was extracted.
My guess is probably these are acrid or bitter lipids or triglycerides (fatty acids). The cold pressed coffee is definitely lacking overall bitterness, but this tends to change the overall character of the coffee. It's all very fascinating.
I'm reminded of making biodiesel from vegetable oil. Use methanol (with sodium hydroxide or lye as a catalyst) to transesterize fatty acids (basically triglycerides) in vegetable oil to convert them to an easily removed or decanted glycerol. These fatty acids are the clumps of stuff that you get when you put vegetable oil in the fridge overnight, and I suspect this is the semi-waxy stuff that can float on top of cooled coffee. For use as biodiesel, these fatty acids should be removed if you plan on operating below the crystallization temps of the fatty acids, otherwise you need to preheat the oil or you will end up with clogged injectors or gelled fuel.
I can't use transesterification because the process makes glycerol, and glycerol will end up immediately dissolved in the coffee (glycerol and water are miscible). However, I think I can use some ethanol (Everclear) and perform an emulsion test as a subjective assessment of lipid content. If I'm thinking right, and remember my biology, the methanol or ethanol should combine with the coffee, but the alcohol should bind with the lipids and create a cloudy lipid layer that will be rejected by the rest of the water in the coffee.
Off to the store to buy me some.... Everclear. LOL
------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------- Le café doit être noir comme le diable, chaud comme l'enfer, pur comme un ange, et doux comme l'amour.
"There is no right answer with coffee. There is only the elixir in your cup at the moment you partake."
"...I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind;..." - Lord Kelvin RECIPES thread => http://www.coffeegeek.com/forums/coffee/machines/585708
jpender Senior Member Joined: 11 Jul 2011 Posts: 394 Location: California Expertise: I like coffee
Grinder: Kyocera CM-50 Vac Pot: S/S Moka Pot Drip: Aeropress
Posted Wed Jun 27, 2012, 2:15pm Subject: Re: Compare and Contrast: Strength and Brew Method
Netphilosopher Said:
Not sure - I thought that many triglycerides are around 60-80°F crystallization temp or so? I agree, though, if there is semi-solid triglycerides or other oils I think this will act as a physical impediment to the coffee cake, but not a significant contributor to total mass. The press force and rate is definitely slower - see my following post.
From what I understand the melting points of triglycerides vary widely depending on a number of factors. Many common vegetable oils have low melting points. Coffee oil is primarily linoleic acid, the same as in safflower oil which freezes below 0°C. Coffee is composed of more than one type of fat so you'd expect the melting "point" to be over a range of temperatures. Despite this one researcher (Calligaris, 2009) reported measuring a well-defined melt/crystallization point (6.5°C) for coffee oil.
Netphilosopher Said:
As far as I can tell, oil, at least the amount in coffee, does not seem to affect the actual refractometer readings. I base this on 20minute centrifuged samples of coffee at maximum rate (I think somewhere around 2500 g's or so, 4000RPM medical 15ml centrifuge), where there is a clear lipid layer at the top of the sample, and I check the strength (cooled) and find it the same as just-pressed hot coffee. In the stuff I've collected with ~180 ml of centrifuged coffee, I think it was well less than a gram in total (that took quite a while, as I only have 6 X 15ml tube centrifuge, so two rounds of spinning, separating, collecting, re-spinning with hot distilled water, etc.).
I believe the oil has a higher refractive index, but there might not be enough of it for your refractometer to detect. Or maybe it isn't dispersed evenly, I don't know.
Do you have an estimate for how much oil makes it into the cup when you press hot through your AP? In one study, coffee filtered through paper contained 7mg of oil per 150ml of coffee, coffee filtered through a metal screen contained 50mg per 150ml, and Turkish and espresso contained 60-160mg per 150ml. This isn't enough material to affect the wet grounds mass noticibly, but it could be affecting taste and aroma. Then again there might be more than one thing going on here.
Netphilosopher Said:
Off to the store to buy me some.... Everclear. LOL
Cooled, very clear coffee-flavored liquid between the fines (at the bottom) and this lighter layer at the top of each sample after 20 minutes centrifuging.
The top layer was a definite, translucent waxy layer that floated on distilled water, and combined with itself well but would not mix well with water. Tasted like you'd imagine an old oily ember would taste like. Somewhat waxy in consistency when cold, rubbed into fingers like oil, and made my fingers smell like burnt coffee for the next several handwashings. Melted of sorts in hot distilled water, and remained floating on top.
Looks like some sort of lipid, acts like some sort of lipid...
jpender Said:
...
Do you have an estimate for how much oil makes it into the cup when you press hot through your AP? In one study, coffee filtered through paper contained 7mg of oil per 150ml of coffee, coffee filtered through a metal screen contained 50mg per 150ml, and Turkish and espresso contained 60-160mg per 150ml. This isn't enough material to affect the wet grounds mass noticibly, but it could be affecting taste and aroma. Then again there might be more than one thing going on here...
<shrug> Not really. I think I collected well less than a gram of the oily stuff when I was centrifuging, but I don't know if it's relevant. Amounted to maybe a ml or less. I wasn't doing much other than poking it and tasting.
I thought that Lockhart stated that analysis of coffee (pre and post roasting) had estimates of ~13% fat from his flavor research for the military? That would be on the order of 2600mg / 20g coffee POSSIBLE in my case, but obviously not all of it is going to be extracted.
Aren't the studies you reference more concerned with just the kahweol and cafestol components?
I didn't think I was getting so much that I could actually measure it with a scale - I am suggesting that some portion of the lipids or fatty acids are increasing the filtering effect of the coffee grounds.
------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------- Le café doit être noir comme le diable, chaud comme l'enfer, pur comme un ange, et doux comme l'amour.
"There is no right answer with coffee. There is only the elixir in your cup at the moment you partake."
"...I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind;..." - Lord Kelvin RECIPES thread => http://www.coffeegeek.com/forums/coffee/machines/585708
jpender Senior Member Joined: 11 Jul 2011 Posts: 394 Location: California Expertise: I like coffee
Grinder: Kyocera CM-50 Vac Pot: S/S Moka Pot Drip: Aeropress
Posted Wed Jun 27, 2012, 3:35pm Subject: Re: Compare and Contrast: Strength and Brew Method
Netphilosopher Said:
I thought that Lockhart stated that analysis of coffee (pre and post roasting) had estimates of ~13% fat from his flavor research for the military? That would be on the order of 2600mg / 20g coffee POSSIBLE in my case, but obviously not all of it is going to be extracted.
Yes, that's right. Illy puts it at about 15% for arabica. But how soluble is it? It's clearly possible to extract it all; they did that to determine content. But they didn't do it by steeping it in hot water for a few minutes.
Netphilosopher Said:
Aren't the studies you reference more concerned with just the kahweol and cafestol components?
The first one isn't. The second (Ratnayake WM, 1993) where they measured lipids in the cup does discuss the health concerns of coffee and elevated cholesterol. But they measured the total lipids, not just some components. One thing worth noting is that for paper filtered coffee they used a brew ratio of 30g dry coffee to 1 liter of boiling water, so adjust the numbers upward by a factor of at least two. Illy puts the typical lipid content of espresso about three times higher than what they reported. But the amount of oil is still relatively small compared to the bulk of the grounds.
Netphilosopher Said:
I didn't think I was getting so much that I could actually measure it with a scale - I am suggesting that some portion of the lipids or fatty acids are increasing the filtering effect of the coffee grounds.
Posted Thu Jun 28, 2012, 4:36am Subject: Re: Compare and Contrast: Strength and Brew Method
jpender Said:
Yes, that's right. Illy puts it at about 15% for arabica. But how soluble is it? It's clearly possible to extract it all; they did that to determine content. But they didn't do it by steeping it in hot water for a few minutes.
The first one isn't. The second (Ratnayake WM, 1993) where they measured lipids in the cup does discuss the health concerns of coffee and elevated cholesterol. But they measured the total lipids, not just some components. One thing worth noting is that for paper filtered coffee they used a brew ratio of 30g dry coffee to 1 liter of boiling water, so adjust the numbers upward by a factor of at least two. Illy puts the typical lipid content of espresso about three times higher than what they reported. But the amount of oil is still relatively small compared to the bulk of the grounds.
Maybe. But what else changes in the grounds when they're hot vs. cold?
Well, maybe the reason they absorb oils with paper filtered is that paper-filtered coffee is gravity-percolated, not forced. (and all of the coffee in every analysis of cafestol and kahweol I've seen that is paper filtered has been gravity-percolated). Maybe it's not the magic of the paper, it's the retention of lipids with gravity-percolation in the grounds.
I see absorption for gravity perc methods vary from 1.65 to 2.3. This includes Chemex (limited sample, but consistent), Hario, CCD, my B&D ancient coffeemaker (12 cup with a woefully undersized basket), and the Melitta BCM-4C.
Espresso, absorption varies (based on weighing wet puck with ~20% extraction normal strength presses, 8g : 30g produced around low 5% strength) but is in the low 1's (I use an average of 1.05).
Of course, Boiled coffee decoction and Press Pot aren't valid measures of absorption, IMHO. These methods are coarsely filtered or not filtered at all, and contain significant amounts of perfectly valid coffee in the soaking wet grounds. If I do a normal French Press on my Bodum Press, (56.25g coffee:950g Brew Water), the "absorption" is technically around 3.3! Keep in mind the wet grounds at the bottom aren't fully pressed, either.
3% brew ratio???? jeez. I bet nearly every cup in that study (if using normal contact times) are overextracted.
------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------- Le café doit être noir comme le diable, chaud comme l'enfer, pur comme un ange, et doux comme l'amour.
"There is no right answer with coffee. There is only the elixir in your cup at the moment you partake."
"...I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind;..." - Lord Kelvin RECIPES thread => http://www.coffeegeek.com/forums/coffee/machines/585708
jpender Senior Member Joined: 11 Jul 2011 Posts: 394 Location: California Expertise: I like coffee
Grinder: Kyocera CM-50 Vac Pot: S/S Moka Pot Drip: Aeropress
Posted Thu Jun 28, 2012, 10:36am Subject: Re: Compare and Contrast: Strength and Brew Method
Netphilosopher Said:
Well, maybe the reason they absorb oils with paper filtered is that paper-filtered coffee is gravity-percolated, not forced. (and all of the coffee in every analysis of cafestol and kahweol I've seen that is paper filtered has been gravity-percolated). Maybe it's not the magic of the paper, it's the retention of lipids with gravity-percolation in the grounds.
I thought that one of the reasons people use non-paper filters for the Aeropress is to obtain more oils in the cup?
Netphilosopher Said:
I see absorption for gravity perc methods vary from 1.65 to 2.3. This includes Chemex (limited sample, but consistent), Hario, CCD, my B&D ancient coffeemaker (12 cup with a woefully undersized basket), and the Melitta BCM-4C.
Espresso, absorption varies (based on weighing wet puck with ~20% extraction normal strength presses, 8g : 30g produced around low 5% strength) but is in the low 1's (I use an average of 1.05).
Of course, Boiled coffee decoction and Press Pot aren't valid measures of absorption, IMHO. These methods are coarsely filtered or not filtered at all, and contain significant amounts of perfectly valid coffee in the soaking wet grounds. If I do a normal French Press on my Bodum Press, (56.25g coffee:950g Brew Water), the "absorption" is technically around 3.3! Keep in mind the wet grounds at the bottom aren't fully pressed, either.
What does it mean to say the absorption is "valid"?
Liquid retained is liquid retained and it depends on the brew method more than the coffee itself. For my moka pot I measure between 1.2-1.7 grams of water retained per grams of dry coffee, which is about 1.0-1.5 by your "absorption" measure (wet grounds / dry grounds - 1). But if I actually weigh the wet grounds directly as soon as I can collect them I get a much lower number, more like 0.8-1.2 absorption, because the water is evaporating so quickly. If I could measure it as soon as I poured the coffee it might be different again. So which measure is valid?
Ultimately what matters is the total loss, the liquid that doesn't make it into the cup because the grounds absorb it, it evaporates, spills, or gets trapped in some other part of the brewing device.
Netphilosopher Said:
3% brew ratio???? jeez. I bet nearly every cup in that study (if using normal contact times) are overextracted.
Liquid retained is liquid retained and it depends on the brew method more than the coffee itself. For my moka pot I measure between 1.2-1.7 grams of water retained per grams of dry coffee, which is about 1.0-1.5 by your "absorption" measure (wet grounds / dry grounds - 1). But if I actually weigh the wet grounds directly as soon as I can collect them I get a much lower number, more like 0.8-1.2 absorption, because the water is evaporating so quickly. If I could measure it as soon as I poured the coffee it might be different again. So which measure is valid?
Ultimately what matters is the total loss, the liquid that doesn't make it into the cup because the grounds absorb it, it evaporates, spills, or gets trapped in some other part of the brewing device.
So, my press pot extraction on my last brew was 900g : 56.25g Coffee. Strength was 1.21%
If I just pour one cup at 350g, then my extraction is only 7.5% (assuming I just tossed the rest)
If I pour my big mug at 550g, then my extraction is about 11.8% (assuming I left the rest with some small amount of dregs)
If I pour two of my small mugs and get as much as the press pot will allow (absorption 3.3 or so), my extraction is 715g*1.21% / 56.3g = 15.3%. That's it, all my press pot will pour out without coercion.
But, if I scrape up the grounds and put them into my Aeropress and press out some more stuff, (another 100g), my total extraction has now approached 17.5%. Well, maybe a bit more because I think the average strength for that stuff was 1.22% or so.
In a press pot, there would be ZERO correlation of taste to yield-based extraction. Both mugs tasted pretty decent to me, and definitely not underextracted by any stretch. I think the pressings were a bit cloudy and had some fines but other than that it tasted about the same (but cooler - I did not reheat it)
jpender Said:
Go ahead and try to tell me that all of your coffee experiments taste great. :-)
I know I've said a lot of things, but I know I've never claimed that... LOL I've made some pretty bad stuff.
------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------- Le café doit être noir comme le diable, chaud comme l'enfer, pur comme un ange, et doux comme l'amour.
"There is no right answer with coffee. There is only the elixir in your cup at the moment you partake."
"...I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind;..." - Lord Kelvin RECIPES thread => http://www.coffeegeek.com/forums/coffee/machines/585708
Symbols: = New Posts since your last visit = No New Posts since last visit = Newest post
Forum Rules: No profanity, illegal acts or personal attacks will be tolerated in these discussion boards. No commercial posting of any nature will be tolerated; only private sales by private individuals, in the "Buy and Sell" forum. No cross posting allowed - do not post your topic to more than one forum, nor repost a topic to the same forum. Who Can Read The Forum? Anyone can read posts in these discussion boards. Who Can Post New Topics? Any registered CoffeeGeek member can post new topics. Who Can Post Replies? Any registered CoffeeGeek member can post replies. Can Photos be posted? Anyone can post photos in their new topics or replies. Who can change or delete posts? Any CoffeeGeek member can edit their own posts. Only moderators can delete posts. Probationary Period: If you are a new signup for CoffeeGeek, you cannot promote, endorse, criticise or otherwise post an unsolicited endorsement for any company, product or service in your first five postings.
= No New Posts since last visit 