|WikiProject Food and drink||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
This claim is highly dubious and unlikely. Compared to espresso and other pressure-vessel methods this method is not likely to be higher concentrating. It is, however, likely to produce higher concentrations than a 'Dripolator'. Can some references be found please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 06:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
"Coffee for use in a French Press should be of a somewhat fine grind, similar to that used for a drip brew coffee filter, but slightly coarser than that used for espresso. Coarser grinds such as used for coffee percolators give less satisfactory results."
Note: This is a matter of opinion. Coarse grinds work just fine for me, and result in less 'fines.' The Coffee FAQ says that coarse grind is a must for the French Press.
- comment by anon, moved from article to talk page by Cyan 18:17, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- I'd query that too. Cafetiére tends to need about the same as drip/filter and certainly coarser than espresso. Too fine and it will go around the edge of the filter. More on this likely to be discussed on coffe (drink) talkpage. --VampWillow 10:36, 2004 May 20 (UTC)
French Press labware
Biologists use what is called a French Press to burst open cells. It involves a high pressure plunger system that I came here to find out if it has anything to do with the coffee maker. I know the labware is named after the inventor, Stacey French so I guess it may be a coincidence? I was just wondering if I wanted to write an article for a scientific French Press if it should be in a separate entry with a paranthetical or as a note here. Anyone know?
- I would recommend to place the info about the biology tool on a separate page, probably titled "French press (Biology)", and add a "see also" template as the first line in this article. I'd suggest something like <<otheruses4|1=the kitchen tool|2=the biology tool|3=French press (Biology)>>, but with curly braces instead of the angle brackets. It'll render like so:
This page is about the kitchen tool. For the biology tool, see French press (Biology).I'd do it myself, but I forgot my password, and can't create a new page. -- 15:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, it is (though French Press is a more common term) - I've added a link to the article. Dryman 22:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I'd never heard it called a "plunge filter coffee maker" before. google.co.uk, with "pages from the UK" pressed, shows 178 references, many of those copies of the Wikipedia article. It shows 125,000 references to cafetière and 36,800 references to cafetiere. I feel inclined to remove "plunge filter coffee maker" altogether. Isidore 19:30, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- No complaint from me to delete ... I've never ever heard or read of the term in the UK except on here (which I'd actually always taken as a POV from someone)
- Hmm... http://www.lacafetiere.com/Consumer/Consumer_CompanyHistory_and_info.asp is interesting reading. La Cafetiere was/is the brand name of the first cafetière to be made in the UK. It was invented in Italy in 1929... Isidore 22:43, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Oh yes, and they refer to it as a "plunge-filter coffee maker". Isidore 22:45, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- That a French press should be invented in Italy is just typical! as is the naming of a product in country B with its generic name in country A. Maybe "plunge-filter coffee maker" was a more meaningful name in 1929, but nearly 80 years later if you asked someone what it was they'd probably tell you it was a cafetière, ie the shorter term is now generically the term that one would expect to hear and be used. History info might usefully be added to article though - well done for finding it! --Vamp:Willow 23:23, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- OK, I've removed "plunge-filter coffee maker". The history is difficult to verify (e.g., some sites say Calimani invented it in 1929, others 1933). Isidore 18:51, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nowhere in the article does it actually say where in the world this apparatus is called a French press, a term I have never heard before. Does anyone know? 126.96.36.199 (talk) 10:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Bodum markets them as French Presses and Travel Presses on their UK website (not that I want to give any endorsements here, but it sort of answers at least the UK part of this question).
- Here's a vote for "I did hear of French press". Personally, I just call it a "coffee press", or even just "press", because I do use it for loose tea too, but I don't propose that those are any kind of official names or that they're appropriate for any part of the article, much less the title. As far as I know, I made it up. For the original questioner: At least one part of the English-speaking world where this is frequently called a "French press" is the U.S.A. Like many words and concepts which actually are French, this nomenclature seems more prevalent in the hospitality industry than the public consciousness at large. It's also unheard-of in the Midwest, but that's not because it's called by another name there, it's because the device itself is unheard-of in the Midwest. I wonder if the "American friend" above even knows about the device? If not, then, whatever he or she says about the name doesn't count for anything. --188.8.131.52 (talk) 05:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Never heard it called anything other than a 'coffee plunger' before. I'm in France and most people have never seen one, though it's called a "cafetière à piston". How bizarre. "French press" hmm. Stevage 12:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- You would be shocked at the things the rest of the world connect to the French and France in general ;) It would be, ah, ow do you say, rude of me to post them here though JayKeaton 19:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- I am visiting France and the place I am staying in has one of these. The label on the side says "The Original French Press" and then has the Bodum trademark. So there you go, they do exist in France 184.108.40.206 (talk) 09:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Why does paragraph six duplicate the instructions of paragraph three? ✈ James C. 21:28, 2005 May 31 (UTC)
- Nevermind, I just removed them.
- Wikipedia is not the place to go to find out how to make coffee (Wikipedia is not an instruction manual), so I've removed the instructions. Obviously, the way coffee is made using a cafetière is part of its definition, so I've also inserted a brief description of the process in the body. But the intimate details are not encyclopaedic. OTOH a link to an external site with instructions might be appropriate. Hairy Dude 16:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
instructions' visual aid
Are the "Cafetiere press up" and "Cafetiere press down" images really necessary? The verbal instructions are clear enough, and the visuals clarify nothing. They're not even very good diagrams, with unnecessary letter labels and strange color choices. The pictures just make the whole process seem more complex than it is. ✈ James C. 21:57, 2005 May 31 (UTC)
- no responses. deleting the images (users can always view the detailed instructions in the external links section if they want). ✈ James C. 18:50, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
"French Paradox": original research.
While the study linked is valid research, it's not an example of the French Paradox. That's the conclusion of whoever added this text. For french-pressed coffee with its elevated cafestol levels to represent an example of the French Paradox, it would have to be shown that French people drink more french-presesd coffee than the control population. This very article contradicts that, for one thing. For another, even if it didn't, there's still no such research. 220.127.116.11 17:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
It's good to see a reference cited for the claim that French press coffee increases LDL cholestrol levels. However, the reference used, http://www.medpagetoday.com/Cardiology/AcuteCoronarySyndrome/tb/3154 is not a study itself but instead is a quote alluding to the existence of studies: "(Rob van Dam Ph.D) said published studies have "consistently shown that drinking a lot of French press coffee increases LDL."". A more direct reference to such studies would be appreciated. Verdatum 19:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- I've whipped up a start for this section but it's very raw and I haven't read the study yet. Once I read the study I'll also include the reason that cafestol raises cholesterol, as per the Baylor study. I'm going to add what I've written so far to the article and I encourage everyone to improve upon it and critique it. I'll be improving it throughout this week. — oo64eva (Alex) (U | T | C) @ 06:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- Wouldn't this be considerably more appropriate in Coffee? There's nothing special about the "French press" in this regard, since it would appear that all non-filtering techniques (espresso, percolator (ugh), cold water extract, etc.) would share the same issues. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Only the first paragraph of the Variations section is actually about variations. The other paragraphs are useful but ought to be moved to other sections. Possibly new sections ought to be created for that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 19:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Can somebody else weigh in on the bitterness/expiration effect the article claims? Because I prefer the taste of press coffee that's been sitting long enough to need reheating to having it freshly made, and I'm a supertaster who needs two sugars and a spoon of milo to make it drinkable (and can't drink espresso-based drinks with any amount of sugar or flavouring in them) so I think I'd notice extra bitterness, but all I do notice is a richer, more complex flavour. Obviously this is original research and so can't effect the article, but still, it seems odd to me. --Kelly holden (talk) 23:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Sure, I will weigh in. "Supertasting" is about sensitivity and discrimination/discernment, it's not about "taste" in the sense of personal preference or aesthetic appreciation. You sound to me like a person who has a preferential taste for the flavor of long-steeped coffee, not a person who has a gift for discerning bitterness beyond what others are able. My own opinion is that 20 minutes is already too over-steeped. --22.214.171.124 (talk) 02:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but putting Milo in your coffee is just wrong. This doesn't sound like you're a supertaster, it sounds more like you had bad judgement when it comes to coffee. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 09:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
I just read this article randomly and had a major "what the hell?" moment when I read the preparation section. The mention of cholesterol is jarringly out of place, has nothing at all to do with preparation, and I actually had to read it three times before I was absolutely sure that it was, in fact, not some random vandalism added to the article. The placing of this tangent is bad... I 'm not saying that it shouldn't be in the article (well... yeah I am. I would say it should go in coffee) but it definitely shouldn't be where it is now. Trusilver 22:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Could we title the article correctly, please? It's either a сafetière (à piston), or a "coffee press". "French press" should be listed as one of the other names, not the main title. Why must all en.wikipedia.org articles be so U.S. centric?
French press, French fries, French toast -- what the hell is it with Americans (incorrectly) naming things after France? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 00:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- Well, French toast wasn't named after the French so much as it was named after its popularizer, a restaurateur named William French. But French fries, as the article suggests, were indeed French in origin. Daniel Case (talk) 17:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- I agree, the main title should not be French Press. Perhaps the Italian caffettiera a stantuffo should be used, since they have the patent. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 09:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- The main title isn't worth bothering about given the multiple names in different countries. Presumably the article was created by a US editor, and it's got to be called something. The lead needs to describe the nomenclature more clearly though, in particular stating explicitly that French Press is a North American term not used or understood elsewhere. --Ef80 (talk) 21:49, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- This article talks about the various names. Most of the US based publications like Cook's  and Good Housekeeping  are calling it a French press. So it's likely a WP:COMMONNAME issue. It shouldn't be the product name otherwise there'd have to be a separate article like Kleenex is to facial tissue. -AngusWOOF (talk) 18:44, 22 May 2014 (UTC)