Basket Overdosing; time for a serious re-evaluation! - Page 8

[another_jim]

It would be interesting to separate out the two variables - dosing weight versus space between top of puck and shower screen.

I've tried to do a little of this.

My impression so far is that the taste effect of dosing changes is rather smooth and fairly subtle when dealing with changes of 2 grams or so. The lower dose will be slightly softer and sweeter; and you pick a spot where the shot is neither too flabby nor too aggressive.

My impression of head space is that in certain machines the effect is completely drastic. If the puck has just enough room to expand, the shot will be good; if you then go just 1 gram further, everything goes to hell in a dramatic way. I think this is due to some as yet unknown in the nuts and bolts of the group design. The Elektra is the most dramatic "Max Headroom" machine; hit the shower screen and the shot loses 10 points instantly. The Silvia also shows a dramatic change, as do the La Cimbalis. The E61s and LMs, on the other hand show almost no change at all, and these machines can be overdosed with near impunity when using milder tasting blends.

It is again worth noting that the performance of the group with an overdosed and compressed puck is not something to which the machine designers paid attention. These machines are all designed for doses with adequate head space. The better performance when overdosed of the LMs and E61s is an accident. Ken's been trying to drive this very simple fact home; and I think most of the thread's readers are getting it.

[peacecup]

All of my experince, with a 53-mm Estro and a 45-mm Ponte Vecchio, has led me to favor little headspace in both machines. I'm not sure why this is, but I seldom get good results unless I fill the baskets to within just a couple of mm of the screen. If I dose less I get early blonding and messy pucks. With the Ponte Vecchio 14g just doesn't get there - I need 15-16 to get the results I like. I've tried grinding finer to compensate for lower dosing, but the results are mixed, and seldom as good as the fuller basket. What gives?

PC

[Navin]

It is again worth noting that the performance of the group with an overdosed and compressed puck is not something to which the machine designers paid attention.

I am not sure if this is entirely true; I would guess that the testing of at least the Synesso involved some fairly large doses. This is merely conjecture on my part though.

[cafeIKE]

It would be interesting to separate out the two variables - dosing weight versus space between top of puck and shower screen.

One must also take into account the profiles of the shower screen and tamper when aproaching zero clearance.

The original Vibiemme screen is quite rounded with a recess at the edge of the puck. Overdosed shots and a tamper with a radical profile are likely to spritz on the Vibiemme, with the attendant taste defects.

When the original screen is replaced with a flatter one with no edge recess and a closely matching tamper profile, one can updose with impunity up to the point the machine chokes, ~17g in a 12g basket. Doses below <14.5g are similar to bars in Italy, while the higher doses are more similar to shops in the colonies.

With doses below 13g, the tamper profile is irrelevant.

[avdiscolo]

I've been examining my dosing and tamping technique pretty closely since I got a bottomless portafilter for my Anita. I just started examining how to achieve the correct clearance with the top of the puck to the shower screen. When I dose/tamp to just below the ring on the standard double basket (that came with the Anita) and lock in/remove the portafilter, I find grounds on the center (but not the outside edge) of the shower screen. The resulting pours taste pretty good, but I am struggling with edge channeling.

I am already significantly shaving ground below the top of the basket before I tamp. Should I try to shave more off or are there other techniques I should try?

How is the shower screen removed on my Anita?

[cafeIKE]

When I dose/tamp to just below the ring on the standard double basket...

Ridgeless baskets are more friendly.

How is the shower screen removed on my Anita?

The wrong way.
Place the screwdriver in the notch for the ears and use the corner of the blade to 'snag' the side of the basket ABOVE the ring that holds the mesh. It helps if you've backflushed a couple of times and done a portafilter wiggle to lubricate the gasket.

[HB]

The wrong way.

As Jeremy and I noted, it's "wrong" if your machine has the dispersion screen on the left, otherwise it makes no difference.

[cafeIKE]

As Jeremy and I noted, it's "wrong" if your machine has the dispersion screen on the left, otherwise it makes no difference.

I've seen a few machines where the screen was so 'welded' to the group with gunk that regardless of the screen type, the method in the photo would result in a destroyed screen. Better safe than sorry.

[augustusflavius]

As Jeremy and I noted, it's "wrong" if your machine has the dispersion screen on the left, otherwise it makes no difference.

Dan- What is the make of the "right" screen, and where did you order it.

Thanks

Matt

[HB]

I got it from 1st-line Equipment, Dispersion Screen for Faema E61 Grouphead. They show both kinds, I specifically asked for the "groovy" one on the left:


Photo courtesy of 1st-line Equipment

FYI, Espresso Resource has another groovy E61 Style Group Screen they claim is "self cleaning". I haven't tried it.

[cafeIKE]

FYI, Espresso Resource has another groovy E61 Style Group Screen they claim is "self cleaning". I haven't tried it.

It's great with a Reg Barber American curve when updosing doubles.

Not much difference when down dosing doubles or singles.

It retains less leftovers and flushes cleaner than the stock one on the Vibiemme.

It does not have a groove around the bottom, so it still needs care in removal

[Psyd]

I've seen a few machines where the screen was so 'welded' to the group with gunk that regardless of the screen type, the method in the photo would result in a destroyed screen. Better safe than sorry.

I've had a bit of good luck with my gasket removal locking in the blank and slowly unlocking after it pressurizes. If I'm careful and slow, the pressure of the pull forces its way under the gasket and starts to push it out to the point where I can get a butterknife under it and gently pry it out without scarring it. This would make these screens far easier to remove, no?
Just be really careful with this one. My machine doesn't spit boiling water all over the place, but yours may...

[Mark08859]

Just wanted to say that I did try down-dosing and had great results. I went from basically overfilling my Alexia double basket (probably well over 20 grams) to 14 grams. Anything less and the taper of my basket prevents the tamper from doing its job. The fineness of the grind on my Rocky went from 11 down to 8. The taste remains intense with many flavors coming through in the cup. At most, there appears to be a minimal loss in "mouth feel" or body. I went from a 5-7 second dwell to about 8 seconds. Overall, the results (and saved coffee) are well worth the effort. I would strongly recommend this approach to anyone.

[CoffeeOwl]

This is a truly great thread, thank you Ken and everybody for postings.

I have a question:

all the baskets have a dosing line. Now, is the hard tamping only to compress the updosed coffee to below the basket's dosing line (so that the puck doesn't hit the shower screen)?
After reading the entire thread I understood that if dosing around 14-15 grams of coffee into the basket one doesn't need to tamp hard. That means the Schomer's explanation how water finds channels in the puck because of too light tamping is not accurate.

From my own experience I can say that it's most important to have the ground coffee evenly distributed and levelled in the basket.
Then, as I was thinking up to now, it must be tamped hard to make enough resistance to the water under pressure. In other words, I was thinking that if the coffee is not tamped hard, there would be not enough pressure.
Also, (as David Schomer's explains on page 83 of his book 'Espresso Coffee: Professional Techniques'), water would find a passage through the puck in the middle rather then through the entire surface (so called 'pitting')
My thinking must be somehow flawed and I'd love to receive explanations.

Thanks in advance
Pawel

[malachi]

The habit of updosing in the US was based initially based on the requirement of making large milk drinks. When the better Seattle cafes started emphasizing straight shots from the late 90s on, the first generation of blends they used was based on this dosing practice. In a cafe, if 90 percent of the drinks being served are milk, then the blend needs to be tuned for that. Even if one has a second, straight shot blend, using a different dose for it would be a PITA.

This is factually and historically untrue.

The habit of up-dosing didn't take off in the US in any real way until after Paul Bassett's WBC win.
This was not for large milk drinks - but instead to get a specific flavour profile (the cheesy comparison is to the hyper-concentrated Shiraz wines).

As time has gone by - you've seen the realization that the "optimal" dose is dependent upon both the coffee being used and your target (desired) flavour profile.

Claiming some sort of universality of dose ("the golden rule") and supremacy of results (at an objective truth level) is both unrealistic and ignorant.

[Ken Fox]

This is factually and historically untrue.

The habit of up-dosing didn't take off in the US in any real way until after Paul Bassett's WBC win.
This was not for large milk drinks - but instead to get a specific flavour profile (the cheesy comparison is to the hyper-concentrated Shiraz wines).

As time has gone by - you've seen the realization that the "optimal" dose is dependent upon both the coffee being used and your target (desired) flavour profile.

Claiming some sort of universality of dose ("the golden rule") and supremacy of results (at an objective truth level) is both unrealistic and ignorant.

First you have to define what you mean by "updosing." To me, that is any basket dose appreciably more than the machines were designed to work with, e.g. ~12-14g for a double.

Why on earth would the whole affected procedure of North American/"3rd Wave" basket preparation ever have developed, with standard, "Italianish" dosing? Why on earth would David Schomer ever have even written his book? Why would anyone other than a moron practice tamping on top of a bathroom scale, in a kitchen, no less?

You can spoon 14g of coffee ground appropriately into most commercial PFs, do a cavalier up tamp on the tamper attached to the grinder, and produce an excellent shot with essentially no effort.

These silly 3rd wave techniques were developed for only one reason; to make an unbalanced caricature of an espresso with high basket doses from machines that were not originally designed to do so.

ken

[malachi]

You are entirely entitled to your opinion - but I am equally entitled to state that it is just that and nothing more... your opinion (with no basis in any facts).

Third-wave = nothing more than "reject dogma, learn through experimentation."
If what you're saying is that I should stop thinking, stop tasting, stop learning and merely ape the Italians than I would be proud to call myself "third wave."

As I mentioned in a discussion with Chris Bacca recently (upon his return from Milan), the coffee situation in Italy is the reverse of here in the US. In Italy - it's hard to get bad espresso (but impossible to get great coffee). In the US - it's hard to get drinkable espresso (but there are people doing truly great coffee).

I, for one, am uninterested in finding merely "drinkable" espresso.
I want great coffee.

[CoffeeOwl]

Hm... I managed to grind that fine that I got nothing in the cup... for the first time.
The coffee is a strange beast

[Ken Fox]

You are entirely entitled to your opinion - but I am equally entitled to state that it is just that and nothing more... your opinion (with no basis in any facts).

Third-wave = nothing more than "reject dogma, learn through experimentation."
If what you're saying is that I should stop thinking, stop tasting, stop learning and merely ape the Italians than I would be proud to call myself "third wave."

As I mentioned in a discussion with Chris Bacca recently (upon his return from Milan), the coffee situation in Italy is the reverse of here in the US. In Italy - it's hard to get bad espresso (but impossible to get great coffee). In the US - it's hard to get drinkable espresso (but there are people doing truly great coffee).

I, for one, am uninterested in finding merely "drinkable" espresso.
I want great coffee.

There was a time when a lot of people thought that California chardonnay whose flavor had been replaced by oak represented an improvement over what came out of the grape.

The stated observations on Italian espresso are nothing new and have been repeated over and over again the last 10 or more years in online venues such as alt.coffee and this web forum. And, truly great coffee exists in quite a few places, not just in a small number of highly touted N. American cafes.

There is nothing magical about what is done in Italy. As you state, they have got the consistency part down, largely because they use the equipment with the sort of dose of coffee for which it is designed. The negative part of what they do in Italy is that they use uninteresting (if drinkable) coffees blended in a way to produce a consistent if boring and flat taste profile. The Italians have not been pioneers in single origin espresso and have basically concentrated on trying to make unexceptional but good, consistent, espresso from unimpressive and ordinary coffees.

I have considerable experience with updosing, having done it for the great majority of my own personal experience with espressomaking; it was, in fact, the only thing that I knew. When I reluctantly started experimenting with lower, "Italianish" type dosing, it became obvious that those who had (indirectly) taught me how to make this beverage didn't know beans about it themselves, and in fact had taken a perfectly good process developed by Italians and diminished it.

But we are not in Italy and we have access to some really fine single origins, the blending of which would be almost criminal as it would diminish them. These coffees, competently roasted, do not make good updosed shots. The only coffees, in fact, that make better updosed shots (than ~14g-ish shots) are blends designed for updosing. Those sorts of in-your-face blends taste dull when dosed at 14g or thereabouts.

When I compare blends designed for updosing, in shots dosed as they were designed for, to shots made from good single origins at 14g, the comparison is like a fine Chablis (the SO) vs. an over-oaked, overdone, California chardonnay of the 1980s. There are people who like this sort of stuff, and who am I to question it?

To each his own.

ken

[jgriff]

But we are not in Italy and we have access to some really fine single origins, the blending of which would be almost criminal as it would diminish them. These coffees, competently roasted, do not make good updosed shots.

You might want to consider qualifying your comment about single origin espresso. I've had some excellent shots of single origin at a cafe here that gets their coffee supply from Stumptown. Generally, Stumptown is not doing single origin espresso, but for a client who is ordering a large enough quantity, they will roast single origin coffee specifically for espresso. I've also had some single origin shots at Stumptown cafes during special "Meet the Producers" events that were phenomenal. I asked about the dose and preparation and the barista told me they are doing it pretty much the same as Hair Bender but pulling the shots more ristretto. That means they are doing the whole "updose" thing which you are so against.

I also talked to Kyle Larson once and asked him about the coffee he used in a barista competition. It was a single-origin Guatemalan and he definitely "overdosed" (I think it was around 20g, but I can't be certain).

There are people who like this sort of stuff, and who am I to question it?

To each his own.

ken

Clearly, you are questioning it. But hey, what's the fun of these forums if we can't have a lively discussion, eh?

Justin