The prototype La Marzocco GS3 espresso machine has been long anticipated as a breakthrough combination of compact size and phenomenal temperature stability. It's a grueling review in the third Pro's Perspective.

Read more...

If you've got feedback on the article - please feel free to post here.
For more background on the machine and the process behind the review, check out the relevant thread in The Bench.

An impressively written review that clearly conveyed a considerable amount of technical detail as well as your obvious enthusiasm for the machine. Well done.

Well-written review that shows a lot of work; congratulations!

I remain somewhat skeptical of certain claims made for both the importance of and the achievement of reliable and reproducible shot temperature control on any espresso machine, this one included. To the extent that this matters, I think that no one, and no defined test sequence described heretofore, definitively shows that when you dial in a certain desired shot temperature that this is the temperature you will get after varying idle intervals and at varying desired temperatures. Greg's graphs, which you reference in the "crib sheet" and which Greg has previously posted, do not come close to addressing this issue. If one defines the range of desired shot temperatures as roughly 196-204F, I would be amazed, beyond amazed, if you could walk up to this machine at any time, punch in 203.5F or 201 or 196.7F and actually get all those temperatures within any sort of tight tolerance over a range of idle intervals.

To the extent that one believes this is important, this needs to be tested and has not been tested. Posting a selected shot temp profile or a test sequence of 14 shots as proscribed by the WBC protocol doesn't come close to testing this. Since tight temperature control is one of the "raison d'etres" of this piece of equipment, it will have to be tested over a range of temperatures to show exactly how good this very nice machine is at accomplishing this sort of temperature stability, which happens to be the only real sort of temperature stability that would be important to a typical "home user" ready to fork over serious cash for a GS3 (note: this review was posted on "HOME-BARISTA.com")

None of these comments detract from the hard work you have put into this review and for which we all thank you.


Best,

ken

Great review, and thank you very much for making me lust after yet another machine I can't afford!

Great article, Chris!

...but when, when, when, will it be available for purchase?!

Wolfgang
(who can't wait to own that machine)

Thanks for the kind words.

Wogaut - I've asked Bill for information on price and release date, but as of right now it seems neither are set. I'll let folks know as soon as I hear. The best piece of advice I can give would be to call either ESI in Seattle (La Marzocco distributor) or La Marzocco themselves in Seattle and ask.

Zin - You know, before this machine the idea of spending thousands of dollars on an espresso machine for my home seemed just silly. Now I've started trying to work out a budget for it.

Ken - There is a reason behind my putting the temp stability data in the appendix. All that matters is what is in the cup - and I trust those results.

malachi wrote:Thanks for the kind words.

(snippage)

Ken - There is a reason behind my putting the temp stability data in the appendix. All that matters is what is in the cup - and I trust those results.

Chris,

While I agree the taste in the cup is the primary consideration, certain claims are made for this machine (among others including the Synesso) that cannot be accepted on face value without substantiation, if these claims are to be used in consideration of a purchase by "Home Baristas" with their typically low volume production demands.

For example, here are a couple of quotations from your excellent review:

"More importantly, the GS3 also has great stability of brew temperature shot-to-shot (commonly called either reproducibility or inter-shot stability). The value of the latter type of stability does not seem to be a point of contention and, in fact, for many people in the commercial world it is a sort of 'Holy Grail' of espresso machines."

and:

"As with all my other reviews, I tested espresso by pulling numerous shots in different preps, temperatures, baskets and extraction times. With the GS3, however, this process finally became more structured and organized. With each coffee I would initially dial in the brew temperature (easy with this machine) down to 0.3F (the current minimum)."

and:

"I've covered the temperature stability earlier in the review and will provide more detail in the cribsheet, but suffice it to stay that I know of no stock machine that has independently confirmed and verified temperature stability which is superior to the GS3."

There are other such quotes in the article and cribsheet but I think these are enough to illustrate my point. I have seen no proof in any of the beta testers' posts that one can walk up to a GS3 at any time, key in a brew temperature value, and get that temperature repeatedly in a shot. If, for example, you were to decide that one of Schomer's coffees was indeed better at 203.2F rather than his previously stated 203.5F, and you keyed in 203.2F, which you then pronounced to be superior, you have not proven to us that you are in fact getting a shot brewed at 203.2F. In fact, you might get 201.9F one time and 204.2 another time. In order to taste this you need an entirely redesigned test protocol.

For example, you'd have to select various temperatures throughout the desired espresso making range (?196-204F?) and walk up to the machine with your Scace device and pull shot series of onesies, twosies, threesies, have varying idle periods, and then tell us that when one punches 203.2F on the keypad one gets a range of temps from ___ to ____. If in fact that range were, say, 202.4 to 204.7, I would then feel fully justified in regarding your claims that 0.3F temperature differences were discernable as optimistic thinking on your part and that maybe you and your guests were a bit suggestible.

Neither you nor Greg nor any of the other Beta testers have shown me how reproducible these small temperature variations are and therefore one has to regard conclusions based on the idea that these temperature variations were ACTUALLY OBTAINED as interesting but unproven.

Am I making sense?

Still a nice article, thanks for writing it.

ken

I'm sure that Greg has that data. I know others do. Suggest you mention your desire for it to be shared in the appropriate thread in The Bench. I would guess people would be perfectly willing to share it with you.

Personally, I understand that people obsess about this sort of thing - I am just not one of them. I've see results from a reasonable bracket (197.9F, 200.0F and 203.0F) and confirmed the results myself as well as in collaboration with other testers. That's enough for me.