CoffeeOwl wrote:...And now all the dosing from 16 via 17, 18, 18.5, 19 up to the 21 g is available. That's what I wanted. Lack of this was the only flaw of the machine for me.

I fully agree with this.

Sylvain, thanks for the edit and clarification!
I always use the 30lbs tamp and with higher dose like today's yours I get a clear picture of the bolt on the puck. Normally I rarely dose that much though, and below 16g I don't get the bolt pictured on the puck.

John, I don't agree with your theory on the basket geometry.
All that can be said is that different geometry maybe gives some differences, what exactly they are and how they affect taste would need to be blind tested, given that there are more machines non-58mm could be interesting what would come out as the result, if anything (my guess is the latter).
You said you had the 58mm triples, what was the puck preparation you applied? The how-to suggests id-dose tamping etc. while I, as already said, find it really easy and I wonder if it is due to the geometry or just I am that good . That could be an argument for discussion on basket geometry and forgiveness factor.

woodchuck wrote:Similar experiences to many of the contributors here. I had an early triple from Lino. Blew thru a ton of coffee and finally decided I preferred the more subtle flavors from the double. I still pull it out once in awhile especially in the winter when I feel like a warm cup of hot cocoa

Ian, I mostly wanted the triple to try some big loaded americanos, but have to admit I haven't tried that yet, instead had some insanely intense triples and well, with the coffees I used these were interesting experiences. The coffees were all single origins except for one being a blend. The blend was tasting pale in doubles versus the 19g triple - in the triple it had very nice pineapple top and more rich middle cocoa flavors (btw it was a gourmet brand blend of arabicas which I got quite unexpectedly, roasted fresh!, kind of good quality gourmet coffee in Poland, a nice surprise).
If one has a heart&soul sold to espresso, the triple will be very useful.

CoffeeOwl wrote:John, I don't agree with your theory on the basket geometry.

If you're referring to taste, I'm not going to argue with you. De gustibus non est disputandum.

But basket geometry is easily verified. The 53mm Spaz double basket is taller and narrower than its 58mm counterparts. For example, see the pic I posted here. There's also some interesting discussion about basket diameter and height:width ratio on that thread.

RapidCoffee wrote:Another thing to note: the 53mm Spaz double basket already has the geometry of a triple basket. If you really want a triple dose of coffee, you are probably better off with a 58mm E61 box.

RapidCoffee wrote:If you're referring to taste, I'm not going to argue with you. De gustibus non est disputandum.

But basket geometry is easily verified. The 53mm Spaz double basket is taller and narrower than its 58mm counterparts. For example, see the pic I posted here. There's also some interesting discussion about basket diameter and height:width ratio on that thread.

This still doesn't make sense. A triple is defined by dose, not geometry. The Spaz double basket is taller and narrower than a 58mm basket, yes. But "if you really want a triple dose of coffee" and you own a Spaz, then you should get a triple basket for the Spaz.

dialydose wrote:This still doesn't make sense. A triple is defined by dose, not geometry. The Spaz double basket is taller and narrower than a 58mm basket, yes. But "if you really want a triple dose of coffee" and you own a Spaz, then you should get a triple basket for the Spaz.

Basket geometry (height:width ratio and shape) has an impact on taste. With the same coffee dose, a wide shallow basket and a tall narrow basket will extract differently.

To increase volume, triple baskets must increase in height. I have always preferred the extraction characteristics of wider, shallower double baskets. As noted, the Spaz 53mm double is already taller and narrower than 58mm doubles. Since I am not especially interested in triple doses of coffee, there is no reason for me to get excited about an even taller 53mm triple basket.

Along the same lines, I tend to keep my Spaz double doses below 16g. This is not because the screw imprint causes a flawed extraction (it does not), but because I find the flavor suffers at higher doses. That could be reduced headspace, or it could be basket geometry.

Fair enough John, I now understand your opinion. I think it conflates several issues and I don't agree with it, but I understand it.

Thanks Jason. Astonishingly enough, you are not the only person on this site who disagrees with my opinions.

Dodger1 wrote:John was kind enough to sell me one of his Dalla Corte triple baskets. However, after using it for awhile I came to the conclusion that the stock double basket was all I needed. However, I know some of you are simply dying to get one, so I'll be posting my Dalla Corte triple, with a modified bottomless pf, over on the S1 Cafe Swap Board today.

I owned the La Spaziale Viv II for a couple of years. Waited long and hard for a triple to become available. Was on a waiting list of some sort. Well, sold that wonderful machine and bought the much smaller footprint (and equally wonderful) Dalla Corte along with a triple basket.

IMO, these two 53mm basket machines work best the way they were likely designed (w/ some relationship among the designers, I have heard.) With the DC, decent triples are possible, but there is simply no point whatsoever. My experience is b/ 15 and 16g doubles (closer to 15.) Either machine. And don't mess with the dose. YMMV

RapidCoffee wrote:But basket geometry is easily verified. The 53mm Spaz double basket is taller and narrower than its 58mm counterparts. For example, see the pic I posted here.

Yes it is taller but your theory focuses just on height while the 58mm triple is the same tall but yet has bigger surface, so saying the 53mm double is somewhat equal to the 58 triple doesn't make sense to me. Yet I too now undertand your reasoning line.