Who else filters the majority of their wines through a coffee filter?

[Anton_D]

@andy velebil

As someone who drinks a lot of very old Ports which contain a ton of sediment, this is something that has been talked about in Port circles for years. A few years ago some fellow Port experts from the UK, a couple Port producers and myself decided to finally put this to the test. The UK contingent loved to use the unbleached coffee filters. I loved the unbleached cheesecloth. The producers used whatever they had on hand, but mostly cheesecloth as well if they couldn’t simply free-hand pour it (which wastes a lot of liquid left in bottle). To my knowledge, this was the first time anyone had done such a test with old Port.

We gathered in the Douro with one old magnum of Port. All the decanters were identical and prepared the same so there wasn’t an issue of the decanter causing the change. Equal amounts from that one magnum were then free-hand poured, poured through unbleached cheese cloth, and poured through unbleached coffee filter. The decanters were taken away by staff and relabeled where we didn’t know which decanter had which Port in it, then brought back to the table where we tasted them blind.

The results were quite surprising.

• Overwhelmingly and by a huge margin, the unbleached coffee filter was ranked the worst. It stripped the Port of flavor giving it a spirity and metallic taste. Even the UK folks were surprised by how different this single decanter showed and they generally no longer use coffee filters unless there is no other choice.

• Second place went to the unbleached cheesecloth. Very little difference between this and freehand pour, but it was still ranked second as it didn’t retain all the fruit the freehand did. It was just slightly noticeable and unless you had another glass next to it as we did you probably wouldn’t notice the difference.

• Freehand pour was the hands down winner. All but two people voted this was the best of the three.

OVERALL: it was enlightening to see how badly the coffee filter stripped the Port. I had no idea it would affect it that much. We all agreed that if you had to use coffee paper, freehand pour as much as possible first then only filter as you get to the bottom of the bottle. Cheesecloth and freehand were both regarded as the best two methods.

That’s very cool!

However, I know you port freaks like grinding sediment between your gums and admiring it between your teeth.

[Peter_Hirsch]

Andy’s experiment was very interesting, I can’t quite understand how it works but there’s no doubt that the result happened. Would be great to recreate a few more times (10 more times? 100 more times?) to see what happens? Also sounds like it would be fun to recreate. Go to Douro, drink a lot, laugh, do again.

I have trouble figuring how how the science can be wrong. We know that the coffee filters (I use unbleached paper filters) allow particles through that are 10-15x bigger than those in the colloid. And the only particles that are large enough to be trapped are sediment, yeast, small (really, really small) pieces of grape.

I’ve also experimented with the coffee filters in a neutral beverage (spring water) and can find no difference between 2 glasses of spring water (one filtered and one not)?
So where do the problems come from with a coffee filter? If we know the size of the weave allows through all of the ‘wine’ by a factor of 10-15x, and that the filter isn’t imparting any off flavors (the water test))?

I ordered some unbleached cheesecloth, will also try that!

[andy_velebil]

@Peter Hirsch

Andy’s experiment was very interesting, I can’t quite understand how it works but there’s no doubt that the result happened. Would be great to recreate a few more times (10 more times? 100 more times?) to see what happens? Also sounds like it would be fun to recreate. Go to Douro, drink a lot, laugh, do again.

I have trouble figuring how how the science can be wrong. We know that the coffee filters (I use unbleached paper filters) allow particles through that are 10-15x bigger than those in the colloid. And the only particles that are large enough to be trapped are sediment, yeast, small (really, really small) pieces of grape.

I’ve also experimented with the coffee filters in a neutral beverage (spring water) and can find no difference between 2 glasses of spring water (one filtered and one not)?
So where do the problems come from with a coffee filter? If we know the size of the weave allows through all of the ‘wine’ by a factor of 10-15x, and that the filter isn’t imparting any off flavors (the water test))?

I ordered some unbleached cheesecloth, will also try that!

No clue as to why either.

Do you think the manufacturing process for the coffee filters may have something to do with it?

[Anton_D]

@Peter Hirsch

Andy’s experiment was very interesting, I can’t quite understand how it works but there’s no doubt that the result happened. Would be great to recreate a few more times (10 more times? 100 more times?) to see what happens? Also sounds like it would be fun to recreate. Go to Douro, drink a lot, laugh, do again.

I have trouble figuring how how the science can be wrong. We know that the coffee filters (I use unbleached paper filters) allow particles through that are 10-15x bigger than those in the colloid. And the only particles that are large enough to be trapped are sediment, yeast, small (really, really small) pieces of grape.

I’ve also experimented with the coffee filters in a neutral beverage (spring water) and can find no difference between 2 glasses of spring water (one filtered and one not)?
So where do the problems come from with a coffee filter? If we know the size of the weave allows through all of the ‘wine’ by a factor of 10-15x, and that the filter isn’t imparting any off flavors (the water test))?

I ordered some unbleached cheesecloth, will also try that!

I want to see the results of the port report where they describe how sucking the filters went, afterward. You’d think they’d be chock full of stolen flavor.

[PeterH]

It might be possible that the filter paper absorbs, or adsorbs, some flavor components. I have long been in the habit of decanting vintage port down to about the last ounce, then filtering the rest through an unbleached filter that I have previously rinsed in hot water and let dry. It has always been my impression that that last filtered ounce is less tasty than the decanted portion.

P Hickner

[andy_velebil]

@Anton D

@Peter Hirsch

Andy’s experiment was very interesting, I can’t quite understand how it works but there’s no doubt that the result happened. Would be great to recreate a few more times (10 more times? 100 more times?) to see what happens? Also sounds like it would be fun to recreate. Go to Douro, drink a lot, laugh, do again.

I have trouble figuring how how the science can be wrong. We know that the coffee filters (I use unbleached paper filters) allow particles through that are 10-15x bigger than those in the colloid. And the only particles that are large enough to be trapped are sediment, yeast, small (really, really small) pieces of grape.

I’ve also experimented with the coffee filters in a neutral beverage (spring water) and can find no difference between 2 glasses of spring water (one filtered and one not)?
So where do the problems come from with a coffee filter? If we know the size of the weave allows through all of the ‘wine’ by a factor of 10-15x, and that the filter isn’t imparting any off flavors (the water test))?

I ordered some unbleached cheesecloth, will also try that!

I want to see the results of the port report where they describe how sucking the filters went, afterward. You’d think they’d be chock full of stolen flavor.

We spread it on our gums at night and on our toast in the morning, to be consumed with left over Port and eggs.

Ok, only one part of that is true. I’ll let you figure out which.

[Merrill_Lindquist]

I never filter. My standard practice - young wine or old - is to set it up at least 24 hours in advance. Time “up” is congruent with time in bottle.

Decant slowly until only 20% of the wine remains in bottle. Enjoy the decanted wine. Then carefully revisit what remains in the bottle. For an older wine, often its done, for my tastes ( I don’t appreciate sediment). For younger wines, you’ll get another glass, hopefully.

[Anton_D]

@PeterH

It might be possible that the filter paper absorbs, or adsorbs, some flavor components. I have long been in the habit of decanting vintage port down to about the last ounce, then filtering the rest through an unbleached filter that I have previously rinsed in hot water and let dry. It has always been my impression that that last filtered ounce is less tasty than the decanted portion.

P Hickner

Interestingly, larger pores can still trap smaller molecules as things accumulate on the filter and act as a secondary filter or stick to things that are stuck to the filter.

I compromise between cheese cloth and coffee filters and use dye free, scent free, chemical free paper towels for that final bit.

You can get an idea by watching the flow rate through the filter.

Also, agree with waiting until you hit the sediment before pouring through a filter.

[Pat_Martin]

@Neal.Mollen

I occasionally use a metal screen/funnel combination when the wine is exceptionally cloudy with fine grain sediment. 90% of the time I am just careful in decanting

Plus this.

[Howard_Cooper]

When I am opening an older red wine, I try to stand it up for a day or so first. Then I free pour until start seeing sediment. This generally is after I have poured more than the 3/4 of the bottle Peter estimates - probably closer to 85-90 percent, depending on the type of wine. Then, being cheaper than you guys, I tend to pour the rest through a paper towel. Then, I typically clean the bottle with water (there often is a lot of sediment on the bottom side of the bottle stuck to the bottle (esp. with Port or Cabernet based wine, less so with Burgundy)). And, often I pour the wine back in the bottle and serve from the bottle rather than the decanter, but not always.

[Ray.Tuppa_sch]

Many years ago I used to use a filter or cheesecloth occasionally. However, I always felt as if the wine was somewhat stripped of its flavor. May have been my imagination, but I haven’t done it in about 10-12 years. Last bottles I’ve used a filter were on 375ml bottles of 1906 Pol Roger that had a lot of very fine sediment suspended throughout the bottles.

[William_Kelley]

A chemist friend speculates that there could well be residual alkali on coffee filters from paper processing. That wouldn’t be a problem for coffee but could impact wine. He adds that glass wool is used in laboratories for filtering delicate substances. Could be worth trying that.

[andy_velebil]

@William Kelley

A chemist friend speculates that there could well be residual alkali on coffee filters from paper processing. That wouldn’t be a problem for coffee but could impact wine. He adds that glass wool is used in laboratories for filtering delicate substances. Could be worth trying that.

Is it safe to use for human consumption uses?

[Wes_Barton]

@A. So

I’m saying the “experiment” did not control that the bottom third of the bottle could taste different than the top third. Moreover, the bottom third obviously has more sediment than the top third.

We’ve had a few occasions free hand pouring where the upper portion of a mature wine showed markedly different than the lower. That’s walking around with a tilted bottle doing pours at one table then the other. A bunch of first place votes at one table and a lot of near the bottom votes at the other. Comparing glasses showed a big contrast, and new pours from the last few ounces were fantastic. That’s rare extreme cases, but it certainly makes your point. Good (or bad) stuff can settle down in, but not out of, a wine. The first thing I thought of reading Andy’s post was I’d be sure to account for that when doing those pours.

[Ramon_C]

I’ve not used filter. But, have used pot a few times … the coffee pot as decanting vessel.

[Wes_Barton]

@Peter Hirsch

Andy’s experiment was very interesting, I can’t quite understand how it works but there’s no doubt that the result happened. Would be great to recreate a few more times (10 more times? 100 more times?) to see what happens? Also sounds like it would be fun to recreate. Go to Douro, drink a lot, laugh, do again.

I have trouble figuring how how the science can be wrong. We know that the coffee filters (I use unbleached paper filters) allow particles through that are 10-15x bigger than those in the colloid. And the only particles that are large enough to be trapped are sediment, yeast, small (really, really small) pieces of grape.

I’ve also experimented with the coffee filters in a neutral beverage (spring water) and can find no difference between 2 glasses of spring water (one filtered and one not)?
So where do the problems come from with a coffee filter? If we know the size of the weave allows through all of the ‘wine’ by a factor of 10-15x, and that the filter isn’t imparting any off flavors (the water test))?

I ordered some unbleached cheesecloth, will also try that!

Just because smaller particles can pass through doesn’t mean they all do. It makes sense there’d be some resistance. The filter is left saturated. It would make sense that there’d be a higher proportion of solids in the saturated filter than in the wine that passed through it. If that’s significant enough to make a sensory difference is the question.

[Anton_D]

@William Kelley

A chemist friend speculates that there could well be residual alkali on coffee filters from paper processing. That wouldn’t be a problem for coffee but could impact wine. He adds that glass wool is used in laboratories for filtering delicate substances. Could be worth trying that.

I think with any filter, we worry about adsorption. Glass is famous for being good at it.

Article: Adsorption of Wine Constituents on Functionalized Surfaces - PubMed

[J_e_s_s_e_C]

Interesting thread and a technique I’ve never tried.

I do, however, appreciate a good cup of coffee as much as I do a good glass of wine. Based on that alone, I’d also dispute that coffee filters (especially un-rinsed and/or unbleached) impart no flavor or effect on flavor. Its pretty standard for the good coffee shops to pre-rinse any filter and discard that water before starting a pour-over, and I do that when making my cup every morning. I’m not a barista or a scientist, but I’m told this expands the fibers of the filter and more importantly, gets rid of most of the paper flavor (e.g., from residual paper particles from manufacturing). I’ve occasionally forgotten to rinse and the filter definitely imparts a smell during the brew - think brown paper grocery bag - and results in a flavor that I find to be much thinner and less fruity/sweet (coincidentally, I’ve thought “metallic” similar to what Andy posted in his port experiment). The paper flavor/smell from an un-rinsed filter seems especially strong with the unbleached, brown chemex filters, but I find its there even for the white V60 and Kalita filters.

Has anyone tried further splitting the filtered portion into separate stages - one glass for for any wine that contacts a dry filter, and once that is all drained off, a second glass for the remaining wine that passes through a wine-saturated filter? I’d be curious to hear from someone who tries both alongside with the free-hand pour. Peter’s process of pre-rinsing with water suggests rinsing may be an improvement albeit still not the same. I wonder if pre-rinsing with wine might be even better, resulting in the filter absorbing less of the “good stuff” from whats left?

[Eric_Lundblad]

Coffee filters definitely impart a flavor (as well as removing much of the coffee oils). The trade off between press pot (no fiter) and pour over (filter) is the pour over benefits from no coffee sediment which negatively affects flavor (press pot has sediment)…otoh, pour over has a bit of paper taste from the filter, and has less oil. Overall, for me, pour over is a much better experience…esp for a high end coffee (I roasted some 6 year old aged Sumatra for the holidays…I’m drinking the last of that now, the 20 year old Beaucastel of coffee!).

When I make coffee, I pour hot water through the filter to reduce the paper taste. You could do the same, and let the filter dry out, at least until the filter is damp rather than wet (to reduce watering down the wine). I use Filtropa filters cuz they’re reported to have the lowest amt of taste…the guy I buy green coffee beans from has a terrific palate, and has evaluated most all the filters on the market and concluded the above about Filtropa. So go find some Filtropa (or buy them here: https://www.sweetmarias.com/product/filtropa-6-white )

Overall I wouldn’t filter wine, except as a last resort of circumstance. My main concern would be about the paper taste issue. Another thing tho is it’s common for wines to go through a dumb phase for a few weeks/months after being filtered. What causes this, and will it affect coffee (presumably on a smaller scale)? I have no idea. What causes wine to shut down in any circumstances (I have some misguided wine geek friends that think there’s no such thing as wine shutting down)?
It’s something I’d wonder about tho.

Coffee filters will get extremely fine sediment, so I wouldn’t worry about wine sediment getting through. The filter will remove some of the wine’s colloids, but I wouldn’t worry so much about that. A wine old enough to have sediment issues is likely to be shy on colloids anyways.

Otoh, if I had a bottle of old Barolo that wasn’t stood up to settle the sediment and I was determined to drink it anyways…I’d filter it with a coffee filter without hesitation. Realistically, I’d delay drinking it until it could be properly stood up, but if I had no choice. I’d do a test with a younger/cheaper bottle first (a bottle without sediment issues) to compare the taste of the filtered and unfiltered wine first tho. Part of this is due to how vile barolo sediment is and that nothing good comes from drinking it.

My random opinions!

[maureen_nelson]

I think Beaunehead uses coffee filters. Peter and Beaunehead - like souls?!