Talk:Cold brew coffee

Untitled

I have two comments on this article:

1. It should be part of an article about brewing coffee (for example), section methods of brewing.
2. The second reference is broken because the site was 'upgraded' without 'rerouting' to new page location.

--Mhd196 (talk) 19:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

While agreeing with the previous, I have a further two comments:

1. In the 3rd sentence of the first paragraph, "Beans should be ground coarse..." is not grammatical English. An option is "Beans should be coarsely ground", for example
2. Similar information is repeated in the first sentence of the second paragraph.

122.106.177.130 (talk) 00:41, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Units

Although some equipment mentioned in the article is US-made, I think that the subject as a whole is international and therefore main units should be SI according to MOS:UNITS. I can think of two ways to convert the units:

1. Blindly convert amounts of coffee and water: 230 g (8 oz) coffee per 1.7 l (56 fl oz) water
2. Convert the ratio: XXX g coffee per 1 l water (8 oz per 56 fl oz).

Ayehow (talk) 13:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Origin

The last paragraph seems to contradict itself: did cold-brewing originate in Japan or was it brought from Indonesia? Please clarify. Kerksieck (talk) 16:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I puzzled over this sentence also. I think it must be a case of poor writing, and that what it means to say is that the Dutch brought coffee itself to Japan first in 1609, and then the Japanese invented cold brewing. Of course we need a citation for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.105.37.29 (talk) 15:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

More or less caffeine?

The article says (without quoting a source) that "there are also high levels of caffeine in a cup of cold brewed coffee compared to hot brewed coffee" whereas the External Links section links to this article which says "what's apparent... is that cold concentrate contains far less acid and a good bit less caffeine." Which is true? I'm inclines to believe the external article, which at least has some numerical data. 81.101.246.134 (talk) 20:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Reference 1. is a non prequitur

The source given for reference number 1 has nothing to do with the associated statement in the article. 124.171.199.35 (talk) 01:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Merge to list of coffee drinks

@SilkTork: with respect to this edit, could you provide a link to the discussion where this merge was planned, for the sake of good record-keeping? Ibadibam (talk) 20:27, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:Merge if the reason is obvious we don't have a discussion. However, the above discussion provides evidence of prior concern, and a consensus for merging. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:42, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

The comment by Mhd196 makes it sounds like this should be merged instead to coffee preparation. How would you feel about redirecting there? Ibadibam (talk) 20:57, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Why was this obvious? It's both a name for a drink and a method, however in respect to the latter nobody says, for example, "lemme get a drip coffee". There's also plenty of articles in that list that have their own articles. Closest comparison I can think of that fits both categories interchangeably so well as a drink name and a brewing method is an espresso. @SilkTork: @Ibadibam: Savvyjack23 (talk) 16:23, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

This has more than enough references to support a standalone article. I just added New York Times, Seattle Times, and Huffington Post. I would suggest going through a deletion discussion if you feel it doesn't warrant such. --Operaman57 (talk) 00:00, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Two histories

Two sections headed "History":

• Cold brew,
• Nitro cold brew.

Both simply have the header "History", ambiguous!, especially if one wants to refer to one of them in a disk. Sorry, but this is not very smart. -- 2A02:3100:6363:0:D92D:65F8:F8FD:4E42 (talk) 22:30, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

History of Nitro cold brew: chronological order, please

I do understand - and value - that it was a lot of work to get all these informations together. But why are they in such dis-order (not to say 'mess')? It would be much easier to grasp, if the facts were nicely in chronological order. -- 2A02:3100:6363:0:D92D:65F8:F8FD:4E42 (talk) 22:38, 12 July 2025 (UTC)