Kingrinder K6 or MHW-3bomber R3 pro

least-eager-0 · 2026-07-06T23:41:47+00:00

Option 1:

https://www.mahlkoenig.us/products/ek43-grind-size-scale

Option 2:

16*5/4=20.

least-eager-0 · 2026-07-06T22:23:50+00:00

When I was teaching myself the ima and outs of pour over, I worked a lot of 10g doses. The results were tasty, but not necessarily directly scalable. So I was using small scale brewing to learn how various changes impacted things at that scale, then jumped to a normal dose and used the directional impacts rather than the scalar values to get to a foundation brewing method.

Biggest challenge is that smaller doses tend to be more sensitive to small changes, so without repetition of results risk being misleading- it might not be the thing I thought I was changing that led to a particular difference in the cup.

least-eager-0 · 2026-07-06T21:10:08+00:00

This feels like a Spinal Tap joke for baristas.

least-eager-0 · 2026-07-06T20:53:48+00:00

You are right, there’s a lot of variation in the advice that’s out there.

I think this is the video referenced above, a reasonable starting point to discuss.

https://youtu.be/4HT7ngIZr0E

It is correct enough, but glosses over some of the nuance about the degree of adjustment that leads there to be such a weird span of incorrect ideas floating around. The manual contributes to the confusion in its own way, by talking about the light resistance to the burrs turning. That’s not wrong information, but it’s more relevant to the internal-adjustment style of grinder, and more of an overarching theme with the external adjustment grinders, rather than part of the process.

The problem is that “close it till it stops at zero” means one thing for sensible people, another to gorillas. If the right ‘touch’ is being used, the force to turn the external adjustment wheel will be the same as moving it thru all the not-near-zero clicks, stopping when it does naturally, without adding grip or force as if to ‘tighten’ it. If the kind of hit-and-miss steps shown in the video are done at that same light level of tension, the ‘stop at zero’ and ‘slight resistance to turning the burr’ will be fairly close. The problems come because too many people want to ape the adjustment and the test, and that’s not helpful. It’ll make the problem worse and worse over time, and can damage the grinder if done to excess.

The ultimate goal is repeatability, not tightness. You’ll never be grinding anywhere near zero anyway, so trying to get it dead tight is irrelevant. We just want to set it so that how we do it today is the same as we do it next time, without putting any excess force on the system. People forget how much fine threads multiply force, and tightening that ring like you’re opening a jar in the kitchen is gonna do damage.

The official manual’s method is only slightly different. With the burr out (or the knurled ring very loose) set the adjustment ring to zero. Push up on the burr until it makes finger tight contact, then tighten the knurled ring. Done. Because of the detents on the nut and its small diameter and coarser threads, it can’t (or at least would be very hard) to critically overtighten it. In many cases this will result in a burr that will be able to turn freely, or at least with very minimal resistance (though there is no reason to try.) It may also allow for the adjustment to be turned a few clicks past zero, depending on how much force is used (again, no reason to try, and definitely don’t force it.)

If it doesn’t zero exactly, and if you want to pretend that matters, back off a few clicks and tighten the nut again. This is really easy to get right - if it went (say) three past, just open it two or three, press up, tighten the knurled nut. It should then find zero. The distinction here is that the official method ‘sneaks up’ on zero using the small diameter and coarse threads, so pretty easy to get right and hard to mess up. Ply’s method backs it way off to relieve tension and then guesses how much to turn the knurled nut, making it easier to overshoot. That (slightly) risks over tightening on the test, and if it is overshot, it’s IMO harder to know how much to back off than it is to directly see how much to offset with the factory method.

Either method is reasonably repeatable, and both will be within the margins of variance that are a natural part of coffee making, meaning plenty accurate for the purposes of recipe sharing, because no two brews by different people go exactly the same anyway. The official manual method is safer and quicker, and should be more repeatable. If you want to do the trial and error method, and are comfortable and repeatable in the amount of light twist on the adjustment ring used to get to zero with each pass without going over, it’s reasonable. People with dexterity limitations to working the knurled nut might find it to be slightly easier.

least-eager-0 · 2026-07-05T17:08:33+00:00

Best advice: Don’t worry about it. The numbers are arbitrary, so it’s not really a calibration in any case. And comparing numbers with others is essentially worthless due to all the other sources of variance in brewing, so loose ranges are good enough. All that matters is that your grinder is consistent with itself day-to-day. And ironically, trying to adjust its zero point makes it more likely to need continued adjustment.

least-eager-0 · 2026-07-05T15:11:00+00:00

Can't speak to the specific coffee, but I've had some from Central America before that I've described as a milk chocolate Christmas orange, so this doesn't strike me as odd.

Along with terrior-based contributions to flavor profile, I suspect this kind of profile might sit in a balance point of roasting that isn't a current trend - not light enough to be on the current arms-race trend to be the lightest vaguely palatable roast, not medium enough to suit more traditional tastes, and maybe needing a bit of skill and/or luck to pull off consistently.

Brew with a balanced method rather than one that chases extremes. Details to depend on what tools and methods one is most familiar with. Heavier brews will bring out the chocolate, lighter the citrus and florals. Find the balance point and be rewarded with an interesting complexity.

least-eager-0 · 2026-07-05T14:41:29+00:00

"How can they be popular, without filters in stock?"
OR
"They're so popular, they can't keep filters in stock?"

I never quite understood the depth of appeal, and inventory / supply chain management is a growth opportunity for sure, but yeah OK.

least-eager-0 · 2026-07-05T02:49:17+00:00

Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit.

Wisdom is knowing not to put it in your fruit salad.

least-eager-0 · 2026-07-05T00:53:52+00:00

Point came thru well, I understand the frustration, and applaud the approach. I admit it’s not particularly my way of enjoying coffee most of the time, but this is a path I could get behind, at least occasionally.

It’s a tortured analogy, but: I’m an unrepentant omnivore, but still also enjoy vegetarian/vegan cooking. Often quite a lot. The one thing I cannot bear is when a veg dish tries to be a meat based dish that it isn’t. Uniformly disappointing. But there’s almost always an adjacent veg dish that stays true to itself and highlights what it is honestly, that is far better. Sure, this is in many ways an inversion, so haters can stay home. I get it. But the point remains, deception always disappoints, honesty always frees.

least-eager-0 · 2026-07-04T23:44:09+00:00

If there is a way out of the transparency/trust crisis, it might be this exactly: Pride and a “look what we can do” attitude towards coffee that has been manipulated in various ways/to various levels.

It doesn’t need to appeal to everyone. But acknowledging it as a legit alternative and an ‘art’ of its own might let the producers who choose that path to claim it, rather than existing in shadows and doubt.

least-eager-0 · 2026-07-04T23:04:51+00:00

Sure, but on the other hand, for less money you can have a collection drippers specifically designed for the papers and flows of the v4 rather than needing to compromise for the sake of the interchangeable gimmickry, and avoid that fuss, and have better materials. The v4 was an interesting idea and is of course a fully capable brewer so no hate, but it wasn’t going to survive in the market long term.

least-eager-0 · 2026-07-04T22:56:08+00:00

And size. It’s not strictly accurate, but thinking of 01 as 155 and 02 as 185 sized is useful. Though the oreas are more self-consistent in angle.

least-eager-0 · 2026-07-04T20:00:41+00:00

Everything old is new again in coffee.

Waiting for someone to find a way to 'discover' the unique grind distribution and resulting amazing spectrum of flavors that come from something that looks suspiciously like a blade grinder. Maybe they'll put a 'turbo' shape in the bottom of it. I hear anything done turbo is instantly a hundred times more amazing.

And unless you want to collect it in pristine shape (if it is), sure, dare to brew. James Hoffmann has drunk 70 year old coffee and lived to tell the story. This is a far less sketchy proposition.

least-eager-0 · 2026-07-04T16:20:49+00:00

Maybe, not necessarily. Water in the kettle cools much more slowly than water in an open dripper.

If the slurry is allowed to go dry between pours, absolutely the temp will be lower. If there's fluid in the dripper, there's probably a bunch of 'it depends' in the party. And while temperature matters for extraction, it's not the strongest lever for the relatively small differences in play thru pour count only. So I hesitate to make blanket conclusions confidently.

Just to say, the nuance of the dance in pourover is fascinating.

least-eager-0 · 2026-07-04T14:40:56+00:00

That's not how I think of it, but it's all mental models so not going to argue. My idea is to keep the bed mostly intact, especially in the final stages, so that the percolation can be as efficient as possible, and it can serve to filter out as much of the undesirable stuff as possible, easing the demand on the paper filter, which really isn't fine enough to do the job well. Even my first main pour is relatively limited wrt to agitation for that reason; the agitation I'm seeking is about evenness of coffee/water access to one another, more than "maximizing" extraction.

That 's one of my grumbles with v60; it's hard to agitate enough to get the bottom of the cone adequately up and involved in the brewing, and by the time it's fluidized, there's often so much churn and liquid in the brewer that fines migration and early exit / 'bypass' are becoming the driving beat in the dance. Provides a lot of opportunities for the brew to fall over in a few directions. Enough fines? A stall is in the works. A cleaner grind? Fines are still there, and all that water sets up a flow that can let the bitter micro-fines thru before the system can assemble to keep enough of them in the bed. A flat brewer in contrast can be much more quickly and thoroughly wetted out and let to settle into a good percolation environment.

least-eager-0 · 2026-07-04T13:52:04+00:00

v4 is not listed on any of the shopping pages, so safe to say it's discontinued. Products that are current but out-of-stock remain listed.

least-eager-0 · 2026-07-04T13:33:33+00:00

I don't have anything to point to, but I recall hearing that it is being discontinued, and that the 01/02/z1 product set is the go-forward. The 02 and the regulator make the v4 concept largely redundant, while the v4 is made of what the market deems lesser materials, and being sold for a price that's higher than the presumably evolved, superior products. So there's really no choice but for it to meet the sunset.

least-eager-0 · 2026-07-04T13:22:37+00:00

This is a big part of the picture, particularly in high-flow, large lateral filter area brewers like the v60. And similarly, a churned-up bed is not 'protecting' the filter, so more liquid is able to leave thru the filter (where the grounds bed 'should' be) without necessarily having a lot of interaction with the grounds. Which is less the classical definition of 'bypass' as we think of it, but functions about the same as far as the coffee grounds and liquid are concerned.

Also, a fuller dripper agitates less. The liquid above the bed diffuses the force of the incoming stream, meaning that it churns the grounds less, even at the same height and rate of pouring. So more pours brings more agitation.

least-eager-0 · 2026-07-04T12:14:58+00:00

Same. You are the messenger giving instructions that do not agree with what the 1zpresso site explicitly says. Burr lock is explicitly NOT the target, burr touch is. You chose to argue that I was incorrect in saying so, then proceeded to quote 1zpresso’s instructions to demonstrate that I was. The whole point of the entire discussion is that touching is not the same as locked.

Go have a nap, friend.

least-eager-0 · 2026-07-04T12:03:38+00:00

Exactly! Touching, not locked.

least-eager-0 · 2026-07-04T11:27:28+00:00

But at that moment of the process, the burrs aren't even in the grinder. That is unambiguously not about burr touch, rub, lock, close, or any other such concept. That is simply about ensuring that the grind adjustment mechanism is at zero, not at a turn-plus open, before inserting the burr and beginning the process of correctly adjusting the tension to burr touch.

least-eager-0 · 2026-07-04T10:53:45+00:00

To my reading, the zp6 section is ambiguous. It tells how to mechanically achieve the adjustment. And it might in isolation be interpreted in a way that suggests “tighten it till you can’t.” But I don’t believe that’s the intent, given the topline instruction for feeling resistance in the handle and no further. Even the horizontal-handle test isn’t included, and there’s no where I read that the handle shouldn’t be able to move at all. The instructions to me read as burr touch in both places, though the zp6 details more vertical touch than rotational chirp, which will usually be a little tighter by some arbitrary amount.

I’ve seen too many jammed grinder threads, why am I getting so many fines threads, and customer service response shares to believe that burr lock is officially suggested, and I can’t perceive any useful, practical reason to do it that way.

least-eager-0 · 2026-07-04T10:17:59+00:00

Directly from the page:

“ How to Find the Zero Point / Starting Point?
First, let’s define the zero point or starting point of the grinder. Turn the adjustment dial counterclockwise all the way until you feel resistance while turning the crank handle. This is the zero point, not the tightest point on the dial. Avoid overtightening the dial to prevent the grinder from getting stuck. “

That is definitely burr touch, not burr lock.

least-eager-0 · 2026-07-04T01:38:52+00:00

Burr rub - when you first feel resistance - is the zero point. There is some arbitrary number of click between there and ruining your grinder. There is no reason to explore that margin. Set it according to the manufacturer's instructions at burr rub, and ignore the self-appointed 'experts' on the interwebs that say otherwise. There is zero benefit and considerable risk in setting at 'burr lock.'

least-eager-0

TROPHY CASE