Here we are friends! 

Throughout this week I have been testing my C40 against my Ek43 (6 tests, so not concrete testing numbers :p) 

In my previous post I was testing SSP HU burrs against Mahlkonig pre 2015 ‘A’ burrs, however for this test I installed post 2015 ‘B’ burrs. The reason for this is because a majority of people who have access to an EK would probably have the type ‘B’ burrs installed. (They were indeed aligned using the whiteboard marker method) 


The coffee I used is a Washed Geisha grown by Emilio Lopez in the Chalchuapa, Santa Ana region of El Salvador. 

The acid in the coffee is citric reminiscent of pineapple and orange and malic reminiscent of fresh white grapes. It also exhibits a grape and honey-like sweetness and tonnes of jasmine / white tea florality. The overall weight of this coffee on the palate is light/medium, creamy texture, with a lingering finish. 


Here’s how I brewed: 

I decided to use a UFO dripper with the UFO type A filters. The water I used is the same as in the previous test. 

- Dose: 15g 
- Water weight: 230g
- Temperature: 93 Celsius

Method: 

- 0:00 - 45g (swirl pour)
- 0:40 - 45g (90g T swirl pour)
- 1:10 - 100g (190g T centre pour)
- 2:20 - 40g (230g T centre pour)
- no agitation or swirling was introduced.

(All pours were at about a 6g per second pour speed at a consistent height) 

C40: 

- Time: 3:08
- Grind size: 23 clicks (860 micron) 
- EY: 18.92%

EK43: 

- Time: 3:02 
- Grind size: 13.6 (875 micron)
- EY: 18.75%

The intention for this test was to have both coffees ground with a similar average grind particle size measured using a DiFluid Omni. This was so I could taste the nuances of what each grinder had to offer (particle distribution and shape).

As shown on the graphs on the Omni, the C40 has a much wider grind size distribution than the EK43. This is consistent to my previous tests. 

Both coffees tasted great. They both stayed true to the tasting notes above that were accumulated at the roastery by me and the rest of the quality control team. 


Here are my findings: 

C40: 

The texture in the brews that the C40 produced were heavier/juicier but had more astringency. I found the C40 to generally give a wider picture of what the coffee had to offer. The astringency was minimal but could be perceived easily with the EK43 brew sitting next to it. 

EK43 with ‘B’ burrs:

Much higher clarity than the C40. Texturally these brews were a bit thinner and were missing some of the bright acidity that the C40 had to offer. I didn’t perceive any astringency in these brews and I found the EK43 brews to generally be sweeter and be more balanced. 

To me these are both great grinders. Typically the C40 brews are fuller and juicer however did carry some astringency/drying qualities. These were particularly prominent when compared with the EK brew sitting next to it. I don’t know if they would be as prominent if I hadn’t been comparing. 
The EK even with the type ‘B’ burrs to me better showcased what the coffee had to offer. The brews exhibited much higher clarity and balance. 

For me the EK is the winner for this particular coffee, maybe a different coffee will be better for the C40? 

Cheers! 












C40 vs EK43